Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples

This is the Specific Examples discussion page of the British Isles Terminology task force, a workgroup of WP:GEOGRAPHY. This talk page is for discussing and resolving all removal, insertion and description issues surrounding the term British Isles, in view of facilitating a more universal approach, on a specific article-by-article basis.

Important Note When discussing use of the term "British Isles", or adding/removing it from articles, please take note of the British Isles Sanctions Policy WP:GS/BI - this policy states that all and any insertion or removal of British Isles requires prior discussion here at WT:BISE. Also remember the principles and practices of WP:AGF and WP:NPA.

Strict observation of WP:CIVIL etc

Because there is a likelyhood that discussions tend to get overheated on this topic, what do other editors feel about a strict implemtation of WP:CIVIL and no personal comments or ad-hominen attacks? We might end up making more progress if the discussion steered away from the usual problematic behaviour that tends to clog up discussion pages and slow progress. If enough editors agree to this suggestion, perhaps we could ask an admin to make decisions on how to deal with transgressions... --HighKing (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've no prob with that, the best way to go is the Spicoli way. Be cool & patient folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem with such rules if a neutral admin is to enforce them, perhaps User:Black Kite would? One thing that should be done is to inform certain editors about this page who may not notice it, but would take part. Clearly those who have reverted original attempts to remove British Isles from the page should be informed atleast. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How can we make sure this section doesn't get archived? Or can we just archive sections that have been closed? --HighKing (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Archives

The archives are at Closed page. --HighKing (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive list

• Closed
• Closed2
• Closed3

A load more

Hi, while moving towards developing a section on British Isles usage in the MOS, I've been bold and edited a couple more articles.

• Mitchell (surname) - the origin for this name is England to Scotland, with a parallel development in Ireland. I've added references.
• King Raven Trilogy - a set of fantasy books where Robin Hood is transplanted to Wales and fights against the Norman English invaders. The books only portray people from Wales and England, not from the British Isles.
• James Kay - I removed the piece about his contribution to industrialize the linen industry in the British Isles. It wasn't supported by any citations. I've searched a number of sources, and Google Books, and nowhere is he praised in this way, or associated with any industry in the British Isles. On reflection, I could have added a {{fact}} tag rather than removing the sentence (and other cleanups and adding some refs). I've no problem is that's what people prefer.
• Hunting-Clan Air Transport - Only flew within England and Scotland. The infobox uses geographic areas so I've changed to Great Britain. Is it just me, or would a list of country or city destinations be much more helpful...???
• Classical liberalism - Mixing country names and geographical areas. The referenced essay discusses countries like England, Germany, France, etc

Comments welcome. --HighKing (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, as discussed at my talk page, let's take a closer look at this long list. In line with your agreement HighKing, would you mind not changing more until people have had time to go through these and also pre-notify them and then allow time? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So this one first - the primary architects of classical liberalism within these islands were surely Adam Smith (Scottish), Malthus (English), David Hume (Scottish) and Ricardo - Jewish of Dutch origin residing in London. This would seem a classic for the "British Isles" - it is certainly not "England" as you have it. More tomorrow! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll not change any more until people are happy we've discussed these ones. It's best to break out any you want to discuss into separate sections. I'll do this now for Classical liberalism and copy your comments. --HighKing (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And more --HighKing (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC):

And more --HighKing (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC):

• Lions Clubs International - in the UK and I it's actually referred to the "British Isles and Ireland".
• Emirates Stadium - removed a unreferenced comment that I can't track down anywhere else stating it was the 8th largest in the British Isles.
• Zodiac Mindwarp and the Love Reaction - incorrectly used [[British Isles#people|British]]
• JB Joyce & Co - I tagged the asserion "Since 1945 the company has installed over 2,000 large public clocks in the British Isles, the majority being the synchronous mains controlled type and a high proportion installed in churches." rather than removed it. I need to check into this some more, but I wasn't able to verify it.
• Channel Television - is a TV station in the Channel Islands, which may be in the British Isles, but makes sense to follow convention of smallest appropriate area here
• New Britain - stated that "New Britain and New Ireland are so named because their outlines on a map roughly correspond to those of the British Isles". Well obviously not - they were named because they resembled each respective island, Great Britain and Ireland.
• Eric Cantona - another one of the "first player outside the British Isles to" articles. Changed to use "Home Nations" instead.
  • I'm not making a habit of replying at this unnecessary page but note that I've put British Isles back in this article. Home Nations is an arrogant term for this encyclopedia and is British-centric. Few people from outside these islands know what it means but most people know what British Isles means. LevenBoy (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Bulldog and American Bulldog - states breed originates from the British Isles. Sources either say "Britain" or "England".
• List of cuisines - I removed the grouping of UK and Ireland under British Isles and Northern Europe, and instead included them under Western Europe.
• British national grid reference system - Incorrectly used British Isles when the context suggests it should be United Kingdom (the point being made that even though there's a "British" national grid reference system, Northern Ireland uses the (different) Irish grid system. Obviously didn't mean British Isles since Channel Islands uses neither).
• Regional airline - Stated "In the British Isles for example, BA CityFlyer a regional subsidiary of British Airways ..." which is inaccurate usage. BA CityFlyer is based in Manchester, England, and flies to Europe and Scotland. So it's more correct to either say its based in Great Britain or UK. I elected to change to UK.
• Honours of Scotland - are the are the oldest set of crown jewels in the United Kingdom since that's the only place that has them.
• Mitchell (surname) - according to references, has three independent origins - England, Scotland and Ireland.
• Christian Aid - reference states "It was formed by British and Irish church leaders as the Christian Reconstruction in Europe", so I've changes to agree with the ref
• History of lesbianism - Oddly enough described Penitentials as follows: "They were unofficial guidebooks which became popular, especially in the British Isles." Instead, I added a description from the article to state "They were books or sets of church rules concerning the Christian sacrament of penance".
• Albert Guðmundsson - another one of the "second player from outside the British Isles" - changed to "Home Nations" and fact tagged
  • See above, Eric Cantona. Same applies here. LevenBoy (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying - this one was confusing as it appears to use "Home Nations" to exclude RoI first. I changed it around so that "Home Nations" includes Ireland although we may have to revisit this one if there's confusion.
• Steak sauce - It's a difference between American and British english, so rather than stating "Steak sauce (in North America)—brown sauce (in the British Isles)", I've changed it to "Steak sauce (in American English)—brown sauce (in British English)"
• Scottish coinage - More appropriate to state that the Roman Empire retreated from Britain (or Great Britain), not from the "British Isles"
• Fly (Hilary Duff song) - Albums don't get released "in the British Isles". They're either release in the UK, or Ireland, or both. The rest of the point talks about the UK charts, so I changed to UK instead.
• Regional variations of barbecue - Changed "As with the United Kingdom and the other islands of the British Isles" to just state "as with the United Kingdom". The article talks about countries. And the UK isn't an island.

BS 1363

I replaced an incorrect usage of "British Isles" with "United Kingdom", seeing as how we're talking about a school syllabus. --HighKing (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiring a 3-pin plug is part of the syllabus in Ireland. The "British Isles" was thus correct but suggest "Hong Kong, Ireland and the United Kingdom" since the syllabus is relates to each state individually. --RA (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The "British Isles" was incorrect for two reasons. The full sentence reads The [[Secondary education#United Kingdom|secondary school]] physics [[syllabus]]es in the [[United Kingdom]] and [[Hong Kong]] include the procedure for wiring BS 1363 plugs. We don't share an educational system. UK has one. Ireland has a different one. And since the "secondary education" link is pointing to the UK, it's obvious we're talking about the UK. Secondly, the article is about a British standard, BS 1363. Ireland has an equivalent and teaches IS 401 & 411, and not BS 1363. --HighKing (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right about it being incorrect HK, but your second reason is dubious. (Part of the problem of doing site-wide deletes is that you will regularly hit delete on ones where you are a little hazy on the facts.) Ireland simply replicates BS1363 and downloads it into IS401 and 411. Irish plugs are completely identical to British plugs! In fact, my British house is wired entirely with plugs conforming to the Irish standard! Hurrah! My proposal is you take a lot of time on your next proposal and get the facts squared away. Preferably by consulting in advance with the editors on that local article. Which I thought we have to do anyway under the ANI ruling? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

He's testing the water. Can he get away with two removals without them being regarded as "systematic"; apparently so. I guess he'll now take a few days off then come back with ... three. See what happens. How much flak is there? Not much. Many editors have now moved on. Let's go for a few more ... and on, and on, it goes. Failing that, let's just slip in the odd one every so often and see what response it draws. LevenBoy (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

HK, I agree that a change is better. ("British Isles" is not incorrect, however, it is a part of the syllabus in the British Isles.) The problem is that you changed "British Isles and Hong Kong" → "United Kingdom and Hong Kong" when "Hong Kong, Ireland and the United Kingdom" is more accurate and more appropriate to the content.

"And since the 'secondary education' link is pointing to the UK, it's obvious we're talking about the UK." The sentence mentions Hong Kong also. A fix to the "secondary education" looks appropriate also.

I am also leaning towards agree with LavenBoy. Don't test people on this. --RA (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The "secondary education" link does need to be fixed. But if that is changed would it be incorrect to say "Throughout the British Isles and Hong Kong"? If this does not apply to the Republic of Ireland then yes it should just say United Kingdom and Hong Kong. But if there is a case to say Hong Kong, Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom, then "throughout the British Isles" would be ok in this case but ive no idea what the situation is and if we can not be sure.. just Hong Kong/UK is acceptable in this case. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the change - a clear example of incoreect use. Codf1977 (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• For ease of reference, this is the edit. TFOWR 20:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style

An alert to interested editors - RA has filed the yet-to-be-agreed "guidelines" on British Isles usage in the WP:MOS, therby claiming acceptance. LevenBoy (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Diff ? Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

[1] LevenBoy (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alert! Alert! You've a tase for the dramatic, LB. :-) In the main, we can do with less drama on this issue, and that is partly the intention of the guidelines.

Link is Wikipedia:British Isles with a notice at Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Manual of Style. --RA (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there is no consensus or no decent discussion ? Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Of particular concern is this section Get consensus + particularly in relation to IRE/ROI. The only person to agree to this is RA himself. Numerous editors have reservations and one is vehermently opposed, yet this point is arguably the most contentious since it singles out ROI for special attention. There is absolutely no consensus on this matter, so please either withdraw the whole set of guidelines immediately, or at the very least, this one. LevenBoy (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"The only person to agree to this is RA himself." – Huh?

LB, all it says it to think before you do. Particularly on those articles. We've seen in the past how edit wars have flared up on those articles. Just consider your actions. What you do after giving consideration to them is up to you. --RA (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Artemisia_vulgaris

Insertion of British Isles by User:Triton Rocker. OK some useful general edits with reference etc. and its plant life so may well be a valid use. However addition need to be discussed here first --Snowded ^TALK 14:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It should indeed have been raised here first. I'm assuming TritonRocker wasn't aware, though. Could someone let them know? My ability to edit is severly impaired. TFOWR's left sock 14:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have told him, and also expressed surprise he hasn't brought it here as its probably a valid use. However we've had a revert after he came off his block for mass insertions, then a revert with multiple listings so it feels a bit like game playing to me. --Snowded ^TALK 14:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Would seem to be a clear cut case of when to use British Isles it has a ref (Flora of the British Isles, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 1962. Clapham, Tutin & Warburg ) and is being used to describe the whole group of islands anything else just looks contrived and a kin to avoiding the word Christmas. Codf1977 (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said Cod, seems about as reflective a comment of the situations as have seen recently. Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this is clearly a case where British Isles is justified. Its inclusion should be restored and in future he should always come forward with places he wants BI added. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Its pretty amusing that a new editor in this dispute is getting in trouble for adding BI, whilst the core editor involved in the removal of British Isles, got defended earlier for removing a British Isles wikilink and people dismiss the idea he did anything wrong. Considering hes the one who people voted to ban fully from adding/removing BI, the double standard is pretty shocking. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not from me, HighKing should have brought the case here. I think he is right to remove it in that case, as I think BI is a valid term in this article but we either have a rule or we don;t --Snowded ^TALK 14:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the change highking made was justified and id of supported its change, its the fact he thought he could just change it himself without getting agreement, despite all of the debate within the past few days that really gets to me. But is Triton Rocker actually falling foul of a rule? Does this constitute "systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification" ? It would be helpful if editors came here first, but unless Triton is listed on the sanctions page, like Highking should have been, what did he do wrong? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I read it all editors come here first, or if not first after they have been reverted once. --Snowded ^TALK 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree after it has been reverted an editor should come here. But there is nothing saying all editors must come here before making a change if its sourced. This is part of the problem and loophole which seems to allow Highking to make his change earlier. Certain editors need placing on the sanctions list who are not allowed to make any change at all themselves, but if they aint on that list and they make a sourced change (unless its reverted) at present it doesnt seem like they must come here. Id be ok with ALL involved editors (of which Triton Rocker would clearly now be one) along with me, u and everyone talking here having to come to this page before any of us make a change. But that isnt anywhere in the rules yet. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, I must be missing something here, but it seems no progress whatsoever has been made since the ANI and threat of topic bans which was supposed to stop all this garbage of the type above. HighKing still won't take no for an answer, endless arguments about whether British Isles is right or wrong ensue, and no doubt a steady stream of cases is about to follow. Does anyone see solution? I do, of course, but it seems there's no appetite for it. LevenBoy (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Deal with each case on its merits LevenBoy, it will take less effort than your current approach --Snowded ^TALK 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No, there will be less effort if HighKing is topic banned. Then we could all quietly get on with more important matters. As it is, he's escaped again and look what we've got. BTW, do I have permission to change back to British Isles for Artemisia_vulgaris following your edit warring? LevenBoy (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If HighKing is banned then the political position you represent wins, that is as bad a result as HighKing being allowed to change without control. Each case on its merits and fewer personal attacks. The suggestion above is 24 hours from posting for views to be expressed. I think that is sound. --Snowded ^TALK 16:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That is the point where nationalist POV pushers and the run of the mill editor couldn't care less about such issues differ, to such editors it is not political at all it is geographical and a simple which is the best expression for this situation. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There has to be a limit to the number of cases each editor may bring forward to request a change one way or another. We also need to wipe the slate clean.. all of the above debates which have not been touched for months should be archived with no change to the present wording. That is the only way we are going to be able to keep on top of things, we can not spend many days going over the backlog. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to be bold folks. That thoroughly stupid list of countries is going to be replaced by British Isles. Here we go ..... LevenBoy (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, there is clear support on this talk page for its use. Even the editor that undid the original edit seemed to agree this was the sort of case where it can be used. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please revert. There is an agreed 24 hours of discussion first in order to give people a chance to see this and discuss, which hasn't happened, and LevenBoy should not have reinserted British Isles. If we're playing by the new rules, that's a blockable offense. For a start, I can't see use of either the list of islands, or the British Isles, supported in any of the references. Can we see a reference for the uses which makes it somehow exclusive to the British Isles please? Second, this version of the article didn't even mention British Isles, so clearly Triton Rocker was playing a dangerous game by creating a reason to insert it, without sources. --HighKing (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that use/non-use of British Isles in that article has not been the subject of this thread so far are the choices between:

1. "British Isles"
2. vs."England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Eire, Isle of Man and Channel Islands"
3. vs. "Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man and Channel Islands"
4. vs. disprove "British Isles"?

