Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force

Comments

No one followed the opening request, so as I started the poll on this I've opened it. As GoodDay pointed out to me, it was pending for around 4 days now. The shortcut is WP:BIT. Using that to refer to here will hopefully free up a lot of article's talk pages (and the reduce the negative things that can come from that). --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC) The shortcut is now WP:BISLES. Thanks again! --Clubjuggle ^T/C 00:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Let the task at hand, begin. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What happens now, then? ðarkuncoll 21:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

See my opening comments, it's a start (I hope). GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Shall we use the main page to begin with? We can discuss the layout and technical workings etc for the moment in here perhaps. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Geography?

Wishful contextualisation. Everything about the name British Isles declares politics, specifically political subjugation of the Irish people for centuries by-surprise, surprise- the British. Are the Irish people here to placate the ego of British nationalists? This name is going nowhere, other than in the same direction as the British Empire. Geography? ' “But he has nothing on at all,” said a little child at last....' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.102.151 (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Another nice bit of trolling there. The notion that BI is anything other than geographical is silly - but I do agree with the conclusion that WP:GEOG is the wrong place for this, for different reasons. WP:GEOG deals with geography articles, and geography articles only. From what I can see of the proposals so far, the scope of the task force isn't limited to geographical articles, as one of the key proposals seems to be to not use the term British Isles in non physical geography articles. It is not within the scope of this wikiproject to decide such things. This kind of discussion should take place at WP:PUMP or somewhere equally universal in nature. Waggers (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussions

Hi all. I've been away but have been reading a lot without having much time to contribute. I think the concept of the task force is a good idea. But I'm not convinced about the current practice, with all due respect to the main contributors. I don't think that there should be any discussions on the main page. They should all be here on the talk. Have a look at this task force, which is the most equivalent one I could find. In principle we should keep discussion on this page and when we have agreed something we should add it to the main project page. Whaddya think? Crispness (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought the way we're doing it, was the correct way; I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We might have been for a single issue, I'm not sure. I'm not sure it makes any difference, does it? This won't be the final guideline page - that will be in MOS. We have a specific achievable goal, the Islam taskforce one is general and ongoing. We won't be archiving anything until a guideline is produced (at least that is the intention). As it started on the main page (it had to start one way), it's best to keep to the way it's gone, imo. When the guideline is made the discussion can be archived in some way, and the main page can point people to the MOS guidelines in its lead. Maybe then this taskforce/workgroup can be a 'utility' page for any BI-relative stuff.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, Med Cabals use the main page. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think they do. What they keep on the main page are the statements from the protagonists and witnesses. But others are required not to add indented comments to the statements of others. Ooops, that's RFA. Sorry. I see what ya mean. Haven't been involved with WP:MEDCAB before.

As I see it, this is supposed to be a task force though, and this is not how any of the other task forces I've looked at seem to work. Personally, I am finding the main page terribly inaccessible and I'm just not contributing because I don't understand what the substantive discussions are referring to. There seem to be proposals, which are then amended on an ad-hoc basis when some individuals believe that something would improve them. This ensures discontinuity. Unless someone is involved pretty much 24/7 it is very difficult to follow and track.

IMHO, the proposals should be on the project page, discussions and votes on talk and proposals should not be amended until a consensus is agreed for the change. I'll probably just wait for the substantive vote at the end before I get much involved. Sorry. Crispness (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BIT shortcut

