Jump to content

Talk:Great Britain and Ireland/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Britain is not "Britain and Ireland"

Regarding this revert, Britain is Britain and Ireland is Ireland, they are as the page says "two separate entities". No one would ever refer to either Britain or Ireland as "Britain and Ireland", their inclusion volatiles wp:Partial_title_matches.

"Britain and Ireland" is when you refer to the "two separate entities" of Britain and Ireland together, i.e. treat them as "a single entity". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Your edit was a good one. HighKing, what exactly were you opposed to? — Jon C.ॐ 21:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
First off, thanks Emmette for bringing it to Talk first to give me a chance to respond. If you haven't been around the British-Irish topics before now, be warned that they can appear daft (very).
BTW JonC, you agreed to include those usage definitions in the previous discussion in the section above....
Anyway, even the comments you both made illustrate the problem. Now would be a good time to take a look at Terminology of the British Isles. Above, you're both talking about "Britain and Ireland". That's actually got some different meanings that "Great Britain and Ireland" especially in a modern context.
The main problem is that there is no such "entity" as "Great Britain and Ireland". This article shouldn't really exist at all. See the history on this Talk page above. So when we see the phrase in text, we have to try to interpret it within the context of the text to understand what is being referred to. This article attempts to list the various meanings. It would be 100% wrong to assume always that it is a collective noun of some sort (again, examples in previous discussions above). So all the possible meanings are listed.
Previous suggestions were to merge it to List of islands of the British Isles and that would also be acceptable for most usage today, but fails to account for historical usage where sometimes the phrase was used to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. So FWIW, I'd be happy if this article was simply redirected to Terminology of the British Isles which is where I believe it belongs. --HighKing (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see your point. There is an entity called "Great Britain and Ireland", "British Isles", etc. It is composed of the separate entities of Britain and Ireland. "Great Britain and Ireland" may have a slightly different meaning then "Britain and Ireland" but nether Britain nor Ireland are "Great Britain and Ireland". As for your "collective noun" point this is a disambig page not a dictionary entry. The purpose of a disambig is to direct readers to the article they are looking for. Someone who looks up "Great Britain and Ireland" or "Britain and Ireland" is not looking for the Britain or Ireland articles.
Much of the above discussion is moot because it was about the article that was at this title, not the current dissambig. I haven't been involved in British-Irish topics much, but there was one time I added .ie to the Northern Ireland infobox, (it's [https://www.iedr.ie/registrations-policy/ website said that it was for all of Ireland), and that started a huge discussion that lasted about a mouth over the extremely important issue of weather the Northern Ireland infobox should list .ie. Is this British-Irish topics daftness mostly just people from Northern Ireland who hate Britain or Ireland? Honestly, Northern Ireland makes me a little embarrassed to be from the Anglosphere. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what point you don't see cos I'm finding it difficult to understand your objection to the text that was already in the article. Referring back to your statement that "There is an entity called 'Great Britain and Ireland'" ... there's not. Historically perhaps it was used as an "entity" description for the UKoGB&I but only for 120 or so years, and that's the last entry in the article. It's like arguing that any neighbouring islands or states form their own "entity". So Inishmaan and Inisheer can also be known as Inishmaan and Inisheer, or that there's an "entity" called "France and Germany", or "USA and Canada". And it would be incorrect for this article to lead readers to assume that every occurrence of the phrase "Great Britain and Ireland" referred to an "entity". There simply is no entity.
The article is pretty rubbish, I'll agree. But in my opinion the correct course of action is to redirect (as suggested above) rather than chop out a portion and incorrectly state that "GB&I" is an "entity", with no references or sources that back up the claim.
Question - would you support redirecting this article to Terminology of the British Isles?
As to the daftness. Nope, it's more akin to siblings squabbling and isn't a preserve of Northern Ireland editors. It's a fairly complex and polarized area, difficult to navigate, but it's actually a lot calmer these days than it was 3 or 4 years ago. --HighKing (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm having trouble seeing your objection. Let's go through this step by step ans see where the disagreement is. This is a disambiguation page, correct. The purpose of a disambiguation page is not to be an article or dictionary entry, but is to direct readers to the article their looking for, correct? Nobody would ever call Britain (for example) "Britain and Ireland", correct. So we shouldn't list Great Britain, Ireland, United Kingdom, and Republic of Ireland.
Unless I've misunderstood you you're claiming that the British Isles, aka Britain and Ireland, is not an "entity". There is no merit to that claim (unless you want to say that Ireland isn't an entity, but is really just the separate entities of Leinster, Ulster, Munster and Connacht). The article itself says "The term British Isles is controversial in Ireland, [...] As a result, Britain and Ireland is used as an alternative description" and gives sources that back that up. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Here's the thing. There is no "entity" called "Great Britain and Ireland", correct, or even "Britain and Ireland", correct? Any more than there is an "entity" called "Belgium and Holland" etc, etc. See my previous post.
There *is* an "entity" called British Isles. There's also an "entity" called United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, etc. (Equally there's an entity called Benelux).
Your example using Leinster, Munster, etc, is obtuse and doesn't make any sense. Simply because Ireland *is* an entity. Whereas "Great Britain and Ireland" is *not* an entity.
That's not to say that the term "Great Britain and Ireland" can't be interpreted to refer to something that *is* an entity. But *equally* and just as common and as important, it might not. This article lists those ways. Simples.
Your statement that "British Isles, aka Britain and Ireland, is not an entity" are your words, and imply that "Britain and Ireland" will always refer to "British Isles". Wrong.
What I've said is that "Great Britain and Ireland" - that specific term - does not refer to an "entity". It might be *interpreted* to mean "British Isles" which is an entity. But it might not. It might actually refer to something else. It might actually refer to each item individually. All of which are already covered in another article specifically designed for explaining the terminology of the British Isles.
As to it being a dab page, if that's what people seem to have chosen. Disambiguation pages on Wikipedia are used as a process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article.
So this "single term" - depending on the context of where it is found - is associated with more than one topic. It's our job to make sure we explain that, and to make sure we provide full explanations.
As I've said before, this article should really be redirected to Terminology of the British Isles. I don't know if you've looked at that article, but most of the different interpretations and meanings are already contained within that article. Should I make that proposal and would you support it? --HighKing (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Another proposal might be to not classify this page as a dab page and instead to flesh out a small article explaining the various uses. Just a thought. --HighKing (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

