Talk:History of Britain (disambiguation)
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Is there a need for/or reason why History of the British Isles is included on a disambiguation page for the History of Britain? Þjóðólfr (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- To rephrase the question, why did you delete it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- The history of BI is not the History of Britain Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Go on let me know. What is the reason for linking the History of the British Isles from a History of Britain disambiguation page? I think it should be deleteted because its lacks relevance. Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC) PS and the History of Europe for that matter.
- The mere fact that you spend half your life on a campaign to erase the term "British Isles" from the English language is ample demonstration of why it is relevant. The histories of the four nations of the British Isles is utterly intertwined. Quite frankly, I think your obsession with this is verging on unhealthy - I'd take a walk in the fresh air if I were you and try to get a bit of perspective on things. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- If I did indeed spend half my life on a campaign to erase the term "British Isles" from the English language that might be the case. But I do not - that can be evidenced from my edit history. I've taken a walk in the fresh air and I'm asking again. What is the relevance? Þjóðólfr (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Can you explain to me how inclusion of History of the BI in the "See Also" is not justified? WP:ALSO "These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." Are you telling me that, given all the shared history going back centuries and centuries, the History of the BI and the History of Britain are not even peripherally related? Or that readers should not be allowed to see History of the BI here, purely because you have issues with the term? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- If I did indeed spend half my life on a campaign to erase the term "British Isles" from the English language that might be the case. But I do not - that can be evidenced from my edit history. I've taken a walk in the fresh air and I'm asking again. What is the relevance? Þjóðólfr (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- The mere fact that you spend half your life on a campaign to erase the term "British Isles" from the English language is ample demonstration of why it is relevant. The histories of the four nations of the British Isles is utterly intertwined. Quite frankly, I think your obsession with this is verging on unhealthy - I'd take a walk in the fresh air if I were you and try to get a bit of perspective on things. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Go on let me know. What is the reason for linking the History of the British Isles from a History of Britain disambiguation page? I think it should be deleteted because its lacks relevance. Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC) PS and the History of Europe for that matter.
- The history of BI is not the History of Britain Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)