Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples

This is the Specific Examples discussion page of the British Isles Terminology task force, a workgroup of WP:GEOGRAPHY. This talk page is for discussing issues surrounding the term British Isles, in view of facilitating a more universal approach, on a specific article-by-article basis.

This page

Strict observation of WP:CIVIL etc

Because there is a likelyhood that discussions tend to get overheated on this topic, what do other editors feel about a strict implemtation of WP:CIVIL and no personal comments or ad-hominen attacks? We might end up making more progress if the discussion steered away from the usual problematic behaviour that tends to clog up discussion pages and slow progress. If enough editors agree to this suggestion, perhaps we could ask an admin to make decisions on how to deal with transgressions... --HighKing (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've no prob with that, the best way to go is the Spicoli way. Be cool & patient folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem with such rules if a neutral admin is to enforce them, perhaps User:Black Kite would? One thing that should be done is to inform certain editors about this page who may not notice it, but would take part. Clearly those who have reverted original attempts to remove British Isles from the page should be informed atleast. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How can we make sure this section doesn't get archived? Or can we just archive sections that have been closed? --HighKing (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Cailil (talk), Black Kite (talk) and TFOWR (talk) (that would be me...) are all in broad agreement that civility is going to be strictly enforced. There seems to be a general acceptance that this is A Good Thing. Newcomers (as well as "old hands") should be aware that attacks - even inadvertent - on other editors will be removed, and the editor responsible warned. Further occurrences will result in blocks. Editors should all familiar themselves with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. TFOWR 09:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask that you please make sure that a message is placed on the talk page of articles under discussion here as a matter of course as soon as discussion starts here, and not after a day or two. Also, please consider notifying relevant Wikiprojects via their talk pages as well? I've already seen one case where talk-page notification was delayed, when notification there or at the Wikiproject would have resolved the issue with the wording more quickly (indeed, at least one of the regular editors on this page knew about the guideline applicable to the article, but didn't mention it in the debate here, and anyone else who had bothered to read the Wikiproject guidelines on the article talk page would have known about it too). Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Archives

The archives are at Closed page. --HighKing (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive list

• Closed
• Closed2
• Closed3
• Closed4
• Closed5
• Closed6
• Closed7

Guidelines

Fauna Guideline

Use the following guideline to decide the terminology to be used when referring to the geographical spread of a member of the animal kingdom. Report exceptions in this thread as described below.

• The geographical distribution area referenced should either be (i) the largest area of distribution (so if it is Western Europe, use Western Europe not British Isles) or, if appropriate (ii) a list of the main geographical areas (for example British Isles & Scandinavia). Geographical and Political entities should not be mixed.
• If there are subsections within the article for different distribution areas, the same rules apply. The largest referenced geographical area is used, or a list of the main geographical areas as per the example above.
• Any change to any article should be notified with a link to the article at the time in the subsection below this guideline, and signed by the author
• If any author disagrees with the change, then they may revert it if, and only if they set up a discussion area on this page with reasons.
• If an uninvolved editor carries out the edit and it is seen by one of the participants in this process, then they should notify it to the subsection below. If they (or anyone else) reverts it then they should provide a link to this discussion and the sanction ruling on the talk page of the article concerned.

(section set up by --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC))

Note changes here

• __

Additional discussion

As the initial proposer of this issue, I am not sure that it is complete.

I think an 'inclusive statement' needs to made to the effect, e.g.

• "Where species are common across all islands, British Isles should be used in place of the exclusive Great Britain and Ireland".

commonsense applying in recognition of the independence of the British Crown Dependent islands.

The bottomline is all of those ' xyz of Great Britain and Ireland ' are just plain wrong and a legacy of a period prior to the consideration of editorial guidelines such as these. The weakest of investigations prove that they are ' xyz of the British Isles '.

I appreciate this a grownup resolve that could be argued against with an immature reading of references --- but, honesty, British Isles they are. --Triton Rocker (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We had the discussion and agreed on the above, I don't see the point of reopening it. Lets see how this works out and have a look at the pattern of accepted changes. Also I'm sorry Triton but I don't agree that your statement above is a universal one. Also Triton - do you want to make the case for you to be allowed to edit the Fauna articles based on the above rules. At the moment your sanction prevents it. My offer to support that application stands if you agree to abide by the rules --Snowded ^TALK 10:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that the inclusive statement is implied in the first one, citing largest geographical distribution, so don't worry, that's already covered. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but no. I indicated that I would still have to considering it and your response misses the point I am raising entirely.

One would have to be blind or daft to suggest that "decisions" or resolutions are not being rushed through right now.

Thanks to The Red Flag's comments below, I have realised that there are two separate principles here;

a) naming conventions (British Isles) - for titles of topics, and

b) manual of style (British Isles) - for the content within topics

The proposal above 'might' answer the manual of style element but not the title naming convention. I am addressing the lack of a consistent editorial policy for the latter. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly these are non-starters:

• Any change to any article should be notified with a link to the article at the time in the subsection below this guideline, and signed by the author
• If any author disagrees with the change, then they may revert it if, and only if they set up a discussion area on this page with reasons.
• If an uninvolved editor carries out the edit and it is seen by one of the participants in this process, then they should notify it to the subsection below. If they (or anyone else) reverts it then they should provide a link to this discussion and the sanction ruling on the talk page of the article concerned.

This page appears to be moving ever closer to a self-appointed cabal with greater speed at each passing month. --RA (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Flora issues

Artemisia_vulgaris (Resolved)

Resolved

 – On the strength of the current text and references the case for "British Isles" has not been made.

Stating that mugwort is a British Isles native is absolutely redundant in an article that has already stated that it's a native of Europe and Asia. For that reason I've discounted the first two references (Clapham, Tutin & Warburg, and Wright). Wright is also used as a second reference (seriously: use named refs to avoid that) to support the claim that mugwort was used by Roman soldiers. I have no doubt that this claim is true, but the Roman occupation was limited to Great Britain.

Llewellyn states that mugwort is a BI native, then goes on to discuss - without obvious reference to BI - some ancient and modern uses of mugwort. These include modern uses that are not specific to BI, and ancient uses involving childbirth and soldiers' feet. Note that I've not considered whether Llewellyn is a reliable source, simply whether it justifies the claims made.

Hanrahan fills in the gaps: the soldiers were Roman. Hanrahan hints at the use of mugwort by Anglo-Saxons. It's possible, though uncited, that mugwort was used for beer in Ireland and/or elsewhere in BI before hops were introduced. Other uses of mugwort are not specific to the British Isles, including its use in modern pagan ceremonies and as a nicotine-free smoking preparation (Hanrahan does not discuss where these uses occur).

Beyond saying that mugwort is a BI native, which is not dusputed - mugwort is a native of Europe and Asia - the usages appear limited to Great Britain. It's possible - in my view - that mugwort may have been used as an alternative to hops in Ireland and elsewhere. There is, however, no evidence of this in the current set of references. Llewellyn is vague as to where mugwort was used in childbirth. I couldn't find evidence supporting the interpretation that mugwort was used in childbirth in Ireland. I could, however, find evidence that this use was not limited to BI. TFOWR 08:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

{{Unresolved|It's "flora". I'd like to tackle flora along the same lines as fauna. Can we leave this until that's done? TFOWR 11:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)}}

Insertion of British Isles by User:Triton Rocker. OK some useful general edits with reference etc. and its plant life so may well be a valid use. However addition need to be discussed here first --Snowded ^TALK 14:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

It should indeed have been raised here first. I'm assuming TritonRocker wasn't aware, though. Could someone let them know? My ability to edit is severly impaired. TFOWR's left sock 14:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I have told him, and also expressed surprise he hasn't brought it here as its probably a valid use. However we've had a revert after he came off his block for mass insertions, then a revert with multiple listings so it feels a bit like game playing to me. --Snowded TALK 14:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Would seem to be a clear cut case of when to use British Isles it has a ref (Flora of the British Isles, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 1962. Clapham, Tutin & Warburg ) and is being used to describe the whole group of islands anything else just looks contrived and a kin to avoiding the word Christmas. Codf1977 (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Well said Cod, seems about as reflective a comment of the situations as have seen recently. Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed, this is clearly a case where British Isles is justified. Its inclusion should be restored and in future he should always come forward with places he wants BI added. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Its pretty amusing that a new editor in this dispute is getting in trouble for adding BI, whilst the core editor involved in the removal of British Isles, got defended earlier for removing a British Isles wikilink and people dismiss the idea he did anything wrong. Considering hes the one who people voted to ban fully from adding/removing BI, the double standard is pretty shocking. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Not from me, HighKing should have brought the case here. I think he is right to remove it in that case, as I think BI is a valid term in this article but we either have a rule or we don;t --Snowded TALK 14:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I agree that the change highking made was justified and id of supported its change, its the fact he thought he could just change it himself without getting agreement, despite all of the debate within the past few days that really gets to me. But is Triton Rocker actually falling foul of a rule? Does this constitute "systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification" ? It would be helpful if editors came here first, but unless Triton is listed on the sanctions page, like Highking should have been, what did he do wrong? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC) As I read it all editors come here first, or if not first after they have been reverted once. --Snowded TALK 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I agree after it has been reverted an editor should come here. But there is nothing saying all editors must come here before making a change if its sourced. This is part of the problem and loophole which seems to allow Highking to make his change earlier. Certain editors need placing on the sanctions list who are not allowed to make any change at all themselves, but if they aint on that list and they make a sourced change (unless its reverted) at present it doesnt seem like they must come here. Id be ok with ALL involved editors (of which Triton Rocker would clearly now be one) along with me, u and everyone talking here having to come to this page before any of us make a change. But that isnt anywhere in the rules yet. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Forgive me, I must be missing something here, but it seems no progress whatsoever has been made since the ANI and threat of topic bans which was supposed to stop all this garbage of the type above. HighKing still won't take no for an answer, endless arguments about whether British Isles is right or wrong ensue, and no doubt a steady stream of cases is about to follow. Does anyone see solution? I do, of course, but it seems there's no appetite for it. LevenBoy (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Deal with each case on its merits LevenBoy, it will take less effort than your current approach --Snowded TALK 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC) No, there will be less effort if HighKing is topic banned. Then we could all quietly get on with more important matters. As it is, he's escaped again and look what we've got. BTW, do I have permission to change back to British Isles for Artemisia_vulgaris following your edit warring? LevenBoy (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC) If HighKing is banned then the political position you represent wins, that is as bad a result as HighKing being allowed to change without control. Each case on its merits and fewer personal attacks. The suggestion above is 24 hours from posting for views to be expressed. I think that is sound. --Snowded TALK 16:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC) That is the point where nationalist POV pushers and the run of the mill editor couldn't care less about such issues differ, to such editors it is not political at all it is geographical and a simple which is the best expression for this situation. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC) There has to be a limit to the number of cases each editor may bring forward to request a change one way or another. We also need to wipe the slate clean.. all of the above debates which have not been touched for months should be archived with no change to the present wording. That is the only way we are going to be able to keep on top of things, we can not spend many days going over the backlog. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC) OK, I'm going to be bold folks. That thoroughly stupid list of countries is going to be replaced by British Isles. Here we go ..... LevenBoy (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Seems reasonable, there is clear support on this talk page for its use. Even the editor that undid the original edit seemed to agree this was the sort of case where it can be used. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Please revert. There is an agreed 24 hours of discussion first in order to give people a chance to see this and discuss, which hasn't happened, and LevenBoy should not have reinserted British Isles. If we're playing by the new rules, that's a blockable offense. For a start, I can't see use of either the list of islands, or the British Isles, supported in any of the references. Can we see a reference for the uses which makes it somehow exclusive to the British Isles please? Second, this version of the article didn't even mention British Isles, so clearly Triton Rocker was playing a dangerous game by creating a reason to insert it, without sources. --HighKing (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Aside from the fact that use/non-use of British Isles in that article has not been the subject of this thread so far are the choices between: "British Isles" vs."England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Eire, Isle of Man and Channel Islands" vs. "Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man and Channel Islands" vs. disprove "British Isles"? Triton Rocker's change to v.2 was POINTy. So too was Snowded's change to v.3 (to the extent anyway). Meanwhile, I presume we are now going to play that game where we dash around trying to disprove British Isles with all our muster? Hands up anyone here who even knew what Artemisia vulgaris was before they started examining Triton Rocker's edit history? My opinion of Triton Rocker's editing on this topic, from what I've seen elsewhere, does not leave me with a good impression. I presume we are all in consensus about that. However, on the face of it, since I know absolutely nothing about this topic, I cannot determine if British Isles is correct or not here. So I will assume good faith. I'm sure we will find a few expert botanists suddenly bloom in our midsts that can contradict that though. --RA (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC) As per WP:V then. --HighKing (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Are you really going to make an issue of of this - do you really think that your choices 2 or 3 are anything other than a long winded way of avoiding using a phrase you don't like. There are clearly places where BI is used incorrectly, there are places where you can debate it and there are places, like this one, where it is totally appropriate. Feel free if you want to keep this tread going for 24 hours but I think as per WP:SNOW there is no need in this case. Codf1977 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Hmmm ... time for me to review Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful :-) Just to clear matters up, Codf1977 - I don't know the first thing about Artemisia vulgaris. I don't believe anyone else here does. And at face value, to my lay eyes, there doesn't seem to be a thing wrong with use of British Isles in this circumstance. --RA (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I am glad there seems to be agreement on this, bar Highking. Now would be a great chance to show us all how reasonable towards British Isles he now is and accept its inclusion with no more fuss in this case. I can only hope. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Please reread what I actually wrote - less knee-jerk reactions. I agree with you all - this is actually a good use of the term "British Isles". I'm certainly not disputing, and never would, a replacement of a list of islands (as was made) with "British Isles". Should the facts on usage prove to be verifiable that is. And the "facts" added by Triton Rocker don't appear to be supported by the references. So this isn't about usage per se, it's about verifiable content as per WP:RS. Secondly, there's a 24hour discussion period before changes. We're either going to agree and observe that, or not. As such, the recent edit should be reverted. --HighKing (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Ok if you think this is a good use of British Isles, i do not see the big problem. Most editors above have supported its use in this context. I am unaware of some 24 hour rule existing. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC) The source seem to back up its use, page 79 talks about where Artemisia is found and by what other names it is known by and clearly mentions native to the British Isles. The intro of the article says : "Artemisia vulgaris (mugwort or common wormwood) is one of several species in the genus Artemisia " .[1] I have absolutely no clue about this subject but it seems to back up what is said unless im misreading it. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Scratch the 24hour rule - looks like it was only mentioned on my Talk page and doesn't appear to have been carried through as a condition. Indications on my Talk page were that it was to be - my bad. I have no problem with usage in this instance *if* the facts are verifiable. If they're not verifiable, the entire section should be removed. If they're verifiable according to WP:RS, why would I disagree? BW, the section isn't talking about distribution, it's talking about medicinal uses. Stating these uses as being somehow exclusive to the British Isles is WP:OR. We can have a discussion about how best to represent flora distribution separately, best not to get the two mixed up here. --HighKing (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I see all the policies are being trotted out here. WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR to name but three, and if all else fails get rid of the section in question, and if that fails then go for PROD. We've been here before, I think. BW, have you not yet worked out the HK does not take no for an answer, apart from in very exceptional cicumstances. LevenBoy (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC) <personal attack tirade redacted> This is post broken up, it should conform with other posts. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Broken up or not, this tirade does not belong here. Jack 1314 (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Repeat: I have no problem with usage in this instance *if* the facts are verifiable. If they're not verifiable, the entire section should be removed. If they're verifiable according to WP:RS, why would I disagree? BW, the section isn't talking about distribution, it's talking about medicinal uses. Stating these uses as being somehow exclusive to the British Isles is WP:OR. We can have a discussion about how best to represent flora distribution separately, best not to get the two mixed up here. --HighKing (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Comment - An editor inserted a new paragraph into this article headed "British Isles" under Uses. Three references where included in the paragraph (all available on Google Books) Flora of the British Isles Artemisia By Colin W. Wright, 2002 Llewellyn's 2010 Herbal Almanac The first two references don't discuss uses at all. The third reference discusses uses, but does not attribute them to the "British Isles". Furthermore, the publisher does not appear to meet WP:RS - is essentially a self-published New Age source and is described as: Llewellyn Publications has grown and expanded into new areas of personal growth and transformation since it began as the Portland School of Astrology in 1901. Along with the strong line of astrology books the company was founded upon, Llewellyn publishes books on everything from alternative health and healing, Wicca and Paganism, to metaphysics and the paranormal-and since 1994 has published a growing list of Spanish-language titles. Llewellyn has long been know as one of America's leading publishers of New Age books, producing a wide variety of valuable tools for transformation of the mind, body and spirit. Reach for the Moon-and discover that self-help and spiritual growth is what Llewellyn is all about. There may be some other references for the "uses" inserted into the article, and it may be useful information and a good addition to the article, but there is nothing to suggest that these uses are attributable to the British Isles. I suggest the paragraph is deleted unless a more reputable source can be found, and that the uses are moved to a more general section, not attributed solely to British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC) As per my last post above, which nobody has commented on although lots have seen it, I propose to partially revert TR's edits today as follows: The "Alternative Medicine" book is self-published and not a reliable source, and nothing suggests that the "uses" are limited to the "British Isles". TR has "combined" facts from multiple sources to construct a new section called "British Isles", yet none of the sources represent the data in this way. Comments welcome. --HighKing (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Before you do anything, can you make it clear exactly what you plan to revert to ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC) I plan to remove "uses" and the "British Isles" section, since they are taken from the Llewellyn Publications book, unless another reference can be found. --HighKing (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC) You've no consensus to do it. LemonMonday Talk 22:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Following the process As per the process we appear to be using - this article is unresolved, yet the addition is still in place in the article. The edits should be reverted until this discussion is resolved. I assume this is one for @TFWOR? --HighKing (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC) In an ideal world I'd have done this as soon as possible. Apologies for not so doing. I think at this stage - several uninvolved editors having edited the article since then - I'd prefer to ignore procedure. Again, apologies for that. I'd like to try and concentrate on this fairly soon, so hopefully my laziness/reluctance won't be a huge issue...? I've been holding out in the hope that we'll magically come up with a flora system without me/us doing anything. Unsurprisingly, this hasn't happened. My fault for not driving it forward. With that said, lets press on with individual flora issues, and hopefully with a few under our belts we can revisit flora as a blanket issue. Structured discussion Boilerplate text about "summarising arguments from above, based on policy and precedents, and backed with diffs and links" goes here. TFOWR 16:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Arguments for "British Isles" @ Artemisia vulgaris Arguments against "British Isles" @ Artemisia vulgaris The lede discusses distribution, and states It is native to temperate Europe, Asia... etc. The section entitled "Uses" has Mugwort is native to the British Isles. This fact doesn't belong under "Uses" and is already covered by the lede. Three references where included in the paragraph (all available on Google Books) and none discuss uses within specifically the British Isles, or fail WP:RS Flora of the British Isles doesn't discuss usage at all, so largely irrelevant. Doesn't even state that distribution within the British Isles, but states distribution as "E and S.E. Europe; Asia" Artemisia By Colin W. Wright, 2002 I can't access this now, but previously I did. I think there's no mention of uses specific to the British Isles in this publication, although it goes into a lot of detail on uses within Traditional Chinese Medicine. Llewellyn's 2010 Herbal Almanac discusses uses, but does not attribute them to the "British Isles". Furthermore, the publisher does not appear to meet WP:RS - is essentially a self-published New Age source, described as Llewellyn Publications has grown and expanded into new areas of personal growth and transformation since it began as the Portland School of Astrology in 1901. Along with the strong line of astrology books the company was founded upon, Llewellyn publishes books on everything from alternative health and healing, Wicca and Paganism, to metaphysics and the paranormal-and since 1994 has published a growing list of Spanish-language titles. Llewellyn has long been know as one of America's leading publishers of New Age books, producing a wide variety of valuable tools for transformation of the mind, body and spirit. Reach for the Moon-and discover that self-help and spiritual growth is what Llewellyn is all about. This clearly fails WP:RS. The paragraph was added by an editor solely as an attempt to add "British Isles" to the article. The tactic used was to try to find references that mentioned "British Isles" and "Artemisia vulgaris" together. This resulted in his addition of "British Isles" as a new subsection under "Usage", but TritonRocker failed to find any references dealing with *Usage* in the British Isles, and simply ended up with ended up adding a piece on distribution. Therefore this subsection is is completely unreffed and should be deleted. --HighKing (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ping! Can some one do whatever needs done, and mark this as {{done}}? I'll archive it after that. Ta! TFOWR 10:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Atlases of the flora and fauna of Britain and Ireland

Unresolved

 – I suspect it would be worth treating "flora" differently to "fauna", but for now this seems unresolved. Carry on the debate... TFOWR 14:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is anyone going to bother mentioning this debate on the talk page of the article? DuncanHill (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence states The biodiversity of Great Britain and Ireland is the .... Great Britain is clearly wrong since it excludes all other islands. British Isles would be preferable here, not least because readers are referred to atlases produced by the Botanical Society of the British Isles (BSBI). elsewhere in the article. LevenBoy (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that two thirds of the atlases listed use "of Britain and Ireland" in their titles and all but one of the remainder use "of Britain", do you have any particular knowledge of this topic that you would be able to discern that any word used in the article is "clearly wrong"? --RA (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

RA, you said "do you have any particular knowledge of this topic that you would be able to discern that any word used in the article is "clearly wrong"?" No, none. And the articles that HighKing has, and will be, submitting? LevenBoy (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Have I been inconsistent? What you do is your responsibility. What he does is his responsibility. There are no barnstars going for which one of you can add or remove the greater number of "British Isles" to the encyclopedia. --RA (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Now there's a thought, Barnstars! So you do agree that articles where HighKing suggests removal of British Isles are best left to the regular editors? LevenBoy (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless the usage is blatantly wrong, then yes. Anything that is not so certain should be asked at the article talk page concerned. Jack 1314 (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe we can make some progess? I agree with that point and it's worth reiterating that the vast majority of cases are neither right nor wrong. Even the BS plug above, which on the face of it seemed straightfoward, actually wasn't. Maybe we should put in a requirement that additions/removals are first requested at the relevant talk page and then regular editors decide. LevenBoy (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Bang on. And given the enthusiasms the two of you share in determining so much usage (one way or the other) to be "wrong", LB, the key word here is blatantly wrong. --RA (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There may be many that don't get an answer from the talk page concerned. In that case it should be brought here. Jack 1314 (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and just one provisio. We don't want the usual suspects racing over to those articles giving their opinions. Jack 1314 (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. What sounds better (to me) is that you (and not just you), LB, would simply leave this exercise behind altogether. Fix blatant errors that you come across but don't go digging. As you say, in most cases it's ambiguous. It can go either way with no clear answer. (If it was clear it wouldn't be such a source of conflict.) So what is the benefit to the project of "fixing"? It just bee-in-a-bonnet stuff. --RA (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, there will be many that don't receive an answer. When they don't and are brought here there shouldn't be any grumbling over this editor or that editor trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes or any such nonsense. Jack 1314 (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The introduction reads "The biodiversity of Great Britain and Ireland is the most well-studied af any geographical area" . Great Britain and Ireland are two islands. It would make more sense in this case to say British Isles, which is clearly a geographical area. Also this is talking about studies in the past rather than just modern day usage so what todays atlases use today has no real connection with this usage.