References would help

Tags could be added to various claims in the article (excerpted here).

"As a phrase, Great Britain and Ireland or Britain and Ireland can refer .... to a single entity.[citation needed] As a single entity, it may be referring[citation needed].... to the British Isles[citation needed]....the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland[citation needed]....Ireland–United Kingdom relations"[citation needed]

Refs would end debates on the matter. Moriori (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Some were posted last time this was discussed at the Britain and Ireland Talk page.
A search on Google Books where "Britain and Ireland" has different meanings:
I've limited the seach to books with "Britain and Ireland" in the titles, just to illustrate how the phrase can be authoratively used and yet refer to the individual islands. But equally authorative sources use the term also:
The British Isles article lists some references that highlight "Britain and Ireland" is used:
  • The Reformation in Britain and Ireland: an introduction, page 17, says "At the outset, it should be stated that while the expression 'The British Isles' is evidently still commonly employed, its intermittent use throughout this work is only in the geographic sense, in so far as that is acceptable. Since the early twentieth century, that nomenclature has been regarded by some as increasingly less usable. It has been perceived as cloaking the idea of a 'greater England', or an extended south-eastern English imperium, under a common Crown since 1603 onwards. … Nowadays, however, 'Britain and Ireland' is the more favoured expression, though there are problems with that too. … There is no consensus on the matter, inevitably. It is unlikely that the ultimate in non-partisanship that has recently appeared the (East) 'Atlantic Archipelago' will have any appeal beyond captious scholars."
  • Style Guide The Guardian style guide states about "British Isles" - "A geographical term taken to mean Great Britain, Ireland and some or all of the adjacent islands such as Orkney, Shetland and the Isle of Man. The phrase is best avoided, given its (understandable) unpopularity in the Irish Republic. The plate in the National Geographic Atlas of the World once titled British Isles now reads Britain and Ireland.
For the casual reader encountering the phrase "Britain and Ireland" or "Great Britain and Ireland", I believe we should either have an article to explain various uses (perhaps we're not best served using a dab page), or we should redirect them to Terminology of the British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The problem here isn't really a lack of sources, it's Wikipedia:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:PTM
"Great Britain and Ireland" - that specific term - does not refer to an "entity". It might be *interpreted* to mean "British Isles" which is an entity." Distinction without a difference, the British Isles is an entity no matter what you call it. "["Great Britain and Ireland"] might actually refer to each item individually.": No, the term "Britain and Ireland" (and "Great Britain and Ireland") refers to Britain and Ireland collectively. Individually Britain is called "Britain" and Ireland is called "Ireland", not "Great Britain and Ireland". The British Isles are both a single entity and two separate entities. The distention between Britain and Ireland as a single entity and as two separate entities together is very minor, ether way it refers to the same "geographic" region, the region that is also called "British Isles". That distinction might make sense in a dictionary, but it has no place on this disambig page; not unless you want to propose that "British Isles" be split into separate articles for the Isles as a single entity and as two separate entities together, then we can list both articles on this page. My point with Leicester, Munster, etc is that Ireland is both a single entity and four separate entities collectively.
"Disambiguation pages on Wikipedia are used as a process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article.
So this "single term" - depending on the context of where it is found - is associated with more than one topic. It's our job to make sure we explain that, and to make sure we provide full explanations." No, "more than one article". We don't have separate articles for the Isles as a single entity and as two entities together. Also that contradicts Wikipedia:Disambiguation_page#Dictionary_definitions.
