– Varying degrees of consensus. This discussion has helped raise awareness on various articles, and that's good. But it's long and sprawling, and I'd like to archive it. I think we have achieved useful stuff on articles like Ireland. There's a proposal for islands with, I think, some degree of acceptance. There's almost certainly further work to do in various places. I'd like to tackle those piecemeal, so open new issues as they arise, and try and avoid "big issues" like this one was ;-) TFOWR15:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
I notice that there is an omission in the lead of the Republic of Ireland article, a very important one, while it correctly points out it is "is a country in north-western Europe" it fails to mention the important geological fact it is part of the British Isles archipelago. Shall we add it ? Codf1977 (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not think Codf1977 was suggesting we replace the Europe in that sentence and put British Isles. However it is a valid point that article fails to mention anywhere that it is part of the British Isles. It may not be deserving of a mention in the introduction but it certainly belongs in the geography section.
So we should add a sentence pointing this out. To leave it out simply to avoid offending a few people is unhelpful. This appears to be another example of where fact is "left out" to avoid causing offence. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Has it been in at some time in the past and subsequently deleted? If so, it would be useful to see what explanation was given for the deletion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Good question. Also the UK article does not use BI and geologically the area is much wider - remember the English Channel is a product of ice age flooding. --SnowdedTALK09:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec)BW, please stop this continuous speculation as to the motives of other editors. In respect of the articles on the two states they are clearly political entities. In respect of the geography sections and articles, while British Isles is a geographical term, it is not a required geographical term or the only one which is appropriate, the case needs to be made in each case. Would you point to the part of Great Britain which you think is a good illustration, I cant find that. --SnowdedTALK09:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Possibly but the idea that any article which does not include the term is a result of such a motivation is absurd and it is not helpful for it to occur in around half of BW's comments here and elsewhere. At the moment the number of proposals to include BI, and related proposals such as those at Derry would indicate that the issue has reversed! --SnowdedTALK09:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I dont think just because something fails to mention it saying BI its because of the crusades, when i said above "to avoid mentioning fact because it may make some people here unhappy is unacceptable.", i was talking about it can not be a reason for us not to agree to add it now. Some have talked about avoiding use of BI on Ireland related articles before, it was in the proposed MOS we all debated a few weeks back. As for the situation being reversed, it does not look like that from where i am sitting. I see systemic bias on wikipedia against Britain, British people and yes treatment of the term British Isles remains a problem. The situation has not been reversed, it may have calmed down a bit compared to a few years ago, but the blood is still on the carpet as they say.(just a metaphor)BritishWatcher (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The point BI is that you should not assume the reason that BI is not present is due to political motives, it may just not be appropriate. Please focus on the content issues --SnowdedTALK10:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but we have plenty of evidence to suggest BI has been removed or a different term used for political sensitivities. I have provided another example of this below. after a very clear pattern across wikipedia for several years, there comes a time when assumptions in obvious cases are sadly unavoidable. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course there have been the point is (i) that you should not always assume that is the case and (ii) you have told us so many times now, do you think we don't know its your view? --SnowdedTALK11:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I accept it is not always the case, but when we are talking about certain articles where its use is clearly justified, it does point to exclusion for "political sensitivities", and a look through the history shows such assumptions can turn out accurate. I have been very clear about my view on these matters in the past yes and i will continue to express my views. As in the debate above about rules, i think its healthy for us to be open about these sorts of things, although i will avoid in future the bit about books, i also speak in general terms i am not attacking a specific editor, although again.. the evidence of some editors activities on these matters are clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Well the GB article in the terminology section mentions the BI, the infobox mentions BI and it has the BI template with the correct name. I suppose it could be worded better and in another section, i just meant it handles it better than the other articles which fail to mention it entirely, dont have the template and in one case rename it. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
So you are arguing for the insertion of a "Archipelago" section in the information box of some articles? Is there a precedent elsewhere in equivalent articles? --SnowdedTALK10:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it does need to be inserted on the island article yes, that is one of a number of issues that need addressing about these core articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Or deleted from the Great Britain one. Is the "Archipelago" label used elsewhere in WIkipedia information boxes? I think we should follow common practice here --SnowdedTALK10:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I have spotted something else we need to debate. Category:British Isles is on Northern Ireland, but does not appear to be on the other pages mentioned above. There is also a British Isles template
This appears on the Northern Ireland article at the bottom but not on the others except Ireland where someone has renamed it "Great Britain and Ireland" which pipelinks to the British Isles. I strongly oppose pipelinking, even if it means that BI is not mentioned at all. But in this case clearly it should say British Isles, its a British Isles template for goodness sake. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
In 2008 instead of it saying Great Britain and Ireland rather than British Isles, it said "British Islands and Ireland" , "British Islands" is simply a legal term and was clearly incorrectly used there. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
British Isles template belongs on that article, it belongs on all the main articles (UK,Ireland,ROI,England,Wales,Scotland,NI, IOM, CIs etc) within the British Isles. At the moment it appears only on about 3, one being Ireland with its renamed "Great Britain and Ireland" title. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
In December 2006 it said "Great Britain, Ireland and the Isle of Man" rather than British Isles on the British Isles template. Clearly inaccurate as it missed out Channel Islands lol. I dread to think what other names it got given. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
"The island is sometimes referred to as being part of the British Isles. However, notwithstanding the level of acceptance of the term within Northern Ireland, exception is taken by many Irish people to the extension of this nomenclature to include Ireland, as it infers an identity at odds with historical, cultural and political reality. For this reason, "Britain and Ireland" is sometimes used as a more neutral way of alluding to the archipelago of which the two islands are the essential constituents. Another suggestion, although much less frequently used, is the Islands of the North Atlantic (IONA)"
Lmao @ this removal of the British Isles from a sentence on the Ireland article in [1] British Isles was replaced with Ireland or Great Britain by Sarah777 with the edit summary saying "(remove political pov)"
Add the geographical fact that Ireland is the second largest of the British Isles into the first paragraph. This is basic info that everyone should know about. LemonMonday Talk 17:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Change the lede from "The geography of Ireland describes an island in northwest Europe in the north Atlantic Ocean." to "The geography of Ireland describes an island in northwest Europe in the north Atlantic Ocean part of the British Islesarchipelago"
The archipelago label is not present in the information boxes of other groups that I can see, so there could be a case for removing it from Great Britain
The appropriate geographical location for the two countries is North West Europe, there is no particular reason for British Isles here, especially on articles about political entities
On the geography articles or sections there may be a case if it can be shown that the addition adds anything of significant value --SnowdedTALK10:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment "The appropriate geographical location for the two countries is North West Europe" - as defined by who ? the two islands are part of the British Isles are they not ? Also how does not detailing the group of islands an island or country is in not add value ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Well for a start both countries are members of the European Union, and the European link is more important than an archipelago. Most other country articles in Europe relate to a compass point aspect (Western Europe, Southern etc). So the general practice is clear and one important way to avoid conflict is to follow general practice. In addition we have generally been working on the heuristic of not using BI in a political context unless there is a really solid argument. In general my view is that removing BI just for the sake of it is a mistake but the corollary is also true; trying to find places to insert it when another geographical term has been in use for some time (and conforms with precedent elsewhere) could be seen as tit for tat. --SnowdedTALK10:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
But this is about including it in the infobox under the term archipelago. Putting that in does not mean we must exclude mention of Europe. " In addition we have generally been working on the heuristic of not using BI in a political context unless there is a really solid argument." Have we? I have never agreed to that rule because it depends on peoples point of view if its political or not. This is the reason i strongly opposed such suggested wording in the MOS debate recently. The British Isles is a geographical term. There is nothing political about having a geographical term in an infobox. It is only political and a misuse of the term if we said "British Isles declared war on Germany". Saying Germany invaded the British Isles is not using it in a political way, simply as a geographical term and there for accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Even if you don't accept the political heuristic (which is a pity), then you need a find a reason to add something in, especially when, in general, only one geographical locator is used on most country articles in Europe and I can't find another example of archipelago in an information box. --SnowdedTALK11:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Most places in Europe are not an island and not part of a archipelago. Also if you look at the proposals above, the infobox bit was for the island of Ireland. Not the country. I think it belongs in the infobox of the island articles, i do not think it is needed in the infoboxes of the 2 country's however those articles do need to include the British Isles template at the bottom and they do need to mention it in their geography sections. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
No, but places like Indonesia are and that is more comparable - the Malay archipelago has more than one state. I think the case is stronger to remove it than to add it. I am open to some wording in the geography section of the geography articles. --SnowdedTALK12:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I think we are all getting mixed up here. I support British Isles to be in the infobox on the island of Ireland like it is on Great Britain at present. I agree there is no need for it at all in the infoboxes of the country articles, im not even sure if there is a setting available for it. But take Indonesia, 3 of its 5 islands do state archipelago. Java, Sumatra and Sulawesi. One island has no infobox, and one doesnt mention archipelago. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The three you mention are all part of Indonesia, there is no mention on the Indonesian or East Timor articles (both of which are countries). I can see no value in this unless there is some general standard somewhere that says it should be in the information boxes. The Great Britain article is also fairly political by the way, its not really a geographical article about the island. The number of additions of BI being proposed here is getting silly, creating information box labels for the sake of it. --SnowdedTALK12:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
But they are islands, we are talking about the island infobox. No one has proposed the Republic of Ireland infobox should include it (from what ive seen), im supporting the inclusion in the infobox on Ireland, i dont think it needs to be in the infobox of the ROI country article, although BI is needed within the article text in the geography section without a doubt, and debatably somewhere in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it's definitely a good idea to include the term in the geography articles and sections. Whether it needs to be in the lead is debatable. The lead about the countries is by default political, they being about countries. Using British Isles there would cause more trouble than its worth in my opinion. Stick to describing them as a european country in the EU. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that and that is in line with the proposal above. The island articles should say British Isles in their introduction somewhere (doesnt need to be the first sentence) and it should be in the infobox. On the country articles it should just be in the geography section, no need for it in the introduction or in the infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Understood! Yes, I agree with that, accepting that a draft of the new infobox is placed in the articles talk page first just to check over. I'm occasionally pathetically pedantic... Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
It would definitely have to be mentioned on the Ireland article talkpage before deciding to add it, we should see positions of other people involved here before moving it on to there though, otherwise the debate will take place in two separate places and it can get confusing. In general i think we should try to agree a position here before moving onto the article themselves. That helps protect other parts of wikipedia from our dispute. Theres no point in raising it at all there if some editors here are strongly opposed and would block it anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I placed a notice on the articles concerned so that they are aware of the discussion. Best it takes place here in the round. --SnowdedTALK13:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a direct pipelink to the above proposals BW, no need to replicate material on many pages. You made the proposals as a batch (are you going to keep to a ten proposal a month limit by the way) so people can look at them as such --SnowdedTALK13:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I do want us to agree to some form of limit, but at present i do not think there is one. About 10 a month seems reasonable to me, although we will have to work out how we define it per editor though. Codf1977 originally raised the ROI issue and then put forward a list of proposals including issues id mention in text about the BI template problem. Would that count as one of mine or one of Codf1977's? We gonna need to get a sensible policy in place soon, although we will likely have an influx of editors now over these proposed changes so that will have to wait till these have been sorted. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
They belong in the infoboxes of the GB/Ireland island articles. But there is no reason why the geographical information should not be included in the correct section of the articles about the country. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Placing the term "British Isles" in the geography sections of the country articles seems fine. As you said GoodDay, they are geographical terms. We are not intending to change the lead of infoboxes of the Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom articles, just their geography sections and the main geography pages. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
If it's decided to add them there, be prepared for the resulting 'root-canal' expierence at the republic article. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Been away a while and just catching up with the goings on here -- and I see there's no change -- POV pushing goes on! Anyways, is the intention to correct this statement at Ireland: Ireland (pronounced [ˈaɾlənd]( listen),; Irish: Éire, pronounced [ˈeːɾʲə] ( listen); Ulster Scots: Airlann) is the third largest island in Europe and the twentieth largest island in the world.[4] It lies to the northwest of continental Europe and is surrounded by hundreds of islands and islets. To the east of Ireland is Great Britain, separated from it by the Irish Sea.?? Correcting it will involve stating that the island is the second largest in the British Isles - is that on the agenda here? Sorry, but I've not had a chance to read all the bullshit yet. LemonMonday Talk 16:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I just spent 10 minutes checking out some of the many thousands islands that belong to these archipelago and NONE of them even mention the word British never mind British Isles. I will not be support ANY inclusion of the term in either of the Irish articles until someone can convince me of it's worth and to date that has not happened. Bjmullan (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm sounds like something we will have to address at another point. But we should not decide the outcome of the above proposals based on areas the taskforce may need to look at in future. Which of the above proposals did you have specific concern about. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) your support or lack of it is not the issue, the issue is, is it correct, and I notice that no one is disputing the facts here, namely that the island of Ireland is in the British Isles and as far as I can see the only reason to avoid saying so is POV pushing. Codf1977 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
There are lots of "facts" about the various articles, it doesn't automatically mean they are included. We need to see what is done on equivalent articles and discuss whether these proposed additions really add any value or not. --SnowdedTALK18:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me the biggest area of debate right now is over the infobox on the Ireland article, and if it should state British Isles or not. Lets create a new section below so we can go into more detail. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Talk tlak talk! That's all we're getting. How about some action? Seems like stonewalling's going on here. It is a blatant fact that Ireland is the second largest of the British Isles so why should that basic, up front fact not be put in the article - answers please. Mullan - have you got some dislike of Britain or something? LemonMonday Talk 20:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The British Isles is the islands of Great Britain and Ireland. If it weren't, they'd be no arguing over its usage. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
This thread was only opened yesterday: I'd like to see it carry on into at least the start of the working week so that editors who can't/don't edit at weekends can comment. TFOWR08:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Europe related geographical reference points are too broad now that the EU/EFTA spreads from as far as Iceland to Ukraine/Turkey. Speaking geographically, any where within the British Isles should, in the first place, be categorised as being within the British Isles in contrast to Continental Europe. "British Isles" is the non-political, geographical option. Any notable omission of the term again becomes political. We need a simple blanket ruling for the sakes of consistency.
I do not think nannying over other comments on others helps. I think what would help is a simple and obligatory list of participants and their self-defined POV --- which is what I attempted. It would help newcomers, or returnees, to understand the dynamics of what is going on here far more quickly than trawling the talk pages.
I agree. Nothing is being done (see above for a blanket ruling on flora and fauna). Certain individuals are ignoring issues and attempting to talk issues into a grave and where that does not work, going behind the scenes to engineer blocks and bans and provoke others.
Most of these issues take more than a few days to resolve, especially when many options are thrown into play at the same time. BW did the right thing in picking one issue out for resolution below. --SnowdedTALK09:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
These problems will take a while to resolve. A standard move vote/debate takes 7 days. If there is a dispute here, I see no reason why it shouldn't take as long. Maybe a backlog of articles to examine can be created somewhere, and an admin (TFOWR?) can add them to open discussion as time allows? That would allow a control of the amount on here. As for the specific discussion above, one at a time sounds good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The debate on the infobox of Ireland has been extensively debated below, other issues have yet to get much feedback.
Are there any objections to the {{British Isles}} template being added to the United Kingdom page and a mention of the BI in the geography section. That would seem to be the least potentially problematic ones.