Triton Rocker's change to v.2 was POINTy. So too was Snowded's change to v.3 (to the extent anyway). Meanwhile, I presume we are now going to play that game where we dash around trying to disprove British Isles with all our muster? Hands up anyone here who even knew what Artemisia vulgaris was before they started examining Triton Rocker's edit history?

My opinion of Triton Rocker's editing on this topic, from what I've seen elsewhere, does not leave me with a good impression. I presume we are all in consensus about that. However, on the face of it, since I know absolutely nothing about this topic, I cannot determine if British Isles is correct or not here. So I will assume good faith. I'm sure we will find a few expert botanists suddenly bloom in our midsts that can contradict that though. --RA (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As per WP:V then. --HighKing (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you really going to make an issue of of this - do you really think that your choices 2 or 3 are anything other than a long winded way of avoiding using a phrase you don't like. There are clearly places where BI is used incorrectly, there are places where you can debate it and there are places, like this one, where it is totally appropriate. Feel free if you want to keep this tread going for 24 hours but I think as per WP:SNOW there is no need in this case. Codf1977 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm ... time for me to review Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful :-)

Just to clear matters up, Codf1977 - I don't know the first thing about Artemisia vulgaris. I don't believe anyone else here does. And at face value, to my lay eyes, there doesn't seem to be a thing wrong with use of British Isles in this circumstance. --RA (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am glad there seems to be agreement on this, bar Highking. Now would be a great chance to show us all how reasonable towards British Isles he now is and accept its inclusion with no more fuss in this case. I can only hope. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please reread what I actually wrote - less knee-jerk reactions. I agree with you all - this is actually a good use of the term "British Isles". I'm certainly not disputing, and never would, a replacement of a list of islands (as was made) with "British Isles". Should the facts on usage prove to be verifiable that is. And the "facts" added by Triton Rocker don't appear to be supported by the references. So this isn't about usage per se, it's about verifiable content as per WP:RS. Secondly, there's a 24hour discussion period before changes. We're either going to agree and observe that, or not. As such, the recent edit should be reverted. --HighKing (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok if you think this is a good use of British Isles, i do not see the big problem. Most editors above have supported its use in this context. I am unaware of some 24 hour rule existing. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The source seem to back up its use, page 79 talks about where Artemisia is found and by what other names it is known by and clearly mentions native to the British Isles. The intro of the article says : "Artemisia vulgaris (mugwort or common wormwood) is one of several species in the genus Artemisia " .[2] I have absolutely no clue about this subject but it seems to back up what is said unless im misreading it. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Scratch the 24hour rule - looks like it was only mentioned on my Talk page and doesn't appear to have been carried through as a condition. Indications on my Talk page were that it was to be - my bad. I have no problem with usage in this instance *if* the facts are verifiable. If they're not verifiable, the entire section should be removed. If they're verifiable according to WP:RS, why would I disagree? BW, the section isn't talking about distribution, it's talking about medicinal uses. Stating these uses as being somehow exclusive to the British Isles is WP:OR. We can have a discussion about how best to represent flora distribution separately, best not to get the two mixed up here. --HighKing (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I see all the policies are being trotted out here. WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR to name but three, and if all else fails get rid of the section in question, and if that fails then go for PROD. We've been here before, I think. BW, have you not yet worked out the HK does not take no for an answer, apart from in very exceptional cicumstances. LevenBoy (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

<personal attack tirade redacted>

This is post broken up, it should conform with other posts. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Broken up or not, this tirade does not belong here. Jack 1314 (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Repeat: I have no problem with usage in this instance *if* the facts are verifiable. If they're not verifiable, the entire section should be removed. If they're verifiable according to WP:RS, why would I disagree? BW, the section isn't talking about distribution, it's talking about medicinal uses. Stating these uses as being somehow exclusive to the British Isles is WP:OR. We can have a discussion about how best to represent flora distribution separately, best not to get the two mixed up here. --HighKing (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - An editor inserted a new paragraph into this article headed "British Isles" under Uses. Three references where included in the paragraph (all available on Google Books)

• Flora of the British Isles
• Artemisia By Colin W. Wright, 2002
• Llewellyn's 2010 Herbal Almanac

The first two references don't discuss uses at all.

The third reference discusses uses, but does not attribute them to the "British Isles". Furthermore, the publisher does not appear to meet WP:RS - is essentially a self-published New Age source and is described as:

Llewellyn Publications has grown and expanded into new areas of personal growth and transformation since it began as the Portland School of Astrology in 1901. Along with the strong line of astrology books the company was founded upon, Llewellyn publishes books on everything from alternative health and healing, Wicca and Paganism, to metaphysics and the paranormal-and since 1994 has published a growing list of Spanish-language titles.
Llewellyn has long been know as one of America's leading publishers of New Age books, producing a wide variety of valuable tools for transformation of the mind, body and spirit. Reach for the Moon-and discover that self-help and spiritual growth is what Llewellyn is all about.

There may be some other references for the "uses" inserted into the article, and it may be useful information and a good addition to the article, but there is nothing to suggest that these uses are attributable to the British Isles. I suggest the paragraph is deleted unless a more reputable source can be found, and that the uses are moved to a more general section, not attributed solely to British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As per my last post above, which nobody has commented on although lots have seen it, I propose to partially revert TR's edits today as follows: The "Alternative Medicine" book is self-published and not a reliable source, and nothing suggests that the "uses" are limited to the "British Isles". TR has "combined" facts from multiple sources to construct a new section called "British Isles", yet none of the sources represent the data in this way. Comments welcome. --HighKing (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Before you do anything, can you make it clear exactly what you plan to revert to ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I plan to remove "uses" and the "British Isles" section, since they are taken from the Llewellyn Publications book, unless another reference can be found. --HighKing (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Atlases of the flora and fauna of Britain and Ireland

Unresolved

 – I suspect it would be worth treating "flora" differently to "fauna", but for now this seems unresolved. Carry on the debate... TFOWR 14:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence states The biodiversity of Great Britain and Ireland is the .... Great Britain is clearly wrong since it excludes all other islands. British Isles would be preferable here, not least because readers are referred to atlases produced by the Botanical Society of the British Isles (BSBI). elsewhere in the article. LevenBoy (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that two thirds of the atlases listed use "of Britain and Ireland" in their titles and all but one of the remainder use "of Britain", do you have any particular knowledge of this topic that you would be able to discern that any word used in the article is "clearly wrong"? --RA (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

RA, you said "do you have any particular knowledge of this topic that you would be able to discern that any word used in the article is "clearly wrong"?" No, none. And the articles that HighKing has, and will be, submitting? LevenBoy (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Have I been inconsistent? What you do is your responsibility. What he does is his responsibility. There are no barnstars going for which one of you can add or remove the greater number of "British Isles" to the encyclopedia. --RA (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Now there's a thought, Barnstars! So you do agree that articles where HighKing suggests removal of British Isles are best left to the regular editors? LevenBoy (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless the usage is blatantly wrong, then yes. Anything that is not so certain should be asked at the article talk page concerned. Jack 1314 (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe we can make some progess? I agree with that point and it's worth reiterating that the vast majority of cases are neither right nor wrong. Even the BS plug above, which on the face of it seemed straightfoward, actually wasn't. Maybe we should put in a requirement that additions/removals are first requested at the relevant talk page and then regular editors decide. LevenBoy (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Bang on. And given the enthusiasms the two of you share in determining so much usage (one way or the other) to be "wrong", LB, the key word here is blatantly wrong. --RA (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There may be many that don't get an answer from the talk page concerned. In that case it should be brought here. Jack 1314 (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and just one provisio. We don't want the usual suspects racing over to those articles giving their opinions. Jack 1314 (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. What sounds better (to me) is that you (and not just you), LB, would simply leave this exercise behind altogether. Fix blatant errors that you come across but don't go digging. As you say, in most cases it's ambiguous. It can go either way with no clear answer. (If it was clear it wouldn't be such a source of conflict.) So what is the benefit to the project of "fixing"? It just bee-in-a-bonnet stuff. --RA (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, there will be many that don't receive an answer. When they don't and are brought here there shouldn't be any grumbling over this editor or that editor trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes or any such nonsense. Jack 1314 (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The introduction reads "The biodiversity of Great Britain and Ireland is the most well-studied af any geographical area" . Great Britain and Ireland are two islands. It would make more sense in this case to say British Isles, which is clearly a geographical area. Also this is talking about studies in the past rather than just modern day usage so what todays atlases use today has no real connection with this usage.

British Isles is justified in this case and i would support a change. However until there is an agreement on wider restrictions on the number of cases that can be raised here, that is my limit on supports for additional use of BI for a week. There is a huge backlog of Highkings examples that need to be gone through still. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And you know this because ... ?

I am always struck by the learned folk of this page. Whether the topic is ancient history, naturalism, astronomy, technology, biography, ... regardless of the subject, we are Renaissance men, able to determine at a blink of an eye the most appropriate term to use for any given topic. ... but, curiously, when we disagree, our choices strangely co-incide with our individual political outlooks. Strange. --RA (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

British Isles is the only non-political option. It is the only option that avoids all the petty divides. It has nothing to do with Great Britain or any of the crappy history and conflicts. There is no other option until you can manage to convince the International Maritime Organization or someone to call it the 'North West Atlantic Archipelago' or something --- which isn't going to happen.

In short, you and your lot are making something political which is not political ---distracting from getting real work done--- turning this project into a war game because you have no hope of winning a real one in real life. I am not pro-Great Britain, I am anti- nationalist politics. This example obviously makes more sense as British Isles as all the islands share similarities and that is what the references say. --Triton Rocker (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful when you direct "you and your lot" comments at editors not to make assumptions about an individual editor's perspective towards anything or the work they contribute to the encyclopedia. Doing so can make you look foolish. This is not the first time, I've seen you make an error of this kind. How about you behave with civility or go elsewhere? If you cannot abide by the five pillars, Wikipedia is not the place for you. --RA (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If I look at the list of Atlases they are either "Britain and Ireland" or "Britain" none use British Isles. I don't see any argument or reference being brought into play here. --Snowded ^TALK 23:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

But this has nothing to do with what the atlases say. It is about the statement in the introduction that the area is the most studied. Now a quick googlebook search finds a huge number of books relating to the British Isles, not just Britain and Ireland. In many of the books titled Britain and Ireland, i bet they also say British Isles within them or talk about areas that are not just the island of Great Britain and the island of Ireland. We can look at this in more detail tomorrow. But i just want to highlight the point this is not about what the atlases say or use, its about the sentence of it being the most studied geographical area. the BI is more of a Geographical area than Great Britain and Ireland which are two islands. The only reason GB + I today may be considered a "Geographical area" is because it is being used instead of British Isles for the political reasons we all debate often over at BI article. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It must just be a strange coincidence! :). This "Great Britain and Ireland" use is a more recent thing, due to the controversy over British Isles according to the British Isles article introduction we have all spent so long on. This article in question is talking about the past when saying it is one of the most studied geographical areas in the world. If Great Britain and Ireland today is considered a "Geographical area", it is because of the British Isles.

Most of the books listed on that page are Great Britain and Ireland, however a google search finds a huge number of books mentioning the British isles relating to Flora and Fauna. We can look into more detail about the different numbers tomorrow, and i suspect many of the "Britain and Ireland" titled books, also probably say British Isles in some places within their book.

Considering use of British Isles has been linked with things like the Flora/Fauna example, it would make sense for it to be used here. Changing this introduction to state the British Isles is the most studied georgraphical area should not be seen as justification to rename the article. This is not about atlases use, its about the statement in the introduction that it is the most studied geographical area. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We need to be objective here as far as possible - its the same issue as on Floyd, if all the material in its title (which is significant) does not use the term then there is no case for insertion. Most of your statements above BW are either OR or synthesis. In fact the statement in the lede is unsupported anyway so there is an argument it should be struck without a supporting statement that it is the most studied (although I think its true) --Snowded ^TALK 00:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree the statement is presently unsourced, but also think it is true. Now a quick googlebooks search, highlights this issue which we can go into greater detail in over the next few days.

"Biodiversity" "British Isles" found About 3,280 results

"Biodiversity" "Britain and Ireland" found about 2,640 results

"Biodiversity" "Great Britain and Ireland" found about 1,540 results

Again, the title and the atlases presently listed make no difference at all. This is about the specific sentence about the area being well studied. This is nothing like the Floyd case. Anyway will debate this more tomorrow. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is not about bio-diversity, the article is about a list of Atlases. The titles of those Atlases use Britain and Ireland (which as we know is increasingly common for road atlases as well) they do not use British Isles. Honestly this is one of the brain dead ones --Snowded ^TALK 00:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The sentence in question makes no mention of atlases. It states..

"The biodiversity of Great Britain and Ireland is the most well-studied af any geographical area of comparable size anywhere in the world"

There for the biodiversity of the area is what the sentence is about. Googlebooks finds more results of biodiversity with the British Isles, not just Ireland and Britain. This is not a clear cut case like the Floyd one above. Also if we go into some of these books tomorrow that say "Britain and Ireland" i am sure we will find British Isles mentioned within the text or areas outside of Britain and Ireland but within British Isles mentioned in them. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought i would provide this example, we can look at other books tomorrow but this will prove my point.