You did have of a point about when you said "when we see the phrase in text, we have to try to interpret it within the context of the text to understand what is being referred to.". If someone were to say "Britain and Ireland have such a wonderful culture" then we would probably want to link to "Britain and Ireland have such a wonderful culture". If someone said "relations between Britain and Ireland have taken a nosedive" then we would probably want to link to "Britain and Ireland". If someone were to say "Poland, France, Britian, and Ireland" then we would probably want to link to "Britain, and Ireland". That has nothing to do with this disambig, someone who looks up "Britain and Island" is not looking for the "Britain" or "Island" articles.
Your sources make my point for me, the ones you say are talking about "Great Britain and Ireland" could say "British Isles" and the meaning would be the same. The table of contents of "Great Castles of Britain & Island" shows that it's talking about the "separate entities" of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, not the "separate entities" of Great Britain and Ireland, should we add those to the disambig page?
WP:PTM "Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context". Britain could not plausibly be referred to as "Britain and Ireland". Britain and Ireland collectively form the British Isles. The UK and ROI also collectively form the British Isles. From Wikipedia:Disambiguation_page#Dictionary_definitions: "A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions". From WP:DICTIONARY "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history." If you want to explain various uses, create/expand Wikt:Britain and Ireland and Wikt:Britain and Ireland. If you want to create an encyclopedic article about the praise create Great Britain and Ireland (terminology). Nobody going to be mislead by this disambig not being a dictionary entry, the existence of the British Isles does not imply that Britain and Ireland have cased to exist as separate entities. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Some great points well put. Especially the point about linking. But I vehemently disagree that "Britain and Ireland" or "Great Britain and Ireland" should always be pointed to "British Isles" as if they're the one and the same. They most definitely are not. For one, the British Isles encompasses the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Your saying that the table of contents of "Great Castles of Britain & Ireland" could just as easily have used "British Isles" is totally and utterly incorrect. As you've pointed out, it is only talking about castles in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. Not the Isle of Man. Not the Channel Islands. This is a good example of why we should explain that the term "Great Britain and Ireland" might just refer to ... the two islands, or the two political entities of UK and Ireland, or whatever. But not the British Isles or North Western Europe or any other area.
As I've already said, the problem with this article is that it really can't be shoe-horned into a simple redirect to "British Isles". Nor, it seems, are you happy with it being a dab page (and I get that). But a scan of common usage shows it most often refers to the "separate entities" and not the "British Isles".
If this would be better served as an article on the "concept" or "place" which is "Great Britain and Ireland", I'm happy to write it - except we've already got Terminology of the British Isles which explains this already. Similarly your suggestion to create Great Britain and Ireland (terminology), I believe, would largely be covered.
In summary, I disagree that the "British Isles" is a totum pro parte term for GB&I. I believe we are some distance apart on agreeing that GB&I or B&I mean the same this as "British Isles", especially as for practically all usages I can find, it's not. I also disagree that this dab page is little more than a dictionary entry - we are not simply "defining" the terms "Britain" and "Ireland" but explaining how using a term like B&I *might* (depending on context) be referring to the two islands, or be referring to the two political jurisdictions. These are all different meanings of the phrase, and COMMONNAME usage shows it's much more likely to be referring to the two islands or jurisdictions rather than a pars pro toto for the "British Isles".
You've made a suggestion to create an article Great Britain and Ireland (terminology) and I assume we would then redirect to that article instead. That's a good suggestion and I'd be happy to do that. Just curious - are you suggesting that Terminology of the British Isles isn't pretty much going to be a superset of the definitions and explanations in the new article? --HighKing (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

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.
The result of this discussion was Merge completed

