Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples/Closed5

FourFourTwo

Resolved

 – Source found, use two separate links for "Ireland and the United Kingdom". TFOWR 09:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I realize there's been discussions about limiting the number of articles, but this one should be pretty straightforward. It's an incorrect linking of "UK & Ireland" to "British Isles". *96,267 (86%) was in the [[British Isles|UK & Ireland]] and I propose to correct the linking. --HighKing (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct it to what? I agree that it's a dodgy pipe-link, but given the recent SFA debacle, and the lack of working references in the article, I'm not sure what the correct link would be: "British Isles", or "Ireland and the United Kingdom". TFOWR 10:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

They may have got it from this page [1] or this page copied it from wiki. But that source says British Isles, will have a look for the direct source. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm this FourFourTwo website is a nightmare to find stuff on and a search for the specific number stated found nothing. If no direct source can be found, id delete the whole sentence meantioning readership and tell them there only add it back when a proper source is provided and use the term they use be it BI or UK+I. But looking at their website they group Scotland and Wales in the "rest of Europe" so i am not very impressed with them lol and even if a source is found they have probably used the wrong term. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Under "External links" there was a 442 link, then an indented link to ABC that returned a 404 error. 442 is part of Haymarket Media: I couldn't find ABC figures there, either. Thinking about it, this is probably less of a footy issue and more of a magazine distribution issue: how do the likes of Haymarket Media divvy up Western Europe? That should be something we can easily source. TFOWR 10:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Found it. [2] , the PDF file from that uses United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. So it should be changed to that. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed: "United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland" (two separate links). TFOWR 10:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

HK is right to raise this one, it's clearly wrong as TFOWR says. Shall we change it now and you mark it resolved TFOWR? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So marked ;-) TFOWR 09:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes made. --HighKing (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We can probably move stuff to the archive too. --HighKing (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Set the fauna guidelines up

Resolved

 – Looks good. Hopefully "flora" will follow on from this. TFOWR 07:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've set the guidelines at the top of the page, with the subsection for reporting changes. Hopefully Ive done it right - please fix, amend, revert as appropriate. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No one has complained so I'm prepared to mark this as resolved. Thanks, Elen. TFOWR 07:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

See above and see comment re moving stable decision to project page and keep ing discussion here. --Triton Rocker (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The archived discussions mostly cover individual articles, though, so once we've decided on one article it doesn't have much value for other articles (that's something I'm hoping we're moving towards changing, however). TFOWR 11:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Look at the main page

Resolved

 – Apparently the rest of Wikipedia is oblivious to our plight. And we should keep an eye on upcoming featured articles. TFOWR 11:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Omg has anyone else noticed todays featured article on the main page? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure no one will, but I'd strongly recommend none of us make any changes to "that article" until it comes off the main page. Apologies, I should have seen that one coming. TFOWR 21:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

At what time does the FA change each day on the main page? I notice it isnt a problem in the article itself, theres no link or mention of the British Isles. Its just in that summary lol. As ive always said, i am against piping the BI from Britain and Ireland so i thought id mention it. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Who wrote the summary? A wee note should be sent. And a horses head maybe... --HighKing (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know how to get back to yesterday's main page - or tell us which article you guys are talking about --Snowded ^TALK 05:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Constantine II of Scotland (FA, 19 August). TFA folk will almost certainly not be aware of this page (unlike, say, the good folk at Celtic Christianity) so be nice, eh?! ;-) TFOWR 07:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, its before the origin of British Isles other than as a loose translation of greek/latin, so I think its rather like Celtic Christianity where the more normal language is Britain and Ireland. Complicated in this case by the Norse relationship with the Isle of Mann. Personally I would leave that one as it is. --Snowded ^TALK 07:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to be done at this point: the article is fine, it was solely the TFA summary (and the sysop responsible did it to trim word-length). I normally keep an eye on upcoming TFAs, I dropped the ball with that one. I did find myself checking today's FA in case someone was pipe-linking Pacific Islands to "British Isles", but that's probably more due to a lack of coffee... TFOWR 07:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Naming Protocol: Britain and Ireland versus Ireland and Britain

Resolved

 – Use alphabetical ordering: Ireland and the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Ireland. TFOWR 11:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hard to argue against this one but it should be writ down somewhere ... if not carved into the Stone of Destiny.

• Where the two main islands or nations must be named individually, standard naming protocol is for them to be listed as "Britain and Ireland" or "Great Britain and Ireland" according to alphabetical order.

This already come up at least once provoked by the eccentricity of an "Ireland and Britain". --Triton Rocker (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed in respect of the islands. For nations it is Ireland and UK, or United Kingdom, or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Order doesn't matter to much for nations it depends on context--Snowded ^TALK 10:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Best make an absolutely specific list of alternatives and edit accordingly then, e.g. one for nations and one for islands. --Triton Rocker (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on the islands. If we are saying the nations have to be listed Ireland and the UK in that order we may have to reconsider the introduction of British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you forget to put a smiley face after the second sentence BW or were you being serious? --Snowded ^TALK 10:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Id have nothing against the order being changed on that if we did want an agreed form GB+I and I+UK. My only concern there is that the full title of the United Kingdom is stated to avoid confusion on Northern Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No idea on what policies etc exist round this, but my preference is to always use alphabetical order: "Great Britain and Ireland", "Ireland and the United Kingdom", etc. Check the manual of style - there's probably something in there to cover this. TFOWR 11:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't find anything in the MOS, but I believe that alphabetical is always better. Furthermore, I disagree with "Britain and Ireland", due to its ambiguity, but thats another discussion. The exception is when they are listed in another order for a good reason, such as in an article that merits a list by population the UK would go before Ireland. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That is fine with me. Add another caveat that where "Britain and Ireland" is found it should be renamed "Great Britain and Ireland" (for the islands) or "RoI and UK" for the nations, as is respectively accurate.

Personally, if I was writing an editorial guideline for a publication, I would stick to just one persistent name for each nation, e.g. RoI and UK (see: WP:IRE-IRL).

I think it has been pointed out that "Britain" is used as a preferred official abbreviation (of the UK government) but I think we should set a higher and more impartial advisory standard than them.

Given the contentious nature of the debate, I think in this case it would be better too, i.e. Britain out, UK in; Ireland out RoI in at all time --- where it refers to the present day nations --- and this be reflected in the final policy.

MOS is always alphabetical first. --Triton Rocker (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland is in common use so its a legitimate form, it does not always need the Great. --Snowded ^TALK 14:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

lol at this IP changing everything around including to say Ireland and Great Britain :) [3] BritishWatcher (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Piping Protocol: 'Britain and Ireland' to British Isles etc

Resolved

 – Piped-links shouldn't offer up surprises. Ones that can't easily and obviously be fixed should be discussed here. TFOWR 11:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hard to argue against again ... blah blah blah both Stones of Destiny.

• "Britain and Ireland" or "Great Britain and Ireland" should not be piped to "British Isles" and vice-versa as a method of circumventing any naming protocols. All intra-Wikipedia linking should reflect the best practise of accurate referencing.

This is not one I have thought through but it seems the most accurate and disadvantages both politiking sides equally. --Triton Rocker (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Wikipedia:Pipe#Intuitiveness has details. TFOWR 11:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. All such instances should be brought to the attention of the community here for agreement as to the most appropriate solution. Fmph (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Fmph --HighKing (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with myself but, no, Disagree with the community "should having to bring" everything here. We sort the editorial guidelines out and then trust and leave "the community" to get on with their work as best they can, going out to helping others not policing or push political agendas.

It is about time folks wound down their own self-importance and the importance of this bear pit. --Triton Rocker (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree a Protocol is needed, Agree with what is recommended, Disagree that everything needs to be run through here, what is the point of having guidelines or protocols if on every case they are to be used if it has to come via this page. Have the protocol and for anything contentious bring it here then. Codf1977 (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree to the idea of this protocol, disagree with bringing everything here. If we do, what's the point of a protocol? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well for example Great Britain and Ireland may have to be changed to say British Isles rather than just deleting the pipe link and always keeping Great Britain and Ireland in such circumstances. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I think that policy should be to remove the pipelink, exposing whatever the hidden link is as the actual wording. If the person who does this disagrees with what that is, it can be brought here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there's probably no escaping the need to bring instances here: by their very nature dodgy pipes are going to be "controversial". There may be a few obvious ones, like "The two capital cities of the [[British Isles|Ireland and the United Kingdom]] are Dublin and London" (obviously should not be BI, no mention of Douglas, etc) but I'd imagine the majority will be non-obvious. TFOWR 15:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree entirely. These dodgy pipes will probably have been used to disguise the true nature of the link. Any obvious ones, such as the example, will simply be nodded thro' here. Without any histrionics. Fmph (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy to agree deleting piplinks, however if the solution is to change Great Britain and Ireland or Britain and Ireland to British Isles then it needs to be discussed.--Snowded ^TALK 16:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting pipelinks by involved editors should be noted, just so we all know what is happening. Then if any of us question if deletion is the correct choice rather than replacing it with BI we can debate it on a case by case basis, but im happy for the default position to be delete the pipelink, aslong as its noted here. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Involved editors deleting pipe-links should definitely be noted here (and I'd hope that everyone here would discuss first, anyway). I was mostly thinking this was about yesterday's TFA and other pipes created by genuinely non-involved editors. TFOWR 17:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting our priorities right

There is little point saying "should", "must" or "definitely" be discussed here because, a) for most editors they have no idea where "here" is, nor are likely to find it until they are mugged, and b) it is "here" where the worst offenders are.