I am not seeing any opposition to the above proposals for changes to the United Kingdom article, just the Ireland articles require more debate. So at what stage can the non opposed proposals above be included? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Well the proposal above for the UK is about adding the British Isles template to it. Although an explanation in the geography section about the BI may be jutified too, but the above proposal was just about the template. There is no point creating a new section for each thing listed above, only those that people have concerns about and need debating in more detail are needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Well my call would support a reference to the archipelago in the geography sections of Great Britain and Ireland if we can agree the words. I don't see the point on the articles about sovereign states. I'm not a fan of the BI template anyway, there are more than enough links --SnowdedTALK12:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Id support a mention of it on the island articles in their geography sections, and not make changes to the ROI or UK geography sections, although on full articles about geography for the countries it should be mentioned too in the introduction, and there is a case for it to be in the introduction of the island articles, but at the very least its needed in the geography section. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I would've liked it on both the geography sections in the articles and in the articles leads, but I guess that's reaching. Including them somewhere in the island articles it is definitely needed. Not including it would leave the articles lacking in information (information important enough that it has its own section in the infobox, even if that is not filled) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
OK so lets agree wording for the two geography sections of the island articles and then post a notice on the articles concerned for comment. I can draft this evening if you want or you have a go --SnowdedTALK13:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
No rush, if you could propose the wording and post on there, it may be seen more as a reasonable compromise than coming from myself. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree that it should not be in the lead of the sovereign state articles (ROI & UK), however if those sovereign state articles have geography sections it should be mentioned there (following this edit the ROI one is ok). As for the articles on islands, it should be in the lead and in any geography sections, likewise in the lead of any geography articles. Codf1977 (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The Great Britain one is easy, add at the end of the first paragraph of Geographical Definition "and is a part of the British Isles Archipelago". Ireland is more difficult, especially with comments like that above. There is no need for it to be in the lede of any article, its a minor geographical issue. In Ireland I suggest adding at the end of the first paragraph "Along with the island of Great Britain and 1000s of other islands it is a part of the archipelago of the British Isles" with no pipelinking. On the Ireland article there needs to be a link to the controversy and possible a similar wording (alternative Atlantic Archipelago) or similar. --SnowdedTALK20:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, it should be in the introduction of the island articles and the geography of the island articles. When it comes to the two sovereign states it should be in the geography section of each. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason to have it in the lede of any article, it really is not that notable. I am pretty sure you will not get consensus for that on Ireland, in fact attempting it would probably mean no changes at all. There is a case for inclusion in the geography section on the island articles, although it could be argued that it would be better on the subsidiary articles (Geography of Ireland for example) which go to a finer level of detail. I can see no case for the country articles. I would suggest not being over ambitious here it will reduce any chance you have of success and starts to look like a crusade (sic). --SnowdedTALK21:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Well inclusion in the geography section of the island article and the lead of the geography articles on the island seems like a good compromise that may be doable, i think its justified to be in the intro of the island article but it being mentioned in the geography section is better than nothing. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Might have not been clear with my last post, it should be in the lead for the island and geography articles not the state ones (see here]). Codf1977 (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
While I agree with BW and Cod that it is an important inclusion, Snowded does make a point. Diving into the deep end would cause a huge amount of trouble. I suggest we focus on the island articles for now, and can move on to other stuff (ie state geography sections) after the island test has gone through. I don't think we'll get that much opposition in the Great Britain article, the Ireland article will be more tricky. Suggest moving it to the end of the introduction, but not the last sentence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to make this clear. the fact that the islands are part of an archipelago is not a major or critical aspect of their geography, and the name of that archipelago is verifiably controversial. I am prepared to make the case for its inclusion in the geography sections of the island articles. However I am not prepared to be part of an approach which says "lets get this in the bag and then get some more". --SnowdedTALK09:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
This whole procedure should look at what is verifiably correct, we should not do something (or conversely not do it) just because it is or is not controversial. Codf1977 (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Verifiability is not the only test. It also has to be notable. Given that the controversy is also verifiable the need to add it in on many uses raises questions about when it is appropriate to add it in and when it isn't. --SnowdedTALK09:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
When I made that comment I was not commenting on notability, but since you bring it up, I am assuming that there is no issue with the fact that the island of Ireland being part of the British Isles is indeed notable. Codf1977 (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's get this in the bag and then get more is a very malicious twist :( What I really meant was the Let's take this step by step. But very well, will not use that in any discussion on inclusion, and will drop it for now. So on that note I think that separate subsections should be created, one for inclusion in the article and one for inclusion in the lead. That will give a better gauge on consensus.
Wow. I'm fairly sure it's a fact, the "British Isles" includes Ireland. Call it the north atlantic archipelago or whatever, it does. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
But you see it is this opposition that clearly draws into question the neutrality. You are opposing its inclusion because you consider the "British Isles" is just opinion, rather than a geographical location which is proven as fact. Such opposition seriously undermines the neutrality of the article. We are avoiding saying British Isles there because some people including some editors here reject the term. That can not be right. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
There are very clear questions of neutrality BW. but you are making a mistake if you think its just one way. A sensible use of British Isles in a geographical context is OK, but that does not mean insertion in every case where it can be claimed as a fact. Many facts exist, some are notable, some are appropriate etc. etc. Its your call on this one, you can go for broke with mass insertions or agree something more balanced. --SnowdedTALK10:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I have said it being mentioned in the geography section of the ireland article is better than nothing. I think a fair compromise would be it in the infobox with a note, in the geography section with an explanation of the controversy and leave it out of the introduction all together (although i think its justified there and fits in). I do not see the problem with it being in the infobox in line with almost all other island articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
You clearly lack consensus on Talk:Ireland for a change to the information box (and for the record your "all other island articles" argument has been challenged). Are you still pursuing this one?--SnowdedTALK10:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
It is ashame it got turned into a vote there which would obviously result in making it very difficult to get agreement and show a lack of consensus, instead of us being able to hold a rational debate there. I think it is accurate to say almost all other island infoboxes which are part of an archipelago say it in their infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Fact 1: When you use the term British Isles, you include Ireland in what you are referring to.
Fact 2: When I use the term (which is very rarely) I do NOT include Ireland in what I'm referring, unless I am referencing your usage.
Fact 3: When you use the term Britain and Ireland, you probably don't include the Isle of Man or Channel Islands in what you are referring to.
Fact 4: When I use the term Britain and Ireland, I include the whole shooting match of what you refer to as the British Isles.
Those are the facts. The terms mean different things to different people.
Do I accept that on Wikipedia different usages are stipulated in different contexts? Yes I do.
Those are meanings and one can find references that in part or in whole support those uses, however it is verifiably a fact that Ireland is a part of the archipelago if the British Islands , as it is a fact that the term is controversial. However you can't argue from personal preference or from a more restricted set of sources --SnowdedTALK10:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The fact is Ireland is part of the British Isles, that has always been the case. Wikipedia must reflect reliable sources, most of which state this as fact. So the Ireland article must not simply ignore this matter because some people do not like the term, it is totally unacceptable censorship and violates WP:NPOV. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Its not enough for it to be a fact, it has to be notable in context and if used the reference must be complete. Saying that a fact should not be included is not censorship per se. I can think of many geographical facts about Ireland which are not in the article. You are getting back to motivational issues rather than content again--SnowdedTALK10:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Snowded, I disagree with the challenge to the fact that "Islands have archipelago's in their infoboxes". The only islands I can find without them are islands which don't have the island infobox, such as Tasmania and Hokkaido. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok so on notability. The creator of the island infobox included a field for archipelagos. Most islands that are part of an archipelago state it in their infobox. The Great Britain infobox has stated it for some time. I do not see how we can just fail to mention it. If it is justified to be included in a geography section, why not in the infobox where there is a field for it? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
We've had this out several times Chipmunk, where there is little ambiguity you find it, were its confused with political and other groups you don't. And that is just one argument by the way. Personally I would remove it from the British Isles article. As far as I can see that ship has sailed, there is no consensus on talk:Ireland to make a change. --SnowdedTALK11:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
While I strongly agree with others, in that it should go in the infobox, there are some issues (not relating to POV, it being optional and the such like) with that, and think that for the sake of sanity, we should leave that to one side, save to agree that, The use of British Isles in the Archipelago tag of the infobox's of both island articals is a valid use of the term, however it should not be inserted into the infobox without consensus on the talk page of the relative article.. We can then move on to the issue of text in the body of the article. Codf1977 (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Yep lets move on to the issue of the text in the article, although i have to say i am not very impressed with the reasons for excluding it from the infobox considering all the facts suggest it should be included. These are probably the most justified/needed places to include British Isles on wikipedia that we debate here. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
With all respect Snowded, we haven't. Your answers have, apologies, been unsatisfying at best. The only instance I remember of you providing an example of a political group is the Timor infobox, which does have an archipelago in its infobox. The claim that it not saying Malay archipelago is based on politics is a stretch. The current entry, Lesser Sunda Islands, is actually better, due to giving a more accurate location. I agree with leaving it to the side for now though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Timor in a lower level one that the Malay which is why it isn't problematic. The politics between Indonesia and East Timor and also Singapore is well documented so I am sorry I think its a good example. I am happy to accept to doesn't satisfy you, several arguments of many an editor don't satisfy me either but its something wel all have to live with --SnowdedTALK11:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
If the editors can show good policy based reasons, and those reasons are are not based around "it is controversial" or "I/we dont like it" or just try to stonewall and the such then that's ok, but I have confidence in either of the two overseeing admins here being able to see through that so where that risk exists, I think it would be unlikely to be successful. Codf1977 (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
You both really have to stop this assumption that because people disagree with you they are somehow or another breaking policy. I would also comment that raising a whole series of proposals to insert a controversial term on several articles where there is no clear cut case for insertion or removal is as much a mistake as listing 20 articles requiring its removal. --SnowdedTALK11:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hangon, did you actual read what I said ? I was making no such assumption, my reply was basicly saying that I did not see an automatic link with re-opening the issue of the infobox if the inclusion within the article text did not happen. As for your assertion that these proposals have "no clear cut case for insertion" is simply not the case.Codf1977 (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I am basing my opinion on the reasons given for exclusion of British Isles from that infobox. I do consider avoiding to mention British Isles on an article because some do not like the term a violation of WP:NPOV. As for the list of proposals, it covers just 4 articles and is all related to the same sort of issue. It is nothing compared to the list of dozens of cases that are at the top of this page. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Moving towards a resolution
This has now been "open" for a week, and (info box aside) we should be able to move this forward to wards a conclusion now on the above proposals, all of them are perfectly acceptable uses of the term being verifiability accurate.Codf1977 (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The UK and Geography of Ireland articles should certainly have the proposals implemented. More debate over the Ireland article is needed but it does seem like opposition is to the infobox, and a mention within the article itself is justified. There were a couple of negative responses on Republic of Ireland, so wed best debate that more too. But other proposals should be implemented. The incorrect pipelink on the British Isles template over on Ireland should be fixed, we all agreed below that GB+I should not pipelink to BI, thats what happens in that template at the moment, clearly British Isles is justified in the British Isles template. so that change is needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to get all of Ireland sorted out first, i.e. do we mention "British Isles" in the article-proper? In the lead? In the infobox? In the external links templates? Suddenly sticking "British Isles" onto a contentious page is not my idea of fun, and I certainly don't plan to do it without clear consensus. TFOWR08:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
We remove it until this issue is resolved. I had two options: insert a contentious phrase onto the article without clear consensus, or remove a contentious template. I opted for the least problematic option, while recognising that both options would be contentious.
There are other options. We could rename the template from "British Isles" to either of "Britain and Ireland" or "Atlantic Archipelago". I don't like either of these options: "Britain and Ireland" is a political compromise that various governments seem to favour, but I don't believe (a) it's accurate, or (b) we should be swayed by what governments do. "Atlantic Archipelago" is an academic compromise that seems to have gained little usage outside academia. TFOWR08:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The template should not be renamed, it certainly can not be Britain and Ireland, which means a lot of the content would have to be removed because it includes the Isle of Man and Channel Islands, and it certainly can not be renamed Atlantic Archipelago, a name almost no one has ever heard of in the real world.
That template was created to cover the British Isles. I strongly oppose any attempt to alter it to appease some who may not like the term. It was not a contentious template, it had been on that article for over 2 years. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
With respect, BW, it clearly was a contentious template: you objected to the pipe-linking "British and Ireland". You can't have it both ways: it's either contentious or it's not. Now, can I get on with looking at the wider issue? An issue that may well result in the restoration of the template in your preferred form: i.e. without "Britain and Ireland". TFOWR08:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
It is only contentious because some people object to what it veritably the correct English name for the group of islands, to try and avoid using the name for reasons that some don't like it is point of view pushing. The right approach is to use the correct name and if appropriate mention that some find it problematic, the vast majority of the residents of the islands that make up the archipelago don't have an issue with the name.Codf1977 (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Still little progress on these matter
Ok it has now been two weeks. Lets look at each issue that was raised and what changes, if any have been made.
Republic of Ireland article geography section - British Isles now pipelinks from "The country belongs to a group of islands in northwestern Europe which include the islands ofGreat Britain and Ireland, and over six thousand smaller islands." The fact the article now states this highlights how the British Isles should clearly be mentioned in that section and the only thing stopping it being clearly stated is trying to avoid upsetting some editors.
British Isles template on the Republic of Ireland and Ireland article. - The template is now on both Ireland and Republic of Ireland, however they incorrectly pipelink to Britain and Ireland. This is a completely incorrect method, it is also rather odd when the British Isles template mentions something like the " Islands of the North Atlantic (IONA)" yet fails to state anywhere British Isles.
Ireland article, still fails to mention anywhere that it is part of the British Isles. We are failing to inform the reader notable information for what reason?
Ireland infobox. Despite most infoboxes of islands that belong to an archipelago stating the name of that archipelago in the infobox, it has been blocked by a vote on the talkpage - Again this is blatant censorship of information. There is no just reason why this should not be included except for to avoid the wikipedia controversy over the British Isles.
Geography of Ireland - Fails to mention Ireland is part of the British Isles - Again notable information is left off an article for some reason.
United Kingdom - British Isles template is there, it manages to be there without an incorrect pipelink.