British Isles is justified in this case and i would support a change. However until there is an agreement on wider restrictions on the number of cases that can be raised here, that is my limit on supports for additional use of BI for a week. There is a huge backlog of Highkings examples that need to be gone through still. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And you know this because ... ?

I am always struck by the learned folk of this page. Whether the topic is ancient history, naturalism, astronomy, technology, biography, ... regardless of the subject, we are Renaissance men, able to determine at a blink of an eye the most appropriate term to use for any given topic. ... but, curiously, when we disagree, our choices strangely co-incide with our individual political outlooks. Strange. --RA (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

British Isles is the only non-political option. It is the only option that avoids all the petty divides. It has nothing to do with Great Britain or any of the crappy history and conflicts. There is no other option until you can manage to convince the International Maritime Organization or someone to call it the 'North West Atlantic Archipelago' or something --- which isn't going to happen.

In short, you and your lot are making something political which is not political ---distracting from getting real work done--- turning this project into a war game because you have no hope of winning a real one in real life. I am not pro-Great Britain, I am anti- nationalist politics. This example obviously makes more sense as British Isles as all the islands share similarities and that is what the references say. --Triton Rocker (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful when you direct "you and your lot" comments at editors not to make assumptions about an individual editor's perspective towards anything or the work they contribute to the encyclopedia. Doing so can make you look foolish. This is not the first time, I've seen you make an error of this kind. How about you behave with civility or go elsewhere? If you cannot abide by the five pillars, Wikipedia is not the place for you. --RA (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If I look at the list of Atlases they are either "Britain and Ireland" or "Britain" none use British Isles. I don't see any argument or reference being brought into play here. --Snowded ^TALK 23:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

But this has nothing to do with what the atlases say. It is about the statement in the introduction that the area is the most studied. Now a quick googlebook search finds a huge number of books relating to the British Isles, not just Britain and Ireland. In many of the books titled Britain and Ireland, i bet they also say British Isles within them or talk about areas that are not just the island of Great Britain and the island of Ireland. We can look at this in more detail tomorrow. But i just want to highlight the point this is not about what the atlases say or use, its about the sentence of it being the most studied geographical area. the BI is more of a Geographical area than Great Britain and Ireland which are two islands. The only reason GB + I today may be considered a "Geographical area" is because it is being used instead of British Isles for the political reasons we all debate often over at BI article. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It must just be a strange coincidence! :). This "Great Britain and Ireland" use is a more recent thing, due to the controversy over British Isles according to the British Isles article introduction we have all spent so long on. This article in question is talking about the past when saying it is one of the most studied geographical areas in the world. If Great Britain and Ireland today is considered a "Geographical area", it is because of the British Isles.

Most of the books listed on that page are Great Britain and Ireland, however a google search finds a huge number of books mentioning the British isles relating to Flora and Fauna. We can look into more detail about the different numbers tomorrow, and i suspect many of the "Britain and Ireland" titled books, also probably say British Isles in some places within their book.

Considering use of British Isles has been linked with things like the Flora/Fauna example, it would make sense for it to be used here. Changing this introduction to state the British Isles is the most studied georgraphical area should not be seen as justification to rename the article. This is not about atlases use, its about the statement in the introduction that it is the most studied geographical area. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We need to be objective here as far as possible - its the same issue as on Floyd, if all the material in its title (which is significant) does not use the term then there is no case for insertion. Most of your statements above BW are either OR or synthesis. In fact the statement in the lede is unsupported anyway so there is an argument it should be struck without a supporting statement that it is the most studied (although I think its true) --Snowded ^TALK 00:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree the statement is presently unsourced, but also think it is true. Now a quick googlebooks search, highlights this issue which we can go into greater detail in over the next few days.

"Biodiversity" "British Isles" found About 3,280 results

"Biodiversity" "Britain and Ireland" found about 2,640 results

"Biodiversity" "Great Britain and Ireland" found about 1,540 results

Again, the title and the atlases presently listed make no difference at all. This is about the specific sentence about the area being well studied. This is nothing like the Floyd case. Anyway will debate this more tomorrow. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is not about bio-diversity, the article is about a list of Atlases. The titles of those Atlases use Britain and Ireland (which as we know is increasingly common for road atlases as well) they do not use British Isles. Honestly this is one of the brain dead ones --Snowded ^TALK 00:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The sentence in question makes no mention of atlases. It states..

"The biodiversity of Great Britain and Ireland is the most well-studied af any geographical area of comparable size anywhere in the world"

There for the biodiversity of the area is what the sentence is about. Googlebooks finds more results of biodiversity with the British Isles, not just Ireland and Britain. This is not a clear cut case like the Floyd one above. Also if we go into some of these books tomorrow that say "Britain and Ireland" i am sure we will find British Isles mentioned within the text or areas outside of Britain and Ireland but within British Isles mentioned in them. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought i would provide this example, we can look at other books tomorrow but this will prove my point.

Book Title : The Changing Wildlife of Great Britain and Ireland

100 mentions of British Isles [2] and 8 mentions of the Isle of Man [3] which the last time i checked was not part of the island of Great Britain or the island of Ireland, currently linked to in the article. The best studied geographical area relative to size in the world is the British Isles. Not "Britain and Ireland". If we can get a proper source for that statement we should consider including it in the BI article itself, seems like a valid thing to note and be proud of. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The British Isles is denoted as a "scientific region" for fauna. Flora is divided up differently - Great Britain including the Isle of Man, Ireland, and the Channel Islands are considered part of the distribution region of France. The Botanical Society of the British Isles appears to also use this notation. The BSBI also publish Watsonia. It would be pretty normal to see "British Isles" being referred to when discussing fauna, and more unusual when discussing Flora. Internationally recognized and defined regions can be found in this PDF --HighKing (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There for there is no problem with using British isles. But this sentence does not simply relate to flora and fauna anyway. It is talking about biodiversity. Whilst my little comparison on googlebooks of Britain + Ireland / British Isles is not scientific, it does suggest the area that is the most studied is the British Isles, not the island of Great Britain and the island of Ireland as even books with GB+Ireland in the title mention British isles and the Isle of Man. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There for, I'm going to my kip. :) Jack 1314 (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am getting the feeling that this is a largely unresolvable issue looking at it from a purely common sense view point LevenBoy has a very valid point the subject of the atlases covers the whole of the British Isles, authors, publishers and others may wish to be politically correct and use a different phases at the expense of not being totally accurate but that still does not change the issue the aim of the atlases are not to exclude for example the IOM. For example it would be correct to say that "Bloggs Britain and Ireland Road Atlas" covered the whole of the British Isles if it did indeed did so, and in the same way it can be said "Smiths British Isles Atlas" covers the roads of Britain and Ireland for either case the vast majority of WP editors/population at large would not see either of those statements as in any way contentions and would be fine with them.

In this case leaving it as is could could create the impression of excluding some of the smaller islands however from a strict reading of WP:V and WP:OR a change could be challenged. On balance, I do not believe it was the attention of any of the authors or publishers of the atlases mentioned to exclude the smaller islands and therefore a change to British Isles would not be a problem. Codf1977 (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"For example it would be correct to say that 'Bloggs Britain and Ireland Road Atlas' covered the whole of the British Isles if it did indeed did so, and in the same way it can be said 'Smiths British Isles Atlas' covers the roads of Britain and Ireland for either case the vast majority of WP editors/population at large would not see either of those statements as in any way contentions and would be fine with them." – Which in essence is the nub of my point on "Britain and Ireland" vs. "British Isles". Where it is already in text, if it is not broken, don't fix it. Either of these terms are fine. Britain and Ireland may irk some people. British Isles may irk others. Both are in common use. If the original author wrote one, unless it is blatantly incorrect, just leave it be and stop stirring the pot. --RA (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that approach, the problem however as in this case, if just one of the Atlases covers say the Isle of Mann, then on a pure technicality "British Isles" is correct and "Britain and Ireland" is not - there could well be other examples where the reverse is true - for example a book called "Birds of the British Isles that x y z" that only makes mention of "Britain and Ireland" - it could be said that only covers "Britain and Ireland" and not the "British Isles". Codf1977 (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely accurate. Be aware that it's not always good to mix up Road Atlases and Flora or Fauna atlases. If an atlas covering the Wild Fox population of Britain and Ireland included the Isle of Man, or a Road Atlas included Isle of Man, then I agree, Britain and Ireland is not accurate and British Isles is more appropriate. But oddly enough, if an atlas covering Wild Roses included the Isle of Man, then Britain and Ireland is still accurate since the Isle of Man is considered part of Great Britain for those purposes. We should also give appropriate weight to the Titles given to books or TV programmes. --HighKing (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not if by doing so you risk inferring something that was not the intention of the person who wrote the book - is it not beyond the realms of possibility for any books title to be amended for politically correct reasons e.g. "Dear author, hope you won't mind but we have changed the title of your manuscript from "British Isles" to "Britain and Ireland" because it might sell better in Ireland" in other words, care has to be taken when inferring anything when "Britain and Ireland" is used over "British Isles" unless it is clear what the motive was (if there was one at all). Codf1977 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any sense to this?? We have an article full of atlases that say "Britain and Ireland" and not one that says it is an atlas of the "British Isles". The article uses "Britain and Ireland". Is there an obvious error? No. --RA (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Is there any sense to this??" - absolutely no sense what so ever it is a pointless debate over the semantics of a few words that some don't like. Codf1977 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but this has nothing to do with atlases in that list. This is about the sentence used in the introduction which i again will quote.

"The biodiversity of Great Britain and Ireland is the most well-studied of any geographical area of comparable size anywhere in the world"'

So this is not actually about Flora and Fuana and it is not about atlases. It is about biodiversity in a certain geographical area being the most studied. Great Britain and Ireland are simply two islands, we all know is talking about the British Isles area, and the fact certain books with the title Great Britain and Ireland mention the isle of man and the British isles proves this to be the case.

Either that introduction is completely changed, or British Isles is put there. The current wording simply is not correct. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree can't see the issue with

"The biodiversity of British Isles is the most well-studied of any geographical area of comparable size anywhere in the world"'

over the current wording other than the question of what you call it how do we know that this "area" is in fact the "most well-studied of any geographical area of comparable size anywhere in the world". Codf1977 (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That is an issue about if there is a source for it being the most well studied area although the exact same problem applies to the current wording as it would if British Isles replaced it. As it is of "comparable size" i would think this is probably true. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Just remove the phrase - its not needed for a list of Atlases anyway and its not supported. --Snowded ^TALK 20:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Can we summarize this as "Closed with no change". The main argument for closing with no change is that we shouldn't re-interpret titles of books. Whatever title is chosen for a book is deemed correct. For example, if the author uses "British Isles" for a title, then we stick with it. We don't infer other meanings or try to rephrase to get an alternative phrase introduced. --HighKing (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with that logic (see below) Codf1977 (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think in this case it would be best just to remove the sentence which is unsourced anyway. The problem is not what books or atlases call something, the problem is the statement in the first sentence that this is the most studied geographical area. I believe such a claim refers to British Isles, rather than just Great Britain and Ireland. Ive no objection to this being closed if that sentence is removed as snowded suggested above. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree claim is unsourced - just remove it, problem goes away. Close with "unsourced claim removed" Codf1977 (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In the table itself it says Perring F.H. and Walters. S.M (1990) Atlas of the British Flora, Botanical Society of the British Isl]] " Clearly that should say British Isles. I do not know if it should be linked or not, but is there an agreement to correct that? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

British Isles is correct here, and should be linked. See my comments at User talk:Snowded for some stuff related to the broader argument. LevenBoy (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Now that we've got "Fauna" buttoned down, could we tackle "Flora" next? Would that help with this article? TFOWR 11:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we see how fauna works out first? Looks like we have an agreement on this one --Snowded ^TALK 11:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that we move straight to adopting a "flora" policy, simply that we begin discussing it now. I agree that we need to see if "fauna" works out first. TFOWR 11:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Structured discussion

Boilerplate text about "summarising arguments from above, based on policy and precedents, and backed with diffs and links" goes here. TFOWR 16:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping. I'll start closing these out as "no consensus" unless there's some movement here... TFOWR 11:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ping again. It's only been four days since the article talkpage was notified, so I'm no immediate rush to close this out, but the sections below are remarkably empty... TFOWR 10:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles" @ Atlases of...

Arguments against "British Isles" @ Atlases of...

List of lichen checklists

Unresolved

 – Sorry, not had a chance to look at this either, and I suspect it won't be as easy as the SFA/foreign player issue, either - are there any handy WikiProjects we could ask for guidance at? TFOWR 13:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Is anyone going to bother linking to this debate from the talkpage of the article? DuncanHill (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The discussion pre-dates {{BID}} but yes, someone should. I'll do it now. TFOWR 13:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Already done: Talk:List of lichen checklists#British Isle book contains references to IoM By Triton Rocker on 25 July. TFOWR 13:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
      • It's well hidden. Needs to be an explicit link so people can see what it is without having to click on it first. DuncanHill (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I'll add a {{BID}} template now. This discussion pre-dates the template by sometime. I'd like to say that we've improved since those dark days, but letting article editors know is still one area where editors here need to be reminded far too much. TFOWR 13:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears to come under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fungi and it would be worth opening a discussion there, I will do so. This goes to the general point that in many cases these changes should also be discussed at local articles or projects, since editors here in reality lack sufficient expertise to decide accurately in some cases. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Here the referenced book title is "Great Britain and Ireland" so there is no case to make it British Isles unless we are in the business of correcting the book titles of experts in the field.--Snowded ^TALK 10:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to change, however disagree with Snowded reasons, as I have said before trying to second guess the reasons why an author chose to use "Great Britain and Ireland" vs "British Isles" is not good. It is quite possible that the wrong one can be used by the title of the book, that does not mean here on WP we should automatically compound any mistake by blindly following what could be a choice made for commercial reasons. Codf1977 (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to look at the overall context - that should be the first step, in the case of List of lichen checklists there is none so use the title of the book as there is nothing else to go on. But as a rule it is not appropriate as it is open to mistakes or errors. Codf1977 (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

List of lichen checklists should say what the book says. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

My only hesitation on the lichens one is that the publication is a reference work of the British Lichen Society - the only geographical scopes they express in their website are here [4] - saying that the society "... arranges annual residential meetings in spring, summer and autumn in all parts of the British Isles... " - and here [5] - showing meetings in the Isle of Man, England, Scotland, Wales, etc. The book isn't stand-alone, it's their specific publication. I suspect they are indeed a BI grouping and that this book is a BI-wide reference work, although I accept the general point about book titles. This may be another case of us clunking a bit into an area we actually know little about. 12:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Stick with the reference @ List of lichen checklists but I agree with what James says above. Bjmullan (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded's reasoning with List of lichen checklists (as per book titles). --HighKing (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That article should have British Isles as a heading. The heading does not relate to the publication beneath it, other than as a broad grouping for it, and potentially other publications. I have found a publication detailing lichens in the IoM, so by adding that maybe British Isles is better. LevenBoy (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC) What say we add these three links to List of lichen checklists - [6] [7] [8]

Then maybe we should have a rethink about the section heading? LevenBoy (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Original research, the title of the book is very clear --Snowded ^TALK 11:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a difference between the link title and the section titles in the article. That looks like useful material LevenBoy. Also we should encourage collaborative editing when we see it Snowded and not carp. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Come on James, this one was discussed and you yourself with the "chunking around" comment accepted the general point about book titles. Codf1977 on the talk pages says that s/he plans a general reworking of the titles, and if you check I supported that. Pending a wider change this one was closed off, and we really don't want every one which is closed being opened again shortly afterwards. On the other hand this entry starts with reinstating a posting from an established sock farm. There is a difference. and the OR point stands, its not carping its an argument. --Snowded ^TALK 11:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Lichens one doesn't seem to be closed - what closed it exactly? As regards the titles, I see no reason why continued editing of the article needs to stop because someone has (vaguely) promised that at some future point they will rework the titles. At the moment, there are a variety of section-themes in that article, including down to the State level in the US. Adding material about the IofM and the CI seems very reasonable. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, you obviously didn't read my comments above (20:47, 27 July 2010) so here is the gist, again; the title is just a grouping for publications appearing beneath it. It is not directly related to a particular entry so how you manage to conjure up OR in this context is quite beyond me. You seem to be stonewalling on this one. British Isles is an obvious title for the group of publications that we could now add to. And please reflect further on the comments I placed on your Talk Page regarding just what is, and what isn't OR. LevenBoy (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, if you really want to reopen this one feel free. You might want to look at the flora and fauna point etc. LevenBoy, there is only one title as its a list of lists. If you follow the current page convention then you should create sections for Guernsey, possibly IoM & Ireland (although those are books not lists). On the other hand it might make sense to completely re-organise it into geographical areas (in which case BI is fine if the others are things like North America) or nations etc. I think that was Codf1977's point. However just inserting BI instead of the current title is neither one thing or the other. --Snowded ^TALK 11:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, the *current* text is correct. The section headings reflect the publications within the lists, and reflect the titles within the publications. There's no grouping - for example, we don't have a section heading entitled "USA" with the appropriate publications under that heading. As Snowded correctly points out above, following the convention within the article would simply require adding a section for "Ireland", and another for "Isle of Man", etc, and listing the publication. In order to *insert* "British Isles" into this article, it requires a rewrite to organize and group by geographical regions. Of course, if it's deemed OK to edit articles to rewrite sections and introduce new material, its best we're all crystal clear on that too... --HighKing (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

They don't currently match up precisely. See for example North America, which is listed as "A Cumulative Checklist for the Lichen-forming, Lichenicolous and Allied Fungi of the Continental United States and Canada." US and Canada is not North America. Clearly there is scope for improving the article. It also isn't up to you HighKing to resist adding material to that article that is appropriate, contextual and properly referenced. I am not sure what the problem is here exactly. If LevenBoy chooses not to add that material, I will. 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If there are more lists then I would add them, in their own sections relating the heading to the list. I'm less sure about the two books which are not (other than by implication) lists bit that is a minor point. I don;t see High King arguing against adding material --Snowded ^TALK 14:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The ones LevenBoy identified would best be added under a new "British Isles" header with the Britain and Ireland one. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, either add within the current convention or restructure by geographical area (in which case BI or Europe or similar is fine). The latter is a better idea to be honest although it involves a bit more work. FAD No consent to insertion of BI without other changes--Snowded ^TALK 14:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

@James - the easiest solution is to follow the existing convention. Your North American example, which technically incorrect, is ambiguously referenced since the link brings you to a page entitled "North American Lichen Checklist". If you want to add new material, fine. But the community would ...take a dim view... of an editor completely changing around the current convention of an article, and then adding to an article, solely with the intention to insert "British Isles", especially against a consensus here. --HighKing (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the same way the Lichen Society pages take you to lots of references to British Isles? As for the "current convention" of the article, there doesn't seem to be a straightforward one, as the North American example shows. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