"Can" or "may have to be" is far better language to use. Every contributor on the Wikipedia is perfectly entitled to turn around and say, "who the fuck are you to tell me?" to us and be quite right. We should be advisory committee, not a self-appointed police force.

What we need to do is make absolutely clear what the policies and editorial guidelines are, with precedent examples, so there is no need for any time wasting discussion. Trust in the majority's of users' intelligence.

It makes no difference whether it is Britain and Ireland to British Isles or British Isles to Britain and Ireland. There should be no sneaky piping going on and no counter-defensive piping required --- just to work around an individual's ego. The link should be what it says and then it just comes down to a content decision; nation or island. As stated, a topic by topic approach for eternity is impossible and, potentially, just another excuse for stonewalling. So keep working on the overarching policy where we can. --Triton Rocker (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

When i talk about things must be noted or discussed here i am just talking about any "Involved" editors. Other editors making changes (provided its not systemic changes) obviously can not be expected to come here and state things. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Bradt Travel Guides

Resolved

 – Initial issue was: is BI OK in this context? It is. Next issues were should the article be improved? and do we have prior discussions about book titles in the archives? Improving articles is what we do here, and yes, we do have prior discussions in the archives. I've started trawling through them, not yet decided the next step but I'm thinking something like an index page for the closed cases. and I've finally found Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples/Closed Summaries. Liking it. TFOWR 10:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting one this. It lists "British Isles" under the wildlife section of countries/areas covered by the guides. So that's a positive since wildlife=fauna, which is OK. But ... searching the Bradt Travel website for any book title with "British Isles" in it (on any topic) doesn't uncover any. So that's bad, since there's no reference. Searching specifically through "Wildlife" also doesn't show any. But, there, sitting on the home page on the right hand side column, is listed a "destination" of "British Isles" so it's not like Bradt don't use the term on their website. But selecting it doesn't show any book titles using British Isles - they all talk about "Britain" - so maybe they're using "British Isles" to mean "Britain". Bad again. But, searching on Google shows numerous mentions of "a delightful romp around the British Isles" - except clicking on the links doesn't work or show that text (at least for me). So in summary, it doesn't seem referenced for the Wildlife books. --HighKing (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it this one [4] BritishWatcher (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly states British Isles on the cover so there is no reason for removal if its being suggested. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's one with British Isles in the title all right. Problem is, it doesn't appear to actually deal with the geographic area known as the "British Isles" as we describe it here. It's described as It covers the surface wildlife that inhabits the inshore waters of northwest Europe, ranging from Brittany on the west coast of France to the North Cape and later as As a practical guide, it will be welcomed by all who have ever looked out to sea from the British coast or voyaged around its waters by yacht, fishing boat or cruise ship and its exquisite illustrations and original engravings also recount the history of the discovery and exploration of the seas surrounding Britain. --HighKing (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What the writer decides to put in his book is his choice, the bottom line is there is a book with the title (although it doesnt appear on their website) but they also use the geographical British Isles in their list, in the same way its used in the list on that article. I dont see any reason for removal now we have found the actual book, no matter what its contents is. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The article has a section entitled "Countries/Areas covered by the guides", not "Areas in the titles of books". From an encyclopedic point of view, it's incorrect to have "British Isles" in the list since its not the same area we discuss in the article. Same term, not the same area. It's a bit like other uses where we've seen "British Isles" used when its really talking about UK or GB. What about simply listing the wildlife books? There's not too many of them and it would then factually be correct? --HighKing (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for removal of British Isles from this article. Its clear they separate their things on their site by areas like the "British Isles" and they have a book with the title. Seems enough justification to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I also see no reason, the article is reporting on the title of the book, if the publisher calls it that no reason to change it, if the book was being used as a cite for something else that may not be my response though. Codf1977 (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I also see no reason to change this, as per Codf1977's comments. LevenBoy (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no case for removal, i think this one is finished? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, whoever is now managing this page should set this one to Resolved. LevenBoy (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The book uses British Isles, so let's use it. GoodDay (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested removing "British Isles" - I'm certainly not. But there's a small problem with the article in that it lists "British Isles" under regions/countries covered, even though it's clear that it's not actually not covered. I believe the intent was to list the regions covered but the book itself states that it covers North Western Europe and it's only the title that uses "British Isles". But I also believe there's a simply way to resolve the ambiguity. I earlier suggested that we simply list the wildlife books - therefore the article doesn't make the claim that "British Isles" is the area covered which is also not supported by any sources. Another suggestion is to move that section to a new section called "Wildlife Series". --HighKing (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Think you may need to look at the article again, the list is headed "Countries/areas covered by the guides" - one of the "areas" covered is "Wildlife" and one of there "Wildlife" guides is on the British Isles. Codf1977 (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And there was me (and probably most other readers) thinking that "areas" referred to geographic areas. Or maybe it does...can I suggest that it is you who may need to look again. --HighKing (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The British Isles is an area. The publisher in question has published a guide to wild life in the British Isles. That is the title of the book. That justifies it being said there as does their website which uses the BI in the menu. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's see. The British Isles is an area - Yes. But Codf above says that Wildlife is an area. Which is it - it can't be both. The publisher in question has published a guide to wild life in the British Isles. No. He has published a book with that title, but the back of the book states clearly that it actually a book on North Western Europe, even covering parts of France and Norway. Therefore it is ambiguous. That is the title of the book. Yes. That justifies it being said there as does their website which uses the BI in the menu. I agree we can justify it being said - I'd prefer if it's laid out a little clearer. Actually, you know what? Why am I having this discussion. I'll just fix the article! --HighKing (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I right in saying that you are not proposing to delete British Isles but rather explain further the geographical area actually covered in the book? Jack1297 (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a number of points. Listing "Wildlife" under "Countries/areas" is wrong, stemming from the attempt by the article author trying to just create a big list of all the countries/areas covered by the travel guides but just ended up mixing apples and oranges. Figuring out a better way to present the material isn't difficult - the Bradt books are categorized and they're not all written as travel guides or with specific destinations in mind. For example "Total Solar Eclipse" or "Tipping: A global guide to gratuity etiquette", don't fit under a convenient "country/area" tag. I'm proposing using categories as a better way to present those books that aren't travel guides. That's the first point. The second point is that the list needs updating. Most of the areas listed are out of date as there's no longer a book published for that area. Rather than losing this info, I propose to have a historic section where books no longer in print can be listed. --HighKing (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth going back over past discussions to pull out examples where some editors have argued against using the title of a book (such as Britain and Ireland) in favour of inserting British Isles based on content, but are now arguing a position based on title. Maybe this signals a change of heart and a general agreement to go with book or paper title? If so we could move forward with such an agreement --Snowded ^TALK 05:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That will be me then. No change of heart - the difference here is this is a list of book titles. As you will see from the post above, if the book was being used as a cite to justify the incorrect use BI then it would be wrong. Codf1977 (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Snowded which example / examples are you referring to? I remember one conversation on books, and im sure we agreed that if the book said Britain and Ireland, we should use the book title. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

We've had it a couple of times of book titles. I'm briefly logged in at Paddington so no time to check. However if we are agreed on titles that is good news --Snowded ^TALK 09:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Eurasian wolf

Resolved

 – Dodgy redirect fixed (dab page), makes sense to have separate articles for wolves on the two islands. Separate issue (template) discussed in a separate thread. TFOWR 09:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This one uses the statement "The Great Britain and Ireland". Surely this should read "The British Isles"? Being a fauna-related article should this not use British Isles as a matter of course? LevenBoy (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, British Isles would seem justified there. A quick google search finds several books talking about wolves in the British Isles. I also note there is Wolves in the British Isles which links to Wolves in Great Britain. There is also a Wolves in Ireland. There for i am going to change the redirect to just list the two things. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm i see that before 4 February 2010, the article was Wolves in the British Isles which contained information on GB and Ireland. There was already a very poor standard article at Wolves in Ireland and someone had proposed a merger. However an editor removed the Ireland content from the BI article, put it on the Ireland page and then moved British Isles to Wolves in Great Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Who was that then? LevenBoy (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor so no foul play. Onetonycousins . The page split appears to be the only involvement by that editor on the article, but the main editor (based on the edit histories) Mariomassone seems to have been ok with the change so there was no dispute over it. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The main editor Mariomassone, is also the main editor of the Eurasian wolf article itself. Maybe we should get their thoughts on the whole thing. If separate articles is better than a single one for the BI, or if that change was the right one and if it should say British Isles or Great Britain and Ireland in that article. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That Wolves in the British Isles redirect should take the user to a disambig page where two links are provided: Wolves in Great Britain and Wolves in Ireland. I see no problem with the two seperate articles as obviously the wolves would develop differently on two different islands, however there is no reason why Wolves in the British Isles should redirect straight to Wolves in Great Britain and ignore Ireland. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well ive deleted the redirect and linked both the pages. 2 articles may be justified, its just the editor thats put in a lot of the work on it created it as British Isles until it was all split by an uninvolved editor. If others want to check how the editor feels about it they can. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirect makes more sense now. Though i do have to say the person who split the article appears to be removing subtle references to the British Isles especially when Ireland is concerned: [5]. I've reverted the change and in the edit summary informed the editor to discuss it here. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That particular statement in the article is supported by the reference which originates from the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). Looks fine to me. --HighKing (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Have to admit the source does make reference to Great Britain and Ireland. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(Great) Britain and Ireland, aka The British Isles, so no problem. User:Onetonycousins is definitely one to watch. LevenBoy (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we go with the source, not our interpretation of the source. --Snowded ^TALK 07:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I now have serious concerns about Wolves in the British Isles that was split by this editor into Wolves in Great Britain and Wolves in Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• OK, quick points: dodgy redirect (BI -> GB): fixed, good. I'd suggest sticking with the source, though BI seems more natural to me in this context (unless, say, the IoM has a substantial 19th century wolf population). The two separate articles (GB, Ireland) seem fine to me - both islands have different things to say about wolves. I don't agree that "Great Britain and Ireland" == British Isles: it's a dab page, with BI as one option. TFOWR 12:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --HighKing (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The editor that created the Wolves in the British Isles article and has contributed a lot to the articles relating to wolves replied to my message on my talk page. User:Mariomassone said:

I initially wanted to merge the two articles because there was no evidence whatsoever of the wolves in Ireland and Britain being seperate species. The term "British Isles" was thus a convenient term for connected or geographically closely knit areas which were otherwise seperated by political boundraries (which mean nothing to animals). Although I didnt split the article, I did not press the matter for their merger, as my primary interest lay in the animals themselves rather than what I can best describe as nationalistic claims over the same animal.