To avoid confusion which seems to have happened above at one stage, the proposal about infoboxes only appeared to apply to the infoboxes on the island, not the infobox of the countries. I support the infobox of the island of Ireland saying British Isles but agree it is not needed on the country infoboxes. Will lay out some of the points below in a moment, want to try and avoid Edit conflicts. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Lets add in the option to delete it from the Great Britain Information Box, its not a part of the standard templates in comparable articles --SnowdedTALK19:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it is, we are talking about island articles, i linked several above relating to islands of Indonesia and Codf1977 mentioned one. I see no reason why British Isles should be removed from Great Britains island template, its one of the most justifiable inclusions of the term British Isles on wikipedia. If it is justified there, clearly its justified on the island of Irelands infobox. But im happy to debate both. Shortly i will list some reasons for inclusion, if you could do the same for exclusion/removal it would be helpful to get all the basic points on each side thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The reasons why British Isles should be removed from the Great Britain template is that the term British Isles does not enjoy consensus; the term is deprecated by the governments of both countries; it is an obsolete term which once had meaning but is now incorrect as Ireland is clearly not British in any sense; the term causes widespread offense; and quite simply, it is not important to strain after a collective name for a group of islands when they can so easily be described as Britain and Ireland, like Australia and New Zealand. It is simply not a necessity to name the archipelago, especially in the face of so much historical baggage, and it is a weasal argument to maintain that British Isles is "only" a geographical term, not a political one. If that were so, by what logic would the geographical entity be called "British"? It is just as arbitrary as calling them the Irish Isles. --O'Dea (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I've made the points above BW in respect of Indonesia as opposed to islands in Indonesia. My point is that there are two questions - is an archipelago section appropriate to an information box and if it is when should it be applied. --SnowdedTALK19:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not in the infobox on the article about the country Indonesia, but on 3 of its 5 main islands it is. Clearly inclusion of archipelago information is justified on the island infoboxes, thats why there is a section for it. I totally agree there is absolutely no reason for BI to be on a country infobox and i wouldnt support that. But it seems reasonable for the islands. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
If you checkout the template page you will see its an option its not mandatory. As far as i can see It is in partial use for islands within a country but not for countries within an archipelago. So there is no clear case in precedent for its inclusion in either article. Given the confusion over Ireland and Great Britain with their respective countries I think this is an unnecessary addition. I'd suggest you take the discussion over to the template talk page and see if some general rule or principle can be worked out. If it is going to be a standard part of the template then there are multiple changes to be made on many articles and I really doubt the utility. --SnowdedTALK19:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
It may not be mandatory but i do not see a reason for its exclusion, there would be hardly anything in most articles or infoboxes if it was restricted to the mandatory stuff. I am not after a general rule for wikipedia wide use of the term, it seems reasonable to use it where it applies and from the pages i have looked through so far it seems mostly to include rather than exclude. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
This list may be helpful List of archipelago, i am going to go through some of these and check for uses on their islands. The first in the list i have done a quick check of. Every single island on the table (unless i missed one) in this list Canadian Arctic Archipelago states its archipelago in the infobox of the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I went through the list of major archipelagos and looked especially at those containing (as opposed to being contained by) countries before I made the comment above. --SnowdedTALK19:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
None that I could see where a country is involved. It seems to be used for clusters if islands, in which the archipelago is probably the most important aspect. --SnowdedTALK19:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Well maybe the other articles should be addressed then? I personally feel that an article about an island should include the group of islands it is located in. Ireland is part of the British Islands, I think that is relevant enough for the infobox. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I think on Ireland and Great Britain its reasonable in the geography sections to say they are a part of the British Isles archipelago (but not on the country articles). I really don't see the point on the information box unless it is generally applied to comparable situations. --SnowdedTALK15:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here wants it on the country articles infoboxes! Just imagine the reaction! And I agree with comparable situations. I will put it on my list of things to do to add the archipelago to any island's infobox I find without it. Standard change on wikipedia all the time, just look at Talk:List of sovereign states where the actual list seems ready to change. That's the great thing about an electronic encyclopedia! Anyway, I think that British Isles should be added to the geography infoboxes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Who said anything about offense GoodDay? Chipmunk, you can do a simply experiment go and make the changes to everything listed in the Malay Archipelago and see what happens. If it stands there for a week then I'll happily agree and you can pick up the other ones later. --SnowdedTALK15:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll actually try that, both out of interest in this discussion and because it sounds like a good idea for the articles separately. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about confusion, I'm not out to censor wikipedia so as not to offend people. As for what you suggested Snowded, I've hit a snag. Timor, Luzon, Mindanao, Sulawesi, Sumatra, Borneo, and Java all list more specific archipelagos than the Malay archipelago. Is that more appropriate in the infobox? Of course, I don't think this problem exists with the Ireland case, as I think the British Isles is the most specific term there. Also, I've found an article, Maritime Southeast Asia, which is just a stub, and I think is a WP:FORK from Malay archipelago. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks to me in most island infoboxes they do list the archipelago. I do not see why the island infobox of Ireland should not include British Isles. I do agree there is no need for it in the country one and im not sure if its possible with the country template anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Partly you are finding the issue with the archipelago word when it comes to larger groups and starts to overlap with countries. Its OK for small groups is islands in cohesive groups but becomes more problematic when you get to larger entities and those that overlap with country groups and have a history. You might find a problem associating East Timor with Indonesia for example (some of the same issues of associating Ireland with England) --SnowdedTALK15:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Timor currently links to the Lesser Sunda Islands, which includes some Indonesian islands, so apparently there is no trouble there. It's one of the most comparable examples you are going to get too, a country on part of an island of which the rest is controlled by another country which extends beyond that island. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Possibly, but whatever there is no clear precedent and I do think that having been through the examples the label works for cohesive groups (as Chipmunk has discovered). So its better to use Hebrides, Orkneys etc, within the UK. No controversy there. Using "British Isles archipelago" in the two geography articles is enough of a change as the narrative there sets a better context. --SnowdedTALK16:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
"Some" does provide an interesting operative word. Mayhaps we should set the precedent? I see no reason why we shouldn't, besides seemed offense. The archipelago is useful information about an island. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The fact most other islands that are part of an archipelago state it in their infobox to me seems the precedent. Sure it is slightly different in this case because of the political makeup of the two islands, but it does not change the fact both of these islands are part of the British Isles. There does appear to be no clear reason not to mention this fact at the moment. I would also say the fact it has been on the GB infobox for several years helps set the precedent about its use. It fits well. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I have re-read the last part of this section now three times, and I can't see what the problem is with adding it, is it some way wrong ? Codf1977 (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec)There is always more of a problem with information boxes compared with text in sections whenever there is ambiguity or controversy. Information boxes tend to label of categorise while in a section proper explanations can be given. I don;t think it is any real surprise that archipelago is used in the cases I have indicated but not when it gets more complex. I suggest settling for text in the article space for the moment, and raising the archipelago issue on one of the geography discussion pages. --SnowdedTALK16:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree we need to include some text about the British Isles on the Ireland article, where of course we can state there is controversy about it, but that is no reason not to include it in the infobox. As i compromise i would be prepared to support its inclusion in the infobox with one of those note things attached linking to a sentence about it in the infobox notes section where we explain it too. But i cant see any reason to avoid mentioning it. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Neither is there any particular reason to included it and my reading of the precedents is against it for reasons stated. Its not the be all and end all of the universe however, if I am in a minority of one I'll happily concede but its time to leave it for other editors to contribute. Would you confirm that you (BW) are no longer advocating the inclusion on the country articles per the list above. --SnowdedTALK16:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems like we've got consensus here. Can we go for mentioning the fact that Ireland is part of the British Isles, at least somewhere in the article, ideally up front in the first para. LemonMonday Talk 16:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Not yet, you need other editors to have a say first and none of this is anything to do with a change to lede, that has not been discussed yet. --SnowdedTALK16:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree there, there is no rush. It is far better to take our time and get a stable agreement than rush ahead and find in 10 minutes time something being reverted and all sorts of accusations start flying. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I have never supported its inclusion in the infobox of the country articles, i dont know if there is a relevant section for it on country infoboxes and even if there was i do not think it is needed as that is for political stuff about the state. I think a mention of the British Isles in the geography section of Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom would be justified. The other thing was inclusion of the BI template on the ROI and UK articles. The template is currently on the Ireland article, although it has been incorrectly named and currently pipelinks with "Great Britain and Ireland" to the British Isles article. that needs changing too BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
GoodDay, you are an effing nuisance!. When I left off editing in Oct last, for a state holiday, you were edit conflicting me, and you're still at it! LemonMonday Talk 17:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
lol the number of edit conflicts on this page is rather annoying at the moment yes. This section is meant to be just about the infobox on the Ireland article. I agree that the introduction of the Great Britain and Ireland articles should mention the British Isles, and the proposed location for it in the second sentence of the Ireland article makes sense. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I think we should wait a little longer for the Ireland infobox issue, but if there are no more objections to it over the next 24 hours i do not see why that one can not be included. Then we should consider some of the other less potentially controversial changes. The proposals for the UK/GB should be ok, ive yet to see objections anywhere to that. But is always best to wait for the nod from the admins before any change is made. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Woah! 24 hours? You guys have been discussing this stuff here for I don't know how many months or years, and you propose to give the rest of the Wiki world 24 hours notice? And in the middle of summer too? I've kept out of this British Isles discussion because, frankly, it bores me rigid, but you know darn well that if you start adding that contentious term to Irish articles you are going to raise hackles! If you want to edit Ireland, you should start a proper discussion at Talk:Ireland - not just a polite "you might be interested in this" note. The famous Ireland naming poll last year went on for 42 days (against my advice, let it be said). I think any edits to the Ireland article should allow a minimum of 21 days for discussion on the article talk page. Scolaire (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
21 days to include something in the infobox that should have been there from day 1? No one has yet provided a reason why it does not belong in the infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
They have BW, you just have a different point of view. There is no requirement for its inclusion in the information box and it is not used in many cases. So far a lot of editors have not engaged with this one and you need to allow time for that. --SnowdedTALK03:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
As much as I hate sitting around, I think a day more is too much. Maybe leave it for a week since first opening, with a more detailed edit summary proposal on the talk page? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not compulsory to state the archipelago. That seems to be the only argument if it is one and if we followed such a rule across wikipedia content would be almost non existent. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Who is this "we"? Can you show me where this task force was elected or appointed to "make rules across Wikipedia"? Wikipedia has got on just fine for ten years without "British Isles" in the "Ireland" infobox; it is not in danger of imminent collapse if you don't implement your little scheme immediately. Now, I see a couple of people quibbling about one day or seven days instead of 21, but still nobody has initiated a proper discussion on Talk:Ireland. I am not going to do it for you. It is up to those who want to make changes to an article to properly establish a consensus on the article talk page first. That's where you will learn if there are arguments against it or not. Scolaire (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
BW this is not the most important issue but please don't misstate the position. It is an option, and its not an option taken in comparable positions in part (I speculate) because of the various problems where geographical terms get associated with political issues. --SnowdedTALK08:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I feel that comparable positions here are really lacking. The other islands all list the smallest scale archipelago they are in. The Ireland infobox should too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) How is the island of Ireland's geographical membership of the the British Isles a political issues ? surely this is a straight question of geography it should not take a week to agree that. If we want to have any hope of comeing up with standard guidelines then this sort of question would be covered by them if it takes us a week to agree this then we have no hope. Codf1977 (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it is a very straight forward issue to add it into the geography pages of the two country articles as the context is very clear. As to the political issue, you may think there should not be, but there is. If you check the lede of the main article you will see the references to that. So saying Ireland is a part of the British Isles can be seen as saying that East Timor is part of the island of Indonesia. Its factually correct, but politically contentious. My view is that simple statements without contextual explanation cause problems, so put it in the geography section, but its not necessary in the information box. --SnowdedTALK09:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Would you be more ok with it being in the infobox if we included a [note] and mention use of the term is controversial in the infobox notes? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I would be less concerned but I still think its unnecessary if it's present in the geography section for the reasons stated --SnowdedTALK14:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I do agree, i was wrong to say just 24 hours as it should be given longer but this does seem like one of the most obvious examples of where British Isles should clearly be used we have ever come across on this page. It not being mentioned at all on the second largest island of the British Isles is clearly problematic, and needs addressing, its like forgetting to mention its in Europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The pipelink needs addressing too, seems blatant POV to link "Great Britain and Ireland" to "British Isles", but that's a discussion for another time. Do we host this conversation on that talk page or bring it here? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Well ive posted the 3 issues on there so we can see if any respond there now, id rather the debate take place here but a lot respond there we can carry on debating on that page instead. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Islands not listing archipelago are Sakhalin and Hokkaido. Sakhalin does not list it because the article does not mention the archipelago it is in, and for good reason I think, as I have actually searched and found absolutely nothing on this topic. I can't find anywhere what it is in. Hokkaido on the other hand links to the region of Japan, instead of the island.
Situations like this do not make a case for not including the British Isles in the infobox. If you could provide others Snowded, in order for a comparable situation to be established, that would be good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd quite like some input from WikiProject Geography, as we're using terms like archipelago that may have a precise definition that we're not aware of. (I'm a geographical numpty: I understand the lay definition of "archipelago" but the article mentions the UK as an example of a country that is mainly an archipelago. It may be that archipelago needs to be amended... I don't know. Regardless, I'd like some expert input here). TFOWR10:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem with getting input on this, although when we seek advice on these matters from experts of certain areas we should keep it on their WP page, so they do not have to come to this minefield, makes it easy to focus on the factual issues. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
My concern with that approach is: (a) everyone will pile over there, and (b) I don't believe someone is going to arrive here with an opinion and have it magically changed by reading lay-editors' opinions here. I'm thinking the best approach would be to create a sub-section with the name of the WikiProject/talkpage, or whatever. TFOWR13:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
How about if one of you admins (or a neutral editor) raises the issue on the WP talkpage and the rest of us avoid making comments and joining in the debate. If there is specific issues/facts that need to be given to the those on the WP or we want clarification we can mention it here and it can get passed onto the page at some points. A subpage/section where we go to discuss the issue with the WP is a good alternative, but that way would still mean several of us cant help ourselves but to respond. Its very hard to avoid the urge lol . BritishWatcher (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
That sounds good. Jamesinderbyshire mentioned a template-style approach, I'll ping 'em and see if they had any more thoughts. Anyway, I'll post at WikiProject Geography shortly. I'll have a think about subpages - it might be a good way round it: we could transclude the subpage here, maybe... anyway, I'll have a think about it. TFOWR14:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
As discussed above - I propose this section is closed with the following :
The use of British Isles in the Archipelago tag of the infobox's of both island articals is a valid use of the term, however it should not be inserted into the infobox without consensus on the talk page of the relative article.
As far as im concerned it means its absoutely justified and accurate to be included but it will not be because of lack of consensus on the talkpage. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
So you are proposing that there is consensus here about the insertion? If that's what you are proposing then I'd oppose that. I don't think there is consensus here on the subject. However I have no objection to gaining consensus on the the article talk pages. I think thats a good idea. Fmph (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
While I agree with Codf about the consensus (see fmph's "facts" above) I think we should just say this is unresolved, closed, moved to talk page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
We are here to resolve things, not to just talk, it is time we start doing that - I think that this is resolved. Codf1977 (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
This is only resolved if we can find agreement to get the important information included in the article text. If there is no agreement on that then we are back at square one with a serious neutrality issue with the article in question. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree sightly with that, the issue about the infobox tag it is resolved in that there is a consensus here that it is a valid use, if on the article talk page consensus is not to add it, then that might be grounds for other causes of action, such as tagging or other dispute resolution options. As for the text that is another issue and is not yet resolved Codf1977 (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
We should close. The BISE can only make recommendations for articles. If that is rejected on the article-in-question? then nothing further can be done. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
It can be closed for now. But if other matters relating to that page end in the same sort problems then we will have to reconsider this whole issue again along with the other proposals for that page. If there is a complete failure to mention it the article will continue to have serious WP:NPOV issues. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you need to decide what you want to talk forward. I am happy to propose changes to the content of the geography pages of Ireland and Great Britain in include reference to the archipelago if that will resolve things. However if you want to extend that to the lede and the country articles then I think that is a step too far and has no chance of gaining consensus on the talk pages of the articles concerned. --SnowdedTALK06:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Getting off the subject here, however the fact that you feel that consensus on the talk page may be an issue should be irrelevant for the purpose of this page - this page is about the appropriate/inappropriate use of the term. Lets try and make some progress on this, show some good faith and work towards a solution. Codf1977 (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what the reference is to good faith and working towards a solution. I think I just proposed something that in the spirit of good faith which might achieve a solution. I also think we need to take account of the fact that a lot of editors are not prepared to spend time here, but will respond on the pages in which they are interested. Recognising that is just common sense really. My own long held view is that the more we make the geography/politics distinction clear the more chance we have of a long term resolution. So using BI appropriately in geographical articles is fine, the more it is used in political articles when there are equally valid alternatives (including using nothing) the more we will get meaningless drama. So the fact the the islands of Great Britain and Ireland are part of the British Isles archipelago is I think relevant for the geography sections of those articles. I don't think it is important enough for the lede of those articles not do I think it is necessary (it doesn't add any value) to the political articles. I fact I would suggest removing the reference with all the verbiage about controversy from the country articles. --SnowdedTALK07:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not talking about adding it to the lead of any political articles, only to the lead of the island of Ireland and the island of Great Britain, as for the political article of Republic of Ireland, it has a Geography section which should mention it. (but this is off topic for this section) Codf1977 (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
It should be closed, however i will want to restart this whole debate over the matter of the infobox if there is no agreement to include British Isles within the text of the article. If that can not be agreed, then the article will continue to be violating WP:NPOV by avoiding stating fact and we will have to debate the whole article again along with each proposal. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I am sure that we can reach an agreement, simply because not to have it included is as you say a be a WP:NPOV and might endanger the WP:GA status of the article. Codf1977 (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I would be interested to have it spelled out what the "neutrality" issue is. The lead of Ireland says that it "lies to the northwest of continental Europe and is surrounded by hundreds of islands and islets. To the east of Ireland is Great Britain, separated from it by the Irish Sea." There is an accompanying image showing the position of Ireland in relation to Britain and continental Europe. There is no "censorship" of the fact that Ireland is part of the archipelago; it is clearly stated and clearly illustrated. So what is the issue? I know the answer, of course, but people seem to have a problem saying it out straight. Scolaire (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Typical of the ridiculous contortions being involved. It should read simply "British Isles". Antagonist have to get it into their head that "British Isles" has nothing to do with the evil constitutional monarchy of the United Kingdom that may well oppressed their great great grand parents etc but also brought to them the trappings of modern civilisation. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! One editor with the b***s to say it! I'm not inclined to get worked up about the oppression of my ancestors etc. but it bugs the hell out of me the way people are pussy-footing around the issue here, trying to make out that the term isn't contentious and at the same time saying there are "neutrality" issues if it's left out. How can there be NPOV issues around something that isn't a POV? Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Just as people from Great Britain should not lose sleep over Irish raids on our western coast, lets not forget Irelands patron saint we all have to celebrate these days was originally from Great Britain until he was taken back to Ireland as a slave by Irish raiders.
The British Isles is an internationally recognised term, there is nothing political about it, some do not like it because of their own political views but we can not help that. We must remain neutral, which means we do not stop saying something simply because a few people do not like it. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not marking this as resolved, as I'd like to give everyone a chance to comment, and I'd also like to get input from WikiProject Geography and other relevant WikiProjects. However, these are my recommendations.
As a geographic term "British Isles" currently remains the most widely used term. There have been attempts by the governments of the region to promote an alternative phrase "Britain and Ireland". This phrase is not widely used outside government circles. There has also been an attempt within academic to promote an alternative phrase "Atlantic Archipelago". This phrase is not widely used outside academia. Wikipedia should prefer common names, so until such time as "British Isles" as a geographic term is deprecated we should use it. Pipe-links (to, for example, "Britain and Ireland", should not be used, unless they also incorporate the term "British Isles". Notes or other methods may be used to explain that "British Isles" is (a) a contentious phrase, and (b) alternatives forms exist.