James, restructuring the list by geographical regions is the obvious and least controversial solution - why not just go with that? I'll even do the work if you want --Snowded ^TALK 17:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The taskforce is primarily concerned with examining usage in articles - as they are currently being used. In this case, usage of "Great Britain and Ireland" is valid and correct, given the existing current naming conventions used within the article. I believe that setting out to materially rewrite or reorganize an article is not within the spirit of this task force. Restructuring the list by geographical regions might validate an insertion of "British Isles" - but I believe there is no justification for restructuring beyond the insertion of "British Isles", and I disagree with that motive. --HighKing (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Structured discussion

Boilerplate text about "summarising arguments from above, based on policy and precedents, and backed with diffs and links" goes here. TFOWR 16:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping! Only four days since the article talkpage was notified, but I'm not going to hang around for ever. HighKing, thanks for your arguments. Anyone else? TFOWR 10:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles" @ ...Lichen checklists

Arguments against "British Isles" @ ...Lichen checklists

• The reference uses "Great Britain and Ireland". Changing the reference is WP:OR and against WP:V. --HighKing (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland

List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland is practically a disambiguation page for a number of lists of different types of plants. At a cursory glance (including some of the lists) it seems that it should be "British Isles", or at least "Great Britain and Ireland". Happy to leave this on hold till we get something larger on flora sorted out though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it looks like it should have been "British Isles". Codf1977 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You are talking about renaming a range of pages to replace a commonly used alternative to British Isles. I suggest seeing if people involved in those articles think its worth the effort. --Snowded ^TALK 05:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly be more accurate to say British Isles rather than just two islands. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes a rename would be in order. Given the very low activity on the talk page or article page, a BOLD action is appropriate. Any attempt to open debate on the talk page is likely to result in a duplicate debate to here. Codf1977 (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not just one article, several are effected. Its not a case for being bold, just put a move proposal on the page and see what happens --Snowded ^TALK 10:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would be worthwhile posting on the talkpage, however, pointing editors at this discussion. Sorry, I'm about to get stuck into some real-life busy-ness, so if someone else could do that I'd be ever so obliged ;-) I'm also kind of holding off on flora issues, to see how fauna works out. I'd like to see a "blanket ruling" like fauna applied to flora. No reason why we need to hold off on discussing vascular plants in the meantime, however. TFOWR 10:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Id agree with posting on the talk pages although i dont think a formal RM is required at this stage unless theres disagreement on there. Give it awhile BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As above with fauna. If not all, 99.999% are going to be, and actually already mean, British Isles. This is a good, clean, clear adult editorial guideline we are working on and it should take priority above all constituent specialism in order to establish a consistent policy. --Triton Rocker (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Lets see what people say. I'm not too fussed on this one, but I will point out that there is evidence that Britain and Ireland is in use as a substitute for British Isles (see the evidence on the main article) so its not that black and white. Conventions will differ in different fields and we should go with what the evidence shows --Snowded ^TALK 10:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps but the winds are changing. Technically speaking, however, it is inaccurate and, arguably, an offence to the independent Crown Dependent islands. I am suggesting we move on beyond the past - many of the references are very old - and, in our setting of a consistent Wikipedian editorial guideline, keep one eye on technical accuracy.

From a professional point of view, I would say that in many cases the use of the term "Britain and Ireland" is an anachronistic throwback to a more Imperial and chauvinistic period when it was first used and established --- when it was Britain and Ireland. It is not now. (<irony alert> and you know what a bunch of rabid Neo-cons and Proto-fascist imperialist Poms the Linnean Society are.</irony alert>). --Triton Rocker (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Where are we with this then?

There are:

38,600 papers on Google Scholar for "British Isles and fauna" 48,200 for "British Isles and flora".

I am look for a clear, simple editorial guideline.

As below, I think that in non-political topics, BI should be the acceptable default and B+I accepted as generally confusing and erroneous. --Triton Rocker (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Structured discussion

Boilerplate text about "summarising arguments from above, based on policy and precedents, and backed with diffs and links" goes here. TFOWR 16:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added the template to the article, see if there are any responses. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping! BW, you promised us examples, where are they? ;-)

Blimey, what a curious list. I'm going to ask a couple of list-specialists for general advice: I'm finding the whole concept a little bizarre right now. TFOWR 10:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles" @ List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland

• It deals with flora on "Britain and Ireland", which I'm not sure is Great Britain and Ireland or the UK and Ireland. Either way, I find it hard to believe the plants would not cover the Isle of Man. Noting the wider geographical area would be much more appropriate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• There is a book with the title "List of Vascular Plants of The British Isles" [9]
• Category the group is in is Category:Lists of the vascular plants of the British Isles, the article titles should reflect this too.
• There are not separate articles on Vascular plants of the Isle of Man, it would make sense for them to be covered in these lists rather than a separate article which could cause a lot of duplication. List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland 4 mentions the Isle of Man Cabbage which exists in Great Britain and around the Isle of Man.
• There are a large number of books that talk about Flora and the British Isles rather than just isolating Great Britain and Ireland. (Examples will follow). BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against "British Isles" @ List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland

• The article is largely unreferenced, and the sub-articles are also largely unreferenced. Probably a candidate for a clean-up or reorg - and failing that, an AFD
• As already stated, the global scientific community does not recognize "British Isles" as a "flora" geographic unit, but it does recognize the islands.
• As a side-note, the "category" is also wrong and should reflect the article title --HighKing (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

James Kay (British inventor)

Article states a British inventor who developed a successful wet spinning process for flax in 1824, helping industrialise linen spinning in the British Isles. The entire statement is unreferenced as regards helping to industrialise anything. I recommend the statement should be removed, but no harm in tagging first and seeing if something turns up? We can leave the tag for a week maybe before making a decision? --HighKing (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Older discussion

{{Resolved|I'm not seeing any argument not to use BI. The article is new, un-assessed, poorly sourced, etc - but that's going to be the case whether it says that Kay's process helped industrialise linen spinning in England and the Isle of Man, or in the British Isles. As the process had an affect on Irish linen (as BW's source supports), then BI is justified. TFOWR 09:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)}} That's reasonable. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC) No, it is correct. What is wrong is "English and Irish linen industries". It should read British and Irish linen. Actually, to the best of my knowledge, I am not "banned" from adding or subtracting "British", only "British Isles", so I will fix it. Linen was equally produced on the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I reverted your changes as they weren't supported by your included reference. I also suggest to not edit any articles here while they're under discussion. --HighKing (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Good changes, I found this book [10] on "The linen houses of the Bann Valley" It mentions James Kay and says that Irish Manufacturers quickly adopted his process of wet spinning. Use of British Isles in this case is absolutely justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Please provide a page number - I don't see where it states that Irish Manufacturers quickly adopted his process. Also, still no reference to state he helped industrialize the linen industry anywhere. --HighKing (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Why? No mention of either IoM or Channel Islands. Britain and Ireland is far more accurate. Fmph (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Use of British Isles in the sentence is not inaccurate there for there is no need for it to be removed. It is questionable if his processes had no impact on the Isle of Man, but even if they did not British Isles is still totally justified. We do not need to provide evidence that every single island in the British isles was impacted by something to say it. For example you can say something had an impact on Europe, it does not have to mean every single part of Europe. British Isles should only be removed where its incorrect. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Accurate geographical description, so no problem with BI in this case. Quantpole (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Agreed. And this constant withering about BI is not justified because IoM and CI are not included is getting beyond a joke. BW makes the excellent comparison with Europe. I would urge the controlling admins to place sactions on users who continue to suggest that BI is not valid if every single element of it is not somehow included. LevenBoy (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC) The Isle of Man had its own fine linen industry introduced in the1600s as, of course, did Wales. What were Welsh hats made of? In the case of Man, linen, herring and paper where about all it did have --- until they invented motorcycles, which is where I come in. This suggestion and the limited support it garnered underlines the typical futility of this conflict. Why should the rest of us be labored with having to respond to individuals who do not know the subject and are not willing to educate themselves whilst promoting some political campaign on the Wikipedia? --Triton Rocker (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Triton Rocker, I've done my best to explain this to you previously, but here goes again: Wikipedia is not written by experts. It's written by lay-editors. We use sources rather than our own knowledge. We do this so we're able to write about subjects we have no real knowledge of, and so that equally ignorant readers can verify what we write. I do not believe it is necessary, desirable or even possible for us all to become subject-matter experts on every subject that arises here. Our role here (at WT:BISE) is to consider specific examples of BI usage and consider whether they are correct usages in their respective fields and articles. So knock off with comments like the above. We're all aware of "political campaigns" - an editor has already been sanctioned for engaging in one such campaign. TFOWR 12:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Please do not make such comments. I expect you'll soon be receiving a warning from an admin. --HighKing (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC) If this is all so simple and straightforward, let's see the simple and straightforward reference that Kay helped industrialize the linen industry in the British Isles. Oú est le Boeuf? Until then, can we cut down on voicing opinion and keep the comments to useful additions of facts and references. --HighKing (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC) We don't need one. There are references mentioning Britain and others mentioning Ireland, and that constitutes the British Isles. LevenBoy (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC) No. That constitutes exactly Britain and Ireland. And are there references mentioning James Kay helping to industrialize the linen industry? --HighKing (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Apparently so. Triotn got one but you deleted it. LevenBoy (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC) If so, please point out the page number and paragraph. The reference TR found didn't state anything remotely close to what he added to the article. --HighKing (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Typical. The other reason to use British Isles is because, as every one knows, there are now fiscally separate linen industries in both Northern Ireland and Eire. This arrangement was not always the same, the two were once one. And so, in broad historical topics, just as with flora and fauna related topics, one needs the accurate yet broad and non-discriminate brush of "the British Isles" --- and, yes, the Channel Islands also had their own linen industry. Please stop wasting our time and energy HighKing. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Look this isn't a difficult process. Simply produce the references here so we can all take a look. --HighKing (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC) We do not see a need for removal of British Isles in this case. Sources have been shown stating the guy had an impact on Ireland rather than just Great Britain. That is all that is needed, no further sources are required to justify this use. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC) If a source states he had an impact on Ireland, that doesn't translate into British Isles. And there's also nothing stating he helped industrialize anything. --HighKing (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC) In the book i linked above it clearly stated the guys name and that his process quickly spread to Ireland. That is all that is needed to justify British Isle. It is clear this is not just about Great Britain. There for use of British Isles is fine. We do not have to change everything to Britain and Ireland even if something does not impact on every island of the British Isles. There is no reason not to believe it also had an impact on the isle of man too. so i do not see a problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Reopen @TFWOR, this is a fundamental ruling which has implications for many articles so I'd like to be clear. There are a number of reasons why British Isles is not appropriate. The objection I raised in the opening is that the entire claim is unsupported - there are no sources to back up the claim that James Kay helped industrialize anything, anywhere. Under the sanctions, I cannot change/remove this claim without bringing this up here first, which is what I've done. Your ruling effectively retains an unsupported claim. We all agree that "British Isles" is a geographic term. But how do we decide that a geographic term is more appropriate than a political term? This topic concerns an industry - linen spinning. The references are solely concerned with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Why is "British Isles" more appropriate given the topic and areas referenced? Final point - you state As the process had an affect on Irish linen (as BW's source supports), then BI is justified. What hierarchy is this operating on? If a reference uses Great Britain and Ireland, it is OK to use "British Isles"? This need a lot of debate because this is a fundamental sticking point. --HighKing (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC) As noted, this article is new, un-assessed, and poorly sourced. One of the few sources we do now have is that Kay's process impacted Irish linen. I do not accept that my ruling "effectively retains an unsupported claim". I'm also unconvinced that this ruling on one specific example has quite the far-reaching implications you suggest. The article deals with a period during which "British Isles" was a political term as well as a geographic term. The claim made ("...helping industrialise linen spinning in the British Isles") is accurate in both contexts: no claim is being made that the process helped industrialise linen spinning throughout the BI, merely within the BI. I do not have any strong objection to using United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but neither do I have any objection to using BI. Actually, I'd prefer BI in this context because it's immediately obvious that it includes more than just the contemporary UK. Where a source specifies the location(s) we should follow the source. The source used here does not specify Great Britain and Ireland: it says that Kay's process was developed in Preston and discusses it in the context of the affect it had on Irish linen. It would be inappropriate to infer from that that Kay's process helped industrialisation throughout the BI; it is not inappropriate to support the claim that Kay's process helped industrialisation within the BI. TFOWR 10:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC) One of the few sources we do now have is that Kay's process impacted Irish linen. As far as I'm aware, no we haven't. No source makes this claim - can you provide me with the reference? deals with a period during which "British Isles" was a political term as well as a geographic term. This is probably an innocent remark from your point of view, but this is a major sticking point and the subject of much debate. Note that the "British Isles" article does not acknowledge this point, nor any of the dispute or terminology articles. The consensus is that the term is geographical, and should only be used in a geographical context. And this is a point that has come up again and again over time. Interestingly, it is British nationalists that are keen to not mention this point. Anyway, I'm more than happy to keep the text if we can add a footnote pointing out that "British Isles" was historically used as a political term - perhaps a template along the lines of Birland can be developed? (Half joking) I'd prefer BI in this context because it's immediately obvious that it includes more than just the contemporary UK Is this another new ruling? I have very serious reservations about this one and the basis of the ruling, and it seems to me that you are not concerned with accuracy of usage, references, context, and appropriate historical terminology. We should not use the term as a "shorthand" for more appropriate terms, and your reasoning is really without foundation in any principles and is expressed as a personal preference. I know it's tough and complicated, but we need to be consistent (or have reasons why it might not be apparent that we may not seem consistent). --HighKing (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Well this source [11] "In 1825 James Kay of Preston invented a wet spinning process" and "Irish manufacturers quickly adopted wet spinning" and "According to Green, 1963 wet power spinning was responsible for the most profound changes which had so far taken place in the Irish linen industry" It is clear from that James Kays process had a big impact not just on Great Britain but the rest of the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Itemised responses: The ref is the one BW mentioned above: The linen houses of the Bann Valley: the story of their families - Kathleen Rankin. It details the wet spinning process's growth in Ireland after Kay's development. The article discusses the growth of an industry due to the development of a piece of technology, and it describes the geographical area in which this occurred - not the political usage, though I regard that as accurate as well. I am not proposing that we use BI as a shorthand for UKofGB&I: I am proposing that this is an example of an instance in which BI's usage is accurate and appropriate - in context (a context that includes the standard of the article). Yes, BI is my preference here, and I believe I made it clear that it was a preference. My ruling is that using BI here is perfectly acceptable. My real preference is for the article to be substantially expanded and properly sourced: I do not believe we should be setting in stone anything based on a stub-class article, hence my reluctance to buy into your belief that this "has implications for many articles". Specifically, I do not want to examine new articles and reach conclusions that exist long after the article has been substantially developed: I do not want to set in place a system whereby an article remains forever locked into either BI or not-BI. As regards usage, BI is in common usage to describe the linen industry during this period: see here, here, here and here for examples from the first 10 in A Google search. As regards references, I'm happy with a source that demonstrates more than one country/island within the BI for a claim that something happened within the BI. Again, I'd prefer that the article be expanded and better sourced, but until then I remain happy with BI. As regards context, the spread of a technology from England to Ireland seems fine to describe growth within the BI. As regards historical terminology, BI does seem to be widely used to describe the area in which linen industries developed in Western Europe. I believe that the usage of BI here is consistent with common usage when treating the contemporary linen industry of the 19th century. At least, I am yet to see any arguments to the contrary, either in the initial discussion or subsequently in this thread. In conclusion: I am not making a ruling that applies outside this article, nor am I making a ruling that applies for the lifetime of the article. I do, however, believe that my resolution is one that we can get broad consensus for. TFOWR 12:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC) The reference quoted by BW states In 1825 James Kay of Preston invented a wet spinning process in that he discovered that a thorough soaking in cold water made flax fibres more slippery so that they could be drawn by machinery into a really fine yarn, at the end of a paragraph describing the progression of the linen industry. The book does not support the statement that James Kay helped industrialise the linen industry within the British Isles, and is clearly in breach of implying a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. You didn't respond to the point about British Isles being a political term. Clearly from your own admission, the term is being used in a context more appropriate for a political term such as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Google searches are flawed. Most of the results you point to are not academic sources and are commercial sites associated with linen production in Northern Ireland. As regards references, I'm happy with a source that demonstrates more than one country/island within the BI for a claim that something happened within the BI. This is a major decision. Let's put it up for a poll to establish consensus. My gut feeling is that there is no consensus for this, but I'm happy to test it. I believe that the usage of BI here is consistent with common usage when treating the contemporary linen industry of the 19th century I disagree. I don't understand the basis of your making that statement, but if we're using Google hits, then searching for "Ireland" returns more than 10 times the number of hits than your search involving "British Isles". Searching for "United Kingdom" returns more than twice as many hits. Searching for "England", "Scotland" and "Wales" all produce large multiples. This shows that using a geographic term is the least consistent way to deal with the industry. Sorry TFWOR, but I believe at the very least, this needs more discussion. --HighKing (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC) OK, if you're unhappy with BW's first ref, are you happy with his 2nd and 3rd refs below? I can probably dig out more dead-tree refs as well, but Kay's process is usually considered, IIRC, a fairly text-book case of an industrial process hastening development through the BI during the Industrial revolution. I thought I had said I was happy with its usage as both a geographical and a political term in this context? If I didn't, I am. The geographical area in which UKofGB&I developments had their greatest initial impact was the surrounding islands - the British Isles. For an overview of an industry I'd be happy with UKofGB&I (the political entity within which the industry was located); for a detail of the spread of a process or innovation I'd be happier with BI (the geographic entity across which the innovation spread). You can be reassured that I am by now familiar with the drawbacks of Google. It is extremely useful, however, in providing a quick indication of a term's usage. You can tailor the search yourself, restricting it to academic sources if you wish. I don't regard this to be a major issue, as it affects but one stub-class article. However, if you wish to assess consensus for my view that two countries exist within the BI, and can be described as such, then go for it. There were local industries, that's not in dispute. Irish linen, in particular, was well renowned. There was also a BI-wide industry, which is the appropriate industry to use when discussing the spread of an innovation from one local industry to another. By all means, let's have more discussion. But to my mind this is a fairly clear-cut case - academic sources discussing the industry (and the wider Industrial Revolution) in the BI tend to use the term "British Isles". TFOWR 13:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC) No - it is still WP:SYN to attempt to join different references together to imply a point not contained or supported by the references. None of the references produced by BW places James Kay in the context of industrializing the linen industry in the British Isles. To date, no references have been produced that make this assertion and I'm sure we've all looked extensively by now. All we've got are references for regional industries. The newest references produced by BW are a case in point as they discuss Ireland or Northern Ireland and the impact on the local industry. Only one reference mentions "British Isles", the last one. But that's just shooting himself in the foot. It was published over 50 years ago in 1957, and uses the term "British Isles" as a shorthand for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" as evidenced by the table on page 50 which lists the "countries" of the "British Isles" and expresses the results as a percentage. No mention of the crown dependencies. This is an example of the flawed approach of simple searching without taking the time to understand the context (Where's MickMack when you need him!) For an overview of an industry I'd be happy with UKofGB&I (the political entity within which the industry was located); for a detail of the spread of a process or innovation I'd be happier with BI (the geographic entity across which the innovation spread) Please explain why this is so? Perhaps there's something here... We're discussing an industrial phenomenon, spreading across a geographic area .. OK. So if we could establish why the spread in the British Isles was different, notable, significant, etc, than say, Northwestern Europe, I'd live with that logic. Otherwise, again, using "British Isles" as a geographic area for the spread of the linen industry outside of the United Kingdom makes no sense. academic sources discussing the industry (and the wider Industrial Revolution) in the BI tend to use the term "British Isles" That's a circular argument :-). What we need is to ask if discussing the Industrial Revolution, or discussing the Linen Industry, is normally done within the context of the "British Isles" or "The United Kingdom" or "Britain and Ireland" - what is the most appropriate term? Searching academic sources suggests that of all the terms to use, "British Isles" is the least common. But this form of discussion and summarization fails to look at the entire statement which is still unsupported. To summarize the logic within the arguments put forward: James Kay is credited with the invention of a wet spinning process. Not disputed. Did James Kay help to industrialize the linen industry within the British Isles? Sources state applied withing the North of Ireland and the whole nature of the local linen industry was altered the production of yarn was transformed gradually from a domestic to a mechanized factory industry On the subject of "Mill based spinning of linen yarn" in the context of the "Irish cotton industry" - its expansion accelerated after 1825 due to the powerful external technological challenge posed by the invention of the wet spinning process by James kay of England So no. There's no sources for this. There's not even sources to state it impacted the linen industry outside of Ireland although I find it difficult to believe that one doesn't exist. But it, again, highlights the levels of WP:SYN and WP:OR going on here. The argument then attempts to break the sentence into component parts. Was there a linen industry in the "British Isles"? How significant was wet spinning? Did James Kay contribute to the linen industry outside of Ireland? Using this form of argument is WP:SYN since it is attempting to combine different sources to support an assertion not made by individual sources. @TFWOR, I appreciate the time you're taking on this. I get the strong impression that you're not for turning on this and you state that this article is a stub and is trivial. That's disappointing as a summary. To many, it may seem like a waste of everyone's time. But this article touches on many different aspects of "usage" where there isn't agreement. For example, is it OK to use "British Isles" in historical contexts? Even if it actually refers to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland"? Or where sources only refer to GB&I? Or where the article context is not purely geographical and where usage is ambiguously political? etc. In the absence of a clear reason like a reference, I don't understand the underlying reasoning, and it makes it difficult to apply this reasoning to other cases we may come across. Is it too much to ask for a clear restatement of your summary with the references you're relying on? --HighKing (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Ok here is another more clearer source. In The industrial archaeology of Northern Ireland - [12] "The position changed dramatically with the invention of the wet spinning process and once this had been patented by James Kay in 1825 and succesfully applied within the North of Ireland the whole nature of the local linen industry was altered within the space of little more than a decade" BritishWatcher (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC) And in "The impact of the domestic linen industry in Ulster" - [13] "It was about this time too that i realised the signifiance of two paraliamentary reports on the Irish linen industry about the evolution of the domestic linen industry in those important years befre James Kay introduced mechnaisation into the wet spinning of linen in 1825" BritishWatcher (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC) And in "The hidden famine: poverty, hunger, and sectarianism in Belfast, 1840-50" - [14] "In 1825, James Kay patented the wet spinning process by which the finest yarns could be spun by machine. As a consequence, the production of yarn was transformed gradually from a domestic to a mechanized factory industry. Although cotton production continued to be significant, Belfast entrepreneurs recognized that future economic success lay in linen manufacture through mechanized flax spinning." BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC) And in "The warp of Ulster's past" [15] "Mill based spinning of linen yarn rose from the ashes of the short lived Irish cotton industry. Its expansion accelerated after 1825 due to the powerful external technological challenge posed by the invention of the wet spinning process by James Kay of England, which allowed both fine and coarselinen yarn to be produced cheaper and faster by machine." BritishWatcher (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC) And in "Pre-famine Ireland: a study in historical geography" [16] "In 1825, James Kay of Preston invented wet spinning, soon adopted by Irish manufacturers." It also says... "By 1838 there were forty spinning mills, most of them larger than those in Britain: at this date Ireland had only 10 percent of the mills in the British Isles but 18 per cent of the horsepower and 21 per cent of employees." Anyway off for lunch now. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC) This one is resolved. I suggest editors stop engaging in further discussion on this matter. LevenBoy (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC) [Off-topic comment removed. TFOWR 09:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)] LB is referring to this SPI report against me. Comments such as those will no longer be put up with on this page. Either strike that comment, or I expect you will be dealt with by the wandering admins. --HighKing (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I suspect TFOWR is right about this one - there do seem to be a range of sources credibly backing up the assertion that Kay's inventions spread throughout the BI and I don't really see a good reason to NOT use BI here, so I back it's usage in this article. LevenBoy, you really need to take a chill pill and stop trying to dig dirt on people and generally make attacking remarks. We need reason and calm on this topic, not allegation and rancor. If you can't stop it, ANI is surely the next stop. You obviously don't like HK, but he behaves a lot better than you do around here, regardless of anyone's opinions. Please cease and desist. Thank you. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC) James, don't be silly. The fact that HK has already had one stab at this article, and yet continues to try and force the issue, is highly relevant to the current argument. Hopefully the information I've provided here may help to bring this mind-numbing debate to a swift conclusion. LevenBoy (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC) lol thanks for the link although we should avoid the history on this page now and focus on the different open cases, people getting into trouble over comments here will make the whole situation worse. It is a shame that this one has not been fully resolved considering the large number of sources clearly available showing Kay had an impact on Ireland as well as Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Arb break At this stage, I just want to restate the facts - could other editors hang on to give TFWOR a chance to respond first? There's no references linking Kay's invention with use outside of Ireland. All the references link with Ireland, and most specifically with Northern Ireland. I found this reference which supports the statement that Kay helped to industrialise the linen industry, but again it only puts it in the context of Ireland. There are no references linking the type of industrialisation brought about by Kay with other areas of the British Isles outside of the UKoGB&I. No references linking outside of BI either. Some references appear to use the term "British Isles". But, the reference "Ireland: a study in historical geography" uses "British Isles" when referring solely to the UKoGB&I - which appears to be a political usage, not a geographic usage. As does "Textile history". Consensus is to avoid this usage. Had a discussion with Jamesinderbyshire last night at his Talk page. He states I mean using British Isles here to mean the spread of industrialised spinning in Britain and Ireland. In summary (correct me if I'm wrong James) it appears that some editors are happy to use "British Isles" if the topic is historic and references use the term even if it only refers to B&I or UKoGB&I. I don't agree. But I'll go along with consensus no matter - this is how progress is made. And if that is what has happened here, but I'd like to be very clear on what basis this resolution was made. If I'm wrong in my summary, I'd really appreciate being put right. Could other editors hang off to give TFWOR a chance to respond first? Thanks. --HighKing (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry to be dense HK, but can you spell out for me exactly what you mean by the phrase "B&I or UKoGB&I"? In full words. Just want to be sure I understand you properly. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Whoops, sorry! B&I is "Britain and Ireland". BI (without the ampersand) is "British Isles". UKoGB&I is the historical "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" as opposed to the current UK or UKoGB&NI - the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC) OK, rechecking various sources I have to agree you about linen: Kay's process covered more than just linen (it was originally targeted at flax, for example) but it was only in Ireland that it impacted the linen industry (it helped hasten the demise of the linen industry elsewhere). I'd be happy with removing either "linen" or stating that it helped "industrialise linen spinning in Ireland". Ideally the former, since that relates more to the significance of the innovation. Following on from the above, Kay's process was developed in England but I can't confirm that it was actually used with linen in England - Kay seems to have mainly concentrated on flax (he was, I think, a member of the Scottish flax manufacturers' association). I can find plenty of sources discussing Kay's process and the British Isles (you link to a few yourself) - whether the sources are using it as a geographical or political term is debatable, however see below: I'd greatly prefer to stick to common usage. If the greater part of available sources use the term BI I'd prefer to replicate that usage. As far as I can see, BI is common currency when discussing innovation during the Industrial Revolution. What is the consensus here on that? My view on "rulings" (and I still don't regard this as anything that's going to be set in stone) is that they need to be accepted here, and by the wider community. I feel it would be harder to justify a ruling that was unintuitive, i.e. one that was out of step with common usage, but I'd like to assess what consensus is here (and I'll acknowledge that we also need to determine common usage, but first things first). TFOWR 11:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC) British Isles should absolutely not be removed from this article. I am open to debate about all other matters relating to the article and how its worded. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC) The key point is, we do not have to provide evidence that something has impacted on every part of the British Isles for a sentence using British Isles to be accurate and acceptable. If there are sources showing use in Ireland and Great Britain, then it is not wrong to state within the British Isles. For example. Europe was at war in World War 2. This is without doubt true, yet quite a few countries like Ireland, Spain and Switzerland remained neutral in that war, so not all of Europe was "at war". BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC) So are you saying that if the reference says Britain and Ireland, we should use British Isles, and if that if it says British Isles we can't use Britain and Ireland? Isn't that a bit of POV nonsense? Fmph (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Not at all. How does the reference define "Britain and Ireland"? That would affect how it is used here. This of course, doesn't affect the above conversation, unless you are proposing using Britain and Ireland? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC) We have sources mentioning the guy had an impact on Ireland and Britain. We do not need to state Britain and Ireland, British Isles is perfectly acceptable. I am only prepared to support removal of British Isles where its use is inaccurate. It is accurate in this article, there is no need to change. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC) BW, on a different page, you're arguing that "British Isles" should never be pipelinked as "Britain and Ireland" because they're not the same thing, etc, etc. Here, you're essentially arguing that they are they same thing. Which is it? --HighKing (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Its both. As i explained before. You can say something happened in Europe without it being about the WHOLE of Europe, like Europe being at war in WW2 when countries like Ireland, Spain and Switzerland remained neutral. So saying British Isles when talking about Britain and Ireland is often fine, that is very different to pipelinking GB+I to the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Common usage TFWOR asked to determine consensus here - from the comments above I'd say we have a split here. Question: How can we determine what is "Common Usage" for use of "British Isles" in relation to the "industrial revolution"? The Industrial Revolution article doesn't mention British Isles, but focuses a lot on Britain, England, and the UK. Google Books reports about 63,100 books for "industrial revolution" + "United Kingdom", and only 14,100 books for "industrial revolution" + "british isles". Google scholar reports 43,100 articles for "industrial revolution" + "United Kingdom", and only 7,900 articles for "industrial revolution" + "british isles". From the looks of it, "United Kingdom" is common usage. --HighKing (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC) The guy impacted both Great Britain and Ireland. It would be incorrect to just say United Kingdom. British Isles is the appropriate term for this case. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC) You've given no reasoning beyond "The guy impacted Great Britain and Ireland". Have you anything else to add? --HighKing (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC) If British Isles is not to be used, then the statement will have to states "United Kingdom, which at the time included the entire of Ireland" - as that is more accurate. Mabuska (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Or simply link to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which is what is normally done. --HighKing (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Saying British Isles is fine, there is no reason to change this. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Numerous editors have given reasons to change it above. What's missing is a reasoned argument why it shouldn't be changed. --HighKing (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC) No they have not. We have established the guy had an impact on both Great Britain and Ireland, there for use of British Isles is perfectly acceptable. British Isles does not HAVE to be removed in this case, there for we shouldnt remove it because its not incorrectly used. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC) The political term at the time is the UK of B&I, the references say GB and then show that the ideas were picked up in Ireland but its not synth to summarise that. I would say this is a best as Britain and Ireland (why we know is used as a substitute for British Isles, a term which is not used with its precise meaning either). However its one of those where British Isles would be OK. --Snowded TALK 05:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC) @Snowded, perhaps I'm missing something. I don't agree that "Britain and Ireland" can be translated to "British Isles" in most cases (including this one). To me, going from country terms to geographical terms, if someone is referring to the UK, they're not referring to the British Isles, but referring to the geopolitical unit. Less clear are geographical terms because some of the terms are used synonymously with political. The context is important in these cases. So if someone is using the term "Britain", and they're dealing with a human activity like, say, currency, the likelyhood is that they're using the term as a geopolitical unit. If they use the term describing the coasts of Britain, it would likely be the geographical unit of "Great Britain". In this case, since most of the sources refer to country units (e.g. Scotland, Ireland, England) as well as "Britain and Ireland", my interpretation is that they are using the terms as geopolitical units and there's nothing to suggest that "British Isles" is the intended interpretation. --HighKing (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Geographical terms are more clear because what is the British Isles today covers the same area that was the British Isles 100s of years ago. It is the political entities that have changed and saying British Isles rather than having to put the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland makes sense. You certainly could not just pipe it as the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC) High King pointed out to me that Kay's process for linen actually only had any impact in Ireland. His process affected flax and other materials in various areas (flax was, I think, Scotland, for example). My thinking at this point is that we either say (a) "helping industrialise spinning in X" or (b) helping industrialise linen spinning in Ireland". In principal I have no objection to "British Isles" being used for Industrial Revolution articles, so if we went with the generic "spinning" option I'd be OK with BI (but we would need to look at the article in more depth, to work out whether/how Kay helped flax, jute, etc). Since I regard this article as stubby, and I'd prefer to wait until topic-experts develop the article more, I'm coming round to the latter option ("linen spinning in Ireland") which can be referenced, and doesn't prejudice any later article-development or use of BI. TFOWR 09:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I still see no reason to change British Isles in this case, it should only be removed if it is wrong. Not because there is another term that could be used which is less controversial. By the way, ive moved James Kay to James Kay (British inventor), it turns out theres several James Kays and none of them stand out as the most notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Well, there's a case to be made for it being wrong with regard to linen, and there's a case to be made for it being correct with regard to textiles. It's all a question of (a) deciding whether we use "linen" or "textiles", and (b) making the case. I think in this instance (and my fault, as much as anyones) we're putting the cart before the horse. I caught your page move, good call, and I've updated the section heading accordingly (with an {{anchor}} to the old title, in case anyone's linked to it). TFOWR 10:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Has the bloke had any impact on the Isle of Mann & the Channel Islands? -- GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Structured discussion