I feel British Isles is an appropriate term to describe an area when a certain animal or plant is present in all the islands, including those outside the dominion of the crown. Hope that helps.''

I can understand why they want to avoid getting dragged into this sort of issue and focus on the content. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I can as well, and they have my sympathies ;-) I take their point about the species being the same, but the articles also deal with non-biological aspects of wolf-ology [sic]: mythology, etc. I'm happy for there to be two separate articles. With the dodgy redirect fixed, I'm happy to mark this as {{Resolved}}, unless anyone objects? TFOWR 09:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. But "wolf-ology"? I'm glad to see that at least you have an "ology" as Maureen Lipman used to say in those BT ads. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Id just like to say the template created by the same editor that split the articles with no debate clearly raises questions about the split, along with the views of the main editor that contributed/created the article makes me think the articles should never have been split in the first place. However they have been separate articles now for many months and additional material has been added to both and they are stable, so ill accept this as resolved. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BW concern about template

Resolved

 – Concerns about editors in the BI arena are on-topic here. The editor been contacted and is now aware of this page. The template I'm not so sure about (I quite like the idea, and the idea of a matching "merge" template, but I'm not sure that my view has consensus). Maybe consider WP:TFD? TFOWR 09:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok i too am now concerned about User:Onetonycousins. This editor has now created a template.

{{Briland}}

This is troubling. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You can always nominate it for deletion BW, this is not the forum --Snowded ^TALK 12:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This clearly enters the realm of the British Isles Taskforce. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like it, nominate it for deletion and post a notice here so anyone sufficiently motivated can respond --Snowded ^TALK 12:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I will be keeping an eye on the locations this template is inserted. If it does not get used then perhaps it should be nominated for deletion. However the issue of the templates fate is not my primary concern. This editor based on several edits and this template has a problem with Britain and Ireland being grouped together. This is the editor that with no debate split an article on Wolves in the British Isles and turned it into Wolves in Great Britain. That is clearly an issue for the debate above. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, catching up here, but first thought is: BW, what did the editor say when you raised it with them? TFOWR 12:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have had no communication with the editor in question. Ive only just come across the template and removed it from one article it got inserted on. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd recommend rectifying that. Not just for politeness' sake, but because it'd be more useful to have the editor here, explaining, than not here, with us second-guessing. The other editor involved in the Wolves in the BI article (the original author?) would also be a good person to ping, if they're still around. TFOWR 12:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Notified both. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, BW. Note that the template/creator are being discussed at WP:CCN. I've commented there on the template (summary: could be useful, if balanced with a matching template). TFOWR 09:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Isle of Man

Resolved

 – No problem mentioning BI in geography sections/articles. Infobox: the lead makes clear that the political entity is also a geographic entity (an island). However, the infobox is a political infobox, not an island infobox. I'm not sure I see the need to add BI to the infobox, or even if it's possible. Assuming it were possible I have no objection in principle. TFOWR 09:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Geography section of this article fails to note the Isle of Man is in the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC) It also fails to mention British Isles in the island infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say add it. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. And if someone cares to get out an atlas and a compass (the one for drawing circles) they could expand the section on distances between IoM and "Britain"; change it to British Isles and include the island of Ireland. LevenBoy (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Geography of the United Kingdom

Resolved

 – No problem mentioning BI in geography sections/articles. (And I'd suggest both sentences could be combined/used: something like (and I stress that this is only illustrative) "The United Kingdom occupies all of Great Britain and a sixth of the island of Ireland. In addition to these two largest islands, with X smaller islands the UK occupies a significant part of the BI.") TFOWR 09:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A caption image states "The United Kingdom occupies a substantial part of the British Isles." It is sadly not explained within the text and perhaps should be to avoid confusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It oughtta be this way: The United Kingdom occupies all of Great Britain & a sixth of the island of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Both statements are true, though being more specific wouldn't hurt. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Channel Islands

Resolved

 – No problem mentioning BI in geography sections/articles. TFOWR 08:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This article fails to explain its position within the British Isles, considering some say this is "just by tradition", it is important we explain the situation, a paragraph on it in the article would be justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Geography of the Isle of Man

Resolved

 – No problem mentioning BI in geography sections/articles. TFOWR 08:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This article mentions the British Isless in the climate section but does not clearly state it is part of the British Isles, it probably deserves to be mentioned in the introduction of this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Keith Floyd

Resolved

 – I'm not keen on creating additional task for admins/non-involved editors. We can revisit this if a significant problem occurs, but until then direct anyone here if they revert an edit made after discussion here. TFOWR 09:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

HighKing has just removed a link to British Isles which was pipelinked as Britain and Ireland. [6] This case was closed and just saying Great Britain and Ireland rather than the link to British Isles is something i agree with in this case and seemed to be the consensus at the time.

However in future it would be very helpful if another editor or one of the admins makes the change when its closed or if its re raised here because there is a problem. I fear that Highking making the change could cause some editors to revert, as has happened in the past when changes have been made without agreement. We would not want to accidentally spark an edit war. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern and it is noted. The issue was raised and discussed on these pages (now in archive3 here, and the consensus and closing conclusion was to remove the links in shows and book titles. I have now done just that after checking with the closing admin TFWOR prior to making any changes. I wasn't asking to make the changes, just pointing out that they hadn't happened, but TFWOR indicated I should go ahead. --HighKing (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, did not notice the debate on TFWORs talk page. I just saw the edit and i was worried that it might spark an edit war if certain editors saw it. I agree with the change and it should have been made ages ago, is strange it slipped through the net. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've no more use for pipe-linking of this term. Either use British Isles or wiki-link to another term. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• This was, if you'll recall, an article with some spectacular linking: "Floyd on Fish", "Floyd on Rabbits", etc. The consensus at whichever board it got punted to was that we should link to articles about the books/series/whatever, e.g. "Floyd on Fish". The instance we're interested in was Floyd on Britain and Ireland, where "Britain and Ireland" was a dodgy-pipe to "British Isles". It should link to the book/series, if such an article exists, or be a red-link, or be a non-link. Related to this, and apropos of comments above, I'm reluctant to start a process whereby an admin or uninvolved third-party makes changes to avoid an edit war. I suggested to High King that they link to the discussion here (or archived) in their edit summary. If folk ignore an edit summary like that, and revert, then that's their problem. Ping them, direct them here, and we can explain what we're doing, and why, and hopefully gain some "fresh blood". TFOWR 10:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Renaming the awful project page names

Resolved

 – No consensus for a change at this time. Agree that "task force" is... just wrong. TFOWR 11:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to propose renaming the project pages away from British Isles Terminology task force prior to rationalising them in a neat and tidy manner.

This has been irking me for some time now. It underlines some of the essential problem with this project.

I suggest something like

• British Isles Naming Conventions.

Or perhaps even better and more humble

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (British Isles)

There is already an entire [[Category:Wikipedia naming conventions]]

I want to remove the feelings of:

• "Force" - which underlines the element of aggression that has been going on --- both obvious, sneaky and passive-aggressive
• "Task" - an element which suggest burden or hard work
• and even "Term" - which suggest being banged up in The Maze for 6 months.

One already has:

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) - which we want to update at some point
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) --- etc etc etc.

Task force" is all wrong. They are hard words and a reflection of the state of mind they came out of. As MickMacNee would probably say, "fuck off if you think you can force me to do anything or task me" --- and quite rightly so.

It should not be like this. We are moving on well now. Let's leave "The Troubles" and oppression behind. A fresh start.

Conventions is much more about bring people together and order, and fits in.

As I have worked out how to do it now, I suggest a nice clean page move, reducing the number of pages involved and setting up a proper archive like other admin pages which I am currently discussing with the janny.--Triton Rocker (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I quite like being part of a taskforce. Its a nicer term than the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, I was not really a fan of being a collaborator, it has a rather negative meaning. I wouldnt mind us moving to the taskforce page to have all these debates now the "specific examples" page seems to be the only place we talk about anything. WP:ANI deals with BI matters more than the main taskforce page now. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh another problem is we attempted to do the BI MOS but that simply did not work out, there for apart from minor agreements there s no real "naming conventions". Taskforce more accurately reflects our duties. As for it being "an element which suggest burden or hard work" - that sounds very accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Happy for there to be a name change. However... Category:Wikipedia naming conventions is for conventions on article titles, so I'd suggest we find something else. TFOWR 13:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Category: is but if you look at the pages, many of them cover identical groups. The BI does not exist yet and probably should.