Lead: this should summarise the contents of the article itself. "British Isles" should only appear in the lead if it also appears in the article-proper. The use of the term in the article is not sufficient justification for including the term in the lead: usual considerations about the lead should apply.
Great Britain and Ireland currently discuss relative sizes in the lead, but not in the article. The articles should be updated to discuss the islands' size with respect to other European islands, and other islands internationally. I suggest that the articles-proper also make reference to the respective island's size relative to other islands in the British Isles. This should not, however, be taken as implying that the lead should mention "British Isles" - the contents of the lead should take the usual summary considerations into account.
Template:infobox islands contains a field for "archipelago". This should contain the most specific archipelago, i.e. British Isles. This field may be used even if the British Isles archipelago is not discussed within the article.
The infobox may be an appropriate place to discuss - by way of notes - alternative terms.
Template:British Isles: the name of the template should not be pipe-linked to any other term, however it may be pipe-linked to a phrase that includes the term "British Isles". Suitable examples would be Britain and Ireland (historically called "the British Isles") and British Isles (usually called "Britain and Ireland" by regional governments). This template should only be used if the British Isles archipelago is discussed within the article.
Comments from non-involved editors, e.g. participants in WikiProject Geography
Comment from WT:BISE participants
" Britain and Ireland (historically called "the British Isles") and British Isles (usually called "Britain and Ireland" by regional governments)." I strongly oppose this, there is no "historically" about it, British Isles continues to be the name of the area, and it is used often. I also do not accept this issue about the governments. Irelands government may not like the term BI, but they are not saying Britain and Ireland to replace the term BI, they are simply talking about the two countries or two islands and not covering the area the BI cover. Her Majesty's Government has no objection at all to the term British Isles, it does not need an official policy on it one way or another, it is in use. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
They were purely examples, to show how "British Isles" can be used with alternative phrases. My concern here is that BI should be used with this template, but I acknowledge that there may be good reasons to discuss another term or terms. TFOWR10:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but i just want to clear up the point about the use of the term. The UK government has no objection at all to the term. BBC funded by the British tax payer uses it often. The Met Office which is partly a government agency uses it. DirectGov, the British governments main website explains the term [2]. It also is mentioned once on both the Royal and Prime ministerial website. If the template is to be used i do not see what phrase could be included. Just saying BI in the template name of the BI template seems reasonable. Id think inclusion in the article itself is far more problematic than the template issue BritishWatcher (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
This looks well thought out. I like the idea of those pipe-link clauses, seems like a fair compromise. However, they may not always flow well in the text, so just to be clear should pipelinks linking to British Isles from another name (like the one in the recent front page article) be discouraged or changed? I'd recommend they were. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I recommend that "British Isles" should never be pipe-linked, except in the template, and even then only when "British Isles" is still used (alongside an alternative). My rationale for that is that infoboxes and general text can note that "British Isles" has alternative phrases and/or is contentious: the template does not allow us that opportunity, so we need to be less restrictive, while allowing for some mention of the issue. So: pipe-linking of this form should only be used with the British Isles template. TFOWR10:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I would support a pipelink in the template, depending on the phrase used. I couldnt support "(historically)" or something that implies the term is no longer used. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
"Britain and Ireland (historically called "the British Isles")" - is misleading, as it could (I think it does) give the impression that the term is no longer used, so this wording should be Avoided. "British Isles (usually called "Britain and Ireland" by regional governments)." - could be better worded - for example "(referred to "Britain and Ireland" by regional governments)" - but should only be used in contexts where those same regional governments are discussed and where quotes, links or cites used in that article do or could use that term, so as to educate the reader to the link.
Again, I reiterate that I am not proposing that either of these two phrases actually be used: I merely used them to illustrate how the template could use "British Isles" while addressing any concerns that may exist at a given article. If an article uses the British Isles template then the editors there should decide (a) whether "British Isles" alone is sufficent, and if not then (b) what additional phrase to use. Debating these two illustrative examples is pointless: what matters is the proposal, not examples. TFOWR11:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I suppose we could say something like British Isles (Geographical term) or British Isles (An archipelago) etc if piping is needed, i do not really think it will be needed considering it remains covered anyway within the box, it is hardly going to be noticed by many people, and if its already in the article infobox or text there can not be too much concern. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
For me its British Isles with no substitutes. Should we change the "Irish Sea" because it might imply that Ireland owns it? Or the "English Channel" is case France takes offence? I wish Wiki would stop bending to anti-British nationalists who will never accept anything other than its entire removal or replacement. Mabuska(talk)12:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not proposing allowing substitutes. To use your analogy, I'm proposing that a hypothetical Irish Sea template could be pipe-linked thus: "Irish Sea (also called the Manx Sea)". Entire removal or replacement aren't being proposed as options. TFOWR12:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we just stick to using links that use the most commonly used form, i.e. British Isles, Irish Sea etc.? Other uncommonly used forms can be stated in the lede of the articles or something. Mabuska(talk)12:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Whatever ya'll can agree to? I'll accept. As I've trumpeted before, I'm just happy there's no more edit-warring on the related articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
" ... I wish Wiki would stop bending to anti-British nationalists who will never accept anything other than its entire removal or replacement.... " - Luckily there haven't been any of those around here for many, many months now! Fmph (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Two points
Britain and Ireland is commonly used in Ireland and increasingly in Atlases and elsewhere, I don't think its accurate to say that it is being promoted, certainly not to imply that is the only origin of the phrase. Personally I think B&I will come into increasing common use over time, but agree for the moment BI is the more dominant term. There will be cases where B&I is appropriate but I agree in those cases if should not be pipelinked.
The template field for archipelago is option. There has been an extensive debate on this and consensus was not reached for its use on Ireland, not is its use universal. TFOWR, I assume in suggesting that it should be included you are not taking a position as supervising admin on a subject which does not have consensus.
Otherwise I agree on common use. I'm not sure if you intend those comments as a contribution to a protocol or as a protocol. If the latter it needs the geography v politics and other statements. If we are going to tackle that again, then we have some agreements on fauna and we also have the prior work that got close at one point. --SnowdedTALK19:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not proposing that it should be included. I'm saying if it is used it should use the most specific archipelago (BI in our case), and that I don't regard discussion in the article as a prerequisite for inclusion. TFOWR08:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
And it should state that in the infobox. Sadly the whole debate on the Ireland article was turned into a vote that was obviously going to cause a split and prevent any form of consensus being made. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks like there's broad consensus for the proposal on "islands", I'll close that out shortly. I haven't looked in depth at the "countries" issue, but I'll do so today. TFOWR08:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, there don't seem to be any objections here to the "islands" proposal above, and as that proposal was focussed on geography I'd suggest that that proposal can be extended to other geo articles (Geography of Ireland, for example). That leaves, as far as I can determine, the countries, specifically Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom (others all fit neatly onto islands, I think?)
Could I get you to rearrange arguments into arguments "for" and "against" inclusion of "British Isles" on the respective articles? I've created headers below: copy-and-paste into them (leave the original posts above). Apologies for this, but it does mark a return to "ye olde way" - I'm a big believer in discussion over voting, but unstructured discussions are a nightmare to navigate.
Ideally I'd like to see some resolution that treats the two countries the same. I'm not sure if that's possible, so I've created two sub-sections below (one for each country) but if it's at all possible... If I've missed out a country, feel free to add it in using the templates below (i.e. with sections for "for" and "against" arguments).
Obviously base your arguments on existing policy, referenced usages, precedents here at WT:BISE, etc. Be as explicit as possible - There are probably more policies I don't know than those I do know, for example, so make clear which policies you're referring to, or link to archived discussions here, etc. TFOWR10:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the "British Isles" should be included in the Geography section of Republic of Ireland article because....
The article at present mentions the island of Ireland and Europe. If these two geographical locations are notable why should it not point out the fact the island of Ireland is part of a group of islands in north west europe.
This is a modest proposal to add just a few words and the compromise of piping group of islands to avoid clearly mentioning British Isles in the text has been offered.
At present readers have no way of finding out this information due to problems on Ireland and Geography of Ireland where this information is also being excluded. So it is not possible for people to "click a link" to read the information because there is a complete blackout on the 3 articles.
The Republic of Ireland being in the British Isles is notable. A google book search finds over 1 million hits for British Isles. A search for "British Isles" and "Republic of Ireland" returns over 8000 hits.
No actual justifiable reason has been provided for the removal of the sentence mentioning the British Isles. It was due to numbers of editors there able to support withdrawal.
Arguments against inclusion of the term "British Isles"
Example: I believe that "British Isles" should not be used in the article itself because ... ~~~~
I believe that "British Isles" should not be used in the infobox because I am aware of no precedent for inclusion on a Country article. Codf1977 (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe that "British Isles" should not be used in the infobox because exact details of a countries location are unnecessary for getting a quick and useful outline of a country, which is what the infobox does. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
...because the fact that that a country is on an island that is in a group of islands that lie off a continental mass is not inherently notable. Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the "British Isles" should not be included because (a) not notable (b) it's about a country not a group of Islands. Bjmullan (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Arguments for inclusion of the term "British Isles"
Example: I believe that "British Isles" should be used in the lead because ... ~~~~
I believe the British Isles should be included on the article because for a couple of years it was deemed notable enough for the introduction of the article, it was removed on a couple of occasions by two editors (an IP and a user) both of whoms edit history clearly shows they were involved in the British Isles dispute before any formal location was established to deal with this dispute. If it was notable for a couple of years to be in the introduction, why is not even notable for the geography section? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Arguments against inclusion of the term "British Isles"
Example: I believe that "British Isles" should not be used in the geography section because ... ~~~~
I believe that "British Isles" should not be used in the infobox because I am aware of no precedent for inclusion on a Country article. Codf1977 (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe that "British Isles" should not be used in the infobox because exact details of a countries location are unnecessary for getting a quick and useful outline of a country, which is what the infobox does. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
...because, as BritishWatcher discovered, it was removed over three years ago and has never been missed. Obviously not a notable fact. Scolaire (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the "British Isles" should not be included because (a) not notable (b) it's about a country not a group of Islands.Bjmullan (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
– "British Isles" isn't appropriate - sources state either "England" or "Scotland". Ghmyrtle has fixed the article, there's unfinished business regarding the infobox but discussion in that regard belongs at Talk:Robert Scot. TFOWR14:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It states that he was born somewhere in the British Isles in 1744 as per this reference included in the article. But this next reference refers to his "native England", and as can be seen from this snippet on Google Books, it states he was a "native of England". I propose to change the article to reflect he was a native of England. --HighKing (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
HighKing, can you dump a template on the talkpage? It looks like only Connormah (talk) has been active recently, but it'd be a good test of the new template. TFOWR14:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, HighKing. Obviously I could have done this myself, but I'm keen to avoid setting a standard for admins doing stuff like this... being, as I am, irredeemably lazy... TFOWR10:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the native England is a reference to the fact that he learned his trade there (so I assume grew up there somehow?). Urgh, another stub. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
This source (commercial, no idea how accurate it is) states "born in England". However, this forum post (I know, I know...) suggests Scot was born in Edinburgh. It does cite a source, however, which blew me away - whatever next! Anyway, sources to consider. I have no view, as always ;-) TFOWR14:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
And the forum also states that there are two Robert Scot(t)'s out there. Anyway, if the options for his birth are "somewhere in England" or "Edinburgh", going more specific than British Isles wouldn't hurt. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
What about "somewhere in Great Britain", with a note explaining that sources differ? Incidentally, I'm assuming this is a fairly easy case, so I'm holding off on the "pro"/"con" approach (and I'd use a "British Isles"/"England"/"Edinburgh" etc approach anyway). If this gets complex, I'll reassess.TFOWR14:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I think if it's a case of "born somewhere in..." then an island (or other geographic location) would be fine. If it were changed to "a native of..." we should probably consider a political entity. TFOWR14:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
If we had a source listing all the places people claim he is from, it would be a snap decision. As it is... there a USmint wikiproject we can post on? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm hoping we can wrap this up fairly quickly. I've set up sections below, feel free to add sub-sections of the "against" section if several different options emerge. TFOWR10:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
If that were the case, it would be a WP:COPYVIO. Although that's outside our scope here, it certainly should be fixed pronto. I'd suggest taking this to the talkpage, though. TFOWR11:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)For what it is worth it think more of the claim to a place than the country, seams more specific. However what about "Scot was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1744.[1] (however at least one source claims he was a native of England [2])" and remove details of the place of birth from the infobox. What ever the outcome BI is not correct here. Codf1977 (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Arguments for "Native of England"
This reference refers to his "native England". -- High King. Added by TFOWR. High King, I've added this on your behalf, but feel free to refactor as appropriate. Sign if you do refactor. TFOWR10:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle, I've moved your comment into this section as it appears to be an "argument against". Apologies if that's not what you intended. TFOWR11:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
That's an interesting point - I think we all agree that we have sources that are more specific than "British Isles" - whether they say England or Scotland. Do we continue this here or punt it to the talk page? Personally, I'd like to see "British Isles" fixed before we turn our backs on it here... TFOWR11:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I've amended the article text to give Edinburgh and England as alternatives (from different sources), but the infobox says "BI" - which I'll leave to you good people to resolve. ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Although, since discussion is not about the appropriateness or otherwise of the term British Isles - but simply a discussion about where this gentleman was born - why is it taking place here? Surely, the article talk page is unquestionably the place for this discussion not a Wikiproject on a tangential subject? This is simply a content matter related to improving the Robert Scot article. --RA (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree, see my reply to Snowded above. I think we're in agreement that "British Isles" is wrong, so the remaining discussion is outside our scope and should be "talk-paged". TFOWR11:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Works for me (transfer to talkpage). I'll hold off for an few hours in case anything new (and BI-related) crops up, but I'm minded to close this as resolved. Hooray! TFOWR11:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem with this being changed to UK. Ive been rather distracted this morning watching the Popes visit. Was i the only one who heard God's representative here on earth mention the British Isles in his speech ;)? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
If he was born in 1744 he was not born in the United Kigndom - but still this is a content issue, not about the appropriateness or otherwise of British Isles.
I suggest the discussion be taken to the talk page and (using all the bits and pieces gleamed during this discussion) that the details of the various speculation be added to the article. --RA (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
We're all in agreement that British Isles doesn't belong, therefore this discussion should be closed as resolved. The rest should be discussed at that article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
– There's a reliable source for "Scotland". Talk:Robert Scot should discuss whether "Scotland" or "Kingdom of Great Britain" is more appropriate, but this isn't a "British Isles" issue. TFOWR11:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The two new sources do not meet WP:RS. The source removed probably did. It stated that Scott was born somewhere in the British Isles and it appears that's as far as we can go. The source specifically states British Isles, so that terminology is accpetable in the article. Further argument and discussion at Talk: Robert Scott. I propose we return to this version. LevenBoy (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Second one is not reliable. No way does it meet WP:RS. The one above just adds more confusion. One thing's for sure, the present state of the article leaves a lot to be desired - it's worse than it was to start with, and that's often the case following conclusion of articles brought here. LevenBoy (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Unless we object to the US State Department as a source, I'd suggest this is largely moot - the State Department say "Scotland" - we either change it to "Scotland" or keep it at Kingdom of Great Britain (this being post-Act of Union). Personally, I'd say keep it at KofGB. TFOWR20:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
State Dept says Scotland. Snippet from Goole Books says native of England. I'd say the quote from the original source stating place of birth as "somewhere in the British Isles" is as accurate as it can get - and it's a source using those precise words, so we should use it -- in line with the argument that's been used on this page countless times before, and is even now being used in the next article to be brought here, below. LevenBoy (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Further - the current sources are just not on. Can we please revert this article to the version I suggested above and continue the discussion. LevenBoy (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
...or fix the sources? You seem happy with the State Dept. source for Scotland and the Google Books snippet for England. This is a time - 1744 - when there were two states: the Kingdom of Great Britain (which both sources support) and the Kingdom of Ireland (plus the usual confusion over Isle of Man, etc). The sources discussed here support Kingdom of Great Britain, which is what the infobox currently says. It seems to me that You're saying that because two decent sources disagree - one England, one Scotland - we should extrapolate KofGB into KofGB + KofI to arrive at "British Isles". I could be wrong, but I don't think that's going to get consensus here. We should follow the sources, certainly; we shouldn't use disagreements between two sources to synthesis a wider area than the one covered by the sources. Stick to the most accurate (i.e. specific) sources, though by all means use the less specific source to support the others - just don't try and use it to imply a wider area than that area which the other sources support. TFOWR20:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Ahhh! Sorry TFOWR but I'm saying nothing of the sort. However, until it's resolved we should revert to the stable version as I noted above. Anyway, I've had just about enough of these futile arguments. Believe it or not I'm writing a book and so far today I've not reached 500 words, which is a good deal fewer than I've done here!! LevenBoy (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added to the above, to make clear that it's my interpretation, rather than what you're saying. The current version is the stable version, i.e. the version that most recently had consensus. If someone had added/removed BI, I'd revert to the version prior to that. No one's added/removed, so no revert. TFOWR20:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't require resolution, its resolved. Scotland or England is properly the UK or similar not BI. It was agreed, it should stand unless other editors are prepared to waste time on something so trivial, and so obvious. --SnowdedTALK22:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
LevenBoy is arguing on two points. The first is that the sources are not reliable, and the second that the sources are ambiguous. Let's look at the sources first.