Book Title : The Changing Wildlife of Great Britain and Ireland

100 mentions of British Isles [3] and 8 mentions of the Isle of Man [4] which the last time i checked was not part of the island of Great Britain or the island of Ireland, currently linked to in the article. The best studied geographical area relative to size in the world is the British Isles. Not "Britain and Ireland". If we can get a proper source for that statement we should consider including it in the BI article itself, seems like a valid thing to note and be proud of. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The British Isles is denoted as a "scientific region" for fauna. Flora is divided up differently - Great Britain including the Isle of Man, Ireland, and the Channel Islands are considered part of the distribution region of France. The Botanical Society of the British Isles appears to also use this notation. The BSBI also publish Watsonia. It would be pretty normal to see "British Isles" being referred to when discussing fauna, and more unusual when discussing Flora. Internationally recognized and defined regions can be found in this PDF --HighKing (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There for there is no problem with using British isles. But this sentence does not simply relate to flora and fauna anyway. It is talking about biodiversity. Whilst my little comparison on googlebooks of Britain + Ireland / British Isles is not scientific, it does suggest the area that is the most studied is the British Isles, not the island of Great Britain and the island of Ireland as even books with GB+Ireland in the title mention British isles and the Isle of Man. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There for, I'm going to my kip. :) Jack 1314 (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am getting the feeling that this is a largely unresolvable issue looking at it from a purely common sense view point LevenBoy has a very valid point the subject of the atlases covers the whole of the British Isles, authors, publishers and others may wish to be politically correct and use a different phases at the expense of not being totally accurate but that still does not change the issue the aim of the atlases are not to exclude for example the IOM. For example it would be correct to say that "Bloggs Britain and Ireland Road Atlas" covered the whole of the British Isles if it did indeed did so, and in the same way it can be said "Smiths British Isles Atlas" covers the roads of Britain and Ireland for either case the vast majority of WP editors/population at large would not see either of those statements as in any way contentions and would be fine with them.

In this case leaving it as is could could create the impression of excluding some of the smaller islands however from a strict reading of WP:V and WP:OR a change could be challenged. On balance, I do not believe it was the attention of any of the authors or publishers of the atlases mentioned to exclude the smaller islands and therefore a change to British Isles would not be a problem. Codf1977 (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"For example it would be correct to say that 'Bloggs Britain and Ireland Road Atlas' covered the whole of the British Isles if it did indeed did so, and in the same way it can be said 'Smiths British Isles Atlas' covers the roads of Britain and Ireland for either case the vast majority of WP editors/population at large would not see either of those statements as in any way contentions and would be fine with them." – Which in essence is the nub of my point on "Britain and Ireland" vs. "British Isles". Where it is already in text, if it is not broken, don't fix it. Either of these terms are fine. Britain and Ireland may irk some people. British Isles may irk others. Both are in common use. If the original author wrote one, unless it is blatantly incorrect, just leave it be and stop stirring the pot. --RA (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that approach, the problem however as in this case, if just one of the Atlases covers say the Isle of Mann, then on a pure technicality "British Isles" is correct and "Britain and Ireland" is not - there could well be other examples where the reverse is true - for example a book called "Birds of the British Isles that x y z" that only makes mention of "Britain and Ireland" - it could be said that only covers "Britain and Ireland" and not the "British Isles". Codf1977 (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely accurate. Be aware that it's not always good to mix up Road Atlases and Flora or Fauna atlases. If an atlas covering the Wild Fox population of Britain and Ireland included the Isle of Man, or a Road Atlas included Isle of Man, then I agree, Britain and Ireland is not accurate and British Isles is more appropriate. But oddly enough, if an atlas covering Wild Roses included the Isle of Man, then Britain and Ireland is still accurate since the Isle of Man is considered part of Great Britain for those purposes. We should also give appropriate weight to the Titles given to books or TV programmes. --HighKing (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not if by doing so you risk inferring something that was not the intention of the person who wrote the book - is it not beyond the realms of possibility for any books title to be amended for politically correct reasons e.g. "Dear author, hope you won't mind but we have changed the title of your manuscript from "British Isles" to "Britain and Ireland" because it might sell better in Ireland" in other words, care has to be taken when inferring anything when "Britain and Ireland" is used over "British Isles" unless it is clear what the motive was (if there was one at all). Codf1977 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any sense to this?? We have an article full of atlases that say "Britain and Ireland" and not one that says it is an atlas of the "British Isles". The article uses "Britain and Ireland". Is there an obvious error? No. --RA (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Is there any sense to this??" - absolutely no sense what so ever it is a pointless debate over the semantics of a few words that some don't like. Codf1977 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but this has nothing to do with atlases in that list. This is about the sentence used in the introduction which i again will quote.

"The biodiversity of Great Britain and Ireland is the most well-studied of any geographical area of comparable size anywhere in the world"'

So this is not actually about Flora and Fuana and it is not about atlases. It is about biodiversity in a certain geographical area being the most studied. Great Britain and Ireland are simply two islands, we all know is talking about the British Isles area, and the fact certain books with the title Great Britain and Ireland mention the isle of man and the British isles proves this to be the case.

Either that introduction is completely changed, or British Isles is put there. The current wording simply is not correct. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree can't see the issue with

"The biodiversity of British Isles is the most well-studied of any geographical area of comparable size anywhere in the world"'

over the current wording other than the question of what you call it how do we know that this "area" is in fact the "most well-studied of any geographical area of comparable size anywhere in the world". Codf1977 (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That is an issue about if there is a source for it being the most well studied area although the exact same problem applies to the current wording as it would if British Isles replaced it. As it is of "comparable size" i would think this is probably true. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Just remove the phrase - its not needed for a list of Atlases anyway and its not supported. --Snowded ^TALK 20:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Can we summarize this as "Closed with no change". The main argument for closing with no change is that we shouldn't re-interpret titles of books. Whatever title is chosen for a book is deemed correct. For example, if the author uses "British Isles" for a title, then we stick with it. We don't infer other meanings or try to rephrase to get an alternative phrase introduced. --HighKing (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with that logic (see below) Codf1977 (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think in this case it would be best just to remove the sentence which is unsourced anyway. The problem is not what books or atlases call something, the problem is the statement in the first sentence that this is the most studied geographical area. I believe such a claim refers to British Isles, rather than just Great Britain and Ireland. Ive no objection to this being closed if that sentence is removed as snowded suggested above. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree claim is unsourced - just remove it, problem goes away. Close with "unsourced claim removed" Codf1977 (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In the table itself it says Perring F.H. and Walters. S.M (1990) Atlas of the British Flora, Botanical Society of the British Isl]] " Clearly that should say British Isles. I do not know if it should be linked or not, but is there an agreement to correct that? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

British Isles is correct here, and should be linked. See my comments at User talk:Snowded for some stuff related to the broader argument. LevenBoy (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Blanket ruling for non-political issues {e.g. any flora and fauna listed in British Isles)

Unresolved

 – It seems to me that we could get consensus for some areas, but not others. I do not believe that should prevent us trying to devise "blanket rulings" for those areas in which we can get consensus. TFOWR 14:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, it will be ridiculous if we have to argue the same argument with the same people over very last flower and beast on the British Isles.

Therefore, I propose that any topic regarding any subject commonly listed in a scientific almanac, encyclopedia or guidebook as "of the British Isles" rather than "of Ireland" or "of Great Britain" be allowed to be named or listed as "of the British Isles" without any fear of punitive repercussions.

This will save a lost of wasted time and energy.

It would seem that the POV pushers are really just planning a territorial 'war of attrition' and it would seems somewhere between ridiculous and impossible to debate each such weed and beastie, case by case.

n.b. There are some fauna not included by the term, for example snakes which do not exist in Ireland but exist in plenty on the Wikipedia. No personal attacks intended. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What you are talking about there is a guideline, something several of us have been trying to put in place for some time. This is a good candidate but they need to be agreed in the round. For the moment I suggest you simply notify and most people will accept in this area provided the distribution is truly BI in nature. Its rather like the citation case which is another obvious guideline (if the citations don't say it don't use it) which I would have thought was equally self-evident. In the case of the "weed" its clear, in the case of the Atlas's less so. I suggest you stop making general (and specific) accusations against other editors and maybe focus on participating in this and other pages on content issues only and working to create some guidelines which will reduce the workload. --Snowded ^TALK 05:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A blanket ruling is not going to get agreement, if we agreed to such a position then it would justify a blanket ban being introduced against the use of British Isles in some areas, like anything on the Republic of Ireland.

This is an area where use of British Isles is clearly more justified than others. If you do find examples where you think it incorrectly says Britain and Ireland instead of saying British Isles, then let us know here. But make sure you do not add British Isles to articles without mentioning it here first, coz you are now "involved" and im sure some will be keeping an eye on your contributions so it would be reverted and you may get into trouble. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of categories, which someone mentioned recently during my "offline but trying hard to follow everything"-phase, so I can't point to it right now. I suspect BW's right about blanket rulings, but guidelines, per Snowded, might be do-able? It would save time if we could broadly agree that in one category BI is generally appropriate/inappropriate, and then we'd only need to consider the exceptions, rather than every case. Categories would also help make this page more manageable... i.e. we have sections for categories and sub-sections for articles that may or may not be exceptions to the category's guideline. Obviously we'd also need a "everything else" category for articles without a category. ...and this is where you all point me at the prior discussion, and tell me why categories are a bad idea! TFOWR 18:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is an area where we need a blanket ruling. The Wikipedia is a voluntary project. It depends on people's goodwill and available time. Some people might well be attracted by doing nice, orderly librarian type work and innocently blitzing a particular dusty corner of it. If you tie each and every decision up in bureaucracy nothing will get done.

Bugs and buds are non-political. They recognise no national borders. British Isles in such a use is right and outside of the contention of this discussion which is politically charged areas.

Therefore, I realise that what I am suggesting is for us to separate in our minds the human/historical/political element --- which are sensitive --- from the non-human, non-political topics. If a user is not able to do so --- then I think we have to suspect their have some deeper, more personal political or even psychological issue going on.

Of course I am talking about "reasonable" editing, not the kind of blanket POV pushing that got us into this in the first place with the removal of the term by HighKing and others. --Triton Rocker (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Bump. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

All you have to do is bring nominations here Triton, its not a major problem. In general you will get agreement for bugs and buds if its supported by the citations. --Snowded ^TALK 03:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And as I've said numerous times in the past, and provided references, Bugs yes. Buds no. --HighKing (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Example where certain individuals refuse to discuss in order not to "lose" in their campaign. --Triton Rocker (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No Triton, its an example of people saying to you again (and again and again) that you need to bring examples here and reach agreement. --Snowded ^TALK 09:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Which I disagree upon as being ridiculous, unworkable and unnecessarily burdensome even for you. You are not thinking it through.

You have no expertise in the area. You are not committed to developing the topics.

In short, you have no moral nor technical authority in this area at all.

• Why should anyone (not just me) have to pay respect to you? Do you want expert volunteers to come forward to the Wikipedia or not?

I'd rather you explain to me in detail the miraculous uniqueness of the flora and fauna of Channel Islands and Isle of Man and why they should be continually excluded from a geographic area which they are obviously part of.

Do you even know how many species I am talking about!?! --Triton Rocker (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton, if you find an example bring it here and see if others agree. Its really very simply and all other editors have agreed to go along with it. While you are at it please try to stop throwing out accusations against other editors, it really doesn't help. --Snowded ^TALK 23:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but, no, Snowded. It is not practical for the reasons stated above. On one hand, you have no expertise in the area from any perspective and I don't see you working on the topics. On the other, you use unnecessarily punitive deletions as a provocation of others and other apparently unmentionable techniques [5]. It seems that you are now stalking me around the Wikipedia too.

I apologise for my frankness but stating a fact is not an accusation.

If you want to repair your credibility in a grown up manner, please address the issue.

• Explain to us in detail the miraculous uniqueness of the flora and fauna of Channel Islands and Isle of Man and why they should be continually excluded from a geographic area which they are obviously part of by using the term 'Great Britain and Ireland'.

• Surely "Great Britain and Ireland" should be used only when it accurately refers to "Great Britain and Ireland" only ... and I have yet to find any one single example of flora and fauna which are limited ONLY to Great Britain and Ireland and not the other islands.

Show us just one and we will take you seriously. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It is very practical and moreover you are under a community sanction that requires you specifically to do so. It is hardly an "unmentionable technique" to report your violation of a community ban and your block log makes the point. The expertise of any editor in wikipedia is not yours to determine, all editors here should address content issues only. I don't plan to loose any sleep over whether you take me seriously or not. --Snowded ^TALK 09:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, but where are all these plants and animals that are only present on GB and Ireland, and are not to be found on any one of a thousand other islands that make up the British Isles? To be on the safe side, GB&I should absolutely not be used in these contexts and British Isles should be used. Could someone create a bot to make the necessary changes - that would be a step in the right direction. LemonMonday Talk 16:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The ruling is no changes without discussion - check out Triton's Block log and the sanction list if you don't believe me. I don't think a bot exacltly complies with that. --Snowded ^TALK 18:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, as far as I'm concerned editors' block logs etc fall under the same umbrella as editors' POVs. They're not relevant to discussion of issues here. Black Kite and I am well aware of individual editors' POVs, blocks, etc and will take that into consideration when enforcing anything - not when considering issues. Please refrain in future from discussion editors' blocks etc here. TFOWR 10:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, quit snide attempts to damage other people's reputation or wind them up ...

We are discussing a universal policy and blanket ruling over the flora and fauna of the British Isles because of the ridiculous impossibility of having to discuss each and every species. This is what encyclopedias have. Comprehensive and consistent editorial guidelines.

Look, here is an example of a problematic list, taken at random, without even starting to work our way down the taxonomic trees.

Fauna of Great Britain

List of non-marine molluscs of Great Britain

Lists of insects of Great Britain

List of amphibians of Great Britain

List of reptiles of Great Britain

List of birds of Great Britain

List of mammals of Great Britain

List of extinct animals of Britain

• What are they talking about --- Britain, Great Britain or British Isles?

Now, let's follow our way down each Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species --- what do we find all over the place? A mishmash of Britain, Great Britain or British Isles. Are you really suggesting those that apparently exclude the IoM and CI are deliberately and accurately excluding them?

• Take any one, for example a List of shield bug species of Great Britain. The only reference is for one stating "British Isles" --- "A photographic guide to the Shieldbugs and Squashbugs of the British Isles". That needs renamed.

This is why I say it is impossible argument to argue against a blanket ruling. Only individuals who have:

a) no expertise at all in the academic specialism involved, and

b) some political agenda

could or would ever try to do so --- would even suggest doing so.