This page and UK & Ireland are virtually identical and there is really no need for both and so I propose merging them. I don't know which title we should use though? Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Worth noting is that Britain and Ireland redirects here, Great Britain and Ireland (region) and UK and Ireland redirect to British Isles while Great Britain & Ireland and Britain & Ireland are both redlinks. I think all these should redirect to wherever hosts the content I've proposed merging. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Also worth noting is that this page is tagged as a disambiguation page, but UK & Ireland is regarded as an article. Obviously a single page cannot be both, so we'll need to pick one for the merged page. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC
I'd agree with a merge - I noticed the same scatter of redirects, and overlapping content. UK & Ireland was previously labelled as a dab page, but was PRODded on the basis that "This is not a DAB page, it contains no useful content and there are already articles for the UK and Ireland. ..." - and on looking at it, I thought it seemed a useful page about terminology though not a standard dab page, so I deprodded it and removed the dab template.
A combined page would need to include both the sentences "UK and Ireland are two neighbouring states situated in the north-west of Europe." (or perhaps "The United Kingdom and ...") and "Great Britain and Ireland are two neighbouring islands situated in the north-west of Europe.", with appropriate bolding and links, from the two existing pages - to cover both the political and the geographical senses of the wordings. Then redirects from UK/United Kingdom/Great Britain/Britain and/& Ireland. (Only the 8? Must be more, surely? Perhaps Ireland and/& ... for another 8?) Unless it's agreed that any of the variations should logically redirect to British Isles as one or two (including Ireland and United Kingdom and Ireland and the United Kingdom) do at present. PamD 19:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
All these pages (Britain and Ireland, Great Britain and Ireland, UK and Ireland, United Kingdom and Ireland, etc.) should simply redirect to British Isles, of which they are all synonymous. In the same way, Australia and New Zealand redirects to Australasia. --RA (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose 'UK & Ireland' and 'Great Britain and Ireland' are not synonyms. 'UK & Ireland' refers to the sovereign states, 'Great Britain and Ireland' to the two islands (and 'British Isles' to the archepeligo). Titles and redirects seem to be a bit messy at the moment. Currently, United Kingdom and Ireland and Britain and Ireland redirect to Great Britain and Ireland, which is a disambiguation page. UK and Ireland redirects to British Isles. UK & Ireland is a disamb page. Two disambuation pages should exist. One, titled United Kingdom and Ireland, for the sovereign states, where UK and Ireland, UK & Ireland and Britain and Ireland should redirect. The other, titled Great Britain and Ireland, for the two islands. Daicaregos (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it stands. We need some re-organisation and possible deletions. However we need to separate geography from politics here as we all know only too well. ----Snowded TALK 09:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    The reason that I'm proposing a single disambiguation page is that several of the terms, but particularly "Britain and Ireland", are commonly used to refer to either the political grouping or the geographical grouping. Yes this is incorrect, but that is the reality of how the terms are used and the single dab page notes that the terms can refer to either political or physical geography and allows readers to select the articles they are looking for with one click, regadless if they (or the site that linked them here) are technically correct or not. The very reason I'm proposing a merge is that two disambiguation pages would have (as at present) significantly overlapping content. The following table gives the results of a Google Books search for various terms (exact phrse, first 20 results, excluding duplicates):
' Britain and Ireland UK and Ireland United Kingdom and Ireland Ireland and Britain Ireland and Great Britain Ireland and UK Ireland and United Kingdom Ireland and the UK Ireland and the United Kingdom
Purely geographical 7 7 2 4 2 1 4 3 0
Purely political (post Irish independence) 1 4 8 2 4 6 4 10 7
Purely political (pre Irish independence) 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 1 0
Purely political (pre and post independence) 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 2
Mixture (post Irish independence) 3 6 2 3 2 5 5 2 1
Mixture (pre Irish independence) 5 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Mixture (pre and post independence) 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 1
Uncertain 1 2 3 0 0 2 3 1 1
Irrelevant 0 0 1 1 3 3 4 2 4
  • For topics related to pre-1922 it's often difficult to tell whether the grouping is political or geographic, hence the split here. Irrelevant results are typically where "Ireland" and "UK" etc, happened to appear adjacent in lists (e.g. "Denmark, Ireland and the UK") or were related to Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
    The results clearly show that all the searches can relate to both political and geographical topics, so people searching for any term could be looking for articles about political or geographical topics. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    I think it's ridiculous to keep this page - talk about splitting hairs! If it can't be deleted then merge it. Hohenloh + 13:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I think both of these should be redirects to Terminology of the British Isles. WaggersTALK 10:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