Do you mean a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (British Isles)?

Yes, have folks go and do all the snitching and fist fights over at WP:ANI in front of a bigger audience if they have to, but let's just do a BI MOS, with plenty of precedent examples, and wind this thing down as peaceably as possible.

The problem is at present, it is not a Task force (point in one direction), it a tasking fight. I think we are moving quickly to that single direction MOS now. Hopefully, there will not be recidivists elements and there will be no need to have a perpetual constabulary. --Triton Rocker (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutral on it, kind of get the feeling that it does not matter what we call this page, why waste time on a non issue. Codf1977 (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am with BW and codf1977 here, there are better things to do than rename this --Snowded ^TALK 14:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cod.

OK, then just recluse yourselves and register it an "it does not matter to me" then. Those of us that want to work will.

Why? Because we are going to be cleaning up these pages, moving things around and rationalising them, so it make more sense doing it in a oner.

I am sorry Snowded, but you have been involved in this debacle since when --- 2 or 3 years ago --- longer? Part of this sprawling mess is a reflection of your input, or lack of it, and so it is time for you to accept some fresh input to cleaning up the proceedings.

I am also thinking that part of the problem is a little bit too much personal attachment to the project on HighKing's behalf and that a change of drapes and some new paint will do the project a world of good. It should not take 2 or 3 years ago to sort out such a simple editorial guideline. --Triton Rocker (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The taskforce will be with you, always. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton, just for one 24 hour period, would you be prepared to post without casting slurs on other editors. Its getting really tedious. --Snowded ^TALK 18:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"It should not take 2 or 3 years ago to sort out...." Whatcha talking about TR? GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

When was your first involvement, GoodDay ... 3 August 2008? Earlier?

I can't remember. My point is, your sentence seems garbled, I don't understand what you've posted. GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but, no, Snowded. It is not a slur, nor intended as one. Please do not attempt to diminish the statement by erroneously reducing to a personal attack. It is a statement of fact.

It is been 2 or more years "formally" --- and God knows how long the dispute has gone on informally --- and how close to a consistent editorial guideline to being formed were you? It should have taken about an afternoon.

But, at least, we are moving forward towards that now. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton, I am happy to accept that a statement which, for any other editor would be a slur, is a statement of fact as you see it. If you want you can read up on many attempts (some of which took an afternoon) to find an agreed form of words, but you might find that discouraging. I am happy to believe that now Triton has rocked up, deaths head mask and all, that resolutions will suddenly be found, age old disputes resolved and peace and harmony will range over the lands. In order to encourage me in these beliefs would you perhaps follow up on the thousands of articles on Fauna you indicated were awaiting agreement to a protocol? You could even take me up on my offer to propose your editing sanction be relaxed to allow you to do that work. Making one agreement work might justify renaming the page as a symbol of the major progress that your inspired leadership will hopefully bring. --Snowded ^TALK 09:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure whether renaming is necessary, but I do think pages should be cleaned up. Most of the project page should probably be blanked, removing all discussions and leaving just the description of the project and whatever guidelines are brought up. There should also be a link up the top to this page. Similarly, the actual page for BISE should just have the guidelines, like the WP:CIVIL note above, as well as the stonewalling and whatever else. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone got a complete list of ALL the pages connected to this and I will try and make sense of it? I keep finding new ones and HighKing is off making more. It is all a painfully confusing shambles and I am starting to suspect confusion is part of the game.

I am sorry Snowded, you may not understand this but at present I would not consider you have any authority or influence over me --- even to the extent of having you propose my editing sanctions be relaxed. I have no problems with my sanctions, only being snitched on by others as part of their game.

My experience as a newcomer to all this was one of being mugged in a pincer movement by editors I have since discovered have been involved in this debacle for years, and clearly scapegoated. I realise now that I stepped on 'territory' others obviously considered to be "theirs" as part of some wider campaign.

What would help the most would be if you and others could point out where you make a your ultimate position on all this perfectly clear --- or just tell us now if you have not. What I would like to do is make it easier for other newcomers to get up to speed on all this quickly and act productively. Thanks. I see other such projects where editors do just that.

It strikes me that the atmosphere has become turdgid and we need some fresh air and change in here quick. --Triton Rocker (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lmao, sadly you do have a point, we should certainly create a single index page for all pages (not articles) related to the BI dispute including things like WP:British Isles etc just for reference. You mention the pincer movement, at times on wikipedia Blitzkrieg also seems to be used. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Wikiproject" sees to be the going term, so that would make it WikiProject British Isles which I would be happy with. It tones things down a little. No stickly collaboration, no aggressive tasking or force.

So I suggest we move things over to it and its talk page, archive everything and make clean start. Likewise, we use a proper "Noticeboard archives" type archive for it all, like here.

I started the two new pages it seems we need, here:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (British Isles-related articles) --- for content, and here;
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (British Isles) --- for titles

if folks want to do things "properly". I am afraid that I am going to have to take a break from tidying things up as I had to instead waste half an hour with one of my stalkers and so I leave them open to others to work on right now.

I'd like some gentlemanly assurances from non-participant admins that they butt out for a while and allow us to deal with this tidying up. It is hard enough without having to fight them too. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to think about working on those pages in a sandpit and then invite comments before you start any mass deletions or moves of other data and articles. --Snowded ^TALK 05:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

More pages? Really? We don't need that. All the information from that should be in the project page of this BISE page, and maybe the actual terminology task force project page. No need for even more pages to scrawl through. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No, not more pages; less pages. Read the discussion.

My offer was to reduce the all the mess to one current discussion page as a Wikiproject (not Task Force), with proper archiving.

A Manual of Style page is for content decision. Naming conventions is for article titles. That is the way the Wikipedia does it.

I started by moving ALL the old discussion here, to sort to the stale stuff out and linked to it but an uninvolved admin threw a hissy fit about that for God knows what reason. I do not see them volunteering to do so. Do you want to? --Triton Rocker (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to work on it as a long term project, helping you, but I think we should wait for TFOWR (or another admin) to make the call on your suggestion. While I appreciate and agree with the concerns you have, it'd be better to wait for administrative guidance, for the sake of not starting an unnecessary fight (which this topic has created, a lot). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing on principles

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.

Boldly moved to Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force#Agreeing on principles. TFOWR 09:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

A key sticking point is that there is no consensus on what the BI covers as a term. Until that's resolved, the arguments will continue in ever-decreasing circles of usefulness. There are two basic positions. Position (1) is that the BI only relates to all parts of the islands, including the CI and I of M. Position (2) is that it is a more generic term, relating to anything that covers multiple spots or parts of more than just the British mainland. Personally I come down on position 2 but with some limits. If the "British" camp can move to defining those limits, we will make progress. If the "Irish" camp (I'm using these terms very loosely, so apologies for the shorthand) can accept that it is more than just Position (1), we will make progress. If a number of you in both camps remain unwilling to move on either, there is absolutely no point in further discussion and the best move for the admins would be to freeze all further removals/adds Wiki-wide until such time as you can agree to move on these positions. We should really put this to the vote. Enough time has now been wasted on pointless arguments and pointlessly (sometimes laughable lame) arcane specific examples. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems appropriate in this case, given BW's example. However, there is no reason to create a 'block' of any type of argument besides WP:IDONTLIKE. I'm quite sure there are situations where British Isles is incorrect to use. Both Jamesinderbyshire's opinions are really just different usages of the same meaning. Going back to the Europe analogy, I'm sure if someone said "European civilization flourished during the Roman Period" it'd be a nice solid fact, and would fall under position (2) of above. However, if one was to say the "Roman Empire controlled Europe" it would be incorrect, but would be using position (1). Anyway, my point is that there is no reason to block certain arguments if they are valid. As for a vote, let's not. It'd be a polarization of a complex issue. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The principles are not complicated. At the moment you don't even have agreed principles on this crucial point. Still, I'm not one to cut across people who enjoy a nice, endless argument for it's own sake, and so long as the admins aren't bothered by it and there are no actual add/deletes resulting from any of this, I am sure most will be happy. Shame about the quality of articles, but it's a small price to pay. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's magnify your divisions to make them even clearer.

(1) Some individuals are actually trying to argue that to use BI, the topic/subject MUST BE PROVEN to relate to ALL parts of the islands.

It is just a pedantic gambit designed to tire out their opposition.

Such logic would extrapolate to "any topics mentioning Europe MUST BE PROVEN relate to all European nations".

Nonsense.

I am with (2). It is a more generic term and the only one free of chauvinism.

Commonsense should apply. British Isles should also be the default term in preference to the wholly and endlessly inaccurate Britains and Ireland, as it is the broader, safer and non-political brush. The islands are so close woven --- excuse the pun --- in environment and history that should the subject or topic apply to a majority, the onus should be on the accusers to prove that it DOES NOT apply to the whole. That we MUST exclude one or other part for a good reason.

--Triton Rocker (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A specific example about Europe would be when talking about World War 2. Would it be wrong to say war broke out in Europe despite not all of Europe being at war because some countries chose to remain neutral? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me as both 1 and 2 are partly true. The British Isles = does equal GB+I+IOM+CI, but that does not mean we must find a source saying British Isles, or a source backing up something for every part of the British Isles for it to be justified. Some times saying the country (be it England or United Kingdom) is more appropriate. But it does depend on the circumstances, these fixed set of rules are harder to agree to.