Same as in other discussions, I'm hoping the discussion above can be edited down into arguments based on policy and precedent, backed by diffs and links, and that this section should be quick and easy. TFOWR 16:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to ask another admin to take a look at this. I'll likely do that later today (there's been plenty of time to make arguments, below) so if anyone has any last minute additions - do it soon. TFOWR 11:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles"

• This is a new article (virtually a stub) and so lacks sourcing. Various books exhibit the complexity of the early linen industry, Kay's impact on it and the many connections between Ireland and Lancashire. For example, [17]. This one [18] gives information about the spread of linen production throughout the islands following Kay's invention. More research and writing is obviously needed for the article but in the meantime, there is sufficient reason not to delete BI. In historical contexts like this one, BI is accurate and valid as a phrase representing mentions of Britain and Ireland. The alternative inference is that BI could never be used to mean historic Ireland and Britain, which must be false. It need not be replaced or deleted unless further sourcing becomes available proving otherwise, which seems unlikely. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• The linen houses of the Bann Valley: the story of their families By Kathleen Rankin "From Yorkshire power spinning of flax was taken up in the linen manufacturing districts of the east of Scotland where it soon became an important industry." So it did not just impact on Northern Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against "British Isles"

• a British inventor who developed a successful wet spinning process for flax in 1824, helping industrialise linen spinning in the British Isles. No references for to state he helped industrialise linen spinning in the British Isles. All of the references point to his invention used in conjunction with linen solely in Northern Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Reference by BW above is perfect example of OR. It shows how an editor will try to combine difference facts from publications in order to support an assertion not explicitly made within said publications. There are no references that support the statement that James Kay revolutionized the Linen industry in the British Isles. Period. --HighKing (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Augustus John

The article contains the follwing statement: He was, throughout his life, particularly interested in the Romani people (whom he referred to as "Gypsies"), and sought them out on his frequent travels around the United Kingdom and Europe. In this context UK is wrong and should be replaced with British Isles. Using UK alongside Europe mixes apples and pears, and use of UK is too specific, meaning we are saying that in his travels throughtout the islands John never visited anyhwere other that the UK. If he did, then UK is wrong, but BI, encompassing all areas of the islands, is likely to be more accurate. LevenBoy (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Before anyone asks the question, this confirms that he visited Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree BritishWatcher (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't comment earlier as I was going to ask that question Ghmyrtle! Good find, include that in the article somewhere. I agree with changing this to British Isles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• LevenBoy, can you template Talk:Augustus John to let editors there know about this discussion? Ta! TFOWR 09:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. LevenBoy (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Noted, thanks. TFOWR 12:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Some points:

• "In this context UK is wrong ..." - According to the source he visted Ireland in 1907. At that time all of Ireland was a part of the UK. Even today, it is entirely possible to be in both Ireland and the UK at the same time.
• "...we are saying that in his travels throughtout the islands John never visited anyhwere other that the UK..." - No. The article says he sought out Gypsies when he traveled elsewhere in Europe also (he was from the UK). Are the islands not entirely contained in Europe? What would make a visit to the independent 26 counties of Ireland after 1922 any more notable than a visit to France?
• "... and use of UK is too specific ..." - We don't like being specific now? Naming the country of origin of the artist specifically and elsewhere in general terms is hardly "too specific".

About the priciple of not mixing "apples and pears", that related to listing "British Isles" alongside states and countries as if it was one. It does not mean that we cannot say that a painter was from the UK and traveled elsewhere in Europe. --— RA (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the above points are intended as a criticism of the reasons given to make the change proposed. I actually don't think it would make a fig of a difference either way. However, I don't think it is the business of this Task Force to go "correcting" articles for no good reason. Where this Task Force does make changes, they should be the most minimal possible to correct possible sources of confusion. (I also think this Task Force should avoid adding or removing cotentious terms where it can.) Therefore, in respect of this article, I suggest it be changed to "... and sought them out on his frequent travels around the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe." --— RA (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Last time I looked the whole of the UK and Ireland were in Europe, so lets just keep it to that, delete United Kingdom--Snowded ^TALK 17:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd second Snowded here. It could be changed to British Isles and mainland Europe, but that seems to be pointless. Just change it to Europe, full stop. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not! If he were from America or Borneo, possibly, but for someone from & living in the UK, especially at this date, to talk of "travels in Europe" clearly implies continental travel. Even now, if I'm living in London & go to Ipswich for the day, that is "travelling in Europe", but it is just misleading to describe it so. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for adding "British Isles" @ Augustus John

The article already uses Europe & AJ was on the island of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I do wonder if UK is confusing to some readers in pre-1922 contexts - many may associate UK with the modern geographical boundaries and be somewhat unaware of the Irish dimension. For that reason, I do favour BI in some of the older contexts where it is intended as a passing geographical reference rather than some political explanation. John seems to have travelled pretty widely around these islands, so that aspect seems to fit as well. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't say UK & Europe or BI & Europe James, UK and BI are both a part of Europe --Snowded ^TALK 11:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In theory, yes, but people frequently do draw a distinction between the two, even though to purists one includes the other. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you in the "Fog in Channel, Europe cut off" group then? Its nothing to do with purism, its a straight forward error --Snowded ^TALK 11:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really, it's just a way of speaking. BI is officially in the EU, if that's what you mean, it's geographically part of Europe and it's also distinct from Europe. If we're going to get rid of every place in Wikipedia where it says something like "throghout Italy and Europe" to take an analogy, we are in for a big job. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to search them out, but correcting them when they come up ... --Snowded ^TALK 12:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is your objection then to any attempt to insert BI in a context where Europe is also mentioned? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Object is to either BI or UK being used with a "and Europe". Take the highest geographical area applicable --Snowded ^TALK 15:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinions of course, but that can't possibly be a rule - how can you legislate to say people can't say "the UK and Europe"? Here are 1,880 examples of where they already do in en-WP [19], just to get us started - shall we go through them one at a time to see how they hold up? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Come on you know better than that. Several thousand people expect the rapture to come soon and the number of hits on the return of the green feather serpent god of the myans in 2012 is legion. We are building an encyclopedia here and we have some responsibility when the opportunity presents it self to get things right. --Snowded ^TALK 17:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean "better than that" from your particular viewpoint - there's nothing wrong with "Britain and Europe", "UK and Europe", "France and Europe", etc - they are just useful turns of phrase. Unless you happen to have a strong need to justify exclusion of a certain phrase, perish the thought! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a strong preference for accurate language and avoiding tautology. I have a further strong feeling about phrases which seek to imply that somehow or other the UK or BI are not a part of Europe. You last sentence is uncalled for, there is a stronger case that people arguing for a tautology are seeking to impose a "certain phrase" --Snowded ^TALK 17:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing "innacurate" about "Britain and Europe". It's a matter of opinion. Apparently you reject the notion that it is a matter of opinion, yet it remains one, regardless, not a matter of "accuracy". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it or is it not a tautology? "the saying of the same thing twice in different words" --Snowded ^TALK 18:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It belongs to that class of things that sound superficially tautological but on close inspection are not, because they are not comparing like with like. Saying "France and Europe" is a compound statement - it is about France and Europe as a comparison, not about the unique identities, France and Europe, one of which belongs to the other. People who hold the view that Europe is superior to Britain, for example, those nationalists who favour that approach because it downgrades their membership of the UK and, they feel, enhances their potential as seperate nations "within Europe" would obviously argue against the existence of a "UK and Europe" and for a position that the UK was always subordinate to Europe. So it is politically loaded from top to bottom and personally, I find appeals to simplistic argument on this topic, pretty silly. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You are reading an awful amount of speculation about motivation into what is a simple (not simplistic) issue. Tautology is be avoided, that isn't silly its just plain good sense. --Snowded ^TALK 18:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And you are determinedly avoiding a genuine debate - simply repeating that it's a tautology, when it isn't, advances nothing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

But that is my argument James, its a tautology and tautologies should be avoided. Not sure what else you want me to debate really. --Snowded ^TALK 19:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In cases like nations, nothing is ever as simple as a logical tautology. A sentence containing the phrase "carrots and vegetables" is perhaps tautological, but a sentence containing the phrase "British Isles and Europe" need not be. That is because the phrase "British Isles" can contain many shaded meanings. It can be a concept, a literal physical entity, an identity, a set of values.... the list goes on. I really won't take more time on this, we will have to agree to disagree, but I am making it clear that I can't accept the idea that those phrases can't co-exist in Wikipedia - and at least several thousand other edits in WP agree with me on a single usage. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So why introduce a term in addition to Europe to complicate things? --Snowded ^TALK 19:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To people in Britain, "Europe" does, I'm afraid, have two meanings. One is "the continent of which we are part", and the other is "the mainland of which we are not part". One may be more "correct" to us, but language doesn't always work like that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If there's objection to adding BI? shouldn't those objections be placed under the 'Arguments against...' section? GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

UK and Europe was once present on the UK article, I changed Europe to Mainland Europe, appears to be an ingrained problem. Anyway, GoodDay raises a point on process, this isn't an argument against adding it in a way, but to remove the option completely... slightly different? I guess the new system still has kinks.