The original "British Isles" reference came from the earlyusquarters website. On the "Contact Info" page, we learn the website owner has written a book (on "Bust Quarters") and is a member of a number of collectors organizations. It is a private website.
The "trained as a watchmaker in this native England" reference is from "Bunker Hill Rare Coin" website. This is a commercial website specializing in rare coins. This reference is not attributable to a person, and no sources are specified. This source could be discounted as unreliable.
The original Google Book stating "Robert Scot, a native of England, born in 1750" reference comes from "The Numismatist Volume 107" from the American Numismatic Association, printed in 1994. This is a magazine for enthusiasts, and the article was written by Danny Hoffman who was 17 years old at the time since he was 18 the following year. This source could be discounted as potentially unreliable.
The article written by Coinlink is not distinctly attributable although a list of contributer are provided here. I'd have to agree with LevenBoy to discount this as a reliable source.
The "register of officers and agents, civil, military, and naval in the service of the United States" lists "Robert Scot, engraver" as being born in Scotland. Undeniably reliable and must be given weight - especially given the fact it was published in 1816 (before he died).
The offical US government website for the United States Mint states he was born in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1745. This must also be given weight and is undeniably reliable.
FWIW, there *are* reliable sources, and they state born in Scotland in 1745. I'd drop the references for England. Nice bit of research and good finds on the official sites. This is also posted at the article Talk page since we're Talking about the reliability of sources. --HighKing (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
At this point, are there are decent sources for "England"? If not, I'd say we run with "Scotland" in both the article and infobox. If there are, "Great Britain" in the infobox (and "Scotland or England, sources disagree" in the article, as it is at the moment). Either way, this should probably return to Talk:Robert Scot. TFOWR08:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Nothing to say he was born in England no, but I think it's clear he grew up there. But yes, US state department seems as reliable as we can get in regards to one of the employees of the US mint. Motion to close, england/scotland/Great Britain debate on the article talk page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
At this point I'd tend to agree, but I'm holding off for now for further comment from LevenBoy - they're good with sources, so it's possible they may have sources for at least England, and possibly for further afield. I don't want this discussion to bounce back and forth between WT:BISE and T:RS more than necessary. TFOWR13:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
– "British Isles" was recently added to a section of the article following lengthy discussion. This proposal is that the addition should be replicated in the lead. There is consensus against that; however, I feel that - in general - additions/removals to/from the lead are not particularly relevant at WT:BISE: leads summarise articles: local editors should assess what should be in the lead, applying the usual criteria (relative emphasis, etc). Disagreements about leads' contents might be better raised at WP:NPOVN, but WT:BISE should remain focussed on specific examples of usages - i.e. on usages within the article-proper. TFOWR11:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I expect this is being debated elsewhere, but just looking at my copy of Encyclopaedia Britannica 2010 for the entry on Ireland (and they use this word to mean the state) the first sentence is Country of western Europe occupying five-sixths of the westernmost island of the British Isles. So there we have it. Is there any reason not to have a similar statement in Ireland and Ireland? LevenBoy (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
We've got British Isles mentioned in the island article, as it's mentioned in Great Britain; they're geographic. We don't mention it in the country articles (UK & RoI), though. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's no longer being debated at Ireland (island): The geography section mentions the British Isles. I've just closed out a section titled "Republic of Ireland" because it had become long and sprawling, but my assumption was that individual issues would be opened in new sections. I'd suggest that this section should focus exclusively on Republic of Ireland, and that if new issues emerge (sections, lead, infobox, etc) they should be split out into their own sections. TFOWR17:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
After 2 edit conflicts no point posting my original response! I disagree with reopening this debate so fast, but if it must be, it should focus on just that article. I think this is a debate that would have to garner local consensus though, or it could be a perfect test for the templates/transclusion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, at Ireland I now see we have a begruding reference to British Isles in the geography section, complete with reference to the non-existent controversy. I would suggest that reference to this be made in the lead - Ireland being the second largest of the British Isles - a much more pertinent fact than it being the 20th largest in the world! To be honest there's no real need for it at RoI if there was a sensible reference to it at Ireland - which at the moment there isn't. LevenBoy (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I also disagree with reopening this debate. It has been dealt with sufficiently both here, and at the article Talk page. Comments like we now have a begruding reference and the non-existent controversy are inflammatory and don't bode well for any meaningful debate. This will simply be a rehash of the last discussion, which isn't even a month old. @TFOWR, this discussion should be closed from BISE, and moved to the Article Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree. LevenBoy, there's been a lengthy discussion at Talk:Ireland, resulting in a consensus to include a sentence on the British Isles. Describing the result as "begrudging" seems poorly-considered. Describing the very real controversy as "non-existent" seems poorly informed at best. Consider carefully (a) the accuracy of your words and (b) the potential to offend good-faith editors who have expended a great deal of time resolving these issues and reaching consensus.
I'm not seeing any specific proposal for either Ireland or Republic of Ireland. If there are specific proposals, raise them now. Otherwise I'm intending to close this discussion shortly. TFOWR19:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Very real controversy? Utter rubbish. However, my proposal: The lead sentence in Ireland should state second largest in British Isles instead of twentieth largest in the world. LevenBoy (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much how I feel, too. That said, I'm counting my !vote as neutral and assuming that yours is oppose due to very recent consensus. TFOWR20:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
More a vote to not reopen, and I'm tempted to make an argument that this is deliberate disruption. Just the sort of SPA activity we could do without. Isn't there some rule about tediously raising issues after they have been resolved? --SnowdedTALK20:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I would be prepared to reopen if there was a new angle to the discussion. Haven't seen one. I too see no reason to reopen. --HighKing (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
About the only possible way I'd reconsider, would be if a joint disussion was held for the lead in both Ireland & Great Britain. This would require transclusion betwee here & those 2 articles talkpages. I only wish this wouldn't have come up so soon after the previous discussion at Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It is waaaayyyy beyond the scope of this Task Force to make decisions on what should be in the *lede* of an article. As far as *usage* goes, I believe everyone is in agreement that using "British Isles" in geographic contexts is perfectly fine. --HighKing (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
– "England", "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" are all preferable to "British Isles". BI is, indeed accurate - so is "Europe", "the Northern hemisphere" and "plant Earth": the project strives for better than "not inaccurate". Decisions between "England", "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" belong at the article's talk page. TFOWR11:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I find this an interesting example. Yes, "BI" is not very accurate here. It does however have a nice, poetic, descriptive feel. It was added by a highly experienced editor (50,000 edits+) and has been there without fuss since Feb 09. I would query why it has to come out, other than for pure dislike of use of the term - it isn't innacurate, just less accurate. But in the context of Cornwall, saying England is equally disliked by some. Using Britain equally so. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
@JiD, that's a number of rather bizarre comments. It's the first time anyone has argued for inclusion based on a nice poetic descriptive feel :-) When I filed this, I originally included the fact that it was added by an Anon IP, but subsequently removed it as I didn't think it was relevant. But you clearly believe the original editor is relevant. Did you find a different diff somewhere, because I included the recent diff, which clearly shows it was added by an Anon IP. As an aside, I don't believe it should matter who added the term. Your comment that this has "come out" because of "pure dislike of use of the term" is unacceptable. Can we stick with content issues, and less personal comments please? --HighKing (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Isn't this [3] the first point of entry? As regards it being personal, I wasn't intending it as a personal remark - there's nothing personal involved here - I was querying the reason for deletion and speculating that in the absence of accuracy as a motive, it might be because of pure dislike of the term, which it's hard to argue is not a motive for at least some of this, no matter how much we all assume high-minded motives, emotion does enter into it, on both "sides". Or are you in all seriousness claiming it doesn't? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
No. Your diff compares a version from 24th Feb 2009 with a version from 13th September 2010. That's an 18 months diff. Which includes the addition of the term by the Anon IP. Not sure why you've done that. Secondly, this is about accuracy of usage. Previously we've discussed using appropriate geographical terms, and "British Isles" is less appropriate and accurate than simply stating "Great Britain". Thirdly, making comments attributing motives to me or other editors is not appropriate. TFWOR has made it very clear that arguments for and against should be ideally made referring to policies, and to avoid personal comments. --HighKing (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, in my rush last night, I got the diff wrong, apologies for that. I don't really see how it's innacurate I'm afraid. Cornwall _is_ in the British Isles. England is more accurate. But to avoid a different set of editor offences we avoid that too apparently. It isn't personal to state that editors clearly get offended by these things. On the issue itself, we have never resolved or agreed that use of the BI in a geographical context means it has to refer to all points of the islands. It gets siller and sillier (does CI have to be in? shouldn't it mention the Orkneys? what about Rockall?) and has a steadily declining intellectual content if we go down that path. From time to time, BI looks and reads OK in random geo-contexts. Your position (am I right?) is that it is never OK in geographical contexts unless it covers nearly 100% of the island group? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I think James is wrong - see below. There is no problem with stating that Cornwall is part of the island of Great Britain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a recurrent problem with places in Cornwall, and has caused edit wars in the past. The Cornwall Wikiproject has come up with a compromise wording of "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom", which, while not deathless prose, has tended to minimise the edit wars and arguments. The Cornwall Wikiproject template on the article's talk page does link to the previous debates and the guideline. I will add that I'm not impressed that the debate here went on so long before anyone bothered to mention it on the article talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the wording to "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom", which a) stops the "British Isles" problem, and b) is consistent with the relevant Wikiproject guideline. DuncanHill (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
@JamesinDerbys: There may be dispute among some about whether Cornwall should be described as being in "England" - but there is no dispute that it is part of Great Britain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
My point is that in Cornwall, many deprecate their association with either England or Britain - for them, BI is as likely to be loaded as either England or Great Britain - not for you evidently, but if one's POV is not to enter into this, then what's the problem with leaving the BI entry alone? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
As a regular contributor to Cornwall articles, I'm not aware of any significant deprecation of their association with Great Britain - can you identify it anywhere? The relationship with England is a different matter entirely. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
But "Great Britain" is an (almost) equally precise geographical term, which (importantly) avoids raising unnecessarily any issues over Cornwall's cultural relationship with (the rest of) England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no argument that Cornwall is now, de facto, administratively part of England. The question that a significant number (perhaps a minority) of Cornish people raise is over the extent to which it is culturally "part of England", and, deriving from that, whether a simple bald description of Cornwall being "in England" (or "Cornwall, England") is appropriate. It hinges on two questions - do current administrative arrangements outweigh everything else, and how much importance should be given to Cornwall's non-English "Celtic" heritage? There are different views on both those. Describing Cornwall as part of the island of Great Britain overcomes those issues. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Cornwall is entirely on the island of Great Britain. It doesn't stretch into Ireland, Isle of Mann and/or Channel Islands (i.e. the British Isles). Therefore, we should use Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
"In the far west of Cornwall" sounds good enough, if a clarification is needed then it should be "in the far west of Cornwall, on Great Britain". I would think that the inclusion of any body in the second part (England, GB, BI, etc.) is unnecessary, but if it must be there I'd add Great Britain. Additionally, whatever is added should be copied somewhere into the main article, currently the information there is not in the article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Anything other than "... in the far west of Cornwall, between the villages of Pendeen and Trewellard.", sounds absolutely unnecessary to me. Its quite poorly written, IMHO, with issues around capitalisation, punctuation and linking. The use of BI here is not notable. Fmph (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Using British Isles in this context is un-notable, unnecessary and irrelevant. "Geevor Tin Mine is a tinmine between the villages of Pendeen and Trewellard, in the far west of Cornwall, Great Britain." would be appropriate (I would also support the recent amendment to "... far west of Cornwall, England, United Kingdom", although Wikilinking England and United Kingdom is not necessary). @ Jamesinderbyshire: Please strike through your comment “It was added by a highly experienced editor (50,000 edits+) and has been there without fuss since Feb 09.” which you subsequently accepted to be untrue. I spent/wasted quite some time going through the article's history to determine whether your or High King's version was true, before reaching your apology. No doubt others will do the same. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Arguments against removing "British Isles" @ Geevor Tin Mine
– Addition was correct, and followed discussion and resolution here. LevenBoy, apologies. Revert was incorrect. Snowded, that should have been rectified as soon as this became apparent. It has been rectified now. Process was followed well, but there's an opportunity to tighten this up by including diffs/links in edit summaries. TFOWR08:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I see that "British Isles" was added into to this article on the 31st August without the matter being raised here first. Given that LevinBoy (the editor in question) is fully aware of the rules I have reverted it and raised the article here for discussion. --SnowdedTALK17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I proposed guidelines for islands on 21 August (i.e. prior to LevenBoy's edit at Isle of Man). The proposal was that discussing the relative size of islands compared to other islands in the British Isles was OK. The proposal wasn't hugely discussed, but equally didn't meet with any obvious opposition. I'm basically OK with this edit (though I'd point out that "island" should have a lower-case "I"... ;-) ) - my view, then and now, is that for islands "British Isles" is fine. We use the term at Ireland, though admittedly that came after this edit to Isle of Man. TFOWR17:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
At least LevenBoy fixed the pipelink that said the "island of [[United Kingdom|Britain]]". I'd say its worthy of a inclusion in the geography section of an article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe it should be included in this article too, but I don't condone LB's blatant disregard for the agreed rules. A warning should be issued to remind him. --HighKing (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The Isle of Man article was raised here and it was given approval to go ahead. Levenboy did it because i was too lazy to [5]. There were also some other cases i raised that were accepted which were not implemented at the time because i was distracted. Which need to be added. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Well caught, BW (you've atoned for your laziness!) I'm seeing nothing problematic here. One thing I'd say is: it's going to make our lives easier and less drama-filled if we start sticking diffs or links into edit summaries when actioning stuff. TFOWR18:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
My bad, I did look through the history but missed that one - we really need a summary up front of one resolved (not an excuse but it would reduce mistakes) --SnowdedTALK19:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I notice also back then in my post about the Isle of Man i mentioned the infobox and if we should add British Isles there. You pointed out it was a political infobox, but i got the page wrong. I meant the infobox on Geography of the Isle of Man which has a geography infobox. That would bring it in line with the Great Britain infobox and the overwhelming majority of infoboxes on geography articles which mention their archipelago. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I strongly suggest Snowded should back off playing policeman over BI issues.
As a POV editor himself, Snowded's deletions are actually more provocative than the edits he removes. Most are, at the very least, perfectly reasonable. I would go as far to say he knows this, does so deliberately, and should be sanctioned for it.
By all accounts folks should raise any such incidents if they feel that strongly about them but it is best to allow adults the chance to self-censor or correct first after discussion.
Especially when he can be so wrong in his judgments (note, he did not go and fix it straight away).