@HighKing, Thryduulf, Hohenloh, PamD, and Rannpháirtí anaithnid:@Daicaregos, Snowded, and Jon C.:This discussion seems to have gone quiet so I'm going to try and sum it up and see where we go from here. Firstly, nobody has argued against the premise that the articles are very similar and share a lot of the same content, and that something should be done to remedy this. However we seem to have a broad consensus that a "pure" merge of one of these articles into the other (leading to one redirecting to the other) is not desirable since they're not exact synonyms and the resulting redirect would be misleading. Instead, we have two contenders for the article to merge into; British Isles and Terminology of the British Isles. (Thryduulf suggests a single disambiguation page; I would suggest that the Terminology article serves that purpose). We seem to have marginally more of us preferring to merge into Terminology of the British Isles than British Isles but probably not enough to call it a consensus at this stage. Is that a fair summary of where we are at the moment? WaggersTALK 13:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that based on the discussion above there is consensus against all but three options (in no particular order):
  • 1 disambiguation page at this or a similar title (no opinions seem to have been expressed about which it should be)
  • 0 disambiguation pages, content merged to Terminology of the British Isles
  • 0 disambiguation pages, content merged to British Isles
As for my opinion, I still think that there is a useful difference between an article that explains all the different terms, the history of them, etc. and a dab page that links to the various articles that the user could be looking for (including the article about the terminology). I see it as similar to the use-mention distinction - the dab page is the mention with the terminology article being use and explain.
If we go for the no dab page option though then in my opinion is that the terminology article is clearly better as it deals with both geography and politics whereas the BI article is explicitly geography only (and should stay that way). Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
After mulling this over and reading what Thryduulf says above, I'm coming round to the opinion that some sort of dab page might be the best solution. From there, it would be fairly straight forward to direct a reader to the appropriate article. --HighKing (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Tough I don't see how redirecting UK & Ireland to this page in it's current state would be misleading. This page "defines" "Great Britain and Ireland", not "UK & Ireland", and the "UK & Ireland" is itself misleading ("UK & Ireland" does not mean Great Britain and Ireland). Besides this it a Wikipedia disambig page, not a Wiktionary entry. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This has gone quiet again, and there appears to be consensus that something needs to be done so we should actually get something done! If I'm reading the comments right, then there have been no objections to my reading of there being only three options remaining on the table. Can we narrow it down any further than that yet? Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Generating notifications for user:HighKing, user:Emmette Hernandez Coleman, user:Waggers, user:hohenloh, user:Snowded, user:Rannpháirtí anaithnid and user:PamD. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  • OK, as notified: I think the most useful thing is a single page, probably called "Great Britain and Ireland" (not least because that has the historic usage), with roughly the content currently in this page, and with incoming redirects from "(Great) Britain / UK / (The) United Kingdom and/& Ireland", and from "Ireland and/& (Great) Britain / (the) UK / (the) United Kingdom" (that's about 21 redirects, I think - are there any others to add?). I think it's a dab page, though that might need a touch of IAR. Defining it as a dab page means that it stays clean, with only the appropriate collection of entries and links (the rule about "only one blue link per entry" is, I believe, a "Usually...", and this case where we're directing to pairs of entities is a case where 2-blue-link dab entries would be appropriate). PamD 21:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
@@@@@@@ I'm happy to support Great Britain and Ireland being a disambiguation page. We need to watch that explanations for the terms we're disambiguating don't get too long - we don't want the DAB page to turn into a different version of Terminology of the British Isles. Also I'd like to see the link to that article as a hatnote akin to {{mainarticle}} as opposed to down in the "See also" section so that any readers who are interested in the terminology as opposed to the individual components can find that content easily. How does that sound? WaggersTALK 07:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm also happy with Great Britain and Ireland being a dab. However, the concern I have is what it dabs to. Dabbing out to Ireland and Great Britain (or Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom) from Great Britain and Ireland is inappropriate IMO because there is no way that the term "Great Britain and Ireland" can mean either "Ireland" or "Great Britain" alone. It is, however, ambiguous for:
All other varieties can redirect here then. I'm happy also for a See Also go to Terminology of the British Isles. Explanation of the different terms can happen there. This page should not attempt to explain the terminology. --RA (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Fully agree with RA. WaggersTALK 11:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the dab should not explain the terminology, although it should absolutely link to the page that does. As for what the dab page includes, although "Great Britain and Ireland" does not itself mean either state or island individually it can and does refer to both pairs collectively and so both states and islands need to be linked. I'll mock up a dab page shortly for easier discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
For whatever reason, this point isn't given weight by some editors, but I believe it should be. --HighKing (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of draft dab page

Ok, I've mocked up the draft disambiguation page at User:Thryduulf/Great Britain and Ireland. It's based on the current page here (Great Britain and Ireland) but modified to include information for people arriving having search for United Kingdom and Ireland as well. Please keep discussion on this page. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC) th