When it comes to limits on the use of BI the one thing i am prepared to agree on is BI should not be used when talking about a political act. The example ive mentioned a few times... British Isles declared war on Germany. This is totally incorrect, a group of islands do not declare war, countries do. However German invaded the British Isles is totally acceptable, because the political action is being taken by Germany against a geographical area, which is true. Just like you could say Germany invaded Africa or Asia. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion nicely captures the positions adopted by the two "sides". I'd be happy to accept a more common sense approach for certain general categories or topics or subject matter. --HighKing (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate venue for this discussion. This page is for discussing specific examples. The project page is the correct place. Fmph (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the only active place to discuss these matters, this page has already gone well beyond its original name. That is why a proposed restructuring seems needed, because the main terminology page is now inactive as we are all here. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Fmph. Stuff gets punted between different venues all the time, I don't see why non-specific examples can't be moved to Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force. Focussing on specific examples here, and general examples there would make my life slightly easier, and that's got to be good, right? ;-) Thinking about it, "blanket rulings" (which aren't rulings...) should be promoted to Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force and discussed there, with exceptions to the rulings being discussed here (along with anything else that's a specific example). TFOWR 09:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer all British Isles debate take place in one location, rather than having separate debates with specific examples on one page and potential blanket rulings and everything else on another. I think its easier only having to check this one page each day not having to worry about anything on the taskforce page as its inactive. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I sympathise, but really - do you only check this page once a day? Does anyone? And surely if a page that is otherwise inactive suddenly pops up on your watchlist, surely that's more dramatic than the numerous pops from this page? Splitting the non-specific examples from the specific examples page has got to cut down the noise here, at least. We already discuss the broad issue elsewhere (at ANI, for example...) so another page on our watchlists isn't that great a burden. TFOWR 10:01, 30 August 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.

Republic of Ireland - Geography section

Resolved

 – My concern with pipe-linking is surprises. "Britain and Ireland" should link to an article about the term "Britain and Ireland", not surprise the reader by taking them to "British Isles". The BI template has been discussed elsewhere, but my recommendation is that BI always be used, with, if necessary, an alternative term. I do not have a problem with "group of islands": I do not believe the "surprise factor" comes in here, as any reader curious about which group of islands can click the link and find out - they won't be mislead. I also don't see the need to specify the "group of islands" in an article about a political entity - what matters is which political organisations the country belongs to, not which geographical entities it belongs to. TFOWR 09:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Right the following section of the Republic of Ireland article makes reference to the "group of islands", recently pipe-linked to British Isles on the grounds that there was no link provided for the user to find out more about the islands. However i think there is a case for the use of the actual term British Isles being used without being piped, especially as this is about geography and not politics. Its not like its unsourced, but of course it should be discussed.

“ The country belongs to a group of islands in northwestern Europe which include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and over six thousand smaller islands. The island of Ireland extends over 84,421 km² (32,595 sq mi), of which approximately five-sixths belongs to the Republic of Ireland (70,280 km² (27,135 sq mi)) and the remainder constitutes Northern Ireland. It is bounded to the north and west by the Atlantic Ocean, and to the northeast by the North Channel. To the east is found the Irish Sea which reconnects to the ocean via the southwest with St George's Channel and the Celtic Sea. The west coast of Ireland mostly consists of cliffs, hills and low mountains. The highest point in the country is Carrauntoohil at 1,038 m or 3,406 ft, which situated in the Macgillycuddy's Reeks mountain range in County Kerry. ”

Comments (and no doubt complaints) please? Mabuska ^(talk) 12:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you've really got to laugh some times haven't you? Some editors really take the piss. I suggest this one is rectified immediately by de-piping and a straight link to British Isles. No ned to wait for "permission" since the current arrangement is nothing more than extreme POV pushing verging on vandalism. LevenBoy (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think more opinion is needed before we make any bold edits, whether we think they are right or not. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right. The whole issue is now moribund anyway - and perhaps it's no bad thing. Regarding this current stupidity, stand by for claims of non-notability and suggestions to take out the "offending" sentence completely. LevenBoy (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it would be absolutely rediculous and stupid to remove the paragraph or sentence detailing where exactly the country is in geographic terms. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think group of islands there piping to British Isles is ok as a compromise, but the British Isles template at the bottom needs to say BI and not Britain and Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of this discussion is just to see whether or not it needs to be piped. Though yes the issue of the British Isles template needs addressed to. Shoedred seems to think "Britain and Ireland" is suffice. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

They've jumped through hoops there, I actually admire the way they wrote around the issue, we should leave it there out of pure cheek! Anyway, I don't think editing that article will get anywhere, for better or for worse. Probably best to leave it, at least for now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's blatant POV of the worst kind ans should be eliminated. Where would we be if everyone who disliked a particular term came along and replaced it with something less informative? Readers should not have to follow a link to see what the hell is being described. It's pathetic pandering to anti-BI lobby. LevenBoy (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as 'Irish Sea' is being used directly? we should use 'British Isles' directly. GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think there is a bigger issue than that - "country belongs to" - the country does not belong to anything (Note : please do not discuss this below, i accept it may belong to the people but we are not here to debate that), the country occupies approximately five-sixths of the island of Ireland which it's self is part of the British Isles is surely more encyclopaedic ? Codf1977 (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If it were encyclopaedic, you'd probably find lots of references to it, wouldn't you. But I don't think you will. You might find a few, but you're more likely to find references to Irelands position in Europe, methinks. Fmph (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's already there Fmph. What we are discussing is the use of the pipelink. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete the pipelink, unless somebody wants to pipelink Irish Sea, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we pipe-link it to St. George's Channel its old name? Or Manx Sea? ;-) On a topic at hand, there is no need for the pipe-link then especially as British Isles is the most commonly used encyclopedic term for the group of islands in question? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think for the Republic of Ireland article the compromise should be to accept in the geography section "The country belongs to a group of islands in northwestern Europe..." piping the group of islands to British Isles. But because we go out of our way to avoid mentioning BI in the text where it is clearly justified in that sentence, people should accept the template remaining with its proper British Isles title. Seems reasonable to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought St. George's channel was south of the Irish sea, not part of it? I think consensus has been reached here, just waiting for TFOWR's socks to get back. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was Chipmunk i'm not sure anymore lol :-P Mabuska ^(talk) 14:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we have a ruling for this one TFOWR? Mabuska ^(talk) 13:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

THis is now being discuss again on the talk page and it looks like the debate is to remove mentioning Ireland is part of the British Isles . BritishWatcher (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

FourFourTwo re-opened

Resolved

 – Stick to what the source says, with a note clarifying that the source defines "UK" as "UK+IoM+CI". BW has added such a note, so I'd suggest that this could also be marked as {{Done}}? TFOWR 09:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done The new information which led to this being reopened has been added to the article (without use of British Isles) and the data updated. Ready for archiving. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