Arguments against adding "British Isles" @ Augustus John

I'm convinced of the opposition to Europe and British Isles being used. Indeed, let's just use Europe, as the British Isles is within that continent. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it reads better --Snowded ^TALK 17:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• In summary, adding "British Isles" is not supported in the context of the article. The text in the article is somewhat at fault and isn't accurate or clear in places. For example, strictly speaking, Romani people are a single ethnic group while "Gypsies" include other nomadic ethnic groups including Irish Travellers. It's probably more correct to say he was "particularly interested" in Gypsies (which is the term he used himself) even though many references state he was interested in "Romany" life and culture. That said, the predominant ethnic group in England was Romani. He even learned to speak Romani. In his travels to France, Italy, Ireland, etc, he also met and interacted with other ethnic nomadic groups such as Irish Travellers. It's not altogether accurate or correct to say that he "sought out" gypsies on his "frequent travels". This appears to be WP:OR. Is there a reference for this? In a sense, he saw himself *as* a gypsy. For a time, he lived like a gypsy, frequently traveling in a caravan up and down the roads of England, and travelling to France. Sure - he visited Ireland several times and he was a friend of Lady Gregory, but his "frequent travels" were around England, and northern France as these were annual during that period. On the whole, his obsession with Gypsy lore is downplayed significantly in this article, and for such an important artist, this aspect of the article is poor. --HighKing (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of which has virtually nothing to do with the subject in hand. I suggest "British Isles and mainland Europe" as a sensible alternative to the present text. LevenBoy (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing like a good point-by-point riposte. --HighKing (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point, the whole thing is unreferenced so it can be struck anyway, if there is a reference then we can take whatever that says. --Snowded ^TALK 19:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that we are (I thought) discussing the simple issue of add/delete here, not the wider issue of all other modifications to an article that may or may not arise. Unless there's another scope creep coming in that we didn't agree to. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of Add/Delete, the current text is WP:OR and should be struck. As to what can be referenced, I've tried to produce a summary of what was intended or meant. Part of the problem I encountered is that the current text is so poor, it needs expansion. --HighKing (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That last argument (by HK) I may agree with. The reference for the suggested BI inclusion passage refers to "The Art of Augustus John" - a quick search for the word "Romani" in that book [20] gives information about visits to Wales only. So there may be a good debating point there. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Keeping the reference to sources makes most sense --Snowded ^TALK 19:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The BBC ref says that he "was deeply influenced by the Romany tradition, lifestyle and language; he spent time travelling with gypsy caravans in Wales, Dorset and Ireland." Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy, knock it off. Snowded, you should know better than to reply to this. TFOWR 20:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Do I smell policy shopping in some of the above responses? I think so. LevenBoy (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC) I think you smell people trying to find references to support facts rather than just taking a POV position without providing any reasoning or argument. --Snowded TALK 20:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC) No, this is typical of what happens in these debates. A reasonable proposal is made and then it's all hands on deck to identify some method or other (i.e. policy) that can be used to counteract it. This might include aggressive challenging of references, citing OR, NPOV, and proposals to delete whole passages or even whole articles. LevenBoy (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To some extent, "aggressive challenging of references" is a pretty good description of the Wikipedia editing process LB, so I wouldn't overdo that point. You were on firmer ground looking for refs to support inclusion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• To summarise, we have two relevant references in the article.

• (1) The reference to the intended target sentence for the "BI add", in the Provence section - this reference only mentions visits to Wales in connection with the "Romani" people that the artist was interested in painting.

• (2) A general reference higher up in the article to a BBC Wales article about the artist [21] that does, as Ghyrmtle points out, reference visits to Ireland in connection with Romani people.

• Strictly speaking therefore, the inclusion in the proposed sentence falls, as the ref in that sentence does not support it. On the other hand, if we take the BBC article as a source for the page in general, then it succeeds.

• Therefore we need to decide if general pre-existing refs in a given article are valid for inclusion at any point in the article. If not, then it has to be an existing ref in exactly the sentence at question. Views? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that it's perfectly acceptable to find new refs to support a position. In fact, it's encouraged (so long as WEIGHT, RS, etc, is observed...) --HighKing (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well we could just reflect the BBC quote and say "Wales, Dorset and Ireland." Its accurate and informative and folloes the reference --Snowded ^TALK 21:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The shortest and easiest way of saying that is "British Isles". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No Scotland, only one English county, no mention of IoM etc. etc. That is stretching things a bit. Source is informative as it shows the limit of his travel, and in general following the source is the best way on these disputes --Snowded ^TALK 21:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Which just goes back to what geographically constitutes "British Isles". What are the limits for what is regarded as acceptable? Until that is clarified, we are clearly going to get - exactly - nowhere. I would rather all further deletes/adds be frozen until such time as that is agreed, since it's clear that no argument for inclusion on geographical grounds is acceptable under the current rather ill-defined conditions. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I'd say we need to include at least Ireland, GB, and one of the Crown Dependencies. Otherwise it would simply be "Britain and Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of the question. LevenBoy (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Shall we structure it in a new section? We can each say what we would find acceptable. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused again. This is the section for arguments against usage of British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a separate discussion. Probably a good idea to break it off from here and start a new section, although if the discussion is going to get filled with mindless comments with no substance, then we may have to move it elsewhere - maybe one of our Talk pages. --HighKing (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Best to move to AJ talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Conkers

Usual problem. Prior history of "The Troubles" vis-a-vis Ireland.

Comonsense applies as usual.

Yes, kids play conkers on the Isle of Man [22] and Channel Islands [23] and, no, they are not part of Britain or Ireland.

Move from "Britain and Ireland" to "British Isles". --Triton Rocker (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly should say throughout the British Isles and former British colonies. Yes BritishWatcher (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Triton Rocker, can you use {{BID}} to let the local talkpage editors know about this discussion? Thanks! TFOWR 11:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • PING! Triton Rocker, can you do this? It's not fair on article editors to hold discussions in relative secrecy. Openness is all... TFOWR 09:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Traditionally" - just a thought, but isn't it "traditionally" that's the problem here? There seems to be concern that conkers hasn't been "traditionally" played in Ireland, and I'm fairly certain it won't "traditionally" have been played in most former colonies. Canada, maybe, but Australia is unlikely and New Zealand just doesn't have the history to support it ("Traditional games" in New Zealand being more a Māoritanga thing...) Just a thought, and don't read too much into this comment, but I'd prefer not to go too far down a side-road, only to realise later that the issue was much easier than we thought... TFOWR 09:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In a word, Yes. The use of "traditionally" suggests the author wants to attribute the origins of the game, and the popularity of the game, with schoolchildren hailing from a specific area. Dropping "traditionally" would remove some objections for sure. Although I would be concerned that we're materially changing the authors intention, and that we're altering article simply to accommodate using "British Isles". --HighKing (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles" @ Conkers

• Since conkers is played by children, on the CI, IoM, GB & I? then use British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• At present the article says Britain, Ireland and former British colonies. Britain links to the United Kingdom. There is evidence showing conkers is played on the Isle of man too yet the Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom. There for we are not informing the reader of valid information. As this clearly applies throughout the British Isles, we should say throughout or within the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

These two sources are about the Isle of Man.

• [24] "CONKERS might have been outlawed in some UK schools, but it's still being played in Manx schools and this weekend it's hoped a competition will boost the playground game's profile. "Braaid Young Men's Club is staging its annual conker competition on Saturday, starting at 7pm, and it's open to all children and there'll even be the chance for mums and dads to have a go too. Organiser Sue Howe said: 'We are trying to maintain this traditional sport and the committee was out last weekend collecting conkers."

• [25] "AS AUTUMN approaches, the Island is going bonkers about conkers."

And about Ireland..

• [26] "Irish Conker Championship. The most important game of many an Irish youth. - Threading a chestnut (conker) with a piece of string and then hitting your opponents..."
• [27] Irish conker championships.

These sources show that conkers is not just restricted to England or Great Britain. They are clearly also played in Isle of Man and Ireland. if the word "traditionally" concerns people then we should simply replace that with "mainly" or something like that. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Most sensible

British Isles works for me so made the edit. --Blue is better (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Which I've reverted. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Blue is better, the purpose of this page is to discuss proposed edits, reach a consensus, and then make any change required. Please don't make edits until there issues are resolved. TFOWR 21:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry, silly old me and there was me thinking the Irish played conkers too or are they all [unacceptable comment removed TFOWR 21:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)]? --Blue is better (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed part of your comment. Please don't make comments like that. Focus on discussing why changes should or should not be made, and leave the ethnic slurs for ... well, anywhere but Wikipedia. TFOWR 21:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think people accept the Irish play with conkers (GB + Ireland is in the article already). We have to prove to everyone that people in the Isle of Man and Channel Islands are not isolated enough never to play with Conkers. If that can be proven then people throughout the whole British Isles play with conkers and clearly British Isles should be used. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the consensus is that children throughout the British Isles play conkers. QED --Blue is better (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about having to prove conkers in the IoM. I think if it's played in GB and also Ireland then that's sufficient for British Isles to be used. If they are also played in IoM or CI, or both, then fine - that's definitely a clincher. LevenBoy (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy is correct and I already gave you references for Ireland, the IoM and CI. Individuals should stop playing policeman on others edits provocative as Snowded and now GoodDay are doing. I have read up and it is actually one of the Wikipedia's principles. Please do not bite the newcomers. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Brought a tear to me eye. GoodDay (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Came across this issue by default but wonder why so much time and energy has been taken up by something so simple. It occurs to me that some editors are out to cause trouble whatever the disagreement may be about. --Blue is better (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• This has got to be one of the most obvious where British Isles is preferable. The game is played across the islands - it's already mentioned that this is the case (GB & I). Now we have evidence it's played in other parts of the British Isles as well. There is just no valid reason why this one shouldn't be changed. If the arguments proffered below not to change to BI are accepted here then we're basically saying that British Isles is inappropriate in all cases. LevenBoy (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree it does seem to be one of the obvious ones, yet a change is dismissed as tokenism. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Why isn't this one closed. It is obvious. --LevenBoy (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against "British Isles" @ Conkers

• The word Traditional in the sentence implies that conkers is a traditional game played in Britain and Ireland. This is not the case. This is Traditionally and Culturally a British game. --HighKing (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And that is why we need to use a broader brush like "British Isles" as it includes past and present. How long is tradition? (I must ask a Balkan friend if they played the game there and what they called it).

Commonsense would suggest that as long as their have been chestnuts, good bits of string and little boys there have been games of conkers played 'on the British Isles' [28].

Historically speaking, and certainly as we are using it here, a large part of Ireland is culturally Anglo-Norman, which is what I think you mistaking "British" for, and has been so since the Middle Ages. Again, you are also mistaking Great Britain with British.

What is more important is that it is wrong to exclude the IoM and CI as the current topic says.

The problem with the references, most of which are non-academic, is that they make exactly the same mistake as we are highlighting about the misuse of the Britain. --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• No discernible benefit. This is not an argument against use of "British Isles" in this case but against tokenistic changing one form of wording to another in general. This is important in order to keep a handle on the purpose of this page and to keep a focus on the purpose of our contributions to this encyclopedia. Unless there is a reason why a change (one way or the other) would genuinely (non-trivially) improve the article, I can't see any good reason to go inserting/removing charged wording from an article (any article). Otherwise, this page is simply a theatre for the same few belligerents to go trawling through the 'pedia and propose pointless changes from British Isles to something else or vice versa. There are probably tens thousands of instances where either turn of phrase is fine. The point of our being here is to write an encyclopedia, not to write an encyclopedia with the most/least instances of the phrase British Isles. --RA (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• References:
  • World English by Robert Hendrickson, 2001 - This name for the horse chestnut is used mainly in England, but the British game called "conkers" is sometimes played by children in the United States
  • The genie in the bottle: 64 all new commentaries on the fascinating chemistry of everyday life - So in the early 1900s British children played conkers, a game that is perhaps best described as an early form of Survivor
  • British language & culture By Lonely Planet - Conkers is the name of a game played by children using horse chestnuts, which has been around for at least 400 years.
  • Eccentric Britain, 2nd: The Bradt Guide to Britain's Follies and Foibles By Benedict Le Vay - It took me an embarrassingly long time to realise she was talking about good old British conkers
  • Pay per click search engine marketing for dummies By Peter Kent - For those of you not fortunate enough to be Britist, Conkers is a kid's game in which the nut of the horse chestnut tree is dried, drilled, and threaded onto a string;
  • British phrasebook By Elizabeth Bartsch-Parker, Stephen Burger, Roibeard O'Maolalaigh - a game played by children using horse chestnuts, which are also called conkers. English children have called horse chestnuts conkers since the early 17th century.
  • New York's best-kept secrets by Mike Michaelson - Best British Kids' Game to Go Nuts About - Conkers
  • Leisure and recreation management By George Torkildsen - Some of the games embedded in British culture are shuttlecock, spinning tops, hopscotch and conkers and some of these games have been played all over the world for centuries and later on Conkers appears to be a very British game

Overall, I believe most people view Conkers as traditionally a British game. --HighKing (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with RA --Snowded ^TALK 08:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because you view it as a British Game does not mean that it is not played in Ireland and throughout the British Isles. Ireland is already in the article text, so if you are concerned about this being applied to Ireland when it shouldnt, we could say within the British Isles, making it less strictly applied to Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If it was not played traditionally in Ireland (I don't know - it has evidently been played there recently, to some extent, see article text), a solution would be to simply remove the word "Ireland" from the first sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

And insert British Isles. If this has been played in GB, Ireland and we have sources above about Isle of Man and Channel Islands, i dont see the problem with BI in this case. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Britain and some former British colonies" is more than adequate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy with that --Snowded ^TALK 09:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand this although i must admit ive not looked in any detail at this case. Ghmyrtle has said that it has been played in Ireland to some extent. If the article says that, how can we now just say Britain and former colonies? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit like saying that "Hurling is traditionally played in the British Isles" since hurling is recently being played in London. --HighKing (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If this is played in Great Britain, Ireland, Channel Islands and Isle of Man then we clearly can say British Isles, we do not need every part of the BI in order to say it, but in this case it appears there is sources for all. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to insert words that are potentially misleading. There are refs for the fact that it is, or has been, played in Ireland, but not that it was traditionally played in Ireland. ".. [T]raditionally played...in Britain and some former British colonies" is, simply, a clearer and more accurate wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

We could delete "traditionally" BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

...and/or "Ireland". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Most games have been played somewhere at some time and this case wherever there are horse chestnuts. The "traditional" is important in articles like this as we are talking about origins. We are getting into tokenistic insertion (per RA) which is as bad (and currently more prevalent) thank tokenistic removal. --Snowded ^TALK 10:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The article covers Ireland, i there for do not see why Ireland should be deleted. And if it does not have to be deleted, i see no reason why British Isles is not more appropriate, they play with Conkers in the Isle of Man and Channel Islands too. If sources back that up, where is the problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Needless insertion per Ghmyrtle and RA above. Current version is just fine and valid --Snowded ^TALK 10:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if this has been mentioned before or if it is sourced in the article. But a quick search found this..

"Irish Conker Championship. The most important game of many an Irish youth. - Threading a chestnut (conker) with a piece of string and then hitting your opponents...""[29]

If that is right surely traditionally is fine in relation to Ireland? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but an ad for the Irish Conker championships in the Lonely Planet book listing "events" throughout Ireland .... really? And nobody is saying that Conkers has never been played in Ireland, or that is never gets played in Ireland. You've tried to turn this into a simple matter of showing that conkers is played in Ireland, whereas what you're failing to do is show that Conkers is traditionally played in Ireland, and shares origins within Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well you do not have to convince me, other editors seem to think the current wording is fine. Of course if we changed it to say "traditionally played within the British Isles" it would avoid mentioning Ireland specifically. I do not see the problem with the word traditionally being used with Ireland though, it is clear its a traditional game in Ireland too. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the first time ive paid attention to this conkers issue, but i am honestly not understanding the case people are trying to make? The present article introduction clearly states:

"Conkers or conker is a game traditionally played mostly by children in Britain, Ireland and some former British colonies using the seeds of horse-chestnut trees – the name conker is also applied to the seed and to the tree itself. "

Snowded is saying the current version is fine. Others are claiming it does not apply to Ireland at all, or that there are sources for Ireland, but its misleading if we say "traditionally". BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason for inclusion of British Isles in this case is not tokenism. We have to ask the question.. Does this apply to Great Britain - Yes. Does this apply to Ireland - apparently yes. If sources show it also applies to the Channel islands or Isle of Man then clearly they should be mentioned too. There is no point in saying Britain, Ireland, Channel Islands, Isle of Man along with former colonies. When we can just say throughout the British Isles and former British colonies. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've found two new refs - here (scroll down - near bottom of page), and here. Having seen those, I agree that the current wording seems OK and should be left as it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So we know it definitely includes GB + Ireland. If there are clear sources showing its use in the Isle of Man or Channel Islands too what should we do? There has to be some change, saying throughout the BI rather than listing them seems easier. If there are not clear sources about either the IOM or CI then i too support keeping the status quo. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ive found this [30]

"CONKERS might have been outlawed in some UK schools, but it's still being played in Manx schools and this weekend it's hoped a competition will boost the playground game's profile. "Braaid Young Men's Club is staging its annual conker competition on Saturday, starting at 7pm, and it's open to all children and there'll even be the chance for mums and dads to have a go too. Organiser Sue Howe said: 'We are trying to maintain this traditional sport and the committee was out last weekend collecting conkers.

It seems to be this is a traditional game throughout the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Also found this: "AS AUTUMN approaches, the Island is going bonkers about conkers." - [31] BritishWatcher (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

[Snip. If you have to write "at the risk of being snipped..." you clearly realise that the post was unacceptable. LevenBoy, knock it off. Any more of that and I'll start with remedial actions. TFOWR 12:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)]

• As per RA, no benefit in changing. BI and B and I are synonymous in most people's eys. Fmph (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So we should keep Britain + Ireland there because people incorrectly think "Britain and Ireland" covers the Isle of Man and Channel Islands? How wonderful. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

One benefit would be the wording would actually be more accurate. But i suppose that is not too important. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt the average reader has any idea of the detailed questions of what is or is not included in British Isles, its not clear even here at times when you look at the citations. Britain and Ireland is a valid equivalent for British Isles --Snowded ^TALK 15:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Almost every single reliable source states Ireland is part of the British Isles. You can not say the same thing about Isle of Man and Channel Islands being part of Britain and Ireland. The opposite is the case. I am still waiting with interest to see a source saying Britain and Ireland is an archipelago in North West Europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Ireland is a part of the British Isles, I can say based on reality and references that Britain and Ireland is often used as a substitute for British Isles. --Snowded ^TALK 15:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully accept Britain and Ireland is used instead of talking about the archipelago in north west europe known as the British Isles. But that does not mean Britain and Ireland includes the whole area covered by the British Isles. Britain either means the island or the UK. Ive not seen sources saying it covers UK+IoM+CI or GB+IoM+CI BritishWatcher (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the references to it being an equivalent that I have seen don't exclude those areas and the various Atlas's tend to include them--Snowded ^TALK 16:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources i have seen do not describe GB + and Ireland as an archipelago in north west europe. That is the key. Sure you can have a map titled GB and Ireland which shows the Isle of Man on it, considering its position its rather hard to avoid it on a single image. But that doesnt mean the archipelago is Britain and Ireland. If there is a map of the USA and Canada it does not mean that is now the title of the North American continent. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Like I've said, this one is just so obvious that it should be BI, that really it should be immediately changed. LevenBoy (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's an opinion it doesn't necessarily have agreement (and it contains no argument). BW - Reliable sources say that B&I is an equivalent to BI and it is clearly used as such. GB&I is a different matter. In terms of practice, well the Atlas titles used to be BI so are you saying they excluded IoM then? --Snowded ^TALK 09:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen sources that describe Britain and Ireland as the equivalent of British Isles (an archipelago in north west Europe). Some atlas titles may now just say Britain and Ireland, and they may include showing the isle of man. It does not mean Britain and Ireland is an archipelago. B+I is a term used instead of referring to the archipelago. But in this case the article says "Britain, Ireland and former British colonies" Britain links to the UK and Ireland links to the island. There for the Isle of Man is excluded and yet we have sources showing they play conkers there too. This is a tradition throughout the British Isles and some former British colonies. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

@Snowded. Whereas it is correct to say "Britain and Ireland is often used as a substitute for British Isles", it is equally true to say that the world over "England" is used for the whole of Britain. Both statements are equally wrong. And you know it. So why argue it?