I think this is a good page. I support this. --HighKing (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it's good but would suggest three amendments:
  • add "(or equivalent Ireland and ... phrases)" before "can refer to"
  • put the single-entity group above the two-entity group, as perhaps the more likely sought articles.
  • fix the imbalance of "can refer to either ..., or can refer to ....": Something like "can refer either to , or to ...". PamD 19:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
All good points Pam-
  • Yes, we should have the "Ireland and..." phrases too. Ideally though I'd prefer it if we didn't have to explicitly list all of them as it will lead to a huge amount of bold text (with Britain, GB, UK, United Kingdom, Ireland and Republic of Ireland, I think there are 12 permutations) but that may not be possible (I certainly can't think how to do it at the moment). Do we need to separately list "UK" and "United Kingdom" or can we asusme that someone searching for one will recognise the other as relating to their search term?
  • I don't have an opinion either way about that so I'd be happy for them to be switched. Does anyone else have a contrary opinion?
  • Much less clunky, so changed. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC
On the first part: I wasn't suggesting adding all the variations, just the exact wording I suggested. Or perhaps we could just "Great Britain and Ireland, Ireland & the UK and similar phrases", to cover all bases - while redirecting from them all? PamD 09:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah I misunderstood, and your idea does seem to fit with my thinking. I think I'll change it to "Great Britain and Ireland, Ireland & the United Kingdom and similar phrases" unless anyone objects. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Is the intention to now point the various "UK and Ireland" pages to here? It would make sense methinks... --HighKing (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, all the variations of "[The UK/UK/The United Kingdom/United Kingdom/Britain/Great Britain] [and/&] [Ireland/Republic of Ireland/The Republic of Ireland]" (and reverse) are planned to redirect to this page. If you (or anyone else) think any of the set should redirect elsewhere then feel free to start a discussion about that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's my fundamental objection: the title of the page is Great Britain and Ireland, yet Great Britain and Ireland are bolded seperately (i.e. Great Britain and Ireland, not Great Britain and Ireland). The focus ought to be primarily on the term being disambiguated (i.e. Great Britain and Ireland), and the individual components of that term in the second place, if at all. (Fish and chips doesn't dab between fish and chips, does it?)
It also goes too great into defining and explaining the terms. Just dab out.
Here's my suggestion: User:Rannpháirtí_anaithnid/Great_Britain_and_Ireland. --RA (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
That's good, but per Pam's comments above it should also include mention "Ireland and" forms, and possibly ones with "Republic of Ireland" too. There are a couple of things that look slightly odd, but I'm not certain whether I'd say they rise to the level of problems though:
  • Ireland–United Kingdom relations appearing with no explanation before the two countries appear with explanation below. I think that it is important we keep explanation with the two states mention to distinguish it from the geography links on the line above, so the challenge comes to write a non-duplicative non-tautological explanation and I can't think of one immediately.
  • The north-west Europe context appearing for the second geographical mention but not the first. Such context should appear on the first, both or neither but not just the second. If we move it to the first mention then we need something else for the second, something like "two neighbouring islands, the largest in the British Isles archipelago" is what first comes to mind. I'm not really convinced about it though, and part of me wonders whether it will see objections from those who object to "British Isles" including Ireland?
Seeing the collective and individual entries in this order makes we suspect that the reason they are currently in the opposite order is that it is simply easier to describe the separate parts first. This is an observation not a recommendation though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Discussion has gone quiet again! Poking user:HighKing, user:Emmette Hernandez Coleman, user:Waggers, user:hohenloh, user:Snowded, user:Rannpháirtí anaithnid, user:PamD, user:Daicaregos and user:Jon C. I hope I've not missed anyone this time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I would support the draft disambiguation page at User:Thryduulf/Great Britain and Ireland, with the addition of "Ireland and ... " forms. Daicaregos (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I too support Thryduulf's draft dab page. I don't really think there's a need to list all the "Ireland and ..." forms too - I think it's pretty rare to see it unless it's an alphabetical list of countries (separate entities) and I can't recall any time it was used to refer to an "entity". --HighKing (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Of the two drafts, I favour User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/Great Britain and Ireland - mainly because I believe dab pages should be of the form "X may refer to: [list]" rather than starting with what could be the lead from an article. I would remove "the synonym" though, it's a tad contentious and isn't really necessary there. I agree with the others on the "Ireland and... and similar forms" issue. WaggersTALK 12:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I think RA's shorter opening line is more usual, but there's going to be a number of pages redirected to this page, so under those circumstances a slightly longer than usual opening lede is a good idea. Also, in my opinion and I'm open to being corrected, more often that not when the phrase is found it is referring to the separate entities and not a single entity such as the British Isles or UK/Ireland relations. For that reason I prefer Thryduulf's ordering within the dab page. --HighKing (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I think either version would be fine, but probably prefer RA's version though with "or" instead of "as well as the synonym". We don't need to include the "Ireland and..." forms, I only suggested that in case anyone might be upset by their omission. We can, and should, have incoming redirects from all imaginable variants. PamD 17:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Before this discussion dies down again, it seems a general agreement is evident. Personally, I'd prefer the opening of RA's (with the suggestion to remove "synonym") but the ordering within the article of Thryduulf, placing the separate entities at the top since. Reason being, when people come across one of the variants "GB and I" within text, most of the time it refers to the separate entities, and not as the historical entity, or the British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of third draft dab page