HighKing recently did this: [7]. However, the following has come to my attention - Dear Sir/Madam (no name supplied), Thank you for your recent email. ABC does indeed hold definitions of the territories we report data under. In the case of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, we certify these territories within the heading for the United Kingdom. This is how the industry we serve has requested that we analyse data. On our website this page http://www.abc.org.uk/Corporate/AboutABC/Classificationofcountries.aspx has a link to this document that notes that the Isle of Man, Channel Islands and certain other territories is analysed by our clients within UK regions http://www.abc.org.uk/Corporate/AboutABC/documents/geoanalysiscounty.pdf. I hope this answers your query. Richard Gentle Operations Manager Tel: +44 (0) 1442 200732 Email: Richard.Gentle@abc.org.uk www.abc.org.uk So the ciculation figures relate to the whole of the British Isles and HK's edit has therefore introduced an error. I'll make no further comment. LevenBoy (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC) If an error has been made, revert. If an error hasn't been made, keep as is. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Note: The original debate on this subject seems no longer to be available. LevenBoy (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC) WP:OR unfortunately. Get ABC to publish it on their website, or email the Wikipedia Foundation, or something much more public. That would do it. Fmph (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Doh!. Yes, teh ref says Channel Islands+Isle of Man Fmph (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC) If its in the ref then so be it and let it be done with. Mabuska (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC) If the website uses "British Isles as a classification or grouping, then we'll change the article. But it doesn't, so I see no reason to group together in this way. ABC separate the UK and Ireland and that is how it should be reported. They do not group these together to provide for an analysis of "British Isles", and it makes no sense to convert country ratings into geographic region ratings. I suggest that if you believe its notable for readers to know that the crown dependencies are included in the figures, then simply add a footnote pointing this out. --HighKing (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC) The original discussion certainly is available at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples/Closed5 for anyone who doesn't want to trawl through history. My initial instinct is to continue to use the terms ABC use, with any clarification as required, e.g. could we use a note to explain what ABC consider to be "the UK" here, reffed to [8]? But I'm open to arguments either way. TFOWR 09:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC) The point here is that the article was more accurate before the change than it is now, even though it used a geographical area for circulation data. The article now gives misleading data, so at the very least we should explain that in this case the UK includes IoM and CI. In the rush to rid Wikipedia of British Isles we have yet another example of errors being introduced. Perhaps we should all stick to subjects that we know something about. That would make life easier for everyone. LevenBoy (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC) The real point is that we work with what we've got, and that article development is iterative and ongoing. As articles develops they attract more and better sources, and that's what's happening here. We identified a problem and addressed it. We've identified another problem and we're addressing it. There is no rush. You state "In the rush to rid Wikipedia of British Isles". I've left this in, rather than removing it, as I wish to comment publicly on statements like this. Don't make them. The purpose of this page is to consider usages, and to "rid" and add as appropriate. You misrepresent this page's purpose, and you ascribe motivations to other editors. You should know by now - you do know by now - that this kind of language is inflammatory and serves no useful, genuine purpose. If you want to vent your frustration find somewhere else to do it. "Perhaps we should all stick to subjects that we know something about". What editors do is their choice, and there is a general expectation that articles can and probably should be edited by editors with little knowledge of the subject. The problem in POV areas is rarely inexperienced or ignorant editors and I do not believe it is the case here, either with the article or with this page. TFOWR 11:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Will you please stop telling me what I can and can't say! I've had just about enough of you and others such as Cailil who pick up on the slightest turn of phrase and proceed to issue inappropriate warnings. I stand by my comments. If there was no intent by some to remove British Isles for arguably the wrong reasons the situation regarding FourFourTwo would not have arisen. What we have now is an attempt to fix a minor problem - if it was a problem at all - leading to a bigger problem. My statement above is relevant to this proble. LevenBoy (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Will you please stop telling me what I can and can't say! No. Don't make comments like that. If you continue you'll be blocked for steadily increasing durations. TFOWR 12:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Hmm this does change things. It should say British Isles, that is the area they are describing if it includes United Kingdom, Ireland, Isle of Man and Channel Islands. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Is that a general rule, with a converse that says if IoM or CI are not included, then BI shouldn't be? Fmph (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC) The would make an excellent rule Fmph. We can't have it one way and not the other. Bjmullan (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC) The stats are without reference - who says that the numbers are right - and by right an editor could simply delete them. But why introduce a made-up category of "British Isles" that is not supported by the circulation figures? The numbers, should the exist, should be represented as they are in the source. If the source adds them together and calls them British Isles, then fine. If they don't, articles here shouldn't either. And good points by Fmph too. --HighKing (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Well when i thought the source said just UK and Ireland i supported the removal of British Isles, we now know that they include CI and IOM there for it is the British Isles. When we are talking about a specific figure we do have to be as accurate as possible. It would be wrong to say a certain amount of copies are sold in the British Isles, if its possible more are sold because they exclude IOM / CI. That is very different to for example the linen debate, where its fine to say within the British Isles, even if its just about GB+I. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Keep with the source --Snowded TALK 05:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Agree with sticking with the source. Add a note in the article if necessary. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Id be prepared to support a note, saying covers other areas of the British Isles including Isle of Man and Channel islands. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC) The problem here is not with the data --- which we now know is for the British Isles as a whole --- the problem is with non-experts being unable to read trade or expert resources. The source makes it clear what it means by its use. That is not "original resource". That is "having to spell out for non-experts with clear nationalistic agendas". For our purposes, that use is "British Isles" --- unless you intend to introduce a neologism that "United Kingdom and Ireland" also means British Isles. We all know it does not. Commonsense tells us all that the IoM and CI have the same newsagent chains, the same magazine distributors as the UK, many of which shared with Ireland, e.g. WHSmiths, supermarkets etc. We all know that --- at least editors from the British Isles do. Others can apply WP:COMMONSENSE. This is why ABC counts them all together --- either because it is impossible to separate or, more likely, that the numbers are too small to make any significant difference to advertisers. This is just another ridiculous and desperate attempt in a nationalistically motivated campaign, defying logic, that should not be entertained. You cannot insist something wrong. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC) The article is clearly wrong at the moment, so I'm reverting it to the condition it was in before it was brought here. If we can agree on a better version then so be it. LevenBoy (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC) ...and I've reverted you. Don't add/remove while the topic is under discussion (and don't undo SmackBot either - that was just silly). TFOWR 11:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Perhaps this might help. It is the reporting standards which are the industry-agreed rules by which ABC/ABCe data is prepared. The document makes no mention of the British Isles and actual includes both the CI (South West) and IoM (North West) as part of the UK. The only two countries that it uses are UK & ROI. Issue closed in my opinion. Bjmullan (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC) We know all of this and that is the problem. They include IOM + CI as part of UK+I, but that is not accurate for wikipedias definition of the UK+I. That is why at the very least we need to add a note saying it covers other parts of the British Isles including CI and IOM. It is clear the area they talk about is the British Isles, not just the UK + I BritishWatcher (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I think we should stick to the magazines official terms, but definitely a note or a reword could be included to say that the terms are how the magazine describes them. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Levenboy, your edit is in breach of the sanction. Please self-revert or you may face a block. --HighKing (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC) How so? I am not topic banned, and in any event I'm only doing what you are suggesting should be done at Artemisia_vulgaris. No, the data was wrong, so it's best to put it back to how it was pending a final agreement here. I understand that it was in order for you to make the change you did - as far as the etiquette of this page goes, but now it makes sense to revert it. LevenBoy (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Turns out it wasn't in breach - apologies. It is different to Artemisia vulgaris because in those cases, the change was made first, then a discussion was started in an attempt to justify the change. Since it has been marked as "Unresolved", it means there's isn't a consensus for the change and the article should be reverted. In the case of FourFourTwo, the topic is marked as "Resolved". Anyone can reopen a discussion, but that doesn't overturn the resolution - that needs a new resolution. Also, the "new evidence" being discussed hasn't changed the consensus that the bad wikilink is wrong - the discussion appears to revolve around whether a note is required to clarify that IoM and CI is counted as part of the UK. --HighKing (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I have added a note stating the figure includes the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. I have also updated it with the most recent figures. I suggest we close this case and move on. British Isles would be justified as the area it is talking about includes the whole British Isles, but we may as well say ROI and UK as that is what the source says, even if it means something else in this case. We need to try and clear some of this backlog. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC) If there are no further issues with this, I'll {{resolved}} this tonight. TFOWR 10:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

White people (Resolved)

Resolved

 – (Again). I'd still like to see UK and Ireland treated separately, but for now I'm going to recommend changing it to "Ireland and United Kingdom", with the intention to split two separate countries, with two separate histories of white immigration and residence. TFOWR 13:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Resolved  – Canada and the United States are treated separately, I see no reason to treat Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom together. The section "Census and social definitions in different regions" should probably be renamed: it doesn't deal with regions at all. TFOWR 09:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC) This one seems to break the rule we agreed for fauna - ie it lists a series of countries, but then uses Great Britain & Ireland (two geographical terms). Logic is to split that section into United Kingdom and Ireland. --Snowded TALK 12:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC) It is talking about white people over a period of time, including whilst Ireland and Great Britain were part of the same country. It has been this way for two years. The title of the list mentions regions, not countries. I see no reason for change. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC) BW you earlier agreed a principle by which geography names should not be mixed with names of countries. This is the first test case of your willingness to abide by such agreements. Do you want to reconsider your statement? --Snowded TALK 16:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Perhaps i should reconsider agreement to such a principle although it was never set in stone anywhere anyway. The section describes it as regions, not countries, even if many in the list are single countries. That section for Great Britain and Ireland has been there 2 years, it partially covers a period when Britain and Ireland were part of one country which was the reason for it being changed to cover Ireland as well. Its questionable the need for a separate section covering white people in the UK and Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC) In other words you are happy to agree a principle until a case comes up where applying that principle would break your POV. Its going to be very difficult to make any type of progress if you take that attitude. Oh and what happened to your voluntary limit on nominations for inclusion of BI? I'm starting to think it may be time for a RfC on this type of behaviour. --Snowded TALK 20:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC) I have stated several times there should be a limit to the number of cases that can be introduced at once, sadly no agreement was reached. I am pointing out articles where the British Isles should be mentioned but is not, in some cases because of censorship. It is amazing how editors here were fine for this sort of place to exist when it was all one sided, with endless suggestions of where British Isles must be removed. Besides, i have only listed four clear examples of where the British Isles should be included below. Other issues have come up, but i did not raise them all. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Oh and as for what people have previously agreed. I note many agreed to Great Britain and Ireland should not pipelink to British Isles. Sadly that is what is presently happening on the British Isles template at Ireland and Republic of Ireland because we are trying to avoid mentioning BI on it. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Let's use United Kingdom and Ireland as the section header. Those other section headers go by modern-day names, too. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC) I agree, and I'm dismayed at the arguments against this rule that appears to need agreement over and over. --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Thinking back i think what i agreed to was that British Isles should not be in line with a bunch of countries. This is not the case in this article. It is simply grouping Great Britain and Ireland together. I do not see a problem with that at all. Although i have no objection to it being changed to United Kingdom and Ireland if that would be better for people. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Reopen (2) I disagree that this should be changed. It has been a single section on Great Britain and Ireland for over 2 years now. I would support changing it to United Kingdom and Ireland so it is country names in line with other country names. But the section in question clearly covers both Britain and Ireland and in part covers a time period when the two were part of the same country. The United States and Canada have never been part of the same country, they were simply part at one point of Britain's North American colonies. There are many cases where Britain and Ireland should be covered together, this is one of those cases. It is simply a reflection of the shared history the people of the British Isles have. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I agree see no problem with either "United Kingdom and Ireland" or the simpler form "British Isles".Codf1977 (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Good grief. What an awful article. Since the overall section heading is entitled Census and social definitions in different regions, I don't see how the historical stuff is remotely relevant. And Cod, above, highlights the perennial problem of not fully understanding the meanings of different terms. When's the last time you saw a census for the British Isles? Actually ... when's the first time? --HighKing (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Poor Show BW, we have a principle agreed and you now argue that it doesn't apply. --Snowded TALK 20:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Am I missing something, or isn't it the case that the article does not describe which usage of Ireland it is making, eg, Island of Ireland or the Republic of Ireland? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I think i agreed that British Isles should not be used in line with a list of countries, although that was never a formal agreement. This is about Great Britain and Ireland, and ive said we should maybe change it to UK and Ireland so that it uses countries. I think there are occasions when Britain and Ireland should be grouped together in this way, it simply reflects the shared history we have on these islands. People agreed above that piping Great Britain to British Isles should not happen and yet we have that on the BI template on the Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles. not hearing much opposition to that and demands for it to just say British Isles from some editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Part of this confusion seems to be that the article itself is quite poor qualitywise. I think this should be a list of countries, anything else in the context of demographic makeup seems off. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC) I'm not seeing any reason to re-open this, sorry. I'd go so far as to argue that the article should be even more specific, looking at white people in different parts of, say, Canada (Quebec, elsewhere, for example, or Upper Canada and Lower Canada if they have different histories of immigration). Likewise, the history of white people in Scotland and the North of England is different to the history of white people in the South of England and Wales. Hugenots stand in contrast to Scandinavian raiders, Angles to Celts, etc. Even within the island of Ireland, different provinces had different levels of white immigration (and not just at the obvious Northern Irish/rest of Ireland level). I don't accept the argument that because a particular form has been unchallenged for a certain period of time it should be granted an exception: consensus changes over time, and this page is an attempt to forge consensus where it may have changed or may even never have existed. TFOWR 09:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Header renamed: it was taking us to the earlier "Reopen" section. TFOWR 09:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC) The article is in poor shape and it could cover things better but there is no reason to split Great Britain and Ireland based on the contents under that heading which talks about both and partly covers a period when it was part of the same country. The suggestion above about changing GB + I to say United Kingdom and Ireland seemed to have more support than splitting the section entirely. Either way, this case was only open 3 days and there is certainly no consensus to split the section which will send a signal that UK+I or GB+I should never be grouped together (as the editor who tagged it with their new template probably thinks. A position i strongly reject. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC) I'll hold off formally closing this (i.e. archiving it), but I'm pretty happy with having separate items for UK and Ireland. I don't accept that it sends a signal that UK and Ireland should never be grouped together: this is a specific example, one that looks at a time period far wider than the period in which Ireland was part of the UK. TFOWR 10:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Leading sire in North America (Resolved)