You would not dream of arguing for the use of England for Britain, so why argue for 'Britain and Ireland' for British Isles? No, it is not an equivalent.

We can build an encyclopedia on ambiguous or erroneous statements albethey referenced from children's books, popular media and archaic sources. Or we reflect an accurate view of the situation. Which would you suggest?

I mentioned an very good academic book recently which summarised the problem in its introduction. The problem lies within the chauvinist academic view pre-1960/70s when "British history" was really used to mean "English history" (the victor getting to write it), when England was commonly used to mean Britain (as it still is the world over thanks to that time), and the "Celtic Fringes" were merely an non-serious aside. This has changed. Partly to do with the political movements in Ireland but more to do with the changes in our shared class system and academia. It has become far more interesting and respectful.

This particular partisan conflict above really encapsulates the entirety of conflict here (again). Yes, it is used but it is used ERRONEOUSLY.

If we are to allow Ireland the courtesy of identification, then we must also allow the same courtesy to the IoM and CIs. We cannot and so therefore we are forced to accept British Isles.

My position therefore is not anti-HighKing's removal of the term British Islesn or his "equal" placement of the world "Ireland" at every opportunity, but pro an eglatarian recognition and inclusion of the IoM and CI --- the shorthand for which is "British Isles" every time.

I cannot help but feel the problem is in the misunderstanding and misassociation of the term British Isles, and even British, within a few minds. Britishness has been co-created by the Anglo-Norman-Saxons, the Picts and Celts, the Romans, more than a few Belgians and Jews, and even the Britons --- of which some of the Welsh are probably the last survivors. Historically, since the Middle Ages, Irish society has been Anglicised, particularly its gentry, arguably even moreso that the Scots and remote Welsh. Britishness continues to be changed by Black and Asian influences. It is not England's.

At some point, you have got to give up and accept that. --Triton Rocker (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

England is mistakenly used instead of Britain, agreed and its wrong to do so and a common error. The difference is that the BI to B&I switch is a deliberate one, a matter of choice by various authorities. So its not a mistake and its not in error, its part of the evolution of language (something your academic reference reinforces). As to your speculation on "misunderstandings and mis-associations" I don't see the particular relevance of this to the issue so I make no comment --Snowded ^TALK 09:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

But where are the actual sources saying B+I is the term for an archipelago in north west europe. All the sources ive seen simply suggest alternative terms are being used instead of talking about the archipelago. I have yet to see sources stating B+I is an archipelago. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like Wikilawyering to me BW. If a reliable source says that B&I is an equivalent to BI it doesn't need to spell out the archipelago stuff. I assume you are not saying that only references that use the archipelago word count? --Snowded ^TALK 09:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Usual disclaimer: too little coffee, etc. Is B&I solely a geo-political term, and is this solely a geographical issue? I'm not saying either way, just asking. TFOWR 09:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

New disclaimer, too much coffee. I think B&I is geographical in use --Snowded ^TALK 10:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

B+I can be used geographically, the trouble is i have yet to see sources stating it can be used geographically to describe an archipelago in North West Europe commonly known as the British Isles. This is not wikilawyering. I believe the following sentence: Britain and Ireland is an archipelago in north west Europe would be totally incorrect, and until i see several reliable sources stating otherwise that will continue to be my view on this. I am still waiting to hear why British Isles is incorrect or unacceptable for this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I or anyone else suggesting that such a wording be used. However when we say something like "originated in" it is perfectly OK to say "originated in Britain and Ireland" or "originated in the British Isles". Both are valid and will be better or worse in different contexts. --Snowded ^TALK 12:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The point is, if that wording i put in bold would not be considered correct then B+I is not another name for the archipelago which includes the Isle of Man and channel islands. It is simply an alternative term to avoid mentioning the archipelago all together. The two areas it talks about are different. The article does not say "originated in". It says traditionally played in, yet its clear that its played in the isle of man too. Britain at present on that article links to United Kingdom. The Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom. Simply saying played within the British Isles and Former British colonies seems like the easiest solution. Use of something like "within" does not mean it has to be played in every single part anyway. And we could always add, "mainly in England where it originated" or soemting like that. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

BW, it is really really tedious when you just repeat the same point time and time again. Please see all my other comments --Snowded ^TALK 18:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that all your other comments ever Snowded? That should keep BW busy for a while. In the meantime, this is becoming quite the lamest debate we have had so far, and that's saying something. I was thinking of proposing adding BI to Bonkers but I suppose that would be a step too far, even for BISE. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it would do him good :-) Actually this is not about conkers anymore, its a more serious point about if B&I is an alternative to BI - should probably be a separate thread but without repetition. --Snowded ^TALK 19:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A Britain that at present links to the United Kingdom. I am not sure what Britain should link to if its to include the isle of man and channel islands. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Alot of editors seem to agree with me, that BI should be added. Yet none of them have joined up with me at the Arguments for... section, why? GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your one line perfectly sums up the situation lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

...and Aesculus, Aesculus hippocastanum

(I've removed Aesculus from the above section, as it's a separate issue: childhood game vs. tree. TFOWR 09:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC))

(And I added Aesculus hippocastanum at no extra charge! I'm wanting a decent Christmas bonus, however... TFOWR 10:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC))

And can someone state the reasons why this case has been opened? Using policies and references. Otherwise, can @TFWOR simply close this. --HighKing (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I opened it procedurally, as Aesculus had been added to the "Conkers" discussion above, and childhoold games and trees are two separate issues (though there's arguably a case that this what's decided at "conkers" would apply here, too). I think there's value in having a discussion: at present the article simply says "Britain" (no wikilink). The Aesculus hippocastanum article discusses "conkers" in "Britain and Ireland", it may be that Britain and Ireland is better, or that British Isles is better. Again, I think it's worth having the discussion since it's been (indirectly) brought up by way of the "conkers" discussion. TFOWR 13:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OK - a procedural open. OK, but we still need to see what the case for changing the article is. Just some simple reasons is fine - as in why should the article be changed - is there a reference to suggest it should be changed, is it wrong, etc. --HighKing (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles" @ Aesculus, Aesculus hippocastanum

• Aesculus hippocastanum should have an "introduced to the British Isles in the 17th Century" somewhere. You could extend it to something like "introduced to the British Isles in the 17th Century where its nuts, called conkers, have become a popular game played mainly by children" as it has become a notable part of our shared culture. --Triton Rocker (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Aesculus should have British Isles instead of Britain and Ireland, as usual, because the latter is just plainly wrong. It is as simple as that. It is another case for the blanket ruling. --Triton Rocker (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Accept BI and close, as above. (Chestnut trees are not even "traditional" to anywhere on the BI, they came from the Balkans). --LevenBoy (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against "British Isles" @ Aesculus, Aesculus hippocastanum

• No case made for change. No diffs, no references, etc. --HighKing (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

List of British Isles rockpool life

Raised by IP editor here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well he needs a better excuse that the "politically motivated" title cry. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be primarily "fauna". TFOWR 09:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As it is unreferenced, I hardly see how an editor can claim it ignores ireland. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be primarily "fauna" ???? Except for the entire section entitled "Plants" :-)

The first order of business would suggest that we find a reference. My first quickie pass doesn't show anything obvious on the first few pages of Google Books. Did we not come across a book before dealing with the Sea Coasts of the British Isles or something like that?? --HighKing (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the species list it could as well be for North Western Europe - you find the same species in Brittany for example. It seems harmless, geographical and all that but it would be nice to see a reference to say there is something distinctive --Snowded ^TALK 16:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Plants" consists of two sub-division: "algae" and "lichens". I'd imagine that would greatly simplify our examination compared to the "animals" section, which consists of seven sub-divisions. Fortunately we have a general rule for "animals", so we can focus on "plants" and whether they can be treated as we'd treat fauna. TFOWR 16:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What will you do if there are slime moulds? They are vegetables that become animals then revert  ;-) --Snowded ^TALK 16:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes feel trapped in another dimension. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No change is needed. The article has had that title for years, the creator has responded to the IP claim the title is politically motivated. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. Perhaps not. T'would be nice to have a concrete reason based on precedent and/or policy/guidelines, no? --HighKing (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

When concrete reasons to change the status quo are presented, i will look into this matter in more detail. Some random IP claiming an articles title is politically motivated, is not a just reason to consider this an open case for us all to waste our time on. if it is justification it sets a terrible precedent that could flood BISE in an hour with dozens of cases.BritishWatcher (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's true and given that it's just a list page, it's particularly difficult. Many of the individual items in the list (to take this seriously, which perhaps one shouldn't) do mention both Ireland and Britain incidentally. Cancer pagurus for example. The list article does obtrude into flora but it is mainly fauna-related. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As requested, concrete reasons to examine usage on this article are that without references, it does not denote notability, and is WP:OR. --HighKing (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a category entitled "British Isles coastal fauna" although no article. I've come across a number of publications. This book A student's guide to the seashore covers the British Isles although doesn't outline why it's notable in any way, and covers more than just rock pools. There appears to be a number of other books that detail much the same topics, but none from the point of view of the British Isles. A Beginner's Guide to Ireland's Seashore by Helena Challinor, Susan Murphy Wickens, Jane Clark and Audrey Murphy, Handbook of the marine fauna of north-west Europe, The biology of rocky shores (worldwide), and Seashore of Britain and Europe. Perhaps this article could become the basis of an expanded (and referenced) list to include more than just Coastal fauna (and even flora). As it is, the main objection is that it is unsourced and thereby WP:OR. What if the article was moved to List of fauna of the British Isles and expanded to more than just rockpool life, and included a lot of the articles in the already existing category? --HighKing (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for changing from "British Isles" @ List of British Isles rockpool life

Until/unless we get a reference, this is WP:OR and arguably not notable. --HighKing (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for retaining "British Isles" @ List of British Isles rockpool life

There doesn't appear to be any discernible benefit with respect to the article or topic that would come about from a rename. --RA (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No specific valid reason for the change; list article, therefore difficult to build referencing cases; listed items include previously discussed fauna guideline parameters; listed articles include multiple mentions of localities across the archipelago. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Article title has been stable for 3 years since it was created.
• Article created by an uninvolved editor who has responded to the random IP's accusation of "political motivation" and "a British jingoistic claim over Ireland and the Irish" on the talkpage of the article.
• Article is in categories Category:British Isles coastal fauna Category:Ecology of the British Isles so having an article which covers the isles is not out of place.
• Article does cover some Fauna, something people have agreed is a valid area for use of British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This article deals with rockpool life, and there is no basis for the IP's claim that it is only for Great Britain. Snowded mentioned it would be the same for much of north-west Europe, so Ireland would be included there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Usual arguments. --LevenBoy (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Branimir Jelić

The article states During the 1930s Jelić sojourned in South America, Austria again (in mid-1932), Berlin (July 1932 – spring 1934), USA (until October 1934), Italy (until April 1936), Germany (until early 1939), USA (until September 1939) and Gibraltar (October 1939 – June 1940) before being detained on the British Isles. Since he was detained by the British on the Isle of Man, this should read as "Isle of Man on behalf of the British" or something equally clear. --HighKing (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am confused - I thought there was general agreement that the I of M was a typical marker for BI usage? Anyway, the section title that uses "United Kingdom" in that article appears to be wrong. I would accept it being more precise but at the moment, BI is not wrong from the previous discussions we've had on this sort of issue. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is how many of the components you need. If there is no Ireland then there is no case for BI, if Ireland is there then IoM becomes significant. --Snowded ^TALK 10:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose if it's just IofM then it should probably just say so, although I wouldn't myself object to it saying IofM in the BI - after all, where is the IofM? It isn't in the UK technically, as stated in the article section title. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would object. We shouldn't use "British Isles" in a context where the subject matter deals with the UK (politics, wars, invasions, etc). There's a difference between "geographical" usage and "misleading geopolitical" usage. --HighKing (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not referring now to the use of BI higher up in the text. At the moment, the article lower down has the section title "In the United Kingdom (1940–1949)" and this goes on to talk about him being in the IofM and London. My point was that this section title is wrong, because it refers to the IofM as well. Therefore it should be changed. This is one of those cases where the blanket ruling "no politics" just doesn't hold water. Where is the IofM if it isn't in the BI? Clearly, if this section is to have a geographical reference in its title, it needs to be BI. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Its in Britain. Ask anyone. How about changing the section title to "In Britain (1940-1949)"? Fmph (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You will also need to change Isle of Man then Fmph, as that (rightly) says in the intro that it's in the BI. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget it's also in the British Islands, an appropriate geo-political term for articles such as these. --HighKing (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately just not a very well-known one. Wikipedia needs to use common names wherever possible. Even ones that some people find offensive, or argue are offensive to some. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What's not well-known about it exactly? It's on every British passport for a start.... Also, why exactly are you bringing up an argument about people finding British Isles offensive in response to my post? AFAIK, I have *never* used this argument (and don't personally find it offensive), and I see this as a cheap shot at trying to assign motives to me - something strictly forbidden here. --HighKing (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You know, it'd be nice if, for once, a discussion could be held without dragging it down to those levels. Not pointing fingers, but there's a strong pattern emerging as to the offenders. Hopefully somebody will take note! --HighKing (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't imputing that motive to you, I was referring to the general backdrop of the debate about the use of the term. It clearly states for example in the introduction to British Isles that "many find the term offensive", so this is hardly news. It's also forbidden to persist in trying to make each small statement in a sentence evidence of an attack. When I want to attack you, I will announce it at the ANI page for speed and convenience. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The British Islands is a legal term that is not used very often as a geographical term. Unlike the British Isles. Ive no problem with this one being changed, on the British Isles clearly makes little sense. Whilst "on the isle of man within the British Isles", would be helpful to the reader by giving them a basic idea of where the Isle of man is its not one im fussed about. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles" @ Branimir Jelić

• Usual arguments. --LevenBoy (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against "British Isles" @ Branimir Jelić

• It's a too vague alright - particularly since we are talking about activities by states during WWII. "British Isles" could be anywhere - including the Curragh. The article would benefit by being more specific about with the terminology. Suggestion: "...arrested by the United Kingdom and interned on the Isle of Man." --RA (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• You can only be "detained" by a government not a geography, agree with RA proposal --Snowded ^TALK 10:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• As things stand at the moment in the article, agreed. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Student

Just noticed this edit by an IP at Student. This is obviously someone making major changes to a stable article so that they can use the term BI. When it comes to education it's hard even using the term UK as Scottish, England/Wales and Northern Ireland all have different systems. I propose that this unexplained edit is reverted.

Revert. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It might not be deliberate - it looks to me like a novice user attempting to improve the article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the edits made by this editor, I believe it is someone who is very knowledgeable on Ireland/British issues, and knowledgable on Wikipedia policies and conventions. Their edits display a lot of wiki-editing knowledge. Their second edit summary mentions hat-notes for example, and they also "clean-up" numbers for text, and insert a reference. It is unlikely in the extreme that this editor is an innocent novice user. I also note the removal of the pipelinking of Republic of Ireland. Interestingly, that particular IP address also doesn't have a great reputation and is blacklisted on not one, but two, major spam prevention databases (check out senderbase for details). I'm going to revert "Student" immediately as per BRD. --HighKing (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert, and notify the IP about this discussion. WP:AGF, everyone. TFOWR 18:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

High King - reference this discussion in your edit summary when you revert. It'll keep the potential drama to a minimum. TFOWR 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly justified edit to me. The fact there are different education systems within the UK makes his edit all the more sensible. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing great to worry about IMHO (not least because the IP is based in Dublin). The only query I would raise about the edit is the slight mixing of United Kingdom and British Isles: "In the past, the term "student" was reserved for people studying at university level in the United Kingdom ... However, the American-English use of the word "student" to include pupils of all ages, even at elementary level, is now spreading to the British Isles."

Suggested rephrase: "In the past, the term "student" was reserved for people studying at university level in the United Kingdom and Ireland ... However, the American-English use of the word "student" to include pupils of all ages, even at elementary level, is now spreading to the British Isles." Suggest the heading be changed to "United Kingdom and Ireland" also.

There's no need to be suspicious of IP editors by default: IPs are human too. --RA (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

True - except this IP demonstrated a working knowledge of both Wikipedia and Irish/British articles. In previous articles, this editor removed the Republic of Ireland wikilinks - so I'm not suspicious by default, just by their behaviour. For this article, I initially reverted. I've since continued to edit and I've now split the UK and Ireland into separate sections - there's no justification for treating them under a single section - and I've created sections for the other European countries too. --HighKing (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the IP address does not track to Dublin. It is a Vodafone *Mobile* address. Could be anywhere. --HighKing (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, evidently it isn't a "novice" but I suppose though that an experienced editor preferring not to register and moving between his/her own PC and a mobile laptop would look like this. I just mean there may be no element of bad intention there. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that was the only edit by that IP so far that affected British Isles, this seems to not be a case of socking or trivial IP noviceness. Should it not therefore be a structured discussion rather than a reflex revert TFOWR? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the usual procedure is revert and discuss? Regardless, it's been reverted now (though the edit summary could have been improved, High King...) But structured discussion? Yes. I'll start one now.

Are you looking at the right edit summaries? My first edit summary was "revert to use countries as per original article, fix to use pipelinking where appropriate, and generally tidied up some pieces". The second edit summary was "Reorganized by country, added tags for countries under Europe, split UK and Ireland into separate sections.". Both edit summaries describe the actions taken, and looking through the history of most people's edit summaries, I believe I'd be in line for a prize for consecutive descriptive edit summaries. --HighKing (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I am. I was hoping for a link to this discussion. Something like "Per discussion at {{subst:dtag|nowiki|WT:BISE#Student}}". Sorry if that wasn't clear. TFOWR 11:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles" at Student

• Usual argument, we cannot exclude IoM and CI. The comments apply to NI at least probably RoI too. We cannot use "UK and Ireland". --LevenBoy (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against "British Isles" at Student

• The article was changed by an IP editor that appears to have knowledge of this topic, and other contentious topics such as wikilinking Republic of Ireland -> Ireland. Appears mischievous at best.
• No basis or reasons given for changing to use British Isles.
• Article originally grouped UK and Ireland together - no basis for that either --HighKing (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue of what the IP did is largely irrelevant, but it is correct that this article is best divided by country and the practises and culture surrounding the word "student" do vary a little both inside different parts of the UK and also between the UK and Ireland. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• As I said in the opening it's hard to even use the term UK due to the many different education systems and traditions and therefore BI would be even more ridiculous. Bjmullan (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wictor Esbensen

Article states that The ship escaped the German invasion of Norway on 9 April 1940, having arrived in Methil on 3 April, and continued in service around the British Isles. The voyage record shows that the ship only travelled around Great Britain (Scotland, Wales and England), and at least once visited France. Ship voyage link here. --HighKing (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wales & England? whatabout Scotland? GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. And Scotland too (Methil, Fife). --HighKing (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, we should use Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Before I set up a structured discussion, does anyone think "British Isles" would be appropriate here? TFOWR 08:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

British Isles is not incorrect in this case, it does not have to stop off in Ireland to be in service around the British Isles. However i have no problem with this being changed to say Great Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

One thing is, this is a maritime context. I would worry if this is about setting a precedent that says British Isles also cannot be used in maritime contexts where something is about British coastal waters. A second issue (and I hate to go round this yet again, but it still needs clarifying alas) is that there is no such reference in the article. HK has located an additional source (warsailors.com) and now, based on that source, makes an argument against usage in the article. Should we not be reviewing usages in articles as they stand and not encompassing every possible change? Otherwise, what is to stop going out and looking at all such cases and arguing that on the basis of this or that reference not yet in the article, the usage is either merited or demerited? A final, trivial point is that we can't really tell from that reference if it strayed off the British coastal margin and we also haven't made a ruling as to what BI means in the context of coastal waters. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The ref HK mentions is used in the article - last part of the "Career" section. It's not currently used to support "British Isles", however. TFOWR 10:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree about this not setting a precedent if changed. British Isles is 100% accurate and acceptable for how it is used in this article. We should not have to always change BI to Great Britain in such cases. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm i just looked at the source linked above and i see it says "source: "Shipwreck Index of the British Isles". BritishWatcher (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The ref is used to support other claims, but not the "British Isles" claim. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be used to support the claim, merely that it (a) is being used at present, and (b) isn't be used for the claim under discussion. TFOWR 10:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, yes, sorry, I didn't see that last entry. I have struck out that comment. So we are just on the detail - eg, are British maritime waters in the British Isles or just in Britain? At times note the ship was on convoy duty and in Norwegian waters - wartime convoys jinked all over the place and followed wierd routes to evade detection - it could easily, for example, have gone around Ireland, not that we know for sure. Indeed, I suspect none of us are experts in wartime convoy movements and ship operations. BI sounds all right in this instance. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Since this seems more interesting now than it did an hour three hours ago, I've opened up the structured discussion stuff below. TFOWR 10:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, i am certainly less convinced there needs to be a change since ive seen the stated source, even if its not directly related to its specific use within the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

". British Isles is not accurate and there are more accurate descriptions available such as "Great Britain" or even "North West Europe"- I do not understand this point because the British Isles is in North West Europe. How can British Isles be less accurate than Great Britain and North West Europe? That is like saying we live on Earth and in the Milky Way but not in the Solar system. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for BI @ Wictor Esbensen

• Source used to describe the locations the ship visited - "Shipwreck Index of the British Isles" so talking about the archipelago instead of just Great Britain makes sense.
• It is without doubt accurate - A ship can be in service around the British Isles without having to go round every single part of the British Isles.
• BI was added by an uninvolved editor when expanding it shortly after the article was created a year and a half ago and there has not been a problem with it. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• I tend to the view as described above that British territorial waters are part of the British Isles by definition. Movements by sea and things in the seas that surround Britain, including the little fishes and monks afloat in their handmade boats are surely navigating around the BI. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• If we follow HighKing's logic, if the source say BI then it is BI. It is BI. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• When it comes to maritime BI seems the most appropriate term in the majority of cases. Bjmullan (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against BI @ Wictor Esbensen

• An article that was written 18 months ago doesn't make it correct or untouchable. If it can be improved, that's what WP is all about.
• The available references make it clear where the ship voyaged. British Isles is not accurate and there are more accurate descriptions available such as "Great Britain" or even "North West Europe". It is WP:OR to use a reference to make an unsupported claim.
• That said, for 99% of maritime articles, using British Isles is completely accurate. There's many articles on UBoats and other ships where it's clear the usage is accurate. --HighKing (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• As the ship went up through the Irish Sea, then it only went around Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"Stop! Are you starting a new discussion?"

