Talk:Shell Guides

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Shell Guides

I have a New Shell Guide (Sussex, John Godfrey) first published in 1990, six years after the Thorold one mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bill Tegner (talk • contribs) 07:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Shell Guide to Ireland

There is a Shell Guide to Ireland. The long-running series was not just about the counties of Great Britain. The reference no.1 is misleading, and the mention of British Isles has been removed due principally to a dislike of the term for political reasons. 86.27.186.36 (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil - no ad hominen attacks are permitted or entertained. The term "British Isles" was changed because it implied that a shell guide to the British Isles had been written (one had not), or that guides covering all of the British Isles had been published (they had not). I have added a comprehensive list of the areas covered which is a better and more accurate way to show the depth and scope of coverage of the Shell Guides. Bardcom (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on! The term was changed because you don't like it. Please credit me with enough intelligence to see what's going on here. Even a cursory look at your edit history demonstrates that your over-riding priority is to remove the term from the encyclopedia. You have many instances of its removal to your credit, in a whole range of subjects and areas. Often your edit summary does not reflect the nature of the change, mentioning "local POV" or something similar. Here is a particularly egregious example [1]. This was summaried as "Removed unreferenced local POV". There were plenty of other unreferenced statements in the article, so why single out that one? You could have just put a citation tag on it. You have a mission, and it's an unsavory one. So don't accuse me of being incivil and threatening me with a block. I'm merely stating the obvious. Getting back to this article. There are Shell Guides for England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. They are essentially geographic guides. British Isles is a geographic term encompassing the areas of the home countries, so it makes sense to use it here rather than a list of the constituents. Now if the guides were of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland then it wouldn't be appropriate here, but such is not the case. You are clearly determined to remove the term at all costs, but I'm putting it back for the reasons just noted. Can you not direct your editing energies to something more productive than the systematic removal of British Isles? 86.27.186.36 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-worded it again. Now if this version is factually incorrect then by all means correct it (don't just revert though, there are some uncontentious edits in there as well). I would claim it as a fact that the nations of the British Isles include Ireland. There are debates elsewhere challenging this, but most of the world accept it as given, and the issue shouldn't be fought out here. 86.27.186.36 (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have "most of the countries in NW Europe". I suggest that's not as good as before. It's too general. Less information is being imparted. Was my version factually incorrect? 86.27.186.36 (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon IP. It is considered an ad hominen attack to critise an editor and not the content. You have been guilty of this - looking at your edit histories and summaries, you have stated many times that my edits were unfounded due to the fact that I'm on some sort of a crusade to remove the term "British Isles" from wikipedia. This is untrue and factually incorrect, and if you read the RfA in detail (which you commented on), you could read my reasoning and look at the edits. Even your language above attacks me personally with statements and assertions like "your over-riding priority is to remove the term from the encyclopedia", "You have a mission, and it's an unsavory one" and "Can you not direct your editing energies to something more productive than the systematic removal of British Isles?". So take this warning to heart - stop being uncivil, assume good faith, and comment on the content and not the editor. I have no problem discussing my edits - and I have no problem if the consensus says to use a different term. Bardcom (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the current text. It's much better and more accurate than what was there before, but personally I prefer the list. But if this term can be agreed on, then I'll go along with it. Bardcom (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not list the counties in a County guides section and list the countries in a Country guides section? Crispness (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This confusion is the result of sloppy use of the terms. Great Britain is the large landmass and excludes all the smaller islands, and Ireland. The UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it is a political unit and incorporates all the islands that are a part of the country. British Isles includes EIRE as it is not a political term. Britain is sloppily and incorrectly used as a synonym for the UK. 46.208.92.66 (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

The previous source cannot be used according to the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Two boks which are reliable sources say the Shell Guides covered the British Isles, so it does not matter if IRA supporters object to the term. 86.153.108.117 (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The source "British Isles Bardcom" is using fails the verifiability policy, unlike the two books which unequivocally state the Shell Guides covered the British Isles. I will report any further breaches of policy to remove British Isles to administrators familiar with these tactics. EmpireForever (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The primary source for this article is Chris's website, which you say cannot be used as a reference. Will you be removing the two external links then, see as they are both self-published sources? If so, what is the primary source for the factual information in the article? Perhaps you will be then nominating the article for deletion afterwards?

Of the 3 references you provided, two are not acceptable. Your last two references - 'Guide to Reference Books by Eugene P. Sheehy, page 636. ISBN 978-0838903902, and British and Irish Architectural History: A Bibliography and Guide to Sources of Information are not valid as they are merely pointing to the first reference. In addition, they are not sources of information themselves, as they merely point to books.

Your first reference states

"'The Shell Guides': over the last fifteen years four sumptuous general guides to the British Isles, all more or less following the same pattern, have been published. The first to appear was The Shell Guide to Ireland (Ebury Press 1962) edited by.."

It is clear from this that this Architectural guide is referring to the later series of guides, and not the earlier series published in the 1930's. Therefore you have incorrectly altered the opening lead paragraph which initially specifically stated that the guides were started as a guide to the counties of England and Britain, which is exactly what the early series was about.

Finally, the Shell Guides were not about the "British Isles". There is nothing printed by Shell to this effect. Nor were all territories in the British Isles covered by the Shell Guides - there is no shell guide to the Channel Islands or Shell guide to the Isle of Man. For other far more reliable sources that an Architectural Guide, please look at:

There's loads more if you care to look. For example, a great biography on John Betjeman by William S. Peterson is available on Google with many letters written by John, and not once does he refer to the guides as being of the British Isles, while often he refers to his motivation as the inadequacy of English guidebooks, and a 1940 edition of British Book News refers to the Shell Guides as "exquisitely illustrated and compiled by native experts of the counties concerned", and to use your own preference for Architectural sources, the book AA Files: Annals of the Architectural Association School of Architecture published in 1993 describes the books on page 55 as "a series of county-by-county travel guides initiated by John Betjeman in 1934".

--HighKing (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'[...]a surreptitiously subversive synthesis of the British countryside[...]'

I love this part, but would appreciate some examples to substantiate this claim. 46.208.92.66 (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]