You are talking about potentially 3 or 40,000s topics! It is not humanly possible. --Triton Rocker (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not comfortable about blanket rulings because if we have one covering areas like you mention then we have to have others too, some would like us to ban its use in what they consider political areas. I agree that where Great Britain or Great Britain and Ireland is used incorrectly and is really talking about the BI it should say British Isles. But this is often the debate. One debate at the moment is about foreign players in the Scottish premier league. To me it seems very clear that the article is meant to be talking about people not from the British isles, rather than not from GB and Ireland. But we have to debate this until there is agreement. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Copying over a post I just placed on Black Kite's talk page. I do have some sympathy with some of Triton Rocker's points. Arguing over every plant and insect is becoming stupid, and making Wikipedia look stupid in my opinion. I have a shelf full of Floras of the British Isles, the current standard flora is Staces New Flora of the British Isles (with a ringing endorsement from the The Irish Naturalist Journal in the Product description section), and there is a society dedicated to same, with a website full of up to date information on the flora of the...yes, British Isles. Normally I have no problem with the alternate expressions - there are no long rivers or high mountains in the Outer Islands - but we should have fixed an agreement that the term is the one to use for flora and fauna, and stop arguing over every grass and bloody invertibrate. If it helps, I would support an exemption that if a critter is found ONLY in the Republic of Ireland, the article does not have to mention British Isles, and the article can say "X is found only in the Burren, in Ireland." Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree. I appreciate there are going to be edge cases: they can be discussed here. I can well understand that there may be problems using the term "British Isles" in an article about a snake, but I do not for one minute believe that that should prevent us having a blanket ruling for fauna. There are only so many hours in the day, and if we're to tackle this effectively we need to become more efficient. Debating endlessly each and every animal on the islands of Western Europe is not efficient. TFOWR 10:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My concern is what other areas will get blanket rulings though. I can understand the reasons for saying BI should be used in cases relating to Fauna. I would be prepared to support that, but will others unless there is also a blanket ruling on an area where the BI should not be used? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Its an obvious candidate for a set of general heuristics and there have been a few attempts to get them agreed. Rannpháirtí anaithnid produced a set recently which had potential. I am with BW here, probably because we both have the scars of long involvement here. Maybe an experiment with a few - take flora (Fauna was challenged by someone last time this was discussed) as an agreed rule for inclusion and take a political set for non-inclusion and see how they go. --Snowded ^TALK 11:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Areas where there's a consensus to do so. This isn't just going to be an arbitrary "there is now a blanket ruling - live with it" process. There'll be a discussion beforehand ;-) I'd presume that we'll institute blanket rulings here, once similar topics have been discussed here a few times. TFOWR 11:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC):::: Take it slow. Instead of asking 'are there sources to use the term' ask 'is there any good reason not to use the term', eg is the occurrence so restricted that a smaller locale would be better.

Or much wider, i.e. there is no good reason to use the term as Europe or similar covers the BI area. Guidelines need to written so that breaking them is pretty self-evident. Oh and you will then get the mixture of countries and geographical areas in a single list (proposed guideline don't mix). --Snowded ^TALK 14:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Just reading over everything, it seems that it would be a better idea to have Blanket guidelines rather than blanket rulings. This would allow editors here to make changes within the guidelines without discussion. However, if there is an issue raised, it can be easily brought here. As for which areas will get blanket rulings, there should be a discussion here for each one. I say one for flora and fauna is indeed a good idea, and British Isles should be used, unless someone finds a highly nationalistic Irish stinkbug. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Attempting a draft

Hence my use of the word "heuristics", but they do need to be agreed. We also need to remember (and its easy to forget) that this is an international encyclopedia, its not confined to the British Isles. That would imply a guideline along the lines of:

• For an entry in the lede the highest geographical area should be used (Ireland or British Isles or Western Europe etc.).
• If there are sub headings then either country names or geographical areas (so British Isles & Australasia OR England, Wales & New Zealand).

You then need at least for a period while trust is established a requirement to post notice of any removal or addition here, and a IRR rule on discussion if there is a disagreement --Snowded ^TALK 14:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the highest geographical area should be used. If there is none, an appropriate solution could be devised for each article. Of course it depends on the topic, but for flora and fauna, I'd make the subheading geographical. In the British Isles case, Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, etc. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is something that has a very small locus, then the larger divisions become meaningless, so if something only occurs on the Isle of Man, then it would be arbitrary to use any larger divisions.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That was my intent - feel free to improve the wording. If its only on the Aran Islands, then that is the highest geographical area, however if its all over Western Europe then say Western Europe don't list British Isles, France etc (that would be mixing terms) --Snowded ^TALK 14:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure on the first point so i could not agree with that at this point. I agree with the second line about having countries as sections or areas. So British Isles should not be in line with USA and Canada. But if its areas like Scandinavia, or it is a mix of two (So North America, China, Scandinavia, British Isles), if there is that sort of split sections in an article then BI should be left alone.

I also think all involved editors should not be adding or removing BI without raising it here first (unless its undoing a recent change once). If the guidelines are in place then it would not take long to get agreement here. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The British Isles is denoted as a "scientific region" for fauna - but not for Flora. Flora is divided up differently - Great Britain including the Isle of Man, Ireland, and the Channel Islands are considered part of the distribution region of France. The Botanical Society of the British Isles appears to also use this notation. The BSBI also publish Watsonia. It would be pretty normal to see "British Isles" being referred to when discussing fauna, and more unusual when discussing Flora. Internationally recognized and defined regions can be found in this PDF. Thats not to say that some editors publish books listing "Big Trees of the British Isles" or some such, but that's probably less frequent today than it was in older times. In summary, a blanket ruling for Fauna and Flora would make sense, where British Isles is fine for Fauna but not for Flora. --HighKing (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

OK so lets make the proposal above one for fauna which will give us a constrained test to see how this words out in practice --Snowded ^TALK 19:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal at ANI

A thread related to this page this page has been opened at ANI. --RA (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Copied from User_talk:Black Kite

BlackKite, I've grave concerns about the British Isles Specific Examples page. I'm contacting you to ask for you opinion since you seem to be the closest thing to a mediator for that page. I have (and am) a contributor to the page myself but increasingly a wary one.

Initially, it would appear, the page was created in order to discuss specific examples of use of the term in order to reach agreement on appropriate/mis-appropriate uses of the term. Its existence now seems to be permanent and its function seems to be to serve as a discussion point for a limited number of editors to make changes to a contentious area across the encyclopaedia.

While in itself that might not be a problem, the concern I have is that the page is being used to make changes to articles based on a concern over use/non-use of a term that is at the fringe of genuine (community) consensus on the matter. While some of the instances raised are quite valid, I am worried that the decisions being reached are based on a limited set of concerns. Consequently, changes are being made to the text of articles on topics about which the participating editors have little interest in beyond their personal preferences over the semantics of one term used in them and no substantive understanding of the topic that would allow them to make informed decisions one way or the other. I'm concerned too that it appears that the editors of the page seem to have taken it upon themselves to decide that the SE page is the only appropriate venue to discuss additions/removals of the term across the encyclopaedia.

The entire page strikes me now as no more than a trolling exercise and a means to push the POVs of a limited number of editors. Rather that serve its original purpose, it seems to now have been turned into a devise to manufacture "consensus" in order to continue the activitiy of making systematic changes on a contentious subject, which the community rejected at ANI.

I believe that it should be closed down as disruptive and wasteful but wanted to get you opinion first before I invited community input. --RA (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• No, feel free to invite community discussion; as I said to HighKing the other day, I agree with him that the use of BISE either needs to be tightened up or I suspect it will fail anyway. However, there is also an argument that discontinuing it would merely push the conflict into random other corners of Wikipedia, because short of issuing mass topic bans and/or blocks (and even then we'd probably end up with a group of "new editors") it's not going away any time soon. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I share RA's concern, which is why I was calling for initiation of each debate on local article talk pages. But in all seriousness, what a sad commentary about Wikipedias's systems, that we have this farcical situation because to conform to WP norms would merely mean bringing on a bunch more determined POV-pushers. In no way is this situation your fault Black Kite, but doesn't it demonstrate that what's really needed here is a firm hand with what boils down to a rather extreme POV that the cyclopedia should be excised of all references to the British Isles. Not just that, but if that is allowed to progress (which is actually the net effect of the current position) then the POV attack-dogs will move on to further turf - removal of "Great Britain". "British". "British Empire". The list of possibilities is endless. The wearisome evidence of past deletes shows, as RA expertly confirms, that there is zero interest in the quality of sourcing, local content and sometimes not even the pretense of it in these operations. HK has, sometimes, almost I have to say by chance, made good deletes. When closely scrutinised, he nearly always turns out to have (a) nil knowledge in the subject matter and (b) zero interest. How can this ridiculous situation possibly be in line with creating an NPOV cyclopedia? I rest my case M'Lud. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both RA and Jamesinderbyshire about the problem, however the issue is not going to go away. I once read a good piece on a user page about how POV pushers always get there way in the end as editors without one tend to give up fighting them long before the POV does (can't find the link though). So as frustrating as it is I can see no end in sight for this one. Codf1977 (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

My 2c - I believe a resolution may be to extend the terms of the general sanction to include any editor or group of editors that adds/removes the term, or initiates discussions to add/remove the term, from multiple articles (regardless of sourcing or justification) in a systematic or habitual fashion. Obviously this would only apply to actions that the enforcing admin considered to be primarily designed to add/remove the term (so as to not trap editors who simply work in the area). Such editors should be topic banned from making edits that add/remove the term or initiating (even participating in?) discussions to add/remove on the term IMHO. Errors etc. in use/non-use of the term can be corrected in the normal wiki fashion as individual articles develop.

Is that too draconian? I feel it is the spirit of the general sanction from ANI. --RA (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Within the spirit but not that comfortable with restricting "everyone" in such a undefined way. By that I mean what constitutes "systematic or habitual fashion" one editor listing 10 in one day or another one listing 10 over 10 days ? do we treat challenges that prove "valid" differently to "invalid" or "vexatious" ones like in Tennis? If a given editor abuses it then make that editor subject to a defined restriction say no more than 5 listings per month. Codf1977 (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Everybody has a POV. And at this project, the "unspoken" aspiration is that the "right" or "wrong" or "truth" on any issue will eventually seep into articles over time, through regular editing, as editors are creating and updating content they have an interest in. The entire project is based on the core assumption (and policies) that editors behave responsibly, while assuming good faith, and with respect for all opinions and other contributors.

It doesn't always work like that though, and then we end up with a situation not unlike the current situation.

But the idea that editors would be banned (regardless of sourcing or justification) is against policies, and against the spirit of this project. But I understand why RA suggests it and I can also see that it actually has some merit.

That said I think it is too draconian - yet I genuinely want to find *something* that can work. RA said above Initially, it would appear, the page was created in order to discuss specific examples of use of the term in order to reach agreement on appropriate/mis-appropriate uses of the term." That's true. What we haven't managed to do successfully is categorize the commonalities we've seen across the numerous articles that have been looked at, and extract some measure of what is appropriate, and what is not.

What about an approach where we aim to produce guidelines on usage *without* changing articles? It might allow some measure of discussion to find common ground, and identify the polar extremes, without the now-familiar disruption. --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I, personally, would not see discussion to produce guidelines on usage (*without* changing articles) as being in breach of the change to the sanction that I propose below. I think it would be a good idea. --RA (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond here to leave your proposed sanctions easy to find since I see you've addressed it to BK (and I know how annoying it can sometimes be when the discussion gets hijacked). In a nutshell, the problem with your proposed sanction is that it is against policy, and could never be upheld. It would be open to challenge by any admin that disagrees. --HighKing (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry to be taking over your page, BlackKite.

Sure, "habitual" is probably a bit much. "Systematic", as in the current sanction, is the core issue. Through that too is ill-defined - is the Specific Examples page "systematic" for example?

"...do we treat challenges that prove 'valid' differently to 'invalid'...?" All the same. It really doesn't matter. And besides, the issue of what is "valid" or "invalid" is the point in question. These kinds of problems can be corrected in through the normal wiki process by individual editors.

The following is an amended version of the current sanction:

Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or systematically initiates discussions to add or remove the term, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. For the purpose of this sanction, "systematically" will be broadly interpreted. ...

And the following a possible additional topic ban to add to the list of possible topic bans under the sanction:

TB02 (Topic ban two): User is banned from adding or removing the term "British Isles" on a Wikipedia wide basis. The user may not initiate related discussions but may still participate in related discussions so long as they engage in appropriate conduct, and do not add or remove the term.