This page has a shiny new edit notice.

This page also has instructions.

I'm open to ideas for refining both, however the general principle is non-negotiable. It's part of being considerate members of a wider community, welcoming new-comers, and so on. Sorry to be a hard-arse about this, but that's the way it goes. TFOWR 16:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, I assume then we leave it to you to structure the discussion? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I support. Codf1977 (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I'll hold off on the structuring bit. It may be that there's a really quick resolution. If it become obvious that's not the case I will (well, anyone can) create "for" and "against" sections. TFOWR 16:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the stop notice. I'm a bit confused though (sorry for any foolishness on my part) - is this a warning about a specific recent misbehaviour, or are you announcing a new bit of templating, eg, the stop notice? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's prompted more by DuncanHill (talk) chastising us all for being crap ;-) No one individually has been bad, it's more a comment on us all. TFOWR 18:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TFOWR, that's kind. But...I think I got my virtual wrist slapped earlier for not templating the previous discussion immediately. An uninvolved editor requested that we template straight away, and it simplifies things. My excuse was that I was holding off templating until we decided we needed a debate in case it was an easily resolved case. Still, no harm in the end, and another small bit of progress. --HighKing (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to HK, it hasn't been completely clear, but it is now, so that will make things easier. I'm really pleased with the way things have developed here for my part - we are now having orderly, constructive discussions and nothing hidden. I must say I think it really helps also when obviously disruptive editors are speedily assisted by admins in taking editing holidays - we really notice the difference! :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Is there a necessity to post on every single wikiproject listed on a page? Some may be tangentially related, at best. As such I think posting on every relevant wikiproject would be better? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll update the instructions accordingly. What I'm going to say is basically: let every relevant WikiProject know; if you're unsure whether a WikiProject is relevant, err on the side of caution: either let them know, or note here which WikiProjects were and were not notified. TFOWR 10:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Evolution of the British Empire

Resolved

 – Issue for Talk:Evolution of the British Empire, unless addition/removal of "British Isles" comes into play. TFOWR 11:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if this isn't the right venue - but seeing as this is the group with the largest concentration of "British Isles" expers... and apologies to immediately create an example which I don't believe requires a template... The term "British Isles" doesn't necessarily need to be removed or added from this article, but I believe the paragraph wording is confusing. It states:

• The "crown dependencies" of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey (the last two are collectively referred to as the "Channel Islands"). These islands, while often considered to be part of the British Isles, have never formed part of the United Kingdom itself, or its predecessor states. At the same time, they have never been considered to be colonies; while the British Government is generally responsible for their defence and foreign relations, each of the territories has its own laws and political institutions. Strictly speaking their relationship is with the British Sovereign alone, rather than the British Government.

Does anyone else see a problem with the wording and the implied meaning behind the usage of "British Isles" here? Again, I emphasize, I'm not requesting a removal. If anyone reckons the article should be templated, I'll do it immediately! --HighKing (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear what problem you are highlighting? I would say that the sentence "while often considered to be part of the British Isles" is wrong - but probably not in the way you feel? I would say it should read "while they are part of the British Isles".... Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, if the focus of your question is alteration of that sentence, then yes, this needs to be within the usual structure I would have thought. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph as it currently reads implies that the rest of the "British Isles" are (or were) once part of the United Kingdom. It's inaccurate since it fails to take into account the Isle of Man, which is also part of the British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Yes that should be changed.. perhaps to say something like "The "crown dependencies" of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey (the last two are collectively referred to as the "Channel Islands") are the only parts of the British Isles that have never formed part of the United Kingdom itself, or its predecessor states. " BritishWatcher (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine. --HighKing (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. Yes. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems resolved? Can I close it out? TFOWR 21:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And me --HighKing (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to be picky, but wasn't the Kingdom of Mann and the Isles a "predecessor state"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought by predecessor states it just meant - Kingdom of England Kingdom of Scotland Kingdom of Ireland, Kingdom of Great Britain and Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I read BW's proposed text as meaning "predecessor states of the UK". Kingdom of Mann and the Isles was a predecessor state of Isle of Man. I'm biased though - I'm just looking for a quick and lazy close for this ;-) TFOWR 09:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What about something like "The "crown dependencies" of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey have never formed part of the United Kingdom." Is that not simpler? And doesn't it say everything that needs to be said? Fmph (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No because that would remove British Isles and there is absolutely no justification or need for its removal from that sentence. It is a valid bit of information that they are the only parts not to have formed part of the UK. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Saying that would remove the notability from the sentence. Currently it says (in as many badly ordered words) "Everywhere in X was once part of Y, except for Z". Changing it to "Z was never part of Y" removes part of the information, and is unremarkable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Quarth

The article currently states Quarth was released on the Konami Net i-mode service as Block Quarth, with an updated Block Quarth DX in 2001—this was released in 2005 on O2's i-mode services in the British Isles minus the "DX" suffix.. O2 does not have a "British Isles" service, instead it has a UK service and and Ireland service. Also the Channel Islands don't have an O2 service. --HighKing (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Use United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland, in this instance. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree Codf1977 (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. Bjmullan (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom and Ireland per MOS. --RA (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Do ya mean [Republic of Ireland|Ireland]? GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Usual and typical proposal. Fails due to O2's IoM and CI services. We need to establish what are "good faith" proposals and silly "bad faith" or time wasting proposals. Confusion over the Irelands leading to an overly wordy alternative. BI fits the bill. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

When you make that argument below, can you link to O2's IoM and CI services? That seems to be an easy way to disprove HighKing's argument. Ta! TFOWR 11:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

O2 don't offer any services on the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. (Though for a while Manx Telecom was wholly owned by O2.) --RA (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And just to clarify my request, we'd need O2's i-mode service, not merely O2. TFOWR 11:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh ... no O2, no O2 i-mode.

O2 offer services in the UK, Ireland and Germany. Here's the press release around the release of O2's i-mode services. It mentions release dates in the UK, Ireland and Germany markets. The markets in which O2 offers services. Further down it mentions how O2 (at that time) owned Manx Telecom. It does not mention anything about a roll-out of i-mode services on the Isle of Man. Why? Because that's Manx Telecom, not O2. Whether Manx Telecom ever offered an i-mode service, I don't know. --RA (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for keeping "British Isles" at Quarth

Arguments against keeping "British Isles" at Quarth

Westward Ho!

The article currently states It is the only such place name in the British Isles, although Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!, Quebec, shares the distinction of having an exclamation mark in its name. The relevant area is either "England" or "United Kingdom" or "Europe". --HighKing (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If it is (and the claim is unsupported at this time) then I see no reason to change it. Codf1977 (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced and dubious notability - why not just delete? --Snowded ^TALK 13:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Have you got a source for that relevant area? I have found sources for only place in the UK (Britain) [32] [33] with an exclamation point, and for British Isles [34] [35] that it is the only place to have punctation and be named after a book in the British Isles. Whether or not these are WP:RS may be debatable, but the fact is out there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) well it has been there since this edit in June 2006 - so think that rather than remove it should be tagged {{citation needed}} Codf1977 (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Clearly it's a more notable claim to be the only such place in Europe than in the BI, but unfortunately I can't find any supporting references for Europe (despite the apparent lack of a counterexample). There are some references that say it's the only such place in Britain, some that say it's the only such place in the British Isles, and one or two less reliable claims that it's the only such place in the world (clearly wrong). waggers (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you list the sources for "British Isles"? I was thinking this was simple "article/reference fix-up" case, rather than a "proper" BI issue. But if there are refs for BI I'll open a structured discussion and you all can argue it out ;-) TFOWR 13:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC) I need to read all the posts, not just the most recent... Chipmunkdavis has already given BI refs... TFOWR 14:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed. And it's dead easy to find sources - but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. What's notable about this is the size of the area in which there's only one placename with an exclamation mark, so the bigger the area covered by the source(s) the better (obviously "the world" doesn't work, since we know there's a place in Quebec with an exclamation mark - or two - in its name). I can find "England" easily - but there are wider areas covered. TFOWR 13:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

British Isles should be used unless sources show it is in fact the only place in the whole of Europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried searching for Europe after I found the BI sources above, couldn't find anything. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

References

References for "British Isles"

• Everythingexmoor - fails WP:RS, the website simply contains information sent in by the people and businesses of Greater Exmoor.
• Experience Devon - fails WP:RS, it's a holiday-booking itinerary-planning website

References for "England"

• Devon, Cornwall & Southwest England By Oliver Berry, Belinda Dixon
• The English Golf Coast By Phil Dowell --HighKing (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Surfing Europe By Chris Nelson, Demi Taylor --HighKing (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• England By Guy McDonald --HighKing (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• BBC Peoplesquiz (this is a PDF) --HighKing (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

References for "Britain"

• Devon By Simon Heptinstall --HighKing (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

References for "UK"

• I'm Not Michael Palin You Know! By David Cunningham --HighKing (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Once Met, Never Forgotten By Patty Old West --HighKing (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

References for "the English-speaking world"

• English for the computer: the SUSANNE corpus and analytic scheme by Geoffrey Sampson. Don't get too excited - it's a "possibly", and it costs £135. I don't care enough to fork out £135 for a "possibly". TFOWR 14:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles" @ Westward Ho!

• The notability of this fact is determined by it's geographical range. Therefore the largest range should be used, and the largest so far found is BI Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Between November 2004 to June 2006 it said UK. Since June 2006 it has said British Isles. There is no need to change something that has lasted over 4 years unless evidence is produced showing its the only name in Europe or proving that British Isles is incorrect. . BritishWatcher (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• As per BritishWatcher - there are sources, which I agree are not what could be called reliable, however it has been that way for over 4 years, so it should be kept and tagged {{citation needed}} in the hope that someone can provide a good source. another option is to use one or both of the above sources and tag with {{Verify credibility}} next to them. Codf1977 (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• For me this one underscores the "why delete?" argument - there isn't really a specific problem with saying it's the only one in the BI - it is factually accurate after all - it is also interesting. Similarly there would be no reason why the addition "and Europe" could not be added. There is no good argument in favour of delete basically. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• British Isles due to shared language and culture and history. Ireland would be a very different place is the Armada was successful! Google shows plenty of references. The most acceptable is from The Times which is a newspaper of record. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against "British Isles" @ Westward Ho!

• Seeing as this place is only on Great Britain (geographically speaking) & within the United Kingdom (politically speaking)? then there's only 2 usages: Great Britain or United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• No WP:RS references for British Isles, therefore WP:OR.
• Lots of published references for alternatives - I suggest UKEngland as it has the most. --HighKing (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Seems like strange reference point. What is the common link tying place names in the British Isles together that it would be a natural reference for comparing place names? Would United Kingdom or England not be a more normal scope? --RA (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Got to agree with the argument put forward by GD. Bjmullan (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• England or UK or the notable options --Snowded ^TALK 21:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Polls

Britain and Ireland is an invalid equivalent for British Isles

Did we did pick up and finish the discussion Snowded raise above on the 24th of Sept regarding "Britain and Ireland being an invalid equivalent for British Isles"? Excuse me if I missed it due to my "holiday". If so, can anyone point out where and when it happened?

I think this hits the nail on the head and we have to address it for once and for all.

Britain and Ireland is not a valid equivalent for British Isles for all the reasons we keep having to repeat Britain and Ireland - or UK and I or UK and RoI etc.

Do we have a clear agreement on this? Let's keep this simple in the first place. --LevenBoy (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Its already referenced in the British Isles article LevenBoy --Snowded ^TALK 03:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

We all know what it is. It may be referenced in the topic, or not but I am talking about what our position. You raised the issue.

We have a problem where individuals are attempting to insert Britain and Ireland as an equivalent for British Isles. Sometimes this even on the basis of a references that clearly refers to the British Isles as Britain and Ireland. How do we address this? --LevenBoy (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Case by case, but if the references say Britain and Ireland then its pretty clear --Snowded ^TALK 04:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I think Snowded's last point is right here. We can't create a general rule for this, because it will depend on a number of factors in each case, including sourcing and context. I think all we can safely say is that sometimes it is a valid equivalent and other times it is not. This is why the argument often goes to geographical extent and is not simple, hence at some point we need to agree acceptable "spreads" of geographical mentions in some cases. This is not to say that there aren't a whole bunch of cases where BI is fully correct and the argument that it should be replaced with B&I fallacious; it's just that it can't be a "rule". So sorry but the basis of the alternatives presented below is not one founded in practical reality. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Isle of Man & Channel Islands considered to be included in the term Britain and Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. We all know that Isle of Man & Channel Islands part of Britain or Ireland. That would be a good second question though.

There is no proposal of a rule here. It is just a simple yes or no poll. HighKing, you are free to discuss or vote as you wish but please do not move other editors opinions or changing the poll after votes have been made.

Technically speaking, is "Britain and Ireland" is a valid equivalent for "British Isles"? --LevenBoy (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Another question could be is the Channel Islands a part of the British Isles? From a geographic point of view they are not. But then the term BI is not a purely geographic term but a political term used to describe the bounds of the UK government. Bjmullan (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Many months ago, there was a RfC on whether the CI were a part of the 'British Isles', but (if memory serves me right) it came to no conclusion. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, the moves of votes here are getting silly. Codf1977 is taking a similar position to mine, namely that its not a blanket equivalent but it is valid in some contexts; and King supported that. Wherever it sits neither Codf1977 or HighKing are supporting LevinBoys proposal. I'm not even voting as this is an absurd discussion. There is referenced material from RS in the main article which state that B&I is used as an equivalent. You can't outvote a reliable source and I'm not legitimising this particular bit of nonsense by taking part in it. And just to deal with a couple of issues

• Great Britain and Ireland excludes the Isle of Man but Britain and Ireland in common use doesn't
• If we make specific reference to the Archipelago of X, the in current usage X = "British Isles" although that might change over time

--Snowded ^TALK 05:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how you define "equivalent" then. Can "Britain and Ireland" include exactly the same area as the British Isles? I have yet to see a single reliable source that says that is the case. The sources shown at presently simply mean instead of talking about the British Isles which some people think is controversial, some simply say Britain and Ireland. Its very different. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

One gets a feeling of counting the number of angels on the head of a pin here. There are sources that say B&I is increasingly used in preference to BI, we have actual examples of use in the Atlas name changes. So where people used to use the phrase BI they now use B&I for the same subject matter. Language evolves over time BW, mixing metaphors after counting the angels you have continued on to clutch at staws --Snowded ^TALK 10:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because a rectangle of the world covered by an atlas is labelled something doesn't necessarily mean that some certain body in the rectangle is called that, although this is often the case. I'm not sure that these atlases are saying "this group of islands is called Britain and Ireland", I would think they were saying "this is the countries of Britain and Ireland". Just as they have a map for, say, "Germany", so they have for "Britain and Ireland". This would be political and not geographical. This whole discussion proves that the term is a case-by-case basis if you ask me. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've argued above its case by case so agree with you there. In your example however we are talking about Atlas publications that used to be titled "British Isles" and have changed to "Britain and Ireland" without changing content. So when looking for a collective name for the UK and Ireland along with the Isle of Mann etc. they have chose to use a different one.--Snowded ^TALK 11:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

They may just be ignoring the Isle of Mann etc., I'm sure the exact political situation doesn't bother most people. Anyway, it's irrelevant, I think we should probably close all these polls, sapping time away from other things. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

They didn't but you are right all of these recent polls should be closed; off topic and time wasting --Snowded ^TALK 11:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

These polls cut to the very nub of the debate. We will come to the question of references in a short while. Stop changing the poll after it has been set.

I am not asking question of "whether they are used or not".

I am asking the questions of whether techinically, legally, geographically these terms are equivalent and interchangeable.

That is to say, beyond the point of opinion.

The honest truth is, we all know they are not. There are no territorial disputes between the various nations or states. We are discussing a very stable legal defined geographic area. But it is only fair to poll individuals about their beliefs first. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No, "Britain and Ireland" is not a valid equivalent for "British Isles"

• Agreed, as per common knowledge and endless references. --LevenBoy (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Which references state that Britain and Ireland and British Isles are not equivalent terms? There are many cited elsewhere that equate the two. --RA (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agree - We shouldn't be using Britain and Ireland in place of British Isles on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Surely thats not the question that was asked? Or was it ? Are we just talking about Wikipedia? Or in general conversational and editorial terms? I assumed it was a general question to try and hone a WP guideline in this area. I'm getting confused now. Fmph (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume it concerns just Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

In that case this seems to be a circular discussion. If we are just talking about Wikipedia, then it is only a valid equivalent if the MOS says it is. Outside of Wikipedia (and its only outside of WP that counts as references to 'prove' the case) is a different case. Fmph (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agree - "Britain and Ireland" excludes the Isle of Man which isn't a part of the UK. "British Isles" is the most well-known and commonly used name for the islands regardless of peoples political motivations. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree - Britain and Ireland is simply a completely alternative term to avoid talking about an archipelago in north west europe known as the British Isles. No reliable sources clearly stating "Britain and Ireland" is an archipelago in north west Europe have been provided. (as i have said on a couple of occasions, the wording at British Isles and British Isles naming dispute does not clearly explain the situation. People could easily read it as saying its an alternative name for the archipelago known as the British Isles, something that is not the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree - for the many reasons given above. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed - It is clearly not a blanket equivalent for British Isles, however in some cases it's use can be appropriate. Codf1977 (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Codf1977. In most cases it's not equivalent, but in some cases it's use is appropriate. --HighKing (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "Britain and Ireland" is a valid equivalent for "British Isles"

• Agreed, as per common knowledge and endless references. Fmph (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. The meanings of terms change over time. "Britain and Ireland" is a fuzzy term, that is used, in practice in the real world, to mean either the UK and Ireland (the state), or the islands of GB, Ireland, and the smaller ones around their shores, or both meanings simultaneously. Yes, WP should explore and tease out the technical differences between the terms, but it should also recognise that, in reality, most people do not necessarily use terminology with the same forensic accuracy employed by editors on this page, and not criticise or "teach" others to be "correct". The very fuzziness of the term encourages its wide use - it allows people to use the term without thinking about precisely which of several very slightly different things they mean. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. "Britain and Ireland" is often used in place of "British Isles". Daicaregos (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. Not only is it equivalent but it is preferred by many as a more NPOV term. Bjmullan (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree per RS. Britain and Ireland is cited as "becoming preferred usage" (Davies:2000) or "is the more favoured expression" (Hazlett:2003) to British Isles for example. As with all terms in this arena (including British Isles), editors should consider what it most appropriate to the topic and to the context. Language in this arena is highly charged and use or non-use of any turns of phrase (even seemingly innocuous ones such as this) should be considered carefully. --RA (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Codf1977. In most cases it's not equivalent, but in some cases it's use is appropriate.

Are the Isle of Man & Channel Islands a part of the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland? (Resolved)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is very silly. The Isle of Man is a self-governing British Crown Dependency. It is neither part of the United Kingdom nor the Republic of Ireland. Likewise, the Channel Islands are an archipelago of British Crown Dependencies, none of which are part of either the United Kingdom or the Republic or Ireland. These aren't things we can change via a silly poll - they're commonly known facts which could have been easily ascertained simply by reading the relevant articles and the associated references. This poll has nothing to do with a specific example of usage of the term "British Isles", and I'm closing it. TFOWR 11:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Following GoodDay above, another simple poll.

