Wikipedia talk:British Isles

Archives

5 April 2008 – 25 May 2009

BOLD move from British Isles Task Force discussion

See also related RfC at British Isles task force.

Editors please note: this is not a generally accepted standard. The "guidelines" offered here have, as yet, no consensus. LevenBoy (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And I suggest we number the points for now rather than bullet points, so we can easily distinguish "point 2" from say "point 4". --HighKing (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the {{guideline}} template with {{proposed}} the time being; but in fairness, LB, your only objection was to giving "greater consideration" before adding the term to IRE/IRL-related articles. That point is hardly dramatic. Any editor aware of the issues around the term would surly pause and think before pressing "Save page" having added the term to one of those articles. Guidelines need to reflect common sense around a topic regardless of grand ideas about not wanting to "single out" any set of articles. (For practical reasons at the very least), the point is merely common sense. It is sound advice on the topic.

HK, I've made your suggested change. --RA (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The advice for 'greater consideration' is fine, if a little redundant, if it simply means people need to be more carefull that they are following policy and using correct terminology in those particular topics. It is not fine however if, as it appears from all the discussions, that this is an explicit encouragement or allowance to change, modify or eliminate the term in those articles, simply because of the topic. That is not a correct reading of NPOV, despite any unwritten rules that may or may not have arisen in the SE exercise as a way of appeasing and living with HighKing's campaign. MickMacNee (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Greater consideration" merely means "greater consideration". No more, no less. It does not infer anything else. --RA (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you carry on thinking that if you want. It won't bring this proposed Guideline any closer to the point where it only makes sense anyone other than HighKing et al, which is very much not proof that it adheres to NPOV. MickMacNee (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms

Not been looking at this for a few days (I had life) after the initial discussion about synonyms and alternate phrasings. I think the way the discussion went, particularly with regard to Great Britain (re the request to include the Hebrides in the list), and also this [1], although it may be a lame topic, illustrates nicely that there is actually no synonym for the whole of the islands included in the phrase, except the expression British Isles or a list of all the islands. Particularly, Britain is not equivalent to the political entity United Kingdom, and Britain is not a shorthand for all the islands in the British Isles that are not Ireland.

Suggest therefore that the word synonym be replaced with "alternative phrasing" or something similar, and the last bullet point remind people that Britain and Ireland and British Isles are not synonyms, (as the first phrase does not include reference to all the outer islands) and therefore the choice of phrase should be made with due regard to the subject.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough (for me for different reasons). For me, and others, phrases such as "Britain and Ireland" are synonymous with "British Isles". With regard to the Keith Floyd example the program makers apparently equate the two also (they call it "Britain and Ireland" in the title but describe it as being about "the British Isles" in the blurb). The equation of the two is also made explicitly in secondary sources (some of which are appear on the British Isles page).

Be cautious of reasoning through language use however. For example, you say that that "Britain" does not mean all the islands in the British Isles that are not Ireland and therefore "Britain and Ireland" cannot mean the entire group. That would sound logical enough (although there is an argument "Britain" does mean all parts of the isles that are ultimately under British governance). But bear in mind that others reason that the Republic of Ireland is not "British" and therefore cannot be in the "British" Isles. The latter reasoning also appears in reliable sources. My point is not to say that one reasoning or the other is correct; but just to raise a caution about reasoning through things that aren't necessarily grounded in firm reason. It is language use, not mathematics.

But anyway, until such time as they appear in a dictionary (although some of the rarer actually one do!), I for one am happy to say that they are simply other "turns of phrase" rather than "synonyms". --RA (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted "synonym" from the guidelines. --RA (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RA, for me, I largely support the current MOS guidelines, but I oppose point 5. It's far too broad, and effectively will result in a situation like the recent "Keith Floyd" article. I suggest though that we agree what we can agree, and continue to refine (and identify) those areas where we still need to discuss some more. We're really not that far apart. --HighKing (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marked as failed

In absence of support for the proposal, with the exception of Bjmullan, I've marked the proposal as having failed at Wikipedia:British Isles. (See discussion at Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology_task force/Manual of Style#Moved_to_Wikipedia:British_Isles.) --RA (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]