What do you think, Black Kite? --RA (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That actually looks pretty good to me. Since the discussion seems to be taking place here, what do others think? Black Kite (t) (c) 17:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think "TB02 (Topic ban one)" should be "TB02 (Topic ban two)" ;-)

Looks good to me. It would probably be worth advising any editor to whom proposed-TB02 was applied that this applies. TFOWR 17:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed "one" → "two". --RA (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed my response above. In a nutshell, the problem with the proposed sanction is that it is against policy. It's effectively a ban on editing and discussing a topic, and could be perceived an attempt to subvert existing core policies. It would also be open to challenge by any admin that disagrees. Is anything so draconian in place for anything else? --HighKing (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a policy guru by any stretch, so I'd happy to defer to more knowledgeable editors on this one. Is it worth running it past counsel? TFOWR 18:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@HK: no, it would certainly have to go back to ANI if not ArbCom, it's not something that's going to be decided here; it's useful to get opinions though. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I support it, but I'd be surprised if you got it through. LevenBoy (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposal @ 17:56 by RA. I would also like to see a mention of how we handle new "involved editors". Like the case with that user who removed BI from two articles recently which was only just found today. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC) However, if we have to take this back to ANI or even Arbcom simply to get agreement it would seem like a waste of time. We could keep the current wording, but those of us "involved"(everyone talking on this page and on BISE) volunteer to go by the tougher wording. Then if one involved editor is clearly ignoring the rule we go to ANI or use the currently agreed sanctions. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, why not the suggestion I put forward above? Less draconian, enforceable, in line with policies, and with a promise of making progress. --HighKing (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What about an approach where we aim to produce guidelines on usage *without* changing articles? It might allow some measure of discussion to find common ground, and identify the polar extremes, without the now-familiar disruption. --HighKing (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think trying to get agreement on usage would be very time consuming and heavily disputed. We attempted to set some guidelines, we all agreed on some points, but we clearly can not all agree on certain other points and no matter how much debate we have, we will simply not agree. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Any solution which "freezes" articles as they are at the moment whilst encouraging discussion is also fine with me. Both HK's and the one above do that, in different ways. This one would certainly be easier to enforce; "new" editors would be treated as the one that's suddenly popped up at BISE has been; revert, inform, discuss. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It would also make socking less attractive, which, whatever about the nuisance of to-and-fro POVing, is a much more serious disruption to the project. RashersTierney (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"revert, inform, discuss" - The behavior of Triton Rocker on Northern Ireland is disruptive IMHO but the change he/she made to Artemisia vulgaris certainly was not. The Northern Ireland disruption can and is being dealt with through normal lines. Bringing otherwise sound changes to Artemisia vulgaris to WT:BISE in fact led to disruption. We need to normalise the situation, not make anythig more special out of it. IMO that means putting an end to the systematic changes (which BISE is a being used as a device for). --RA (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm very surprised by the degree of support. I don't see any contradiction between HK proposal and the proposed change to the sanction. In fact, I would see that they would be complimentary. Prevent disruption and work towards a common agreed (community-wide) resolution. Is there enough initial support to move to ANI/ArbCom to amend the sanction? --RA (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to move to ANI/ArbCom to amend the sanction but am concerned in relation to the twin track approach as I am not confident that a set guidelines can be compiled that can be both agreed to by all and that can work in practice simply because the two terms "British Isles" and "Britain and Ireland" are not interchangeable and any source or reference based guideline is easily susceptible to a common sense failure if for example the source or reference is using the wrong one or using one in favour of the other for politically correct reasons. To overcome this it would need some "override" guideline that would be open to good faith mistakes as well as abuse. Codf1977 (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There's another option. Merely volunteer to stop deleting/re-adding British Isles to articles (i.e. call it a draw). This would satify most editors involved. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• It would have been really helpful if many of the editors here had engaged over the last two years on the project page
• Remember history - when matters were handled on the individual pages we had multiple edit wars
• I think there is a general issue with SP accounts on both sides of the issue, a sanction on systematic removal or addition, or rejection of any change by an editor whos sole purpose in life is these articles (that is not just BI, but the whole Unionist-Nationalist debate) might be a valid Arbcom proposal
• Freezing changes while encouraging discussion is the position we are now trying to achieve - that may mean that some sensible edits (like to Artemisia vulgaris have to go through a brief report and request phase - compared with multiple article edit wars its a very small price to pay
• The entrenched positions are not going to change without some independent review process which clicks in when there is no immediate agreement. When conversations are allowed to go on to long then people lock into positions. I made a proposal on this some time ago |here after we lost Blackkites role as an arbitrator. Its not perfect but something along those lines (ideally simpler) is needed
• A sanction which prevented editors proposing changes would break all the principles of WIkipedia
• The position that people should stop adding or subtracting the phrase BI (per Goodday and others) is a POV position in respect of removal and a silly restriction in respect of addition (such as Artemisia vulgaris

--Snowded ^TALK 20:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have big concerns about some arbitration panel consisting of a small number of people being able to determine cases regularly. I think the current method on BISE is better, just so long as each editor is limited to the number of cases at a time they can bring forward to prevent systemic alterations. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

List of voluteers who will stop adding/deleting British Isles

• I volunteer, provided certain others do the same. LevenBoy (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary oblivion? You 'contribute' to nothing else here. RashersTierney (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I guess I'm about as much use to Wikipedia as you are. LevenBoy (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed the amendment at ANI. --RA (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Except you've merely repeated the proposal above. Yes, there was support, but there were also many reservations expressed and other suggestions which you have just ignored. You haven't linked your proposal to any tangible effort to make constructive progress, and as it stands all your proposal is designed to do is to shut down, permanently, all efforts and discussions. It's censorship and against fundamental Wikipedia principles and policy. For example, try replacing the term "British Isles" in your proposal with, say, "Child Pornography" or "Global Warming" or "Ordination of Women into the Roman Catholic Church" and reread it. It should give you an idea of why it won't fly. --HighKing (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is good. I'm not saying anything against discussion. In fact, I thoroughly support your proposal to discuss with a mind to arriving at guidelines - and not *make* changes in the manner that they are being made at the SE page. --RA (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Great - but as it stands, your modifications to the sanctions are "stand alone", and could even be interpreted as being *against* any discussions. Your comments an ANI suggest that you're against the SE page. Where would discussions take place to develop guidelines? I believe we're all in the same place - freeze changes and encourage constructive discussion. Develop guidelines, perhaps try to categorize usage to avoid repetitious discussions. Somehow that has to be linked to your modifications so that the systematic changes are linked to the timeline and constructive life of the discussions either on the SE page or another centralized location. --HighKing (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:IONA debating competitions and it's subcategories of Category:British debating competitions and Category:Debating competitions in Ireland

Would like comment and recommendations on the Category:IONA debating competitions Category. I think that the top level IONA debating competitions should be removed and the two subcategories be made top level. I understand that this will need to go via WP:CfD but before going that route thought best to run it past here.Codf1977 (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment In the absence of any dissenting voices I'd say go for it. I'm leaving this open in case anyone wants to mount an eleventh-hour oppose campaign... TFOWR 14:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

have proposed it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 2#Category:IONA debating competitions. Codf1977 (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

More horse play

Unresolved

 – I'm lazy and can't be bothered wading through a long thread about four different and apparently unrelated articles, a thread which also discusses behavioural issues. Could someone start a few new threads, one for each article (or logical group of articles, if any are logically related)? Ta! TFOWR 14:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to non-political uses --- given the time frames, these two seem fraught with difficulties which could be fixed by using British Isles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_sire_in_Great_Britain_%26_Ireland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_broodmare_sire_in_Great_Britain_%26_Ireland

I mean, it all seems like pretty unreferenced stuff to me but what do I know? --Triton Rocker (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please propose changes here with a reason - you have inserted BI three times this morning without discussing them here (none of the above). That is getting very close to systematic insertion which can lead to a block just as much as systematic deletion. --Snowded ^TALK 07:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that they are not clear cut this one for example is one that should be reverted and discussed. Codf1977 (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted two, Tenant Farmer and Lichen with a request to bring the discussion here. Ghmyrtle reverted Arts&Craft. I also made sure that Triton Rocker is aware of the ruling on systematic insertion/removal with a link on his/her talk page. If I look at the examples, the language used in the current versions follows the references or the linked categories (in the case of studs). --Snowded ^TALK 07:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note - I have added Triton Rocker to the topic ban list. He may still enter in discussion here, but any removal or insertion of BI will result in a block by any admin - you don't need to find me to do it - which is just as well because I'm going on holiday tomorrow. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Good move (concerning TR). GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've blocked TritonRocker for 24 hours for violating their topic ban with this edit. I take the view that this is the first violation since the topic ban came into affect, so the block should be for 24 hours only. TFOWR 08:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixing this mornings undiscussed changes

As per suggestion from TFOWR, this section broken into seperate sections. --HighKing (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Four items were changed this morning. Looking through them I would propose: Tenant farmer The material in the section relates to the laws of England and Wales, not Scotland or Ireland bar one general reference. So in this case the established "Britain" and "British Isles" are both wrong. I suggesting changing to England and Wales to match the legal material. Ideally the article then either needs the two countries removed (this is a world wide thing not just the US and England) to their own sub-articles, or other country or regional material should be added. List of foreign Scottish Premier League players Given the name of the list, then surely foreign means not Scottish? I'm not sure why either Great Britain and Ireland or British Isles are appropriate List of lichen checklists Here the referenced book title is "Great Britain and Ireland" so there is no case to make it British Isles unless we are in the business of correcting the book titles of experts in the field. Arts and Crafts Movement looks OK at the moment The more straight forward move would have been to revert them to the prior state and see if anyone wanted to nominate them for change or make a case. That should happen anyway, but I thought I would try out a quick proposal first --Snowded TALK 10:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC) According to the criteria for inclusion then British Isles would be appropriate on List of foreign Scottish Premier League players. On the other hand, I don't know why this particular criteria was used. I was under the impression a 'foreigner' was one who was not a national of that country. Jack 1314 (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC) That was my concern, in fact its a list of people who play for the Scottish Premier Leagues who do not have any origin in the British Isles, so the title is wrong --Snowded TALK 10:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC) the obvious correction would be to List of overseas Scottish Premier League players but even that is wrong, but any technically correct version I could think of would not be in every day use and be an unlikely search term and potentially confusing. I think we should leave that issue to another place; with the article text as written BI is correct. Codf1977 (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Tenant farmer & Arts and Crafts Movement agree with Snowded (edit conflict) List of lichen checklists, I see no reason to change, however disagree with Snowded reasons, as I have said before trying to second guess the reasons why an author chose to use "Great Britain and Ireland" vs "British Isles" is not good. It is quite possible that the wrong one can be used by the title of the book, that does not mean here on WP we should automatically compound any mistake by blindly following what could be a choice made for commercial reasons. (edit conflict)List of foreign Scottish Premier League players - Valid use of "British Isles", it has been common for a number of years not to refer to players born in the BI as a 'foreigner' - for example no one refers to Ryan Giggs as a 'foreigner' playing for Manchester United. Codf1977 (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I'm happy to go with that as a sensible all round approach over the four articles. The book title issue one is an interesting one - its been a very useful way of preventing multiple edit wars and endless discussion in the past, as going with the reference is a fairly standard Wikipedia approach. Its one of those guideline issues we should discuss. (Oh and as a Liverpool supporter it may be legitimate to call Giggs a foreigner although he did stay loyal to Wales unlike Michael Owen)--Snowded TALK 10:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Michael Owen is (was) Welsh?! I agree we shouldn't second guess why the author chose "Great Britain and Ireland" over "British Isles" which is why I believe we should keep strictly to the references. On reflection I agree that the use of foreigner in footballing terms does not include those players from Ireland, even if they are not using the term correctly. Jack 1314 (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Yep, grew up in Hawarden (born in Chester as that is the nearest hospital, just over the border). He also lives in Wales still (or did last time I checked) in Lower Soughton Hall) just down the road from Hawarden. The other famous inhabitant of which is Gladstone by the way.--Snowded TALK 11:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) You need to look at the overall context - that should be the first step, in the case of List of lichen checklists there is none so use the title of the book as there is nothing else to go on. But as a rule it is not appropriate as it is open to mistakes or errors. Codf1977 (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC) OK happy with that. I have made the changes, and also opened up a discussion on Tenant farmer per my comments above.--Snowded TALK 11:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC) and surprise surprise we just get those settled and along comes LevenBoy and immediately reinstates British Isles without engaging in the discussion here. --Snowded TALK 12:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Glad to see Triton Rocker has been added to the topic ban list, i dont know he continues to add it. In the specific cases, i agree with snowded on the Tenant farmers article, If the article is expanded to cover Northern Ireland and Scotland then it could say UK. But no need for British Isles there. The Footballer article depends on if its accurate or not. If people in the British isles are treated a certain way compared to the rest of the world then it should remain. If it only applies to Scottish players, or UK players (rather than ROI, Isle of man etc) then it should not mention British Isles. List of lichen checklists should say what the book says. I do believe that British Isles is a reasonable addition to the Arts and crafts one. The section currently called UK has a paragraph at the end on Ireland and this is talking about a period where it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland rather than just the present UK. So British Isles seems reasonable as a section heading there. I found this sorce [6] which says "the earliest and perhaps the fullest development of the movement was in the British Isles". So that change seems ok to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC) My only hesitation on the lichens one is that the publication is a reference work of the British Lichen Society - the only geographical scopes they express in their website are here [7] - saying that the society "... arranges annual residential meetings in spring, summer and autumn in all parts of the British Isles... " - and here [8] - showing meetings in the Isle of Man, England, Scotland, Wales, etc. The book isn't stand-alone, it's their specific publication. I suspect they are indeed a BI grouping and that this book is a BI-wide reference work, although I accept the general point about book titles. This may be another case of us clunking a bit into an area we actually know little about. 12:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with Snowded on the Tenant farmer. I think that UK & ROI should be used at List of foreign Scottish Premier League players. Stick with the reference @ List of lichen checklists but I agree with what James says above. Bjmullan (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I agree with Snowded's reasoning on Tenant farmer (and also ask, is it normal to categorize the Bibliography section in this way?), and with the reasoning on Arts and Crafts Movement, and also with List of lichen checklists (as per book titles). Regarding List of foreign Scottish Premier League players, can someone point me to an official definition of a foreign player? Where are the notes on this taken from? I'd also say that "Home Nations" is more a more appropriate use - but I'd prefer to see something official. --HighKing (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC) <sockpuppets comment removed> No view on whether the above comment should stay or go, but worth noting that a now-blocked editor added it - not LevenBoy, who merely re-added it in good faith. TFOWR 20:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC) If LevenBoy finds it useful to have meaningless comments from an established sock, then "be my guest"--Snowded TALK 20:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Can't think why an established socks opinion is allowed to remain. Jack 1314 (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC) A banned sockmaster's opinon merely takes up talkpage space, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC) I'm a wee bit surprised myself. Just thought it worth pointing out that it wasn't LevenBoy who made the comment - though I 'spose re-adding it amounts to an endorsement of the sock's comment. I'd have thought it'd be easier just to state one's view for oneself, rather than re-add the view of a blocked editor, but it takes all sorts. @GoodDay: less space than our comments ;-) TFOWR 20:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Our posts have value, socks don't. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Why thank you! ;-) True, I guess. This thread, though, doesn't really help the task at hand much. Still, conversation's always a positive thing. TFOWR 20:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, I do agree with the sock's comment, and it's highlighted the article again. That article should have British Isles as a heading. The heading does not relate to the publication beneath it, other than as a broad grouping for it, and potentially other publications. I have found a publication detailing lichens in the IoM, so by adding that maybe British Isles is better. LevenBoy (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC) You left it there because he was making a point! Sorry LevenBoy, a banned sock isn't permitted to make a point here so I'll remove the post. Jack 1314 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Absent friends I think. LevenBoy, we are only going to make progress here if consensus agreements are honored. --Snowded TALK 20:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC) (ec)Er..where did I say he was making a point? I said I agreed with what he said, but MY point is that it was an indicator to something that was going on that perhaps we should be aware of. Anyway, I don't really give a monkeys, and if you are so concerned about such trivia, as you clearly are, feel free to remove it, I won't revert it since I know what's going on now. LevenBoy (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Just seen the edit summary at List of lichen checklists - where has agreement been reached on this? I think not. There are at least two editors in disagreement and at least one other not sure about it. LevenBoy (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC) What say we add these three links to List of lichen checklists - [9] [10] [11] Then maybe we should have a rethink about the section heading? LevenBoy (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Original research, the title of the book is very clear --Snowded TALK 11:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, but there's a difference between the link title and the section titles in the article. That looks like useful material LevenBoy. Also we should encourage collaborative editing when we see it Snowded and not carp. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Come on James, this one was discussed and you yourself with the "chunking around" comment accepted the general point about book titles. Codf1977 on the talk pages says that s/he plans a general reworking of the titles, and if you check I supported that. Pending a wider change this one was closed off, and we really don't want every one which is closed being opened again shortly afterwards. On the other hand this entry starts with reinstating a posting from an established sock farm. There is a difference. and the OR point stands, its not carping its an argument. --Snowded TALK 11:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC) The Lichens one doesn't seem to be closed - what closed it exactly? As regards the titles, I see no reason why continued editing of the article needs to stop because someone has (vaguely) promised that at some future point they will rework the titles. At the moment, there are a variety of section-themes in that article, including down to the State level in the US. Adding material about the IofM and the CI seems very reasonable. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Snowded, you obviously didn't read my comments above (20:47, 27 July 2010) so here is the gist, again; the title is just a grouping for publications appearing beneath it. It is not directly related to a particular entry so how you manage to conjure up OR in this context is quite beyond me. You seem to be stonewalling on this one. British Isles is an obvious title for the group of publications that we could now add to. And please reflect further on the comments I placed on your Talk Page regarding just what is, and what isn't OR. LevenBoy (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Guys, if you really want to reopen this one feel free. You might want to look at the flora and fauna point etc. LevenBoy, there is only one title as its a list of lists. If you follow the current page convention then you should create sections for Guernsey, possibly IoM & Ireland (although those are books not lists). On the other hand it might make sense to completely re-organise it into geographical areas (in which case BI is fine if the others are things like North America) or nations etc. I think that was Codf1977's point. However just inserting BI instead of the current title is neither one thing or the other. --Snowded TALK 11:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC) As has been pointed out, the *current* text is correct. The section headings reflect the publications within the lists, and reflect the titles within the publications. There's no grouping - for example, we don't have a section heading entitled "USA" with the appropriate publications under that heading. As Snowded correctly points out above, following the convention within the article would simply require adding a section for "Ireland", and another for "Isle of Man", etc, and listing the publication. In order to *insert* "British Isles" into this article, it requires a rewrite to organize and group by geographical regions. Of course, if it's deemed OK to edit articles to rewrite sections and introduce new material, its best we're all crystal clear on that too... --HighKing (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC) They don't currently match up precisely. See for example North America, which is listed as "A Cumulative Checklist for the Lichen-forming, Lichenicolous and Allied Fungi of the Continental United States and Canada." US and Canada is not North America. Clearly there is scope for improving the article. It also isn't up to you HighKing to resist adding material to that article that is appropriate, contextual and properly referenced. I am not sure what the problem is here exactly. If LevenBoy chooses not to add that material, I will. 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC) If there are more lists then I would add them, in their own sections relating the heading to the list. I'm less sure about the two books which are not (other than by implication) lists bit that is a minor point. I don;t see High King arguing against adding material --Snowded TALK 14:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC) The ones LevenBoy identified would best be added under a new "British Isles" header with the Britain and Ireland one. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Disagree, either add within the current convention or restructure by geographical area (in which case BI or Europe or similar is fine). The latter is a better idea to be honest although it involves a bit more work. FAD No consent to insertion of BI without other changes--Snowded TALK 14:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC) @James - the easiest solution is to follow the existing convention. Your North American example, which technically incorrect, is ambiguously referenced since the link brings you to a page entitled "North American Lichen Checklist". If you want to add new material, fine. But the community would ...take a dim view... of an editor completely changing around the current convention of an article, and then adding to an article, solely with the intention to insert "British Isles", especially against a consensus here. --HighKing (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Do you mean the same way the Lichen Society pages take you to lots of references to British Isles? As for the "current convention" of the article, there doesn't seem to be a straightforward one, as the North American example shows. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC) James, restructuring the list by geographical regions is the obvious and least controversial solution - why not just go with that? I'll even do the work if you want --Snowded TALK 17:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC) The taskforce is primarily concerned with examining usage in articles - as they are currently being used. In this case, usage of "Great Britain and Ireland" is valid and correct, given the existing current naming conventions used within the article. I believe that setting out to materially rewrite or reorganize an article is not within the spirit of this task force. Restructuring the list by geographical regions might validate an insertion of "British Isles" - but I believe there is no justification for restructuring beyond the insertion of "British Isles", and I disagree with that motive. --HighKing (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Holiday spam