I would also like to point out that it is only likely to garner negative responses from new or uninvolved editors, as it did to me when I first joined. To suggest that this is or should be the 'supreme court of justice' as far as all British Isles issues, without its own cunstables, is ridiculous. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if you will ever learn about how to edit here. First day back from yet another block and you start off with a personal attack. --SnowdedTALK06:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I notice you didn't revert the change. Perhaps just to clarify the situation generally - I, or we, are not obliged to bring articles here for review. So far as I know, there is no policy or rule which states this must be done. At best it's a voluntary agreement, and if this is not the case then maybe someone could explain the difference between being topic banned and not allowed to insert / delete BI and not being so banned. LevenBoy (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Proposal to prevent disruptive editing Resolved)
Resolved
– I'm not implementing anything new. I believe that this is amply covered by existing policies. I've provided some general advice below. TFOWR09:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
I propose that once an issue has been resolved and agreed here, or on the appropriate talk page, it should be considered closed for a minimum period of three months unless substantial new material is disclosed. --SnowdedTALK21:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not think there is a need for some form of "locking". If a case has recently been raised and there is consensus, it will be shut down pretty quick anyway if no new evidence is provided. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that some time is needed (precluding a major edit by an uninvolved party on that article that brings up new issues) before bringing an issue back, I'm thinking months many be excessive though... In light of the fact that if resolved it is unlikely to come up again, I'd say a fortnight. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Really, so you feel that you should have the right to raise the same issue every month even after its resolve? Will you choose the Ides as the anniversary date? Sorry this is perverse, the idea of this page is to resolve positions not just to create holding positions for editors to try again and again until they wear people down. Not agreeing to three months to me indicates an intent to disrupt --SnowdedTALK17:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to implement new processes. I'm in general opposed to scope-creep, and I believe that the issues we're trying to deal with here are already adequately covered by existing policies and processes. BW mentioned consensus - that's obviously the key policy here. There are others: Wikipedia:Tendentious editing is a guideline, but it lists a number of policies that may apply. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is also a guideline, but again lists policies that may apply. I'd recommend that editors consider for themselves how appropriate it is to re-open a debate which has recent consensus - it is reasonable to re-open debates. It is not reasonable to do so repeatedly, or very soon after a debate has closed. I'm not going to give a hard-and-fast ruling on how soon "very soon" is, as it's of necessity going to vary - new data is going to come to light, situations change, etc. I am, however, going to suggest the following: repeated behaviour causes problems. It was systematic addition/removing that caused this entire issue to blow up at ANI, and it's going to be systematic re-opening of debates that causes problems for the re-openers. Think carefully before re-opening debates, and consider what the wider community will think. If you have a damn good reason for it, a reason that you can show to the community, then you'll likely be fine. If your reason is flimsy, you'll end up pissing off not just local editors but the wider community. And that will be where the problems really start. TFOWR09:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
– This proposal is that "British Isles" should be mentioned in the lead. As noted above, I feel that - in general - additions/removals to/from the lead are not particularly relevant at WT:BISE: leads summarise articles: local editors should assess what should be in the lead, applying the usual criteria (relative emphasis, etc). Disagreements about leads' contents might be better raised at WP:NPOVN, but WT:BISE should remain focussed on specific examples of usages - i.e. on usages within the article-proper. TFOWR11:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I propose reference be made to the sizes of both Great Britain and Ireland in relation to the British Isles in the lead paragrpahs of each article. Rationale;
Both articles are primarily geographic in nature.
The islands are first and second in size in the archipeleago and this is a highly relavent geographic fact, given the total number of islands.
At least in the case of Great Britain, the fact was previously reported in the lead (see [6]) but was removed by an editor with an interesting Talk page and edit history.
Gets a mention at IoM but not as such at CI, but that is irrelevant anyway; I'm suggesting a mention in the lead, specifically because GB and I are 1 and 2 in size. It would be less relevant to mention a similar comparison in the leads of IoM and CI. LevenBoy (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, it's relevant. The argument that Britain and Ireland is not an accurate alternative to British Isles, is based on it. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it just me? Is it the way I write or something? Please someone tell me if what I'm saying above is not clear in some way, whether you disagree with me or not, just let me know. LevenBoy (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
No I didn't. I said it's irrelavent [in the current debate] that BI gets a mention at IoM and CI, because the current debate is about whether GB and I should have BI mentioned in the lead. LevenBoy (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Um, before we all start jumping around, the British Isles aren't even mentioned in the geography section of this article, which is where you would expect to find it. It's only usage is in a section on the terminology of "Britain", and in the infobox. Perhaps adding it to Great Britain in a similar manner as to island should be the first thing done. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
(Talkpage has been notified. I don't want to get into the habit of this being an admin thing, hence my requests to HighKing and LevenBoy in other threads. I did it this time since I really should have prompted it yesterday, and this thread was mostly my creation. TFOWR10:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC))
Arguments for adding "British Isles" to the lead @ Great Britain
This is a geographical article, its geographic location belongs in the introduction.
The fact Great Britain is the largest island in the British Isles is notable for the introduction, especially as it already mentions there " It is the ninth largest island in the world, and the largest European island", highlighting the size of an island in relation to geographical areas (Europe/world) is important so why exclude the British Isles?
It was in the introduction before it was removed by an editor clearly involved in British Isles matters.
It is factually accurate.
A search for "Great Britain" + "British Isles" on Google Books finds over 300,000 results highlighting its notability.
The controversy that may exist over use of British Isles with Ireland, does not exist for Great Britain there for it can be mentioned without needing to water it down a lot over the naming dispute.
New Guinea (an island) mentions in its introduction that "Geographically it is east of the Malay Archipelago, with which it is sometimes included as part of a greater Indo-Australian Archipelago."
Baffin Island - In its first sentence it mentions its the largest member of an archipelago.
I don't see Honshu as much of a precedent. First of all, it doesn't really have a lead at all, so pointless for this. Secondly, it states largest Island in Japan, so we'd call Great Britain the largest island in the UK, not in the British Isles. There may be other precedents out there, but this is not one of them. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Well the arguments I made apply to both, its a minor geographical fact and not the best overall way to locate either island which are better defined in terms of Europe. --SnowdedTALK17:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
About the above New Guinea example... find another one. That island suffers from fairly similar POVish problems due to the whole archipelago thing. Funnily enough, I've not even seen an unreliable source which has a distinction between the Malay archipelago and the Indo-Australian Archipelago, the latter being an attempt to take the Malay out of the archipelago (North atlantic archipelago anyone?).
Better examples might be articles like Sumatra, which states it is the westernmost of the Greater Sunda Islands. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It is waaaayyyy beyond the scope of this Task Force to make decisions on what should be in the *lede* of an article. As far as *usage* goes, I believe everyone is in agreement that using "British Isles" in geographic contexts is perfectly fine. @TFWOR, this should not be discussed here, as it is not related to usage. --HighKing (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
BW, leads really are issues for talkpages. "British Isles" is in the article-proper. Leads summarise articles: discuss leads at article talkpages. You've raised it on the talkpage - great. If that's problematic, by all means raise it here or at WP:NPOVN. TFOWR08:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Strangely enough, it's the more offensive ones that are difficult to cite... some are just silly, as well - way too generic. "Sheep shagger" doesn't seem specific to Aberdeen - any Kiwi or any Aussie will have heard it, in the West Country it's used for the Welsh, etc etc. Part of the problem with having no decent refs is that silly nonsense can easily slip in without being challenged... Anyway, it's shaping up well, but more help would be very welcome. Uncle G has started using list defined refs and that's made it much easier. TFOWR15:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
There's often little difference, though. Monkey hanger is a badge of pride in Hartleypool, "Weegie" is said with scorn outside Glasgow, but most "Weegies" wouldn't consider it an insult. Some are obvious, though, and should definitely go. Worth checking the cited ones as well -Snowded, I saw you'd removed one I'd cited, and I think that's fair enough - bloody stupid "nickname", particularly as it's so generic. TFOWR16:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
We don't allow terms like "nigger" (and rightly so) so while I agree its an issue I think we should restrict to genuine nicknames --SnowdedTALK16:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The debates that are meant to happen on this page are usually boring, but thanks to TFOWR and others, we get to encounter all sorts of arcana that makes participation really worthwhile. This is just the latest example. Sad not to see Derby on that list page. I can inform you that Derby was once known to CB Radio jocks as "slappertown". I can't think why. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Flora (Resolved: no blanket ruling like "fauna")
Unresolved
– Heh. We have lots more than "a couple" of outstanding "flora" issues. I don't think waiting for a blanket ruling on flora is tenable - we're just going to build up more and more flora issues. With that in mind, I'm closing this discussion, and setting the outstanding flora issues up for arguments for/against. TFOWR16:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
We've got at least a couple of outstanding "flora" issues. Is there any value in looking at flora as a "blanket ruling" candidate, same as "fauna"? I seem to recall there was a good reason not to lump flora and fauna together - does that translate to a flora ruling being problematic? Thoughts, diffs, pointers, etc welcomed. I'd like to wind up the oustanding flora issues one way or another. TFOWR10:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I would support an agreement on Flora like fauna. Whilst i was initially sceptical of the fauna agreement it seems to have been a good agreement and there has been no flood of changes one way or another which i thought might happen. On the issue of the unresolved case on the atlases. The specific problem is with an un sourced sentence that could just be deleted. Although if that article should be about the British Isles or continue to be Britain and Ireland is another matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Well I thought that was what we were aiming for. We based the blanket ruling for fauna on the scientific distribution region - "British Isles". Therefore we should now support a blanket agreement on Flora where we follow he scientific regions - which are "GB + IoM", Ireland, "CI included with France". There will be some problems - there are some British-oriented publications that use "British Isles" for some subjects - usually books that are published with topics such as "Oak Trees of the British Isles". --HighKing (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
True. Actually I'm not sure if a blanket ruling can be applied for flora, although we can probably agree a "Guideline" whereby when distribution of plants is discussed we should use scientific regions *unless* referenced otherwise (perhaps by a publication). --HighKing (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
We've been all over this before - lots of academic books, publications and organisations use the dread BI phrase in all sorts of ways, including in the names of scientific and membership bodies. If your argument is going to be that only a very limited official distribution region nomenclature used by scientists can be used in article text and titles for the whole of WP flora articles, you aren't going to succeed. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
@James, I think you're replying to me here. If so, sure I agree - that's exactly the point I'm making. Some books and publications can use British Isles in lots of ways that are perfectly fine. But equally, other usages are not. Here's some examples of usage which are questionable at best:
Unreferenced - for example, there's articles that state things like "This plant can be found in Northern Europe and the British Isles" or "This plant is found as far west as the British Isles, and as far east as China" - all unreferenced and unscientific.
Other articles may use a reference from a specific publication to discuss the *distribution* of the plant - except the publication just so happens to limit itself to "British Isles". There can be a danger in using these stats since it fails to place the plant in a world, or european, perspective. Using these references to describe *distribution* often ignores the fact that the plants are also grown elsewhere, are common elsewhere, etc, and there's nothing notable about stating whether they are common, etc, in the British Isles - because the WP articles are not BI-centric. Other articles may state that they are rare in the British Isles - again, this may be notable from a purely BI-centric POV, but not notable otherwise, and not notable for a general WP article.
Lots of articles also appear to use "British Isles" as a distribution, but are unreferenced. Let's not discuss the merits or otherwise of specific examples here, but to give you an idea of what I'm talking about - for example, Fucus vesiculosus states that it is one of the most common algae on the shores of the British Isles, and uses a publication entitled A Check-list and Atlas of the Seaweeds of Britain and Ireland. The publication doesn't state that. And the problem is that it also happens to be *one* of the most common seaweeds in the north-eastern Atlantic. Of in Gooseberry where it states The climate of the British Isles seems peculiarly adapted to bring the gooseberry to perfection. No reference, and ignores the fact that Russia is probably the biggest producer, followed by central Europe. Or Ulmus glabra uses another reference to denote "common in the British Isles" and references a book "Elm" - except the book states no such thing (it states that Wych Elm occurs mainly in northern England and along the Welsh border, and in a number of books states that it died out in Ireland). Or Alnus glutinosa, etc, etc.
Some articles might use a latin name, and then also introduce a common name. For example, in Nut (fruit) it states The nut of the horse-chestnut tree (Aesculus species, especially Aesculus hippocastanum), is called a conker in the British Isles. No it's not - it's called a conker in British English. I've never heard anyone call them conkers here, although I'd know what a conker was - but only in the same way that I know what a "sidewalk" and a "trash can" are. --HighKing (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Too many issues at once HighKing? Maybe we need to make the distinction between mentions of flora in and area and mentions of the areas flora is found in. On the first BI may be appropriate, on the second we should go with whatever sourced ecoregions that have been provided. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
its clear the issue of Flora is far more complex than the issue of Fauna. There for a blanket ruling is going to be impossible to reach agreement on. We should go back to considering the specific case of the article that is still has not been sorted. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we could agree that no article should just list plants of the UK and Ireland or Britain and Ireland or other variations? It should be British Isles or the ecoregions, but not political. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I meant was that descriptions of Flora distribution should probably stick to geographical regions, not political units. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
It's complicated. For example, when a publication is funded by a government (for example some Red Lists), it usually limits itself to the political jurisdiction. --HighKing (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Given that there is an Irish Conquer Championship listed on discoverireland.com, the official Governmental tourist agency for the RoI, and it has its own website, it suggests that many or most people in Ireland do know and use the term, and reduces HighKing's credibility in this area even further.
For goodness sake, an Irish Conker Team even played at the World Conker Championships and NI, (Belfast) also has its own annual conker competition.
Honestly --- how long do we really have to put up with all this level of argument over a nationalistically inspired campaign?
Are you really telling us that the seaweed magically does not grow around the Isle of Man and the CIs but yet does everywhere else in the Irish Sea?
the official Governmental tourist agency for the RoI? Wrong, Tourism Ireland is the agency responsible for marketing the island of Ireland overseas as a holiday destination. Tourism Ireland was established under the framework of the Belfast Agreement of Good Friday, April 1998, to increase tourism to the island of Ireland as a whole. --HighKing (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Horse chestnuts. Perhaps as suggested by TFWOR, they're referred to as "Conkers" when being used as a sport - fair enough. --HighKing (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't quote me on that - I had a headmaster who insisted they be called "horse chestnuts", but he also insisted that "kid" meant "baby goat" and not "child". He had a cane, and was bitterly disappointed he was no longer allowed to use it... Anyway, this was in England, not Ireland. TFOWR13:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Unreferenced
Just reading through HighKing's comments above, and one of the problems he identifies is where there is unreferenced text referring to the British Isles. Yes, being unreferenced isn't ideal, but neither is it a problem. There is a huge amount on wikipedia that is unreferenced, but we do not remove it on that basis, but only if is 'likely to be challenged'. I do not think that simply having 'British Isles' in the text is a valid reason to doubt the veracity of the information presented. In other words British Isles should not be removed for being unsourced unless there is also reason to believe it is inaccurate. That's what I think anyway. Quantpole (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
And I believe you are absolutely right. We can interpret sourced material as we think fit, provided it does not become inaccurate. So, if a source says "Great Britain and Ireland" and we interpret that as "British Isles" I believe we would be justified to do so, given the definition of British Isles. Forcing a requirement for sourcing every instance of the words "British Isles" tantamounts to gaming the system. LevenBoy (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
@Quantpole, unfortunately in my experience (and feel free to check the archives for real examples) the unreferenced usage is nearly always inaccurate. I note that some editors wish to widen the interpretation of the term "British Isles" to become synonymous with terms such as "Great Britain and Ireland". This leads to disagreements and experience here has shown that there is no consensus for that interpretation. --HighKing (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Quantpole is quite right about the scope of evidence needed to support a usage - usages only need citation when they are challenged. In that you are challenging them HK, they may need citation, but the mere proposal by you that "he unreferenced usage is nearly always inaccurate" is insufficient for it's removal. Hence this page. It would be useful to hear from Quantpole on future specific examples, as we are always in need of additional input here on what can be unfortunately rather partisan. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Highking, BI is used in 1000s of articles, the number of cases raised here where its un sourced use is incorrect is tiny in comparison. Although in some of the cases where we have accepted a change, BI has not been incorrect, a different term has simply been chosen which is more accurate for the subject at hand. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
@James - not sure if I'm interpreting what you mean by "usages only need citation when they are challenged" but it appears to be the opposite of WP:BURDEN. And I never intimated or stated that because a lot of unreferenced usage was inaccurate, therefore all instances should be removed. Also @BW, I never stated it was incorrect - although it wouldn't be stretching the English language to say that when an article is being made more accurate, that it has been corrected. I don't even like the idea that someone would take that away from my comment, which was simply to highlight the number of instances where usage has been inaccurate/incorrect in the past. But like you, I'd also like to welcome Quantpole to discussions here - outside views are always useful and valued. --HighKing (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
OK. I was talking about a discussion to change an existing usage - I assumed BURDEN was about adding new material, but maybe I've misunderstood the scope of it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Although maybe I'm right - to quote from it, "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
@James - it simply means that content must be referencable. If refers to existing content as well as any potential changes or future content. If content cannot be referenced, it should be deleted. And obviously, a large dose of common sense also applies. --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
That is the section that I had in mind when I was thinking about this. I am well aware that 'British Isles' is in itself a disputed term. However, simply because the term itself is disliked is not a valid reason to challenge its use and require a source. It is only if there is good reason to doubt its correctness as a geographical locator that a source could be insisted on or the text removed.