About a week ago I had started editing (offline) an essay titled "But it's true!" for which I had intended to use WP:BIT as a redirect shortcut. The essay is intended as a place to direct users who may be confused as to why information they added to articles (or articles they created) may have been deleted. In the interim, it appears someone created WP:BIT and redirected it here. Are you guys strongly attached to that shortcut, and if not, would you be willing to give it up and use something else, like perhaps WP:ISLES? If so, I will of course include a disambiguation link on the essay that redirects people here. Thanks for considering, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but it will have to be after we finalised some kind of guideline. I originally created the main page as BIT, which now redirects to the full title page (I simply copied another taskforce when I started it, but they did theirs in an incorrect way). I then put out a number links to WP:BIT, and it's been referred to by others too. I suspect that this page will remain after the guideline is made as a 'workgroup' page, but there is no reason to keep calling it 'BIT' at that point. It couldn't be called 'ISLES', as stabilising the word 'Btitish' in the right context is an key 'factor' in the taskforce! It could end up as BIW or something, though. I'll try and bag that one now, just in case! You would probably have to keep a page-top disambiguation link for the old BIT links that will end up archived.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy top keep a page-top disambiguation link, and also to update the dozen or two already existing links to the new shortcut. Just let me know when I can pull the trigger. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 00:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've created WP:BIW for later, as I suspect it will be needed. I have to warn you there is never any guarantees with this subject! Having said that, I'm sure we'll come to some form of conclusion after all this work. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've created WP:BRIT which would be more meaningful for me. I would have no objection to losing WP:BIT.Crispness (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Careful you don't borderline troll, crispness. 'WP:Brit' is meaningless. Don't try and be too politically clever with WP space. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK - I removed "WP:BRIT" from the shortcut box, and it's been reverted. I've taking it to Talk, as was asked. I have two questions about it:

1) In what way does this benefit the taskforce?

2) How does it not mislead people? It ignores the word "Isles" and makes it look like the taskforce is just a British issue.

Please respond. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you removing a valid shortcut? I'm not trolling. I happen to think that WP:BRIT is a more accurate, more memorable and more useful shortcut than WP:BIT, which someone else would like to use. It doesn't ignore the word 'Isles'. It just doesn't use it. It doesn't need to. It's just a shortcut. It doesn't make the task force look like a British issue, at least not in my eyes. Perhaps it does in yours. You seem to have real ownership issues with the project. It seems like you are unable to accept that others may have valid opinions and ideas. I've created a valid and useful shortcut for the project. You don't have to use it if you don't want to. But others can if they do. I'd really like to hear someone elses opinion on the trollishness of WP:BRIT. If there is consensus to remove it, or if editors in general find it in some way objectionable then I will remove it. Otherwise it stays. Crispness (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm very uncomfortable with it. I don't see how it helps in any way, and it looks like someone is either pushing a pro-British POV, or distancing Ireland from the subject. I don't see how is possibly helpful in any way - we already have BIT until the taskforce is over. I won't 'edit war' now, but I could never accept BRIT for any final workgroup. WP:BRITISHISLES, WP:BRITISLES, WP:BISLES, WP:BI etc are fine (and you could have chosen those!) - but never just 'BRIT'!! Those at other UK-related projects would not like it either, as it's so ambiguous. Nor would the Irish, ultimately, surely? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We might check about WP:BI clearly! (its talk page redirects to British Isles).--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>@Matt - I think you forgot to mention that you had nominated WP:BRIT for discussion. I'm sorry Matt, but that nom displays astonishingly bad faith on your part. I will have to seriously consider my participation in the future of this project, although I feel that was probably the point of your action! Crispness (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You may be uncomfortable with it. I accept that. You may feel that it pushes a pro-British POV. But you don't speak for all the other UK-related projects, nor the Irish. Why don't you just let them make their own objections if they have them and we can deal with them as and when they arise. Don't lets fantasise problems that don't exist. Crispness (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"But it's true" seems to me to be a [draft] global wikipedia policy and thus more deserving of a TLA than is a minor regional squabble about an archaic phrase. I support Clubjuggle's request that this project give way and choose something longer. But not BRIT, which is unambiguously provocative. --Red King (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable - if clubjuggle is willing to change the links already going here, he may as well have the shortcut now, rahter than wait until the guideline is made (as I originally asked him to do). I'll contact him over this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done this - he'll remove it from here when he's sorted out all the links etc. I'm going to create WP:BISLES too. We can use that one later with any resulting Workgroup, along with BIW and BRITISHISLES.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A prompt from the wings : Ireland