Editors here may find this of interest. (I'm going to be away next week). TFOWR 14:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Aghhhh you cant let others police us! BritishWatcher (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Before you do go on your break, would you clear some of the closed cases and archive them for us please? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll do my best. I'll be around until at least Saturday, and with a bit of luck I'll be popping in over from time to time over the following week. TFOWR 23:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Related to the above, and I have mentioned it way up the page but it's probably going to be more visible here, I'm starting to close out resolved issues - marking them as {{Resolved}}, with whatever decision was reached. Any objections? Obviously this only applies to issues that are clearly resolved. TFOWR 08:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, but I thought you were meant to be on holiday? --Snowded ^TALK 08:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"Officially" the holiday is Monday - Friday, but I'll need to spend this weekend packing, sorting stuff out (hence my slightly liberal holiday spam warning - I was hoping to keep the weekend slightly clearer for packing!) I'll be "on-wiki", but only really here at WT:BISE (or doing trivial things). TFOWR 08:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I hope by the way that Triton takes you up on your offer to talk. He is a very good content editor and will hopefully realise your 48 hours was mild compared with what others might have imposed. --Snowded ^TALK 08:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - the resolved issues and any "dead" discussions also need to be archived as the page is 200K+ long. Codf1977 (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Burnt orchid

Triton rocker made a direct change to British Isles Burnt orchid. I have made an ANI report for failure to abide by the general sanction and reverted the change for the moment. However it seems to me that this is one of those cases where British Isles would be better. If there are no objections I will revert my revert. --Snowded ^TALK 05:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What Triton rocker did was add yet another CLEAR academic reference ... replaced here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burnt_orchid&action=historysubmit&diff=376385533&oldid=376380419

"There really is no need to troll and snitch on me in attempt to provoke edit wars.

For God's sake, open your mind. --Triton Rocker (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You are under a general sanction not to insert British Isles into articles. That general sanction is in place to prevent edit wars, as is this project page. All you have to do is to bring proposals here. If you break sanctions you will find yourself subject to blocks of increasing length which would be a pity as you are a good content editor. You just need to learn to work with others --Snowded ^TALK 06:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The species is unrecorded in Ireland and Scotland, and the only record from Wales is almost certainly an error ...Did you miss that bit Triton? CyrilThePig4 (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it again it would make most sense to delete the two titles Status and Britain, neither add anything to what is a stub, the largest population in Wiltshire is significant but it doesn't need two headings! Comments? --Snowded ^TALK 07:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The current heading (Britain) implies a wider distribution than is fact the case.CyrilThePig4 (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hence my suggestion to remove the two headings and just leave the reference to the largest cluster. --Snowded ^TALK 07:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I Agree CyrilThePig4 (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed the headings are not needed. This is an example of my point about using the title of books to guide the use of BI, the context here clearly is that it is talking about an area of England so BI is not appropriate but Triton Rocker feels he is able to added it because the ref uses the term. Codf1977 (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree it can't be universal, but it is a good starting point. --Snowded ^TALK 08:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is I don't think it makes for a good starting point as (setting aside his Topic ban for the moment) it was what enabled Triton Rocker to insert it in this article. It should only be used as the last point if there is nothing else left to guide. Codf1977 (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

no need for British Isles in this case. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actioned --Snowded ^TALK 12:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked TritonRocker for 48 hours. It's disappointing that TritonRocker clearly knows where this page is, yet appears unable to post here until they need to defend their actions. TFOWR 07:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

TR has put in a reference - what is the problem with that? Is the reference not valid? Does it not conform to WP:RS? Oh, it contains the words "British Isles" in the title, that seems to be the problem. Well I would suggest you stop judging it on the basis of whether or not it contains some words that a few editors don't like, and judge it on its merits. It seems to me to be a perfectly valid reference for the subject in question. It's just unfortunate for some that it happens to include "British Isles" in the title. LevenBoy (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue IMO is that the context of the topic did not warrant the change from Britain to British Isles, it was an action by Triton Rocker that he either knew or at least should have suspected was in contravention of his Topic ban and was not appropriate. Codf1977 (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference was no problem, but he also changed Britain to British Isles when he was under a general prohibition not to add BI without consent. --Snowded ^TALK 12:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite. Both of these edits, for an editor who wasn't subject to a topic ban, would most likely be OK. The problem here isn't "an editor adding the term British Isles once." It's an editor who has a history of doing this and a topic ban prohibiting them from doing it and a recent block for violating their topic ban. TFOWR 12:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

TR knows where the BISE page is. It's up to him, as to whether he gets blocked or not. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolving discussions

You'll all probably have noticed that I've gone through the page trying to close out discussions that have reached some sort of consensus. Hopefully this will make our lives easier going forward.

I've marked a few issues as {{Unresolved}} - it would be helpful if we could focus on those. In one of them I've also posted at a talkpage, thanking the two editors from there that helped here, and asking that more editors come here to offer their opinion. In general, I've been applying the following process:

• Comments from more topic-knowledgeable editors trump comments from "lay editors" here.
• Consensus and comments at outside talkpages "trump" consensus and comments here.
• Consensus and comments at outside noticeboards trump consensus and comments here (and they trump outside talkpages, too).

I hope that won't be regarded as too controversial. What may be controversial is: I appreciate that some editors here may be topic-knowledgeable - sorry, but I've ignored that prospect. If you're a regular here I regard you as a lay editor for topics. I'm not sure that's very fair, but I don't have an easy way of spotting that you may actually be a topic-knowledgeable editor. I'd welcome suggestions for handling this scenario.

I'd like to see issues that are definitely resolved summarised to help with future issues - Snowded mentioned a one line summary, retained (I think?) at the top of this page. That sounds good to me. If someone wants to action that I'd be very happy.

LevenBoy mentioned "blanket rulings" for broad topics (e.g. flora, fauna). Where this is workable I'd like to do it. I accept that this won't be possible in all areas (we may get flora to work, but not fauna, for example). I also accept that there will occasionally be exceptions. However, it will make our lives easier if we can rule out the easy stuff and focus on the hard stuff.

Finally - a reminder that I'm going to be away for most of next week. Hopefully I'll be able to drop in from time to time, but I can't make any guarantees. In the absence of regular admin coverage, I'd suggest continuing to raise issues related to sanctions/topic bans/etc at ANI. In the meantime, I'm going to be around until Monday morning, so if you want to raise anything with me - do it in the next day or so. TFOWR 14:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Tenant farmer

Resolved

 – Article edited to use England and Wales, can be changed as applicable if/when article is expanded. TFOWR 12:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The material in the section relates to the laws of England and Wales, not Scotland or Ireland bar one general reference. So in this case the established "Britain" and "British Isles" are both wrong. I suggesting changing to England and Wales to match the legal material. Ideally the article then either needs the two countries removed (this is a world wide thing not just the US and England) to their own sub-articles, or other country or regional material should be added.--Snowded ^TALK 10:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

agree with Snowded Codf1977 (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK happy with that. I have made the changes, and also opened up a discussion on Tenant farmer per my comments above.--Snowded ^TALK 11:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In the specific cases, i agree with snowded on the Tenant farmers article, If the article is expanded to cover Northern Ireland and Scotland then it could say UK. But no need for British Isles there. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded on the Tenant farmer. Bjmullan (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded's reasoning on Tenant farmer (and also ask, is it normal to categorize the Bibliography section in this way?) --HighKing (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

List of foreign Scottish Premier League players

Given the name of the list, then surely foreign means not Scottish? I'm not sure why either Great Britain and Ireland or British Isles are appropriate--Snowded ^TALK 10:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the criteria for inclusion then British Isles would be appropriate on List of foreign Scottish Premier League players. On the other hand, I don't know why this particular criteria was used. I was under the impression a 'foreigner' was one who was not a national of that country. Jack 1314 (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That was my concern, in fact its a list of people who play for the Scottish Premier Leagues who do not have any origin in the British Isles, so the title is wrong --Snowded ^TALK 10:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Valid use of "British Isles", it has been common for a number of years not to refer to players born in the BI as a 'foreigner' - for example no one refers to Ryan Giggs as a 'foreigner' playing for Manchester United. Codf1977 (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

the obvious correction would be to List of overseas Scottish Premier League players but even that is wrong, but any technically correct version I could think of would not be in every day use and be an unlikely search term and potentially confusing. I think we should leave that issue to another place; with the article text as written BI is correct. Codf1977 (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Footballer article depends on if its accurate or not. If people in the British isles are treated a certain way compared to the rest of the world then it should remain. If it only applies to Scottish players, or UK players (rather than ROI, Isle of man etc) then it should not mention British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that UK & ROI should be used at List of foreign Scottish Premier League players. Bjmullan (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding List of foreign Scottish Premier League players, can someone point me to an official definition of a foreign player? Where are the notes on this taken from? I'd also say that "Home Nations" is more a more appropriate use - but I'd prefer to see something official. --HighKing (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In reply to TFOWR, the SFA (indeed any UEFA country) does not have a definition of "foreign player". The do have a definition for a home-grown player though, which is what they use for any rules concerning the number of players that can be in the team for certain competitions. The term "foreign player" has no place in these articles and smacks of nationalism. --HighKing (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I found this interesting article with the heading Fifa backs 6+5 rule to restrict foreign influence from 2008. I'll quote the relevant paragraph: "The relevant article of Fifa's "regulations Governing the Applications of the statutes" now say a player is eligible provided "he has lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant association".