In terms of what HighKing talking about British Isles not being synonymous with GB and Ireland, I'm not quite sure what the issue is. If something is found in GB and Ireland then it is found in the British Isles. That doesn't mean that it has to be found on all 6000 odd islands. In a lot of cases it may be unclear the exact distribution of a plant (e.g. is it on the Isle of Man, the Shetlands etc?) in which case using British Isles may be better as it encompasses everything. If it is clear that something is only found on the islands of Great Britain and Ireland then it would certainly be appropriate to use the more precise terminology.
Thanks for the welcome btw. I have popped in here now and again, but to be honest it can get a bit draining getting overly involved! Quantpole (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
@Quantpole, it can be draining and intimidating, but I've found with civility being patrolled by TFOWR, this place is starting to lighten up. You've made a number of points. You say simply because the term itself is disliked is not a valid reason to challenge its use and require a source - I believe everyone here agrees. The term is never challenged for that reason, and if it was, would be given short shrift. Your next point is one of the most heavily disputed points here. You say talking aboutBritish Isles not being synonymous with GB and Ireland. There are so many contexts and topics where this has come up where there's reasons why it is not synonymous (and others where it can be), and this is what we're trying to work out here. We've recently agreed, for example, that using GB+I and BI for the distribution of fauna is fine - one of the main reasons being that the scientific community treats the British Isles as a geographic unit for the distribution of fauna. But this is not the case for flora - the Channel Islands are grouped with France for example. So we are discussing usage of "British Isles" in flora articles to see if there's any guidelines that make sense.
Hopefully the atmosphere here will improve and encourage more participants, and that you'll pop in to contribute from time to time. --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
More constructive contributors is always useful. I personally don't see a simple blanket guideline for Flora, seems it'll differ greatly depending on what exactly the articles scope is. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, getting a single agreement on this matter is going to be far more difficult than Fauna. Would be less time consuming to handle it on a case by case bases by the sounds of it. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I've identified some patterns above which take place in a number of articles, so I'd say that rather than an over-reaching guideline for 90% of articles, we may end up with 4 agreements that cover 90% of flora articles. Unfortunately to date, I've yet to see any evidence of an agreement which might cover situations where BI shouldn't be used emanating from you guys. --HighKing (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning. I thought you were saying that being unreferenced was a problem in itself - my point was that it isn't (well, no more than stuff in general being unreferenced) unless there was good reason to doubt it.
In terms of the channel islands being grouped in with France well that depends on what you're looking at. The BSBI are probably the best resource for flora distribution of the British Isles and they include the channel islands. Quantpole (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
If the subject matter is dealing solely with the British Isles, then the BSBI are the best resource, no doubt, and they deal with the geographic area as a unit. But the scientific community at large doesn't classify it in this way. --HighKing (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Who are "you guys" HighKing? I've stated many times that there are some situations where using British Isles may not be appropriate, my point here is that the term(s) used will probably differ on both the scope of the article and the descriptors it is using, so it might be best to finish individual flora discussions above. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to unresolve this one as as I was "otherwise detained at TFOWR leisure" during it and I actually know something about the subject area.
The very simple yet key oppositions to HighKing's strategy on this one. Many locations can actually be defined in more than one region. Geography is measured in many different ways. Different organisations or disciplines measure ecozones or bioregion in different ways.
Any movement towards a workable system for all flora topics would be great. I'm not prepared to hold up discussion on current flora topics, however. TFOWR11:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
– Cite it, and quote the refs HighKing provided (oswaldmosley.com
and europeanaction.com). The NPE had their own very specific idea about the territory "their" Europe would cover, so I believe letting them explain what they mean is the safest option. The article is currently unreferenced, it should be reffed, and I'm not comfortable reinterpreting the refs' text (both refs say the say, by the way) with our own words. TFOWR13:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
This article states The NPE supported a Pan-European nation-state encompassing mainland Europe outside the Soviet Union, the British Isles, overseas territories, and roughly one-third of Africa.... What is actually advocated is
The space of a fully united Europe including the lands to be liberated by American and Russian withdrawal, the British Dominions and other European overseas territories, and approximately one-third of Africa is a just requirement for tile full life of the Europeans in a producer and consumer system which shall be free of usury and capitalism, of anarchy and communism. Within the wide region of our nation the genius of modern science shall join with the culture of three millennia to attain ever higher forms of European life which shall continue to be the inspiration of mankind.
A claimed area should probably be taken directly from a source. I'm surprised the pan-european state doesn't include iceland and such, not worth it? :p Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Urgh. Way too much Mosley-esque text to wade through. I'm jumping straight to sub-sections (below) for arguments for and against. TFOWR18:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Rather than blandly state "it's geographic" or "it's geopolitical" could I see some arguments for why it's one or t'other? "It's X" is opinion - I want to see reasoned arguments. Ta! TFOWR15:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Arguments for keeping "the British Isles"
Geographical descriptions, its fine and please don't make me read through such a list of mindless hatred again. Although if I was a British Nationalist I might want all reference to Britain removed --SnowdedTALK20:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The article segment is unreferenced, so at present it is difficult to draw conclusions. Putting aside personal discomfort in the content, it is clearly up to local article editors to "improve" this rather unpleasant list and in the meantime, arguing over add/delete of BI seems rather spurious. Therefore keep the status quo and leave to local editors to improve. Can't see any reason why these decisions can't be brought back here for review after some months or whatever. I'm also inclined to think that article is an AFD candidate but that would need discussing over there. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The sources (listed above) taken from the founding principles describe it adequately. The current wording is WP:OR and wrong.
There are no references for the current wording
"Nationalistic" organizations (as per the article title) implies geopolitical units, not geographical. We shouldn't mix usage - that is, use UK when the context implies GB, or vice versa.
@James above
The article segment is unreferenced, so at present it is difficult to draw conclusions - disagree. I've provided two links to the Venice speech where it is described as a fully united Europe including the lands to be liberated by American and Russian withdrawal, the British Dominions and other European overseas territories, and approximately one-third of Africa.
Yes, but those refs are not currently in the article. If others edit the article and include those refs, that would be different. The whole point of this page is to focus on what exists now and make a determination - anything else is article improvement and needs bringing back here again after the article is improved/altered, surely. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. A large part of this process is to find references to back up whether a change should be made or not. Yes, we agree to focus on what exists now - within the context of whether what exists is accurate or not. We don't *fundamentally change* what is being said. Part of the change suggested is to include the new references, and change the text accordingly. --HighKing (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
arguing over add/delete of BI seems rather spurious - sorry isn't that what BISE is for? Would editors object if I simply changed the article to reflect the source? Of course, therefore it gets discussed here first.
Therefore keep the status quo and leave to local editors to improve. Can't see any reason why these decisions can't be brought back here for review after some months or whatever. What will be different between now and then? Absolutely nothing. That suggestion is not based on an argument using policies or precedents, and to me, is simply avoiding and ducking the issue at hand. --HighKing (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Although usage in this context (geographical) would be fine as it stands it is OR of what someone thinks the area is, and OR that I find lacking! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
– It's geography. It's useful information for readers. Note that the article currently claims that the island isn't the most westerly point: I take the view that it's an island, and only rocks lie to the west of it (for the curious, I do know the difference between rocks and islands...!) so describing it in a manner that is consistent with ... other ... articles ... is reasonable. TFOWR11:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
This location, together with Dunquin, are classed as Extreme points of the British Isles. However, unlike the north, east and south extreme points, these westerly extreme points have no mention of the fact in the articles. I suggest these facts should be added to the articles so that we have consistency with the other extreme locations. I cannot think of any valid reason why this basic geographic information is excluded from these articles. LevenBoy (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
What exactly is notable about being an extreme point of the British Isles? Are they referenced in literature, popular culture, demographics, tourism, etc? Any geographical location that is an extreme point can almost always be classed as being an extreme of a multitude of geographical descriptors, i.e. Ireland, Kerry, Continental Europe. What is so notable about the British Isles in such instances? Fmph (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Its an internationally recognised geographical location. If the extreme points of Europe or the island of Ireland are notable, then so is the extreme points of the British Isles. If there are sources on it then theres no problem with including it and those sources back up its notability. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Extreme points are probably notable, I mean, Wikipedia has articles on them. Just read all the extreme points, and only the north and east points mention the British Isles extreme points (and none of the settlements), although others variably say they are the extreme points of the UK/Great Britain/Ireland. Some consistency is desired here at any rate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
My comment about internationally recognised geographical location was about the British Isles, not the specific extreme points of the BI, although the fact those searches do find lots of mentions of atleast 1 extreme point of the BI helps back up its notability. Like i said before, provided a reference is found stating they are the extreme points, they should be added to each article. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You just don't get it do you? The reason that the Scilly's come into it, is that they use this made-up term "...the most South Westerly point of the British Isles..." as a bit of marketing puffery. That might be notable in itself, but for Tearaght Island to be notable in the same sense, would require Kerry County Council or Bord Failte to be marketing it as the most westerly point of the British Isles, which they most certainly don't. Trying telling the locals in the pub in Dunquin that they live at the western extremity of the British Isles and see what reaction you get. And while your at it, why don't you describe how one measures the most south westerly point of anything? The most northerly, southerly, easterly and westerly are simple to measure. Extremes of latitude or longitude. So how is the 'internationally renowned' south westerly extreme of anything measured? Total and utter nonsense. And continuing to push silly issues like this says so much about those pushing it. Fmph (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Scilly's be the most southwest of the British Islands? And if people here were pushing, they'd put it on the page directly. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Read what I actually said, not what you expected me to say. this made-up term "...the most South Westerly point of the British Isles...". So the term I'm referring to is "...the most South Westerly point of the British Isles...", not "...the British Isles...". The former is made up, and is not referenced anywhere except some Scilly Isles touristy websites. It's marketing puffery. And it's unverifiable, given there is no objective method of measuring the most southwesterly point of an irregularly shaped object. It's a nonsense! Fmph (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Ardnamuchan Point is definitely not it, although it may be the westernmost point on Great Britain. Seems like a classic mixup of British Isles and British Islands. Hmmm, I'm beginning to understand why the internet is often a bad source of information. [8] says the westernmost point of the isles is Valentia Island, but a quick look at the location map on wikipedia seems to disagree with that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I asked you before please do not assign motives to other editors, that is not allowed here anymore. Whats accurate is the correct location which is the most extreme points of the British Isles. Provided a reliable source is found for that, there is no reason not to mention them within the articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
What this example goes to show, more than any other argument or POV put forward previously, is that the term British Isles means so many different things to different people in different contexts, even in Britain. There is no definitive view of what it refers to and in many contexts its use is plain unencyclopaedic. So thanks very much for that BW. Fmph (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
No it goes to show some people use British Isles inaccurately. We need to locate reliable sources to ensure we state the accurate location and avoid confusing people. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Chipmunk's ref is actually sourced from Wikipedia, which all goes to show that in some ways this encyclopedia is a menace in the way it pollutes the web. There are several references if you do a search in Google books but my browser won't show the complete pages that are returned. Anyone else help with this? LevenBoy (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
True, sorry. Didn't see that. I searched for it too. It is actually very hard to find internet sources that aren't wikipedia sometimes. I wonder when they got the information though. What search terms are you using in google books? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I used "Tearaght" and "British Isles". The ref from Chambers Encyclopedia appears to be a good one, but funnily enough, the first book I get listed - Rocking: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases - may also be sourced from Wikipedia, at least in part. LevenBoy (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Google search is giving me this
"The archipelago constituting the British Isles is composed of some 5000 insular units, large and small, ... The most westerly point is the Tearaght Lighthouse off Kerry, Ireland (10° 40" W.), and Lowestoft Ness Suffolk (1° 46' E.) is ..."
from Encyclopedia Americana [10] but I can't access the book itself. Similar problem with chambers, google snippet for [11]
"BRITISH ISLES, off the north-west coast of Europe, including Great Britain and Ireland (qq.v. ... in the Channel islands (480 58' N.) to the Muckle Flugga lighthouse in the Shetlands (6o° 51' N.) and from Tearaght lighthouse, Co. ..."
I'll do the same, and I think either of those two references would suffice. I think we are close to concluding this one. LevenBoy (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not clear from either of those snippets what is being talked about - the example above talks about lighthouses, and neither mention extremities. They could be talking about extreme lighthouses, or inhabited places. I'm sure there must be a reference if it's any way notable though. --HighKing (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with it. But, like the Derry article, there's some places where the local article consensus might prove different. --HighKing (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but that's "Cake and Eating it" point - why is that always the response when a case for adding BI is made ? if it is demonstrated that other sources use that term (and it is getting to look like they might) then it should be added if it is later vetoed at the page that is POV pushing and the article will be tagged as such. Codf1977 (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this in response to my comment? If so, it doesn't make sense to direct it towards me because I'm simply pointing out what everyone else already knows. BTW it's always been a case here (and on WP) that local page consensus (and hence also local experts) overrules anything we might do here. BW might like to remember the recent Derry discussions and understand where I'm coming from here...especially given the "tradition" of not using British Isles on Ireland-related articles. I fear that charging in with a blunt-instrument approach will yield exactly the opposite result than you're looking for. --HighKing (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
My reading of WP:CONLIMITED is that consensus is derived from the widest discussion. I'll certainly weigh local opinions more heavily than lay-opinions, but a consensus here with input from local editors I would expect to override the more limited local consensus. TFOWR11:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It is a valid issue, the whole "tradition" of not using British Isles on Ireland-related articles is pushing a POV, even if it is a strongly held view by some. As you can see from my earlier post to this discussion if it is refereed to as such by other reliable sources then it should be added, if not then it should not be, to say that tagging it POV is "charging in with a blunt-instrument" firstly, it woult be charging in as it would have followed discussion here, and secondly I disagree that it is a blunt-instrument. Codf1977 (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
So let me get this correct. What's being proposed is that the 5 pages of references which suggest that just about anywhere other than Tearaght Island is the most westerly point in the British Isles are now to be considered 'inaccurate', and the 2 hidden Google Books references which fit the British POV, are now deemed accurate? Is that what is being suggested? Why is one set of references more accurate than another? Fmph (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Ness Point (Which already mentions Great Britain, and is probably also the westernmost point of the UK)
[12]-"Ness Point or Lowestoft point as it was formerly known is located adjacent to Gas Works Road, is officially the most easterly point of the United Kingdom and of the British Isles."
Lowestoft (Which mentions that it is the easternmost town in the UK already, and also mentions that Ness Point is the easternmost town in the UK and the British Isles. This one looks like a copyedit job)
[13]-"The Euroscope plaque at Ness point shows that Lowestoft is the most easterly town in the British Isles..."
Skaw (Already mentions being the northernmost point of the UK)
[14]-"A short stroll from the beautiful beach at Skaw, which can reasonably claim to be the furthest north in the British Isles..."
They all look fine to me as they are. If you manage to find some reputable references about the BI, then it may be worth replacing UK/GB with BI, but personally I can't see the point. Fmph (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Can we close and archive this one? There were too many proposals anyway and they have either failed to gain consensus or discussions are happening elsewhere. --SnowdedTALK06:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I've barely looked at the discussion above, to be honest, but I'm certainly up for closing this until we resolve other discussions. TFOWR09:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Ireland resolved?