Are the Isle of Man (islands) & the Channel Islands part of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland? (If yes, please state part of which nation). --LevenBoy (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Speedy close - beyond the scope of this page to decided this, and as such just a waste of everyone's time, what next - Are Man U going to win the 2011 FA cup ? Codf1977 (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Concur with Cof1977, total waste of time bordering on disruptive behaviour --Snowded TALK 11:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC) I thought Britain and Ireland meant Great Britain & the island of Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC) No, the Isle of Man & Channel Islands are not a part of the United Kingdom nor Republic of Ireland? Agreed. As per common knowledge and legal definition. --LevenBoy (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Agreed - IOM / Channel Islands are not part of United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland. Nor are they part of Great Britain and Ireland. There for i have not got a clue how its possible to think they are part of "Britain and Ireland". When Britain either means the state or the island, neither of which consists of IOM/CI. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC) They're not a part of either country or either island. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, the Isle of Man & Channel Islands are part of the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland?

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are the Isle of Man & Channel Islands a part of the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland? (Clarification)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It's gone to WP:AN. TFOWR 17:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Please, TFOWR, allow me to go through this slowly and logically without disruption. These are important leading questions.

Just to clarifying then, do we all agree that Isle of Man & Channel Islands a part of the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland then?

The correct answer is "no, Isle of Man & Channel Islands a part of the United Kingdom nor Republic of Ireland". I just want to make sure we are all singing from the same hymn book.

TFOWR, I would prefer to ask you to open the poll again and allow it to complete with all regular commentators contributing. There is no good reason to close it early.

It is not "beyond the scope of this page to decided this". It has already been legal decided a long time ago by the governments involved. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to re-open the poll. It is completely beyond the scope of this page to decide this, for precisely the reason you yourself cite: the status of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are legal issues, decided by the respective governments - not by a bunch of anonymous editors on a website. What possible benefit would derive from having this poll? (Hint: none). TFOWR 14:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. May I re-open the poll then without being threatened with a blocking or banning?

There is no question of "whether it is within or without the scope of this page to decide".

The matter has already been decided by the governments involved.

What I am polling is contributors' knowledge of those decisions and acceptance of it. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I take the view that re-opening it would be disruptive. Polling contributors' knowledge is off-topic. Contributors' knowledge of constitutional law is of no relevance here - what matters is contributors' knowledge of Wikipedia policy and precedent. TFOWR 14:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but no. I have 3 very simple questions. How on earth can you say knowledge of constitutional matters are of no relevance when we are discussing and deciding matters of nation and statehood? If contributors do not know, then I will provide them with those details. Where individuals genuinely do not know, surely they need to start with that understanding, don't they?

Does Wikipedia really work on the basis of precedents? I think you are wrong there. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Howabout transferring those questions to your own talkpage & invite folks there to participate. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no question that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. All your poll serves to do is to examine contributors' knowledge. As GoodDay says, you can do that on your own talk page. Not here. This page certainly does work on policy and precedent: not on votes, polls, opinions or any other cruft. TFOWR 15:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It is called consensus building, TFOWR, which is Wikipedia precedent.

I would rather TFOWR just answered the question or, even better, allowed each and every individual to answer the question. Just to clarifying then, do we all agree that Isle of Man & Channel Islands are not part of either the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland then? --LevenBoy (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

They're not a part of the UK or the RoI. Howabout having this questions at your talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus never overrides policy, and consensus never overrides reality. A consensus that "the sky is red" will never be an acceptable reason to change the article Sky to describe a state that is unrelated to reality. TFOWR 15:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Good. I agree. Reality does override consensus and policy.

I have three simple questions to be discussed here with everyone in order to gain the mandate of all users.

At present, TFOWER you are blocking that consensus being agreed and made by your actions and creating more disruption than if we just ran the poll. I actually think you are acting beyond your authority.

We are agreeing what reality is. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Would it be alright to move these questions to BISE's main page? GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if it keeps the disruption on this page down. I still think LevenBoy's talkpage would be the best bet, but LevenBoy seems determined to have this poll somewhere visible. So long as the disruption here stops, I don't really care. TFOWR 15:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to "poll reality", you can do it on your talkpage. If you want to check whether I'm acting beyond my authority, you can do it at WP:ANI. The poll is off-topic here because it serves no purpose - we all already know what the constituional status is of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and it will not, in any event, be decided here. TFOWR 15:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will. You are twisting my words to insult and provoke me TROWR. I never said I wanted to "poll reality". I am polling what other users' positions are on the most pertinent questions relating to the British Isles naming dispute and you are disrupting it. The poll had support and you are causing more disruption by closing it early than if it was allowed to run. --LevenBoy (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

With it transfered to the mainpage, I reckon it'll be alright to 're-open' the closure-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take responsibility for pushing TFOWR in the direction of a closure, as I suggested it one his talk page. I'd rather this be moved to LevenBoy's talk page, if it is opened somewhere else.

Everyone here agrees that Crown dependencies are not part of the UK or Ireland. EVERYONE. If anyone ever argues otherwise, I'm sure they'd be shut down by other editors very fast. The poll serves no great purpose. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This was an attempt to derail the discussion above. It was incredibly WP:POINTy, and I've warned the editor responsbile. TFOWR 16:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Tad harsh reaction if you ask me, I can see it as a perfectly goodfaith non-pointy change, an editor combining two polls he set up under a greater heading. Still, your edit summary was nice. Anyway, combined or not, shift it please. Somewhere, anywhere, not on the specific example page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The combining of the polls was fine (though I'd prefer it if people didn't refactor discussions once people have contributed to them): it was the martyr-tastic "Forbidden" heading change. If LevenBoy wants to complain about being forbidden to dick around, they can do it at ANI where folk have an even lower tolerance for disruption and WP:POINTy nonsense. TFOWR 16:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's transfer these to BISE mainpage. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep the Polls together for just now as they are linked to from ANI. The problem is, there are too many discussion places. We should have just one. Everyone who cares about these issues from whatever point of view is here, so let's address the matter peacefully here.

I am sorry but the Poll was not "resolved" it was unilaterally closed.--LevenBoy (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)--LevenBoy (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. A snow close, with everyone agreeing with the bleeding obvious. It's best if discussion on this pointless poll continue at ANI. TFOWR 17:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What do we do when a reference contradicts technical facts?

3rd quick poll, please bear with me on this because there are editors from outside of the British Isles that will not appreciate the subtle technicalities of this discussion. Bear in mind that most of the rest of the world thinks England is Britain and has not a clue where the Isles of Man are, or why it is such a big issue.

• We are all, basically, in agreement that, legally or technically, "Britain and Ireland" is not actually equivalent to "British Isles".
• TFOWR has unilaterally decided that we all agree that neither the Isle of Man & Channel Islands are parts of either the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland. I disagree with the way in which he did so but I agree with his conclusion. It just would have been better to get everyone's mandate on it. This is all really to address an issue Snowded raised sometime ago on the page above.

What do we do when a given reference contradicts what we know to be technical accurate, e.g. a reference calling the British Isles "Britain and Ireland" to the exclusion of the IoM and/or CI?

We are all, basically, in agreement that, legally or technically, "Britain and Ireland" is not actually equivalent to "British Isles" We are? It looks to me like the two "sides" are about evenly matched in terms of numbers. I've not looked at the arguments, however.

There was, I thought, a third option in the B&I/BI poll saying "sometimes" equivalent. To my mind that highlighted why this was one area where a blanket ruling would be impossible - sources use terms in varying ways. We do what we always do: we cite the source, and explain/clarify any discrepancy. None of this should be new to us - this isn't an issue that's arisen out of the blue, an issue that the community hasn't thought of previously or encountered before. TFOWR 18:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

@LB, can we see an example of an issue? --HighKing (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry TFOWR but I must remind you politely, you don't speak for anyone else but yourself. Please allow others to speak for themselves because everyone has their own specific point of view.

You have already derailed one poll causing a massive disruption where you clearly could and should have "assumed good faith". There is an open channel of communication between us, please ask first. Essentially you are only an equal here, despite your administrator tools. You do not act on others behalf.

@HighKing, e.g. one thing that has come up is Fmph's comment at 14:37, 8 October 2010 saying, "Britain and Ireland is a valid equivalent for British Isles". If that can be true, it contradicts the 2nd Poll which everyone agreed the Isle of Man and Channel Islands are not in UK nor Ireland.

Sorry, I don't see a contradiction. One poll asked if it is a valid equivalent. Another poll asked if the Crown Dependencies were a part of the UK or Ireland. Both polls are answered. Yes, they are used as valid equivalents. But No, they are not part of UK or Ireland. This perceived contradiction should help you understand why some Irish people find it equally contradictory to find Ireland as part of the "British" Isles. --HighKing (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In such a case, I would like to ask him to explain directly how and where the Isle of Man and Channel Islands exactly fit in then. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologise. But to pick up on your plaintive "allow others to speak for themselves because everyone has their own specific point of view." I'll gladly do so - what I'm not prepared to do it allow off-topic discussions and/or polls. Take it to ANI if you disagree with that stance. In this case, seeing as you have taken it to ANI, simply accept the result. TFOWR 14:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec. IoM and/or CI are not a part of the UK or RoI. However IoM & CI are generally grouped with the islands called Ireland & Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct. One name for such a grouping is "British Isles". Another name is "Britain and Ireland". "Britain and Ireland" isn't always equivalent: sometimes it just means "[Great] Britain and Ireland". Hence the value in the "Britain and Ireland" poll. And, indeed, in considering each case on its merits. There's no such value in considering whether the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom etc etc, unless one wanted to attempt to make a WP:POINT. TFOWR 15:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This is where you have to be very careful TFOWR because on one hand you are playing the part of an impartial judge and jury (chairman) but here you are expressing a personal opinion which is technically wrong. "Britain and Ireland" is not a name. I think you should play either one role or the other.

To state the obvious, "Britain and Ireland" are two clearly defined names and exclusive of the CI, as we have agreed. No one would or could argue the CIs are in Britain or Ireland. Personally, I would not argue that the IoM is in Britain either. Last time I looked, it was off Britain. Britain and British Islands are not synonymous. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Be sure not to mix up UK & RoI with GB & I. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing "Britain and Ireland" with "Britain" and "Ireland". The former is a term that is sometimes used as an equivalent to "British Isles" - that's not (I believe?) disputed. What's disputed is when it's appropriate to use it as an alternative to "British Isles". The latter is the name of two islands. I don't believe I am expressing a personal opinion - I'm simply explaining to you what the issue at hand is. If you want my personal opinion - it's that "Britain and Ireland" is less than ideal, precisely because of the ambiguity you've fallen into. But that's just my personal opinion which, as you say, is something I seek to avoid. What matters is the well-reasoned arguments of other participants. TFOWR 16:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal and geographically, there is no confusion. I suggest the only way to avoid conflict is to stick to what is clearly defined. You have just clarified that for us. IoM and CI are in neither and so, logically, Britain and Ireland cannot mean British Isles.

"Britain and Ireland" means "Britain" and "Ireland". The problem that we have is, that in an area of dispute, individuals are using a mixed quality and age of references. This is why I want to poll whether we "Follow what we know to be technically accurate or the literal words of the references". It is impossible for us to mystically divine what each and every author meant when they wrote "Britain and Ireland". They may have just be slack, chauvanist, colloquial or plain wrong, that is why I am asking, do we go along with what is erroneous or adopt a policy of technical accuracy. Do we accept what is clearly defined as a priority.

If we are honest, the cause of the confusion in this whole dispute is the Irish editors confusing a 2,000 year old term taken from the native Celtic-language name (Brettanic Isles from which we get British Isles), with the crimes of the United Kingdom. --LevenBoy (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the techincal error and use the words of the reference

Follow what we know to be technically accurate

• Agree. Technical accurate, or reality as TFOWR calls it above, has priority above opinion or consensus. --LevenBoy (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Other possible alternatives

Follow the MOS or the consensus. This is what usually happens whenever there is a confusion of terminology. The reason I know that is because we've been doing it here for many moths now. Fmph (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem, there is no MOS yet. TFOWR has thankfully made it clear that reality takes priority over policy and consensus. We are dealing with areas which have clearly establish legal existences and definitions. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind above all: United Kingdom does not equal Great Britain & Republic of Ireland does not equal Ireland (the island). GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories

What is the current state of play regarding adding British Isles related categories? --LevenBoy (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No comments? What is the bottomline? Is adding categories equivalent to adding terminology to topics, or not? --LevenBoy (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --HighKing (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion. Show me where that is stated. I think categories are a different case because with categories you can have numerous overlapping categories without any conflicting "either/or" situations. "Both" situation are possible. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Talk:United Kingdom templated. Wikiproject talks templated: Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography

Well, I'm sure this is an interesting article to be brought here. I bring it up because I noticed in geography "It includes Lough Neagh, at 388 square kilometres (150 sq mi), the largest body of water in the UK and Ireland." The source calls it the largest body of water in "Britain and Ireland". I don't think saying it is the largest body of water in the UK and Ireland is correct, as in an article about the UK saying it is the largest in the United Kingdom and somewhere else is pointless. Using British Isles puts it in a better, and I think more relevant context. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If you approach this geographically, LN is the largest body of water on the island of Ireland. If you approach this politically, LN is the largest body of water in the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but notability is conveyed through area. The article on Nepal, for example, states that mount everest is one of the highest peaks in the world. Tanzania calls Kilimanjaro Africa's highest peak. There is no need to shrink it just down to Ireland. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Saying that Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the UK and Ireland is actually correct, if you are referring to the two countries, sharing as they do the same group of islands. It's also more all-encompassing than using Great Britain and Ireland, because those are only the two largest in a large number of islands within that group. I do rather think that the former is a better description. -- role^player 15:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it does seem to me a case of mixing countries and islands here - just change it to "...body of water in the British Isles" using Oxford dictionary of Celtic mythology By James MacKillop as a ref. Codf1977 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for using "British Isles" in respect of Lough Neagh at United Kingdom

• Removes a case of mixing Countries and islands, simpler, all encompassing and above all is supported by a source Codf1977 (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• "largest body of water in the British Isles" reads better than the current "largest body of water in the UK and Ireland"
• Larger geographical area provides greater notability, the lake should be described for what it's notable for. Just as Kilimanjaro is decribed as Africa's largest mountain in the Tanzania article, so the lough should be regarded as the largest lake in the British Isles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• It is British Isles because it is a geographical matter not a political matter. Lough Neagh exists in Ireland (island) and Britain (the political state). Using BI resolves all the likely problems arising if you use Ireland. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against using "British Isles" in respect of Lough Neagh at United Kingdom

• Lough Neagh is the largest body of water in the United Kingdom. Factual and succinct, and as the article is about the United Kingdom, anything else is superfluous. Daicaregos (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't agree, if, for the sake of argument Lough Neagh was the largest body of water in Europe no one would have an issue with the article reading "Lough Neagh was the largest body of water in Europe" Codf1977 (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• No discernible benefit to the article. It would merely replace one set of terms with another. Either turn of phrase is correct. However, tokenistic changing of terms in this charged arena is inadvisable. Unless there is an error, leave well enough alone. There are no erroneous or problematic use of term. Lough Neagh is the largest body of water in the UK, in Ireland, and in "the UK and Ireland" (a synonymous turn of phrase to British Isles). Example usage: "Lough Rd leads west from the town centre to Antrim Lough Shore Park, where the vast size of Lough Neagh – the largest lake in the UK and Ireland (see also p621 ) – is apparent." (Lonely Planet guide to Ireland.) --RA (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There is benefit as it scans better, "the UK and Ireland" is not the same as "British Isles" and as the British Isles is a large entity than the combination of the UK and ROI, it stands to reason it is more notable. Codf1977 (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not the same as "larger". Bear in mind too that the article is about the United Kingdom. Also, "scans" is a matter of preference, about which one's objectivity can be influenced by many factors (including a preference for certain terms regardless of how they "scan").

Unless there is a problem with use of terminology then the proposal here is simply to exchange one set of terms with another. There are no problems that I can see with the use of terminology in the sentence. --RA (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It scans better?? Eh ... No.  :-) --HighKing (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• As that article is about the UK (thus political), we can say ..largest body of water within the UK. Now, if LN were mentioned at Great Britain and/or Ireland? I'd have no probs with mentioning British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Article is about the UK, and its the largest body of water in the UK. The Loch Neagh article is the geographical one where the largest unit argument comes into play --Snowded ^TALK 21:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Since the subject matter is the UK, then we should stick with stating facts about the UK. A nice infobox would be great with "Highest Mountain", "Longest River", etc, all detailed. --HighKing (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Has that been done before? If you can point me to a page with that sort of infobox on it, I'd appreciate it. Be useful I reckon, irrespective of this debate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm....I thought it had but I can't find an article that uses an infobox like that....if I come across one I'll let you know. --HighKing (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

But the subject matter is also body of water in Ireland. Anything non-political should stick with geographical references. --LevenBoy (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for using "Britain and Ireland" in respect of Lough Neagh at United Kingdom

• As per source. " ... in the UK and Ireland ..." sounds tortuous. If we stick with UK&I it should change to " ... in both the UK and Ireland ..." Fmph (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Even your alternate wording is still tortuous, and as we have this source we can get around that by just using British Isles. Codf1977 (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"Source hunting" does not benefit decisions making around this topic, regardless of whether it is to remove British Isles or to add it. It misses the point of Wikipedia:Verifiability and has a ring of gaming and battling to it.

In many cases, such as this one, sources use a multitude of terms (including, in this case, saying that Lough Neagh is the largest body of water in "the UK and Ireland"; see above). In other cases, no source we find may say British Isles (or another turn of phrase). That doesn't matter. The point is that the statement made is supported by references. It doesn't matter whether or not the same words are used that statement as are a used in the reference. --RA (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's about the UK so keep it the UK. Bjmullan (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Arab slave trade (Resolved)

Resolved

 – All good. TFOWR 14:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure of this wikilink by BW here, neither do I think that Ireland was every involved in any slave trading, but I may be wrong (could be the same for IoM and CI). Would be interesting to know if the reference mentions Ireland. (Funny enough I'm in Bristol this evening which was probably the capital of the triangular trade). Bjmullan (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

BW's edit was to re-link after this edit, and following on from this discussion. TFOWR 21:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe surprising, but the slave trade described there is not trade in people from Africa captured by folk from these islands and the mainland and traded form here to the Arabs. The slaves being referred to are people from these islands that were stolen form here by Arab raiders. The entire population of the village of Baltimore, County Cork, for example, was taken into slavery in 1631. The Claddagh ring is said to have originated with a man (Richard Joyce from Galway) captured by Arab pirates in 1675 and kept as a slave by an Algerian goldsmith, where he learnt his trade. He is said to have designed the ring on gaining his freedom.

Use of British Isles (and linking it) is fine. --RA (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys I did to a quick search but didn't see this thread. Bjmullan (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No harm, no foul ;-) And I learned something, too, which is always a bonus! TFOWR 21:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:DerBorg (Resolved)

Resolved

 – All good. Consider a new discussion for issues arising. TFOWR 14:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Last one from me :-) Noticed that User_talk:DerBorg has been added the category BI to a couple of articles. I have reverted these edit (with edit notes) and left a message of his talk page (BRD). Hope that was OK? Now I'm off to bed. Bjmullan (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My 2¢ is that it's fine for the few articles I have seen that user add it to. Per the template docs, the heading can be pipe linked on pages where it is objected to. --RA (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Really i've transcluded the template:British Isles and not the same-named category here and here with edit notes (as you can see on the links). I've transcluded them because i've found the 2 articles still listed (not by me) on that navbox. Sorry if I gave problems to the standards of this project but it was a transclusion of template, not of a general category. I hope that this misunderstanding was cleared because in my work I always search to avoid to include articles into too much general categories, searching for specific subcategories. Greetings. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me - this is the relevant part of the British Isles template:

...I've bolded the two articles that DerBorg added the template to. TFOWR 07:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not so sure - the Principality of Wales ends before British Isles comes into use (per etymology) so that should probably be removed --Snowded ^TALK 09:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • That would be a "Principality of Wales" issue, not a "DerBorg" issue, however. TFOWR 09:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a Welsh issue, not Derborgian ;-) . Of course, i have still found them listed by others on the template (i have no edits on BI navbox). Reguards. --Dэя-Бøяg 12:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The British Isles is just modern English for Pretannic, Bretannic or Britannic Isles. In the real world its current retrospective use is not limited to its etymological introduction and it passes according to Wikipedia policy and consensus e.g. see, Roman London, Scotland during the Roman Empire etc etc etc. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

States of Alderney

The States of Alderney appear to lack any mention of the British Isles in the content and template boxes. The template boxes look as though they need some attention. It would not seem to be controversial to include mention somewhere. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Since they're a part of the Channel Islands, I've no probs with mentioning British Isles within the article. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Alderney a bailiwick of Guernsey (and hence covered implicitly)? I don't know - I'm basing this on decades' old memories of Summer holidays... TFOWR 15:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, answering a completely different question (adding Alderney to the BI template). Looking at States of Alderney, my first thought is that the article is focussed on the government of Alderney, and BI would be better suited to the Alderney article, if it's not already covered (I've not looked yet). TFOWR 15:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, the same question applies to both. It has its own government and president. It is part of the CIs and BIs, and non-controversial. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What change are you proposing to make, and to which article? TFOWR 16:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)