This says that unless a player has lived within the assossiation territory (Scotland in this case) for at least 5 years after the age of 18 then they are considered 'foreign'. This would put into question the criteria of excluding players from the British Isles. Jack 1314 (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jack, that is correct. UEFA only defines "home grown" players. The interpretation would then be that somebody trained at an England club would be considered to be just as foreign as somebody in Brazil. WP usage is at variance with UEFA definitions. --HighKing (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Home Nations" is generaly inappropriate in Wikipedia; it is too parochial for an international encyclopedia. Why should it not mention British Isles? There is nothing inherently wrong with those words. TOo many people are bending over backwards to find reasons to avoid them. Their use here is not inaacurate. LevenBoy (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

British Isles seems justified in this case. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is saying that Home Nations should be used. I gave a reference on FIFA ruling on the eligibility of players playing in an assossiations territory (in this case Scotland). The heading for that article mentioned the word 'foreign', but HK has informed me that UEFA don't use that term but rather they use "Home grown". The question now is, should the article name be changed to "players who are not home grown in Scottish football teams", or something similar. Jack 1314 (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The term "British Isles" isn't recognized or used by UEFA or FIFA, or even the associations of any of the national football organizations in the UK or Ireland. On the other hand, the term "Home Nations" is a WP:COMMON term used in sport among teams from these islands. There's not many competition in Association Football that involve only teams from UK&I but one that does exist is for players with Learning Difficulties. And that is called the "Home Nations Championships" - see links here from the IFA and here from the FAI. --HighKing (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't see what is wrong with the use as is ? I am against changing this for changes sake. Codf1977 (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything on the FIFA position? If foreign means people born outside, with no grandparents and no five years residency then its simple. If England etc. are a special case then its a matter of the best collective noun - of course it might be that FIFA count UK as a special case but not Ireland (the state) --Snowded ^TALK 11:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there is justification for saying British Isles in this case, if we are going to change the term then we would have to go through every single season since 1998 to ensure everyone from England, Wales, Northern Ireland the ROI, Isle of Man and Channel Islands are added to the list. If the concern here is about the use of the term "foreign player" and it some how being seen as FIFAs official definition, then lets change the name of the article and the wording of the introduction, to just say Players from outside of the British isles, or something along those lines. The situation with the UK + Ireland is complex on this matter, with Irish players appearing to be able to pick and choose which Irish team they play for, with people from the Isle of Man/Channel isles having to play for England by the sounds of it. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• 'foreign player' is in common use in contempory coverage and historical analysis of the EPL/SPL competitions, and it's meaning is well understood, as outlined in the article, as any player not born in or playing for for England, Wales, Scotland, or the Irelands. Isle of Man I have no idea about, but nobody in their right mind talks about players not from the 'home nations' when what they actualy means is a foreign player. The term has got nothing at all to do with the phrase 'home grown' in current usage as the new home grown squad rules, which is a modern invention and has no relation to national team eligibity. Instead of pissing around in here with things some people seem to have no clue about but want to object to anyway, why not ask the opinion of the people who know. Once they've stopped laughing, I'm sure they will set you all straight, and may even give you references if still not convinced. Either that, or we are about to see BISE be the source of yet another astounding fuckup producing more garbage content just because of HighKing's irrational hatred of the term BI. MickMacNee (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you didn't have such an irrationally abrasive manner, I and others might care about your opinion. Most of the astounding fuckups I've seen have been usage of British Isles where clearly it doesn't belong, and most of the irrational arguments start when no references or sources can be found. Funny that. --HighKing (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You can keep shoveling this if you want, it's becoming a theme of yours I see, but nobody is buying it. Nobody here, and I mean absolutely nobody, is so stupid as to believe that as long as someone is chucking around 'sources' in a debate, they are not a POV pusher, and the evidence of that comes in what you say after people even bring you sources, or point out the flaws in the ones you bring. We already have terrabytes of evidence to support the conclusion that what you might think is 'clearly' wrong based on 'sources', isn't necessarily so. But yet, we still have to do this dance time and again on any topic, whether you know anything about it or not, and topic banning you is apparently not a solution that let's people actually write articles they know about. This debate on this example is proceeding along very familiar albeit tedious lines, as you waste inordinate amounts of other peoples time pandering to your crusade to change the English languague. MickMacNee (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your pointless name-calling is better suited to a playground full or unwashed pimple-faced adolescents - they might even be impressed. I've learned to tune out the nationalistic ranting, and pity you for hating the Irish so much. Maybe Riverdance was a step too far... --HighKing (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You tune out a great many things, that's simply a well known fact. You have got no idea what you are talking about, you haven't got a shred of evidence to back up your pathetic name calling about nationalism and your actually rather serious allegations that I hate the Irish, whereas I can produce diff after diff after diff that shows you are a basic POV pusher whose only purpose at Wikipedia is to game play over the inclusion/exclusion of the term 'British Isles'. You've even just provided a couple this last hour in this very section, although as usual, you won't have a bloody clue how/where/why, such are your self-perception issues and general poor understanding of NPOV. MickMacNee (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Both of you - knock it off. The constant comments about each other are pissing me off. Both of you know the tired old mantra: comment on content, not the contributor. You shouldn't need me to repeat it. I won't be repeating it. TFOWR 20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

When I said "knock it off" what I really meant was "knock it off". Mick, deciding whether or not to use "British Isles" in an article about soccer really does not require in-depth knowledge on an editor's past editing patterns. High King, any editor who isn't topic banned is entitled to post here and all-caps demands like yours below are well short of the level of conduct I'd like to see here. Both of you: KNOCK IT OFF. If you both want to continue squabbling here I'll cut-and-paste it to ANI and let the wider community decide how to address your respective grievances. TFOWR 07:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've said it before and I stand by it, if the problems of a dispute all stem from one single editor's views and methods, it is perfectly fine to comment on that editor's views and methods in the discussion. In the unlikely event that nobody is aware of the backstory of this page (and given the fact we have invited FOOTY people in here), this sort of commenting on the contributor is absolutely helpful to those editors who would benefit from such information, including editor specific aspects, before adding their own input. I've always done that where necessary, but I've never once gone down HighKing's route of simply unjustifiably asserting that the reason he says or does what he does is simply because he 'hates the British'. That is what I call 'commenting on the contributor' in a disruptive way, not what I do. You can see below where this discussion has arrived, and I will stand by the assertion all day long that it has only arrived there because of HighKing. The original complaint was quite different to where we've ended up, again. MickMacNee (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Funny how the warnings only start getting brandished when I respond - I've had about enough from you that anyone can reasonable be expected from to take MickMack today, this must be the 4th or 5th rant. I respond once, and suddenly the warnings start flying. Even BK posted his response below, directly after your first comment on the editor. Well fuck that - I'm responding, not initiating, seeing as how I can't expect or rely on warnings to appear when the comments start - there's only so much anyone can realistically be expected to take without responding, and these comments are now so endemic that there's a lot of editors out there who read them and believe them. As to MickMack and LevenBoy and others - what percentage of your last 100 comments on this topic have you commented on the editor and not on the content? So don't start acting the fuckwit about NPOV and gaming the system. Your constant barrage against me HAS TO STOP! And saying that this discussion only arrived here because of HighKing - if you bothered your arse actually taking part here, I DID NOT open this topic, and I DID NOT have anything to do with this article. Triton Rock changed it, and Snowded opened it here. I'm entitled to comment, which I've done, and I'm entitled to ask for references, which I've done. You are *NOT* entitled to accuse me of not knowing my arse from NPOV, and you are *NOT* entitled to lie across multiple topics accusing me of motives and behaviour that *YOU* have invented. So if you can't or won't comment on the content, KEEP THE FUCK AWAY FROM ME!!! --HighKing (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC) wtf are you on about with 'stay away from me!!!!'. This isn't your talk page. The only time I've ever gone to your talk page is to fulfill your request during one of the hundred times you've bleated on about 'what am I doing wrong, which policy am I breaking', and you treated that insight into your issues like you do with every single other person, complete and utter self-denial. You've got some bloody brass neck talking about the damage of lies, or are you about to expand on this idea that I 'hate the Irish' in all this victimhood going on here. I didn't fucking think so. I've got no control over what Black Kite or anybody does, so enough of it already. You are accusing me of attributing this topic to you, when it's pretty bloody clear from what I said below that I know full well who started it, and my reference to 'where we are now' is to how the conversation changed from what it was, a topic specific issue being explained and debated as such, although not very cluefully, into the same generic 'BI is not sourced so it goes' POV push. Your own words condemn you, which is why you never responded down there to that perfectly on-point observation. Triton Rocker and his edits are a direct result of your long running POV campaign, he's said so himself about a million times so I don't know how you haven't picked up on that already. You can't dissacociate yourself from his existence simply because you won't voluntarily self-examine, and nobody has the time or the will to force you to do it. As for this venue, I don't participate here normally because it has no business existing, no legitimacy at all due to the way it operates and it's founding premises, which violate NPOV in themselves, but when I saw where this one was going, I simply had to comment. You don't like it, then leave. I've said all along this venue only exists due to your campaign, so let's test that theory once and for all and see what happens if you retire, and see whether the page and the things that occur on it would be necessary anymore, or whether this whole dispute is artificialy created and sustained, and is causing more disruption than is worth for the odd mistaken use of the term by editors who simply don't know any better. If this venue has been dealing in the main with simple mistakes, it's news to me. No, it deals with the kind of mistake that requires someone to consider someone else's language wrong and seek to correct it on their behalf, for no good reason other than pure POV. I hope people do believe what I write about it and you, because it's fact, and I'll defend it anytime anywhere if someone gives me motivation to do so, such as the prospect of your behaviour actualy being examined in a proper venue once and for all, with real examination of fact from fiction, evidentiary motive from asserted motive, policy knowledge from policy distortion, and the prospect of actual consequences for proof of systematic behaviour that is to my mind one of the worst violations of NPOV I've ever seen. MickMacNee (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Mick is right - this is the standard footballing convention as regards "foreign" players in Eng/Scot/Wales/NI/Ire. As he says, asking at WP:FOOTY will confirm this. BritishWatcher's points above are also relevant and valid. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You'd think that if it was a standard footballing convention, a source would have been found by now? BW's point is relevant only if "foreign player" is a common term used in football and used to include all the home associations of the "British Isles". But it's not. For example, this is a fans forum for a poll on best foreign player, and it includes Roy Keane. This BBC article compares where today's premier league players come from with a decade ago, and include RoI players as foreign. This article defines "foreign" as any player not eligible for the National Team. This Newspaper article defines foreign as anyone who isn't British. --HighKing (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Then we should simply remove the term "foreign player" and focus on it just being a list of players from outside of the British Isles. Im not sure about FPs correct usage(i am not a big football fan as i am denied a national football team) but "foreign player" is a more complicated matter in the UK than in other nations as no one has EWSNI citizenship.

Restricting it to just Scotland, would mean having to go through every single season since 1998 for all the other players to add. The author of the article in question clearly included the Republic of Ireland, Us going along and changing the criteria and the makeup of the list is the sort of thing we should be avoiding here. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's put aside, for now, that issue of the way "foreign player" is defined as it is being used in the article. If we remove that definition, then it begs why is the article relevant or notable? I could understand it if the list was relevant to players who would be regarded as not being "home grown", and would therefore impact the teams that could be fielded in certain competitions. But if it's just a random list based on some editor's own and irrelevant criteria..... --HighKing (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming - I'm hoping - that it's not based on "some editor's own and irrelevant criteria". However... I would like to see refs for the definitions at the top. That would help us with the issue at hand. Beyond that, I'm going to agree with MickMacNee and Black Kite - let's punt this to WP:FOOTY. TFOWR 18:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Punted. --HighKing (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well no one involved in the BI naming dispute decided to create the list which clearly included the Republic of Ireland (excluding their players from the list), so we should avoid just attacking an editor making a list about this. Considering the complex nature of "foreign" when relating to EWSNI and yes ROI, it seems such a list is justified. Lets say we go with the foreign player source above that mentions the UK, it fails to take note of the fact the isle of man is not in the UK and that they are not foreign ( theyd have to play for the English national team) so in such a case saying British isles (excluding ROI) would be just as reasonable as saying UK+IOM+Channel Islands. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

True, but someone from the BI naming dispute changed the article to insert "British Isles". The first thing we check when the term is either added or removed is to see if a reliable source or citation can be found. That's where we're at. And it seems we can't find a reference... --HighKing (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Typical sources for including RoI are such as [12] or [13]. Also, note List of foreign Premier League players. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The first reference uses the definition of "outside the UK and IRE". The second source doesn't give any scope to their definition. The other article appears to have been the original template for this article, and uses GB&I. --HighKing (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm that one should probably be changed to say the British Isles, if we accept the usage on the Scottish article. They clearly also mean the Isle of Man/Channel islands are excluded from that list, yet only say Great Britain and Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The usage on this article is unreferenced and unsourced. We've established that the term is not used by UEFA, FIFA, the SFA, or anywhere else that we can see. Given that Triton Rock inserted the term, and there's no references, the article should be returned to it's original state. Fair's fair. If I'd removed the term, it would have been reinserted first, and debated second. That said, the references pointed our by BK and others would justify a change to either UK&I or "Home Nations". --HighKing (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If a list of foreign players (basically excluding people from EWSNI and ROI) are justified then that has to include the IOM and Channel Islands, because players from there can play for England. Just saying GB and Ireland, missing out IOM and Channel islands is inaccurate. It should say British Isles, its describing a geographical location. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have come across this article (as i mentioned on the Footy page)[14] which says: "There has been some confusion and much debate in recent days about whether or not Nacho Novo can play for Scotland," said SFA chief executive Gordon Smith. "On one hand, the Fifa regulations say that George Burley can pick eligible players who hold a British passport - and, on the other, we have the gentlemen's agreement with the other Home Associations that says that we will pick players based on their bloodline." That was in 2008, i dont know if there has been changes since then, but according to that it doesnt sound like FIFA view English people to be "foreign" when it comes to Scotland and there for nor are people of the Isle of Man and Channel Islands which are not part of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So, rather than being about the usage of GB&I and/or BI to mean 'foreign player' in the context of the SPL, which was the original complaint, suddenly it has turned into the usual tit-for-tat "fair's fair" gameplay of adding/removing the term 'British Isles', with the usual 'BI is not referenced' POV push trump card being offered, conveniently overlooking the fact that 'Great Britain and Ireland' was similarly, not referenced, and that its correction to British Isles was perfectly justifiable based on the Isle of Man aspect. Is anybody surprised the discussion somehow came round to this, given the person involved? Anybody? MickMacNee (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how you sneaked in above me BW, but my post was to HK, but you've pretty much nailed the GB&I point I was trying to make. The fact is, the issue of national team eligibility has always been a somewhat convoluted one for the BI, but the notion of who is and isn't classed as a foreigner for the purposes of the EPL/SPL simply in common usage, derives if anything from the issue of work permits rather than national team eligibility. MickMacNee (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Would pipe-linking to British Isles be acceptable? Example: [British Isles|Britain and Ireland]. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