Ok, based on the above I've created a revised draft at User:Thryduulf/Great Britain and Ireland 2. It is based on the comments above and is based on a combination of my first draft and RA's draft. If I've understood the comments correctly then I think this should meet with approval from everyone who has commented thus far. I'll ping people below, but unless there are objections I'll put it up as the live version in about a week. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
user:HighKing, user:Emmette Hernandez Coleman, user:Waggers, user:hohenloh, user:Snowded, user:Rannpháirtí anaithnid, user:PamD, user:Daicaregos, user:Jon C.

I disagree. There's no notation to show a reader that on encountering the term, it should be interpreted as two entities, or as a single entity. Since the "as a single phrase" options are probably the least likely interpretation of the phrase if encountered by reading, they should come last. Putting them first gives WP:UNDUE weight to that interpretation. In my opinion, the WP:PTM policy doesn't cater for terms where it mostly refers to separate entities simply joined by the letter "and", is obviously wrong for cases like this. Here's some examples of poorly crafted articles following that policy. Look at United States and Canada, and to read that page you'd mistakenly believe it can only be interpreted as a phrase. Another example is Australia and New Zealand, which seems can only be interpreted as Australasia. Both wrong obviously. --HighKing (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
We are not a dictionary. We are an encyclopaedia. Articles in an encyclopaedia are about subjects, not words, and are organised by title. The title of this page is "Great Britain and Ireland". Not "Great Britain". Not "Ireland". "Great Britain and Ireland". The only subjects linked from this page should be subjects that that title (in its entirety) may refer to.
United States and Canada is an excellent example of how to craft a disambiguation page containing where the title contains the word "and" in a way that follows policy and guidelines. "United States and Canada" does not link out to "United States". It does not link out to "Canada". It only links out to subjects that the title "United States and Canada" may refer to. --RA (✍) 18:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Believe it or now, I'm not disagreeing with your logic. Logic that is based on the policy as it is written. My point is that the terms and phrases, such as the ones mentioned above, are ambiguous, and that most times they don't refer to a single entity. Wikipedia (policy) isn't ideally suited for phrases where the majority of usage refers to separate entities, but occasionally may refer to a single entity. What do you suggest we do in those cases? --HighKing (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
"Wikipedia (policy) isn't ideally suited for phrases where the majority of usage refers to separate entities..." That's because we are an encyclopaedia. Not a dictionary. In an encyclopaedia you will find an article on Fish. You will find an article on Chips. And you will find an article on Fish and chips. The article on fish and chip does not inform the reader about either fish or chips.
If a reader wants to know the meaning of individual words in any given phrase or sentence, they should refer to a dictionary, such as Wiktionary. --RA (✍) 19:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand your point. And your choice of phrase "fish and chips" is really what the current policy is designed for, and highlights the point I'm trying to make since the phrase "fish and chips" is most likely to refer to the "single entity". What about phrases where this isn't the case? I don't believe there's anything wrong (and a lot right) with pointing out this point, and obviously isn't required for most phrases. --HighKing (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth I agree with RA on this but it's not a showstopper for me. Can I suggest the "single entity" section is moved above the "separate entity" section, but stays in (for now) as a compromise. Then perhaps it can be discussed further after the merge has been completed. WaggersTALK 20:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
@HK, I do understand your point. But that's just not how an encyclopaedia works. Examples:
The example you gave of United States and Canada is a model of how a page like this should appear. There's nothing wrong IMO about linking to Great Britain and Ireland individually in the See also section, but we don't dab out individual parts of a title.
Like Waggers though, this is not a showstopper for me either because it is still an improvement on the current state of affairs. But can we at least have the proper dab terms first (i.e. place the links to the individual "dab" terms second)? --RA (✍) 21:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks RA. Some of those examples make a good point. I agree we should at least place the sections in the order you suggested. --HighKing (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2013 (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.

Redirects

Following the merge discussion, and as discussed there, I have created all the relevant redirects to this page, they are listed at User:Thryduulf/GBIlinks. As an artefact of the categorisation, they are all presently marked as unprintworthy. A print encyclopaedia doesn't need all those in an index so most of them are unprintworthy, but some should be printed. I'll go through when I'm more awake and add {{printworthy}} to those I think should be printworthy, but anyone else can too. Unless you disagree with someone's view on printworthiness then it doesn't need discussion, just note on the list which you've changed to avoid duplicating effort.