Resolved

 – One reference (or source of references) seems to be used for a number of articles. The source of references appears to use "Great Britain and Ireland" for whatever reason. There seems to be consensus here to stick with the source's term. TFOWR 13:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Not sure why LevenBoy did this edit without discussion here? I will revert his edit and ask for people to discuss it here. Bjmullan (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Even though most of the races occured before 1949, it should be United Kingdom & Republic of Ireland (pipelinked as Ireland, if ya wish). Since the other places go by country names. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC) no need for BI there BritishWatcher (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Even more so important to use current country names. Notice that article uses only Germany & not also East Germany, West Germany. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC) That's irrelevant. British Isles is a more concise way of stating Britain and Ireland. It is perfectly acceptable in this article. LevenBoy (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Consistancy is better, use current countries. Unless, ya wanna clump the other countries together as Mainland Europe? GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, that's a possibility. The list doesn't add a great deal. LevenBoy (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC) No probs with me. If ya can make Mainland Europe stick? then British Isles is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Hmmm actually yes that would make sense if we said mainland europe, BI ect. Especially as the article title is North America (an area rather than country). So leave off countries, and focus on regions. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Don't forget something for UAE. Middle East, Asia, whatever works. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Hmmm looking at it, we need to find out why the list is restricted to those current locations. I do not understand why its simply selection GB, I, Germany UAE etc. It should stick to North America and excluding everything else or include everywhere. Seems like original research at the moment. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Though the article is 3.5 yrs old, its edit history is quite light. Whatever yas can come up with, should improve it. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I suspect this article (and its peers) are closely following tbheritage.com's regions. See also, for example, Leading broodmare sire in Great Britain & Ireland, and its sole ref. This is one of the refs for Leading sire in North America, also from tbheritage.com. TFOWR 19:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC) If nothing else, this page is fascinating for the stunning obscurity it exposes and the vast uncharted regions of wikiland I had no idea existed that it brings to one's attention. I assume we get to make a start on cartoon characters and the behaviour of fruit flies before too long? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Ahah, go by the source. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Support closing this one, dont see a need for British Isles and if we did add it we would have to make many changes to the list itself which already has a problematic criteria. Best to leave this one alone. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Yes just the reverted actions of a SPA. Lets move on. Bjmullan (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC) SPA? Like you then eh? Oh sorry, you're a TPA (two purpose account) 1) British Isles removals, 2) Rally cars, 3) Irritating other editors by rigorously applying MOS on Londonderry-related articles - make that three purpose account then - still TPA though (can be get this TLA incorporated into an MOS somewhere?). LevenBoy (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Gravity anomalies of Britain and Ireland (Resolved)

{{Resolved}} Punted to AfD. Looks like AfD is headings towards WP:SNOW, so may as well keep this open until after the AfD is closed. TFOWR 12:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Geographical usage: "British Isles" is fine. TFOWR 11:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