I was under the impression the use on Ireland was resolved. British Isles was given a single mention in geography, with a note on contentious naming. Or are you also thinking about the British Isles infobox? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Nope, I'm confusing Ireland with the British Isles template (as one does... ho hum) I'll un-collapse this section... two seconds... TFOWR12:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I meant template not infobox, so I guess I gave a double meaning to my words. Do you feel there is a consensus on the other (non-irish) extremities? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
No idea - still not really looked at this, to be honest. I was hoping I could get away with the lazy option, and just close it as "no consensus", but that's not the case ;-) I'll try and look through it now. No promises, though, I'll be on- and off-line a lot today. TFOWR12:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
On a procedural note, it might be worth getting the old and stale arguments restarted in the point by point for against arguments proposed, hopefully it will be even better for these as most points have already been stated somewhere and only have to become more explicit and/or obvious. Perhaps it will make a difference? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, and so doing. It turns out I'm not as good at assessing consensus from unstructured discussions as I thought. TFOWR16:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Structured discussion
Apologies for this, but please state arguments for or against below. Back arguments with policy or precedents, links and diffs. Avoid opinions, etc. Remember I'm stupid, and need all the help I can get to understand stuff. TFOWR16:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Should be obvious, but I'm assuming you all just need to copy and summarise stuff from above. I'm really not trying to make you jump through hoops, honest. TFOWR16:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Arguments for adding "extreme westerly point of British Isles"
The fact it is the westernmost point of the British Isles does seem notable, similar facts appear in some of the other articles mentioned above (though admittedly, not all). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I go with this one purely on the basis that throughout these Islands there is an obsession with "highest point", "nearest to France", "farthest from the sea", etc, etc. Extremities are a favorite topic and it's a shame to leave out notable things like that which interest a lot of readers. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Arguments against adding "extreme westerly point of British Isles"
Acceptable Geograpical Ranges to Use "British Isles" (Resolved)
Resolved
– ...I think? Jamesinderbyshire, if I understand you correctly you're planning to revisit this at some point. With that in mind, I'm going to close out this thread without prejudice to a new thread being reopened in the future. If you think there's value in keeping this thread open, feel free to revert me. TFOWR11:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be useful for each participant to say what they would find an acceptable geographical range or spread of sourced "mentions" within an article to constitute grounds for using BI. Please be as specific as you can and give logical groupings in brackets as below. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
Of course, whatever might be agreed here, it could end up as an excuse for mass deletions, as per the Londonderry situation at the moment. LevenBoy (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Acceptable, but anything more than this is, quite frankly, taking the pissextracting the urine. However, I wouldn't distinguish between pre and post 1922. This definetion should cover all periods. LevenBoy (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm willing to re-run it without the 1922 distinction, I included that on the basis of previous discussions in other project pages. I also propose that either myself or TFOWR remove all non-constructive comments, eg, anything that isn't a concrete statement of what you find acceptable, sans the swear words. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Political/Geographical distinction is clear on use, other than pre 1922 when there may be some validity. Geographically if references are clear either way that takes priority. If no Irish presence use Britain/Great Britain and vice versa. Otherwise 3/4 of England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales; but significant presence not just a token one. Rough rules, overall need to inform readers is critical --SnowdedTALK05:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
All periods, anywhere
Anywhere in the United Kingdom, Ireland or any other point in the archipelago, any time.
In the subjects I am interested, which are non-political, there is really very little which does not apply uninformly across British Isles. Any single place can be within the British Isles, if it is. The term is an especially convenient and non-political broad brush when dealing with longer time frames and aspects of human geography. It is additionally useful literally to simplify, add color or difference to written text. --Triton Rocker (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment. TR as you should be aware the subject of human geography is spilt into several field which includes political geography, therefore human geography does include politics and we should be careful when using the term BI even in geography. Bjmullan (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
A few months ago RA tried, without success, to create a BI MOS and I believe that this discussion is a bit pointless as each article must be taken on it's merits. Bjmullan (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Other matters
Onus of proof
Commonsense (there is really very little which does not apply uninformly across British Isles) not nationalist or republican politics should take first priority putting the onus on HighKing et al to prove that any given factor DOES NOT apply to the whole, e.g. the snakes in Ireland, rather than the onus on rest of us to prove that it DOES apply time and time again.
Slightly confused
I'm slightly confused as to what is being asked of us above. There seem to be multiple indented bullets at various levels, so I'm unsure exactly what I might be replying to. Could it be re-formulated as a set of headings (as we've done elsewhere) and allow us to add our 'vote' or comments below each heading in standard wiki format? Fmph (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it needs to be clearer - I don't have time to redraft it now until Friday, but if someone else wants to that would be fine. I suggest what's needed is a very exact statement of what each participant would accept, without surplus commentary. Eg, something like, UK + 1 of (CofI or IoM or RoI) or similar. I tend to think on reflection that we do also need to define it post and pre 1922 because of the major shift in meanings, but we can always get to that later if people can't handle it now. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be an ideal candidate for Snowded's RfC approach: an editor creates a new sub-section, details a proposal, then signs. Other editors either add their support below, or create their own proposal. TFOWR11:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Are we really going to try and get a guideline? I'm not sure thats 1) a good idea, 2) possible at all. Furthermore, this whole argument is about what exactly? A guideline for whole articles or a guideline for use in a sentence? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'd argue that the above is trying to get a guideline ;-) No view on whether it's desirable or possible but, if a consensus emerges, I'd suggest that it be for sentences. An article about a non-geographic subject may well have a sentence that is geographic. Equally, I don't want a situation where - because a subject is geographic - there's apparent justification to use/not use "British Isles" in a non-geographic sentence. TFOWR12:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Chipmunk. A "formula" is bad idea. It is bad because (a) it would be gamed and (b) it would be an over simplification of something that is nuanced, complex and heavily contextualised.
I like TFOWR's point about sentences - that makes sense. Note (RA) that I wasn't trying to come up with a definitive "formula" or (bjmullan) an "MoS" - I was just trying to draw out from each participant what they find broadly acceptable as a "typical" geographic usage for the term. This discussion has been helpful and I will have another bash further down in a bit. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The term "British Isles" is used non-politically and within political subjects where it affects the whole, or two or more of the parts of the whole. One could very accurate discuss changes in the political geography of the British Isles, e.g. take 'The political development of the British Isles, 1100-1400' by Robin Frame. To quote Frame, "a view that takes in the British Isles as a whole may highlight themes and relations that otherwise are only dimly visible." The author addresses the academic background to many of the problems seen in the references.
That is an entirely different matter from the politicisation of the term. The addition or removal of it can be politically motivated, even in non-political topics, which is what I am protesting about.
Equally the addition or defence of the use of the term British Isles can be entirely non-political and based on common academic use refusing its politicisation. In this discussion, we continue to handicapped by those involved in the politicisation of the term or a false political reaction against it.
How can we get through to them that the word British in the term British Isles has nothing to do with what are reacting against, in simple terms; English politics, the Crown and what I have called more accurately 'the hegemonic interests of Westminister?' --Triton Rocker (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Triton Rocker, you know perfectly well not to make personal comments. Other editors' nationalities and views on monarchy are irrelevant, and I've removed the irrelevant part of your post. TFOWR11:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
You do make a good point, "British Isles" can only be used as a geographical location. I have used the example of Germany and war before. It would be wrong to say the British Isles invaded Germany, because that is assigning an action to the islands. But Germany invading the British Isles is perfectly acceptable. Your example of "The political development of the British Isles, 1100-1400" is very good. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I get concerned about any rule that attempts to stop it being used in "political ways" because people have different views on what is and is not political use of British Isles. BI is a geographical term and it absolutely can be used in subjects like politics. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
GoodDay, you need to be specific and back it up with academia. British Isles has and is being used by academia to discuss any and all related topics for a long time.
TFOWR, I am sorry but, no. Including in the discussion one's political motivations is relevant and not "a personal comments". This is why I argued before that all participants, any individual wishing to be part of this workgroup, should list themselves and where their nationalist interests lie as a guide and courtesy to others.
Look at it this way. You are proposing we act as a board of adjudicators over BI issues, with you as the chairperson, and even set an editorial manual of style. Yet the neither members political agendas, nor their qualifications and experiences (or lack of them), are openly stated or able to be disclosed.
Does that kind of censorship really seem ethical to everyone? Are we supposed to just pretend that there are no nationalist motivations here?
Becoming "personal" about an issue, or a "personal comment", would be something like, "a mean Jock ) ... a dumb Paddy ... a thieving Taffy". Like User:Snowded, User:GoodDay self-disclosed himself as a nationalist. They are proud, not ashamed of it. But they are also engaging in discussion which others with nationalist interests are seeking to politicise and control. It is unfair for newcomers to have to wade through the same crap as the rest of us, only to finally understand that some individual is here to promote some nationalist agenda RATHER THAN build an encyclopedia.
Personally, I have never interacted with Canadian Monarchists or Republicans before. It is elementary to see how their POVs interfere with the debate around 'British' topics and why they might be unreasonably motivated in favour of their cause, as we are already seeing that at Elizabeth II.
In my book, it is one degree to having nationalist sympathies but to feel strongly enough to have to advertise them is another level all together. It is a very strong indicator of POVs and the politicisation we are discussing here. One has to filter accordingly. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Editors are obliged to address content issues only Triton. Its a very basic Wikipedia policy. What filters you wish to apply are of course entirely your own affair, but they have no place in content discussions. --SnowdedTALK04:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Triton Rocker, no. I could not care less about your politics - really. Nor could I care about any other editor's nationality, political beliefs, hair colour, or favourite ocean liner. Policies, precedents, diffs and links. That's all that matters. A well-worded argument, backed by a reference to a policy, coming from an editor who identifies as a card-carrying member of the "British Imperial Party - Reclaim the Treasonous American Colonies!" will carry far more weight than a wishy-washy "I like this option" argument from an editor who is scrupulously neutral. TFOWR09:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
– Not an issue for WT:BISE: no addition or removal, just de-linking which is easily fixed. The scripts affect more entities than just "British Isles", so argue it with the scripts' authors if you're still unhappy. TFOWR08:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I may be wrong but there appears to be some form of script that whilst making lots of fixes and trying to reduce the number of wikilinks, delinks British Isles from articles automatically too, perfectly innocent, but this change is potentially problematic as it first causes alarm when the links disappear (especially if this was done on a widescale) but also has the potential for removals without anyone being able to notice at a later date. Also in general it makes it harder for the reader to learn more incase they have no idea about what the BI are.
Yes BI is only mentioned once on each. Its not only BI, the script seems to remove a huge amount of links, many which are not repeats. The Arab slave trade one seems to mostly focus on removing links to geographic locations and countries. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
What does seem odd is that the script removes the first dab to Australia in the White Australia article, leaving it with no link to Australia at all - isn't that against the basic spirit of wikiness? Didn't realise scripts like this were allowed. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
That is odd, not a single link to Australia on a page about White Australia policy, yet i see a link to Fiji remains in one paragraph lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
and in the sentence that BI is.. " In the meantime, encouraging immigration from Europe, Australia admitted large numbers of immigrants from mostly Italy, Greece, and Yugoslavia, as well as its traditional source of the British Isles" Italy, Greece and British Isles were delinked but Yugoslavia remained, i dont get how the script chooses between them like that. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I've pinged GregU and Lightmouse. I'd suggest we don't worry too much about this - I can see good reasons to de-link common terms, and I suspect "British Isles" might well be regarded as a common term by an innocent script writer. Wait and see what GegU and Lightmouse have to say. TFOWR20:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I would not have removed those links myself. However, it seems that both instances of British Isles are used simply as an alternative for 'Great Britain' or 'United Kingdom'. All are widely known and add little to the understanding of the subject. BTW, I know that GregU's script does not remove any links. --Ohconfucius¡digame!22:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Interesting point about GregU's script - it certainly doesn't contain the string "British Isles". Tony1 had linked to GregU's script in their edit summary, I guess Tony1 may be running something else? I'll ping Tony in the morning. TFOWR23:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
←True, the dash script removes no links. I often run it and go through unlinking items that dilute the high-value links. I guess one way of seeing that is to retain "Fiji" in that article, but frankly, I think it's highly unlikely a reader would want to click on any country-name in such a topic. At least let the topic relate to a country before even considering the linking of any countries, I say; and US, UK, Australia, Canada—really, there's got to be a very very good reason for linking them. Links become distracting, even gratituitous, when applied with such wide scope in relation to the readers' likely acquaintance with those diversionary topics. Tony(talk)02:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I know it's not on-topic for this page, but it seems pretty absurd and actually quite a POV being worked out via a script that a large article on aspects of Australian policy and history now contains no link at all to Australia, courtesy of your script. So someone arriving from a google search needs to re-search Australia to go to the base article. What an interesting place Wikipedia is that such a policy view can be scripted without apparent interference. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It is off-topic, yes! OK, "British Isles" was retained here, it was simply de-linked (along with several other geographical entities). If someone wants to re-add the link I think that's fine, equally I have no strong view about leaving it un-linked. I'd only be worried if "British Isles" was removed (or added). I'd suggest anyone wanting more information should take it up with Tony1 or Lightmouse (I did check Lightmouse's script, and it does do the de-linking magic. I've also checked GregU's script - it doesn't de-link - and I've apologised to GregU). Beyond that: interesting issue, but out-of-scope here. TFOWR08:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
British Isles should be linked on most articles the first time its mentioned, with the exception of dab pages. I will readd the links in these two cases. A linked British Isles makes the whole thing more open. Easier for those who wish to challenge its use on articles as well as easier for keeping track of any unjustified removals. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 10:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
– There doesn't seem to be any objection in principle against using "British Isles", however steak and
kidney puddings seem to be an English regional dish. Use the most accurate area, which would appear to be "Northern England". If it transpires that tasty puds are enjoyed on the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, Ireland, etc, then reconsider "British Isles". Until then - stick with what can be referenced now. TFOWR11:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Done Changed article from "is a popular dish in the British Isles and regularly offered on the menu of pubs and restaurants" to is a popular dish in Northern England and regularly offered on the menu of pubs and restaurants. --HighKing (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The article states Steak and Kidney pudding is a popular dish in the British Isles and regularly offered on the menu of pubs and restaurants. It's not referenced. I've heard of S&K Pie, never pudding. It seems to be an English or British dish. Either way, it should use country names. --HighKing (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Bah. Off-topic ranting follows... No comment on the Bi issue, but how is this worth an entire article, instead of a section at Steak and kidney pie? Which seems to already cover the essentials: "pudding like pie but with suet". The pie article also covers the rhyming slang names for both, e.g. 'Snake and Kiddy pie/pudding'. TFOWR19:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, I have learned from this. I call 'em "puddings", but I suspect it's a regional thing - the pudding talk page suggested that puds were unheard of in the South of England. I assumed pies and puds were one and the same, and it was a Southern thing, calling them "pies", but I've learned they are different. Slightly. Still unconvinced they need to separate articles. TFOWR19:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Well then, if anyone opposes a merge proposal then we can structure, if not we should go ahead with a merge proposal and bring this up later if it fails. Good job HighKing for templating. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
(Off-topic but) I believe (but can't find a ref) that the pudding recipe pre-dates the pie - originally, the suet used for the pudding casing was the fat cut off from the kidneys. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I figured it would be safer if I proposed it, rather than some damn Southerner ;-) I have to honest, though, in New Zealand they're definitely "pies". But New Zealand loves pies. And "pud" is only ever something like this. TFOWR08:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Guys, a pie is something encased in pastry (short/long crust etc) and baked. A pudding has suet pastry and is steamed generally in a muslim cloth. Results are very different and I suggest you remove merge proposals before your shameful ignorance is exposed to the world. ;-) --SnowdedTALK12:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll take responsibility for this, not BISE ;-) Nah, both articles are very tasty but the suet-enhanced variant can be dealt with in the un-steamed article. IMHO. TFOWR13:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
You deserve to be taken out and shot for that edit summary, that many bad puns in one sentence needs a health warning --SnowdedTALK13:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I wish I'd thought of them before opening the merge discussion... I did consider going back, but <ahem> editors had already !voted.
We should probably still consider the BI issue - even if there was to be a merge, the term is still going to be there. So - puddings: British Isles or England or North of England or North Britain or what? TFOWR13:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an indentical - and typical - case to Conkers. HighKing comes along and says "he has never heard anyone in Ireland say it". A simple Google search proves the opposite. Rather than discuss it and put the blame on "no references" if it comes up in Google, HighKing should be the one to add the references. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
No obvious error or problems with use of terminology. If it is a delicacy of just one part of the region then that part should be given rather than generalising to the region as a whole. However, while it is worthwhile for the members of this task force to mention here that they are bringing up a question like this, this is not the place to discuss questions about the correctness of content. Discussion about the content of article (as opposed to the terminology used in them) should be held on the article's talk page. This is not Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink. --RA (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
There's already a meaty discussion on the article's talk page. The discussion above is simply filling - a number of us have taken a personal steak in the merge discussion, and it's over spilled over here, like too much gravy. TFOWR19:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they sell them in Ireland. Yes, they sell them and eat them in NI, IoM and CI. They are part of British culture which both Irelands shares. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I think even using England for the use of pudding would be incorrect as it is more a northern (English) dish. Using BI is just wrong. Bjmullan (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Resolved
Unresolved
Done - Only added one ref - here's the diff - since both refs pretty much cover the Venice conference. --HighKing (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Done Changed article from "is a popular dish in the British Isles and regularly offered on the menu of pubs and restaurants" to is a popular dish in Northern England and regularly offered on the menu of pubs and restaurants. --HighKing (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)