If anyone thinks a specific one of those redirects should point other than here, then start a discussion on this page and link to it from the talk of your proposed target. Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

pipelinking Republic of Ireland to Ireland

Hi, there's a difference of opinion on the interpretation of WP:IRE-IRL for this article. I maintain that the statement:

  • United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, two neighbouring states situated in Great Britain and Ireland.

should allow for the pipelinking of "Republic of Ireland" to [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] and this appears to be borne out by WP:IMOS since the context of the article and statements make very clear that when we are referring to islands, and when we are referring to states. To date, any attempts to pipelink have been reverted. Can we have some other voices on this please? --HighKing (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

For this specific sentence as written I think that piping the state would be confusing as two links showing as "Ireland" linking to different articles would be very confusing. Of the top of my head I don't know how it fits with IMOS, but something like "United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, two neighbouring states situated on the islands of Great Britain and Ireland" would reduce the confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd go along with that as a solution. --HighKing (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course the pipelinking goes agenst IMOS. IMOS states: Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context. In such circumstances use "Republic of Ireland". In this short article, the island is very obviously being discussed in the same context. In fact it's being discussed in the same sentence:

As separate entities, it may be referring to:

~Asarlaí 18:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree since the sentence, and the article in general, takes great pains to differentiate "state" from "island". For even greater clarity, the sentence could read "two neighbouring states situated in the islands of Great Britain and Ireland". My understanding is that we use "Republic of Ireland" when a reader could reasonably confuse the island with the state - I don't see it in this case. --HighKing (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Due to continuing reverts after the start of this discussion, I have fully protected the page for 3 days. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"Ireland and the United Kingdom" → "United Kingdom and Ireland"

I've flipped "Ireland and the United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom and Ireland" mainly because that is the more common form:

--RA (✍) 22:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I've undone your change because the "Ireland and United Kingdom" wording was deliberately introduced because of comments about the proposed draft (see above). It serves both to reduce bias and represent all the search terms with Ireland first that redirect here. We need either one phrase with Britain first and one with Ireland first or to list all the common relative phrases (which are lots). Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
"We need either one phrase with Britain first and one with Ireland first..." Why? Would it not make more sense to give only the most common of the two variant forms? What is the notion of "bias" based on? --RA (✍) 15:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The idea of bias is related to always putting the UK first which some Irish editors regard as bias/POV. In this case it costs nothing to have one example with Ireland first, so it makes sense to avoid any potential bias by having one in each order. It also reflects the principle of least surprise for editors who arrive here having searched on a term in which Ireland is listed first. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If we go by WP:COMMONNAME then it should be "United Kingdom and Ireland". Whilst the nod to counter suppossed bias is no doubt in good faith, then we would have to enact such "good faith" throughout all articles which is naff. Who where these Irish editors by the way? Mabuska (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This is quite silly, it is also confusing have them inverted. If we are worried about bias to Irish editors, why not move the article to Ireland and Great Britain and flip them both? I really don't care which way round they both are, but I am highly against having them inverted. Regards, Rob (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The bias perceived is not solvable by having them both in the same order, regardless of what that order is. The page can only have one title (for technical reasons) and this is the agreed title for it. There are redirects from every conceivable formulation, so people can find it using any order they so choose. It was agreed following the months long discussion here (and previous even longer discussions on relevant pages) that putting two examples in different orders with the most common first was a neutral way to present the issue. I've not yet seen a single reason why having the two examples in different orders is actually a problem? If there is a reason they shouldn't be that way, then we can discuss it and see if that is greater than the issue of perceived bias - if it is the order can be changed, if it isn't then it shouldn't be. Until then though "some editors think having Ireland second in both cases is biased against Ireland and other editors think having Ireland first in both cases is biased towards Ireland" carries more weight than "I don't like them not in the same order". Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Are we really going to list them inverted, confusing the reader just because we want to avoid some quite frankly petty bias, which I don't think anyone would even notice? Generally, states are listed alphabetically, as this is the easiest, non-bias way. Also other factors can be taken into account, such as how they are commonly described, which would usually be UK-Ireland due to the fact that the UK has a larger population (thus it's citizens are more likely to list there country first) and the common use of the phrase Anglo-Irish, not Hiberno-British. I noticed there is a similar issue at Ireland-UK relations, where it goes on to say British-Irish relations, not Irish-British relations. There is no issue at UK-US relations, which currently goes by alphabetical order and doesn't invert the phrases at any point. I'm personally in favour of listing all phrases with 'Ireland' first to have them in alphabetical order, avoiding all bias except the phrase Anglo-Irish for obvious reasons. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Britain_and_Ireland/Archive_2&oldid=1142762523"