The protagonists might usefully read Names of the Irish state#Name dispute with the UK, which explains how our political masters approached this issue. (I recommend Names of the Irish state generally, because some editors appear not to understand that the designation "Republic of" has no constitutional status [cf French Republic (République française), which does] - it merely notes that the state is a republic, not a monarchy. I suppose it is analogous to "United Kingdom of". I also recommend Éire). --Red King (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What does constitutional status have to do with anything? Are you saying that people do not know what ROI is? I'll cetainly follow the links. I'm not sure how we can use Eire - it seems too out of the blue - archaic even (in its English use, I mean). It is possible I suppose, but we would most often need to contrast ROI with the UK in some way. Only ROI can do that without muddiness. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The link above is a concise read that clearly explains why "Ireland", and not "Republic of Ireland" is the name of our state, and is now officially used by both the Irish and British governments. Perhaps now we can ringfence the Ireland/RoI political discussions, and acknowledge that they need to be dealt with seperately, while this task force concerns itself with the majority of articles that aren't going to be affected by the Ireland/RoI debate. --HighKing (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That would narrow the framework of the guideline to a degree that will favour those who are 'anti' the use of the term British Isles on a wider nationalist level. We have to be non-censorious and fair. It is outrageously anti-Wikipedia to 'ringfence' anything in this manner! --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Logically, but especially during dispute resolution and/or negotiation, a good methodology is to agree on what we can all agree on first, and put it to one side. Then we can look at what we can't agree on and piece by piece, continue to shave it down. If you think back to your initial guidelines, a lot of people agreed with the general principals, and I believe we need to return to this approach. --HighKing (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

When I said "I also recommend Éire", I meant of course the article of that name. Since it translates identically as "Ireland" and this is en:wiki, it would make no sense to use it. As for "Eire" [sic], that is merely illiterate. --Red King (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference to the "names" article. It's kind of hard for us Brits to be aware of these name issues particularly when even the history book I was reading got it wrong. My reference to UK&ROI on the main page would clearly better be UK&I. But I think I should keep out of this debate. Chris55 (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

A request was made on 11 August for mediation. The case has now been listed for 7 days without a mediator taking up the case. Is mediation still needed, or is progress being made with discussion within the project? SilkTork *^YES! 13:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll close it as it's clearly died off as a discussion page. If the issue actually stopped the guideline in some way, it would have to go to Arbcom anyway - I see it now as essentially a technical policy/guideline issue over what Wikipedia's rules are regarding ROI-use and "geography" or "geography-related" articles. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. It's normal for mediators to close cases rather than individuals within the case - including those who requested the mediation - but that's OK, everything is rather informal here, and no harm has been done. However, I have had one comment from a person who feels that mediation may still be needed. I'd be quite willing to listen to views from all sides if people felt a moderated discussed would be helpful. However, such a discussion can only work if all parties are willing to take part. I have removed the MedCab tag from this page, but will keep it on watch for a few days if people want to have a discussion. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 19:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The case has been reopened. SilkTork *^YES! 14:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Related Poll

Hi, some discussions that have taken place on this page are related to discussion taking place elsewhere. A poll is taking place regarding "Republic of Ireland" here. If you are interested in registering an opinion, please do so. --HighKing (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Project status

Can anyone clarify what the current status of this project is? As far as I was aware it was effectively put on hold pending mediation, but the mediation page is inactive since the mediation case has been reopened. The reason I ask is that this diff seems to suggest that Matt believes it has some sort of quasi-official status. I didn't think we'd gotten quite that far.Crispness (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The mediation was initiated by Matt in respect of his exchanges with me. They did not suspend this project. I was happy to go ahead with the mediation on the basis that it might get some objectivity into the exchange with an editor who I respect. However that was not to be. I think you are right to say that this task force does not have the status it needs, to do so a lot more editors would have to be involved. I also think we jumped far to quickly to a guideline without first settling on some principles. I also remain convinced that we should not be using political terms (especially contentious ones) on a geography page. In the meantime the name of Ireland as a political state (ROI etc) is under active discussion again and resolution there I think means that on practical grounds we should hold off for a bit here. --Snowded TALK 09:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"As far as I was aware it was effectively put on hold pending mediation" - rubbish.

Nothing was "put on hold" due to the mediation - that is totally absurd, and you know it Crispness. So I linked to BITASK? - this place explains itself perfectly well, as did my comment provided in the diff. The line "Matt believes it has some sort of quasi officials status" is a weak dig indeed: I've made all the work ahead clear many times.

WE ALL US KNEW THAT THE mediation was always a side issue - and it clearly lead nowhere and was simply tortuous to me to I backed out (you must respect my decision on that and let it lie, Snowded). Clearly related discussion is elsewhere at the moment: we not bloody Octopi are we? Show some bloody respect to people who are putting in work, Crispness.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)