This one is interesting as it appears a little different to other cases we've discussed previously, since it discusses the surrounding seas. The lede states Such gravity anomalies have been mapped across the British Isles and the surrounding seas. The title of the article and of the publications all relate only to Britain and Ireland, with none listed for Isle of Man or and of the Channel Islands. So based on previous discussions, it might seem irrelevant to note that gravity anomalies were mapped across the British Isles, and that the sentence should be removed or corrected to "Britain and Ireland". But. Although there's no gravity anomalies listed for the Isle of Man or Channel Islands, it does list the basins surrounding the Isle of Man, and this reference clearly shows that mapping took place on the Channel Islands. Therefore I believe that using "British Isles" in this context is of value - both correct and factually true - since it is referring to the larger geographic area, and dealing with a geology-related subject. Comments? --HighKing (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Move the article to Gravity anomalies across the British Isles and the surrounding seas ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Or Gravity anomalies of northwestern Europe? Fmph (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Britain and Ireland definitely doesn't cover it. Gravity anomalies on and around the British Isles? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC) British Isles should be in the title instead of Britain and Ireland. yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Good piece of research HK, I agree with you - and thanks for taking the time to look for examples other than those some expect you might normally seek out. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC) As this plot shows, there is nothing special about BI in relation to gravity anomalies. NW Europe Gravity Anomaly plot by the International Gravitametric Bureau Fmph (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Is there anything suitable to merge this into, if not then Gravity anomalies on and around the British Isles would seem suitable for the moment. Codf1977 (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Not sure how this image helps us Fmph - can you explain a little more please? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)\ I figured out how it helps, the article needs a photo! I'll add it in. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC) On the face of it, its North West Europe isn't it? --Snowded TALK 11:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Not sure if that's the reason for Fmph showing it to us, but yes, it's North West Europe. Jack 1314 (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC) It's British Isles. Why is this one even being considered? The article text lists numerous places throughout the islands - Skye, Lundy and others, for example. Proposing this for amendment is verging on provocative. LevenBoy (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I've got no real problem with BI on this one, although I don't think its necessary. The only reference is the British Geological Survey. There are no references at all in the text so for all we know it is OR or Synth. Now if I remember my A Level Geology aright (and that is several decades ago) the information is correct, but it does need some references. However we do need to see some consistency of argument. Levin Boy, your normal argument is that if there is anything in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands then it justifies the use of BI. Here all the examples are either on the island of Ireland or the island of Great Britain. You can't have your cake and eat it. --Snowded TALK 12:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC) There is nothing notable about the gravity anomalies of the British Isles. And I agree with LevenBoy that no amendment is necessary. Fmph (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Doesn't that image in fact show that there is a rather severe anomaly running right through the BI? However, I'm no geologist! Yet again though we are seeking to locate angels on complex pinheads about which, truth to tell, we know little. I exempt from this Snowded Geology A Level. Of course. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I've eaten around a cake before, the outsides have more icing. From what I understood from the article the anomalies appeared on some islands offshore, as well as I think extending to the sea? (Not sure, not the best explained) That would suggest to me that British Isles be used, not only to cover what is there, but to be more inclusive. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Well, the anomaly runs from a point in the Bay of Biscay, approx. 100 miles northwest of the Pyrenees to Norway. I can't for the life of me see what BI has to do with it. Fmph (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Well, it doesn't on that image, it appears to be blatted all over the BI - but as I said, we are not geologists. Apart from Snowded. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC) NW Europe Gravity Anomaly plot (2)by the International Gravitametric Bureau Does this help? Fmph (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Yes, it does, thanks for adding it. The Pyrenees anomaly on that one seems to be related to one covering parts of Spain and unconnected to the one covering the BI. In fact, this does seem a good candidate for use of BI, particularly as it affects surrounding seas, which are not part of either "Ireland" or "Britain". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC) There must be something wrong with my eyes. When I look at it I see a purplish swathe of colour stretching pretty much unbroken from the south east corner of the Bay of Biscay, in a north-westerly direction along the continental shelf through Ireland and much of the west coast of Britain, before heading back in a north easterly direction to the coast of Norway, in a pretty much unbroken seam. One which almost perfectly matches the north west eauropean continental shelf. Am I the only person who sees that? Fmph (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Good call on that continental plate comparison. Anyway, it gets noticeably bigger when it reaches the British Isles. The division of colour on england actually reminds me of the first geological map ever made of England. Either way, the British Isles are noticeable for being on that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC) It's in the eye of the beholder. I see a clear gap between the Spain one and the northerly one. There are a lot of complex features right across the BI, not just the edge of the contintental shelf. However, this debate really goes to the existence of such an article at all - if editors are challenging that, they should begin a delete debate at that article. Here, where we discuss use of "British Isles", I really can't see a problem with using it in that article, unless other referenced material is brought forward better than us untrained people studying geological imagery. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Can you point out approx where the 'clear gap' is? between the Spain one (one what?) and the northerly one (Norway?)? I don't see what you are talking about. I think that here we discuss making the encyclopedia better. You can avoid those discussions if you so wish, but that is the intent of all the discussions here. If the consensus here is that the article is actually not [WP:N|notable]] then of course we can move the discussion to WP:AFD. But it would be a bit silly to do that if the consensus was that the article is notable. BTW, there isn't a series of articles titled Gravity anomalies of xxx. This seems to be the only one. Fmph (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC) It's always difficult with images, so without us both in the room and a pointer or a shared Electronic Whiteboard, I can't point to it - but it is right there at the left-hand corner of the Pyrenees and again just a little into the Bay of Biscay. However, none of this really matters. The points you are making are to do with either a Move or Delete of the article, so yes, you would need to take those to the article, because this is about use of the phrase "British Isles". So I'm not trying to avoid the discussion. It really doesn't matter what we non-geologists think of that image. What would help would be written sources on it like this one from the Earth Institute. [9] Beyond that, notability is a matter of Move or Delete and not for this page. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Before James gets carried away I claim no expertise after several decades absence. However this does seem to relate to Granite outcrops and those do extend over the whole shelf. To be honest I debate the value of the article. Its not referenced, it describes something which is the case all over the world. Its a so what type article. --Snowded TALK 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I see that one. I'll give you that. I've amended my description above to be more accurate. My apologies for the inaccuracy. And of course notability is for this page. If the consensus here was delete, then there would be no sense in continuing a move discussion, would there? Fmph (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC) You would still need to tag it for delete and open a discussion on the talk page. We cannot have this page taking on Wikipedia-wide delete/move discussions every time someone sees "British Isles" or thinks they would like to add it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Sure, I'll tag it, but only if there is a consensus here that it's a good idea. Consensus first. Tag second. This is no place for [WP:BOLD|being bold]]. Then it will go to the wider community. And Snowded's move to contact the original author seems like an appropriate move. Fmph (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I asked the article creator to take a look see. Seems to have done good work on a range of articles so maybe that will help --Snowded TALK 14:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I think that the really discussion (which should be at the article talk page) is is this article noteworthy. I think not. Bjmullan (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I think this article actually provides a template for what this article should be. It is primarily a list, so it should really take the naming style List of xxx.... No one has yet produced any evidence that gravity anomalies in Ireland or the UK are in any way notable, other than that the regional geological societies publish regional geological maps. If the geographical location of gravity anomolies is notable in wikipedian terms (and I'm not yet convinced that they are) then the starting point should be a global list of them with regional headings/subheadings. If the list gets too long it can be split off into regional articles, and we might, just might, come back to having a Gravity anomalies of BI article at some distant point in the future. But for now we only need one article for the globe, if at all. Fmph (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Article contents aside I agree with the use of British Isles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC) As I said above, the image is of North West Europe. But, the sources back up the use of British Isles (and they seem to be good sources). I think any further discussion should be on the article talk page. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't have an intimate knowledge of this subject and I don't have an A level in Geology like some people. :) Jack 1314 (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Few of us have achieved even O Level I suspect. Not all though. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC) But do the sources suggest notability? Fmph (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC) What section or sentence from WP:Notability do you think would put into doubt the notability of the sources? Jack 1314 (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC) For the record, I also agree with the use of British Isles for the reasons set out above. Discussions over whether the article has merit or is notable don't really belong here - the same as discussions over whether articles could be improved, etc. There are other places where those discussions are more appropriate and are seen by a wider (and hopefully more content-knowledgable) audience. --HighKing (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC) It's not the sources that need to be notable. Its the article. I can find sources that say more people paint their bedrooms blue than red in the UK, but that doesn't mean there should be an article entitled Calming effects of colours in the United Kingdom. So why do we need an article on gravitational anomalies, wherever they may be? Fmph (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC) On that one I can't answer. Those in the know would probably be more than capable of answering. As HK suggests, perhaps asking at the article talk page would be more informative. Jack 1314 (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC) So another case of maybe deleting the article just because it contains the words "British Isles". What a thoroughly disreputable suggestion. It's amazing how some of the above contributors feel qualified to comment AT ALL on this subject. LevenBoy (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC) It doesn't contain those words, does it? And I agree that your suggestion thats the only reason for deleteion is a thoroughly disreputable suggestion. Good self-flagellation there. Fmph (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC) You should look at the discussion before commenting, LevenBoy. Jack 1314 (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Original article compiler here! The principal source of the material is stated in the references section and the title of the map produced by the British Geological Survey is this: Colour Shaded Relief Gravity Anomaly map of Britain, Ireland and adjacent areas. The map istelf therefore includes the seas adjacent to the group of islands off the northwest coast of Europe (along with islands such as the Channel Islands, Isle of Man etc - however you wish to name them collectively - and I don't want to get sidetracked down that naming alleyway! As to whether the gravity anomalies of briatin etc are notable - well that's a matter perhaps of some subjectivity. Are the mountains of Britain notable, or its rivers, or any other aspect of its topography or geological structure? I'd probably say yes to all of these because they have cultural associations. And the anomalies - well they both reflect the existence of and inform the scientific understanding of many of the major physiographic features of these islands and their neighbouring seas. If there's an issue about referencing then I can probably trawl up some more material to back up what I've put down. Geopersona (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC) thank you for coming here and sorry if we have wasted your time because of this dispute, it tends to drag other editors and many articles into the conflict. It is clear the area in question is the British Isles and so use of it within the article is totally justified, and also using the name in the article title would be justified too. How would you feel about the article title being changed to say of the British Isles rather than of Britain and Ireland? if you would rather keep the present title then i think we should leave it alone, but there is a good case for the change. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I'll leave it to those who have more interest in the naming of geographical and political entities than do I to sort out what name it ultimately goes under. I understand there are sensitivities but life is too short for me to get hung up on this issue. Thanks. Geopersona (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC) lol ok thanks, the sad thing is all of us here know you are right about life being too short to worry about this issue, doesnt stop us wasting our lives away on it though :( BritishWatcher (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I just hope you enjoyed seeing us clueless geology-wannabees wrestling with your anomaly maps, Geopersona. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC) There were some interesting observations there - in fact gravity and indeed magnetic anomaly maps function equally as works of art or decorations for the wall - you don't need to know anything about geology to appreciate them on the one level though knowing something about the subject as some contributors to the discussion clearly do, does aid that appreciation. And, Jamesinderbyshire, the more detailed map used as the article's principle source shows a positive gravity anomaly which coincides with the limestone outcrop of Derbyshire - the White Peak - with all the cultural associations which that splendid area can boast.Geopersona (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Geopersona, so am I correct in thinking that you mapped coloured areas of a printed map to geographical areas/regions of your knowledge? And listed them in the article? So for instance, the inclusion of Connemara and County Donegal in the list, was down to the fact that you recognised the coloured areas of the map by those names? Isn't that a little bit of original research? From the background reading I've done, it's only the northern part of Connemara plus areas of southern County Mayo that seem to have these gravitational anomalies. Similarly, not the whole of Donegal has them.? Am I correct? Fmph (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC) This discussion really goes to the article content, not the inclusion of BI specifically, although I accept that the veracity of article content is relevant, we seem to be (as with Irish Traveller) talking about what should be included in an article, rather than the "simpler" issue of BI - in or out? I suspect Geopersona would welcome some discussion on that article at Talk:Gravity_anomalies_of_Britain_and_Ireland as the current level of talk there is, er, nil. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC) I think we should leave this one completely as it was found. Mention British Isles in the article but leave the title as it is. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Agree. And, um, that was kinda my original point all along. --HighKing (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC) British Isles is backed up by sources mentioned above. Mabuska (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Resolved I believe we're all violently agreeing. The point was that context and subject can justify use of a wider geographical area, such as the British Isles, even if there are no clear references and sources. Closed with no change as proposed. --HighKing (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Wait who proposed no change? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC) If no one has done, can I do so now, with the proviso that a discussion is started on the article talk page wrt a move/del/rework into a more notable article? Fmph (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Agreed, someone refer it to a relevant wikiproject. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Has this been referred to a relevant WikiProject? If so, which one? TFOWR 12:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Not yet. Its on my to-do list. I was going to take it to WP:AFD with the suggested action being to Move to List of Gravity Anomalies, creating the list by continent. Are you happy with that? Fmph (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC) I'd prefer to get input from a relevant WikiProject (Geography?) first, but an AfD will at least draw in outside input. I don't feel competent to prevent an AfD (it's not within the mandate given by ANI), so make no formal objection to an AfD. TFOWR 13:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC) I personally don't think it should be deleted, but it could be a controversial move. So Afd may be the best route. I'll notify here and the UK and Irl projects and see if there is an appropriate 'interest' project. It'll take a few days to put it together I'd guess. Fmph (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Okay. I've kicked off the process. More to come. I think it probably best if we give other interested parties a couple of days to comment over there, before we drag all our own provincial prejudices over there for all to see. Lets see what they come up with on their own. Fmph (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Okay. I've taken it to AFD. Contribute there if you wish. Fmph (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Ping! AfD has now closed as keep. Any further thoughts? TFOWR 13:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I'm leaning in the direction of using British Isles, as the subject at hand is about a definite geographical topic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Usage is geographical, topic is geological, context is current. I don't see a problem. --HighKing (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)