British Isles should never be pipelinked from Britain and Ireland. I would rather no mention/inclusion of BI than pipelinking. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Foreign means from another nation and Ireland IS another nation. The use of BI would be total inappropriate in this article. In fact in footballing terms England, Wales and Northern Ireland are foreign as well. Bjmullan (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not in English/Scottish football it doesn't. Is it a topic you have any familiarity with at all? I do not accept that anybody can make this kind of basic mistake if they do, certainly not if they watch or read about the sport with any regularity. Do you even realise that the first 'foreign player' to play in England was actually a Canadian, well before 1900, and that this was so noted as the first 'foreign' player despite some English teams of the time having been made up entirely of Scottish players for years? And the only way Ireland's status in this issue as a different 'nation' would be even remotely relevant is as you point out if we did start treating the UK as one nation for footballing reasons. And then we really would have proved that this entire discussion is not grounded in a knowledge of football at all. MickMacNee (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the logic Mick. It also proves that treating British Isles as one nation (the rest being "foreign") for footballing reasons also shows that this entire discussion is not grounded in a knowledge of football. Foot nicely shot. --HighKing (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

God knows where you got that conclusion from, but the football world treats anyone from outside the British Isles as foreign players wrt the EPL/SPL, so whatever you think I might of said to say I shot myself in the foot, it's clearly not what I said, or meant for that matter. MickMacNee (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Mick if you are saying the the reader needs a knowledge of football before he can even understand this article then maybe the article name should be changed. What about "List of Scottish Premier League players not from the UK or Ireland"? Bjmullan (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying readers who don't have a clue about football should not be trying to fix any article about football, especially not if they are going to ignore people who do know about football. Your proposed title is nonsense, it is simply factually incorrect as well as being made up of terminology that no sane person who knows about football would ever use in favour of simply 'foreign player'. If you think that this title is so confusing for someone who knows nothing about football, and you are not happy with the introduction which explains what a foreign player is, then take it up with the football project. If you ask nicely, they might whip you up a foreign player (association football) article. Renaming this list is not going to fix a problem which, if it exists as you assert, has far more wide reaching implications for Wikipedia than just this one article. MickMacNee (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

if you are ok with a list existing with a title like List of Scottish Premier league players not from the UK or Ireland then there is no reason not to be more accurate and talk about players from outside the geographical location of the British Isles (like you could say outside of Europe). The trouble is saying UK and Ireland is not enough, because it fails to cover IOM and Channel Islands, both of which are not part of the UK but under the criteria stated (about national teams), would be covered as they play for England if they are from the IOM.

I propose something like .. List of players in the Scottish Premier League from outside of the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to rename the list. If there are people out there who don't know what 'foreign' means in the context of the SPL/EPL, then the place to explain that is in the article, not by violating WP:PRECISION and WP:COMMON NAME in the title by producing titles that, if you don't already know about this definition of 'foreign', would not make any sense as a list scope anyway and would still have to be explained in the article. MickMacNee (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

We're getting pulled off topic. TR inserted "British Isles" without reference. We've now looked and none can be found. Furthermore, other similar articles use "Great Britain and Ireland". On that basis, the article should be reverted, as has been done numerous times in the past when the term was inserted. If we want to then debate a more appropriate title for the article, or whether what this article uses as a criteria for "foreign" has relevance, or whether the article should even exist, we can start another discussion. --HighKing (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

'Great Britain and Ireland' is also not sourced, and it is also factually incorrect. 'United Kingdom and Ireland' is also factually incorrect, and violates the much vaunted 'apples and oranges' rule of mixing non-associated terms - in football, there is no UK or 'Ireland' team. British Isles is factually correct for the geographic area needing to be described, whether people have a clue about football or not. This page is not a gaming venue, so ignoring these facts while just pushing for removal of BI is simply not going to happen. MickMacNee (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain and Ireland is not accurate, the criteria talks about people playing for the national teams to help define if they are foreign or not. people of the IOM play for England, there for just saying GB + Ireland excludes them. It rightly says British Isles and the other article for the English premiership foreign players should say British Isles too. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Commonsense has to rule. It is just another typically ridiculous POV pot stir by HighKing on his "remove British Isles at all cost" campaign.

I am sorry but there is a considerable degree of chauvinism in the exclusive joint term "Great Britain and Ireland" towards the other smaller islands in the British Isles --- exactly the same kind of chauvinism the Irish accuse the English of. We should be conscious of that chauvinism, and remove it.

The all inclusive geographic term "British Isles" remains the over-riding and non-political resolution to all these problems.

It is pointless to refer to "other similar articles" as if it means anything because,

a) they could well be equally wrong, and

b) either he or one of his minions have probably already changed them to suit his agenda.

It is fine to bleat "comment on content, not the contributor", TFOWR, but I don't see you contributing to the topics and having your time, energy and goodwill wasted.

There will come a point when all concerned have to admit this is one man's psychological baggage around which the Wikipedia is being bent and deal with it at that level --- the sooner that point comes, the better. --Triton Rocker (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR you said above "term "British Isles" remains the over-riding and non-political resolution". The issue MANY of us have (not just HK) is that the statement is a very politicly loaded one. When it come to flower and fauna I have little problem with the term but here we are using it to describe people from different sovereign nations. Bjmullan (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no, I didn't. Triton Rocker said that. TFOWR 15:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry TFOWR, I miss read the thread! Bjmullan (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker, I am absolutely not going to contribute to any insertion or removal of the term "British Isles", for reasons I would have thought are blindingly obvious. TFOWR 15:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With all due respect if "MANY" find the statement ["British Isles"] to be a "a very politicly loaded one" it is their problem and they should deal with it on their own - they should not try to deal with it by trying to remove references to it. This is POV pushing pure an simple. By act of nature the Republic of Ireland is in the British Isles and no amount of debate can change that. There are uses that are clearly wrong when discussing matters only pertaining to one area of the group of islands, but this is far from one of those - it is time to close this and get on with other more important stuff. Codf1977 (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that British Isles is clearly the correct term in this article, as that is the case List of foreign Premier League players should have Great Britain and Ireland changed to British Isles. As that is the accurate description of the location the criteria is talking about. just saying GB + I is not accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Codf1977 (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To say the the term BI is politically loaded is not POV just fact. Bjmullan (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I was not commenting on if "British Isles" is "politically loaded", even if some find it so, it is still POV pushing to edit to remove it. Codf1977 (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

British Isles politically loaded? What utter, utter shite! It's only politically loaded in the minds of idiots. British Isles is correct here. I'm going to change it if someone has not already done so. One good thing about all this "discussion" - it keeps the lid on the British Isles removers no error. What's the score so far chaps? Are we winning? LemonMonday Talk 14:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Even handed and consistent treatment

When we discussed the Keith Floyd article, the article was reverted by Black Kite while the discussion was in progress. Can an admin revert this article while discussions are underway also please? --HighKing (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Codf1977 (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It's done as a procedural thingymabob - with no comment on the preferred version. TFOWR 15:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done here. TFOWR 15:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You have restored an incorrect wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the version prior to the edit that prompted this thread, without prejudice to whether the version is correct or not. It's a little like protecting a page: The Wrong Version goes with the territory... TFOWR 15:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

WT:FOOTY

OK, so High King has asked at WT:FOOTY#Definition of "Foreign Player". I'd suggest that we wait and see what the conclusion is there. I appreciate that football is one area most of us (well, excluding me) know a fair bit about, but right now this thread is generating way too much heat and not nearly enough light. The article's lead is very poorly referenced, and I'm hoping that's something that can be addressed by the WP:FOOTY folk. Until it is, we're just throwing wild-ass guesses around, and worse. TFOWR 15:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

So far nobody there has said the term is clearly incorrect and should be changed. How long will we be waiting for a response? I think people will presume that matter has been dealt with now. What happens if there are no more comments. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To summarize so far:

• There is no agreed definition for "Foreign Player", official or otherwise. It doesn't exist. References have been shown to use a wide variety of definitions, all from good sources.
• Great Britain and Ireland. The argument to keep these terms is that these terms were the original terms used in the article. Argument against is that it omits the crown dependencies.
• United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Argument against is that football isn't organized in this way - there is no UK team.
• British Isles. Argument against is that football isn't organized this way - there is no British Isles team - and that it fails to correctly distinguish RoI as a "foreign" nation.
• Home Nations. Argument against is that it is a parochial term, and more common in Rugby and Association Football. Argument for is that it is a sporting term in use, and a collective term for the sporting associations. Leaving aside the other discussions about the relevance of the article, etc, it might to broadly capture what has been discussed so far. --HighKing (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Another argument against "United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland" is that it does not include IOM/CIs. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What about "national football associations of the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland" or even GB&I would work with that extension? --HighKing (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a totally ridiculous idea, we have a term that is perfectly fine but you just do not like it - POV ! Codf1977 (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at the article again I have come to the conclusion that the definition is badly written in that it make two attempts to define what a foreign player is. (First by mentioning BI and then refining this with all of the national football teams.) Would it not be just easier to re-write this to say: "2. Are considered foreign, i.e., a player is considered foreign if he is not eligible to play for the national teams of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland." I know that I will get accused by some of removing BI but it would make the article read better. Bjmullan (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

@BW: the discussion was active yesterday, doesn't seem to be much happening today. I'd suggest give it until Sunday evening - that gives folk who are only online at weekends a chance to comment. Any objections? Sadly I no longer have anything to occupy me on Sunday nights... TFOWR 16:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

ok, we should all take a break from this for 48 hours then and pick up where we left off, including taking into account any more comments. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, TFOWR, I did not mean adding or subtracting the term British Isles.

I meant you and the others actually working on the topic themselves as I did.

It strikes me that this issue has attracted a load of individuals who demand to have an opinion over others work but who are not doing any themselves, e.g. Tenant farmer and numerous others.

I apologise for asking this outright, Bjmullan, but do you have any academic expertise in this area at all, if so what?

It is very hard to tell who one is actually speaking to and at what level, and it is not very fair for the rest of us if you don't.

Unfortunately, your statement is academically wrong. We have no other inclusive, non-political geographic term to use.

It is as simple as that. Any attempt to politicise it is not encyclopediac and does not belong here. --Triton Rocker (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker if you have any doubts over my statement on BI being a political laden term then I suggest the you take time and read British Isles naming dispute where they are many reference to support this claim. As for academic expertise I was unaware that I needed any to take part in this or any other discussion. Perhaps you can correct me on this assumption. Bjmullan (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

British Isles is just as much a geographic term as Europe or the Irish Sea. Some people may not like the term British Isles and think it is political, but it is not a reason we should avoid using it. BI should only be removed when it is inaccurately used. In exactly the same way GB+I should be removed and replaced with British Isles when GB+I is inaccurate. Like in this case. People seem happy for it to be about the ROI and UK, yet they are unhappy about using British Isles even though thanks to the IOM and CI it is the accurate term. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if this source has been mentioned above, but i found this telegraph article about the English one "A mere 12 players from outside the British Isles were named in the starting line-ups when the 22 founder members of the Premier League kicked off the competition's inaugural season in August 1992." [15]. This BBC one too [16] uses British Isles when talking about foreign players. It does seem to be standard practice compared to some other methods, even if it is not an official definition by UEFA, FIFA or the SPL. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

How can you state that "It does seem to be standard practice"? That is your opinion, but we need references. As I posted earlier above:

BW's point is relevant only if "foreign player" is a common term used in football and used to include all the home associations of the "British Isles". But it's not. For example, this is a fans forum for a poll on best foreign player, and it includes Roy Keane. This BBC article compares where today's premier league players come from with a decade ago, and include RoI players as foreign. This article defines "foreign" as any player not eligible for the National Team. This Newspaper article defines foreign as anyone who isn't British. --HighKing (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sunday Evening has arrived already

Well it is now sunday evening. Whilst there have been no further comments in our section on the Footy WP, another debate about eligibility for the England team did come up here. That basically confirmed the fact again that FIFA appear not to have any official position on internal UK players they are all just British citizens, its simply being down to a gentlemans agreement between the 4 FAs not to pouch each others players from what ive read. So "Foreign player" does not apply to English people when talking about Scotland, there for it does not apply to the Isle of Man or Channel Islands, who can play for England. There for it is inaccurate simply to say Great Britain and Ireland. The situation with Irish citizens in regards to being foreign is more complex but considering we have several sources who talk about players from outside the British Isles, considering the creator of that article chose to include Ireland, and the fact the English alternative article also covers both GB and Ireland, there is no justification for us to remove the Republic of Ireland (basically include their players in the list as foreign), something which would require us to go through the history books to check for over many years. This may not be too hard for the Scottish Premier league but its like to be far far more difficult for the English one.

There for i think Great Britain and Ireland should be changed to British Isles on both List of foreign Premier League players and List of foreign Scottish Premier League players.

Such a change is required because at present we are saying GB + I even though they are also referring to the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. The introduction can of course clearly explain in detail who is left off the list, but there is no reason why the British Isles should not be mentioned on those articles.

Whilst this is of less importance to fixing the incorrect info. I think it would probably be better if both articles were renamed to say something like Players in the Scottish Premier League from outside of the British Isles or Scottish Premier League players from outside the British Isles . That is the position i have come to on these matters, i am unsure how others feel. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You've got more into this than I have - are you saying that an Irish Citizen (not born in Northern Ireland with the dual option) is able to play for Scotland? --Snowded ^TALK 17:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think that the best solution is to clearly define point 2 of what a foreign player is and not have two stabs at it. Therefore point 2 would simple read: "2. Are considered foreign, i.e., a player is considered foreign if he is not eligible to play for the national teams of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland." That covers it in one sentence. Bjmullan (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No i am saying people from England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Channel Islands by FIFA rules would have the right to play for Scotland from what i have read on that WP. It seems its just an internal unofficial agreement by the four home nations FAs to not pouch each others players that stop them from getting Scots to play for England and vice versa. ROI players would not be eligible so officially FIFA would view them as foreign.

The trouble we have is both of these lists were created clearly excluding Irish players, and quite a few reliable sources can be found doing the same when talking about foreign players from "outside the British Isles". There for i do not see a need for changing the criteria of the list (which would be problematic, going through every year of both leagues to check of Irish players and to add them) to just be about the UK, IOM and CI, but at present it excludes people from the IOM and CI, yet only says GB and Ireland. It is far easier to just explain this is about people from outside of the BI, which is why my suggested name change above to avoid the term "foreign player". might help resolve the problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

BW - you posted at WP:FOOTY: agree, there is no need for a change and the list is of use to the reader. Fine. The list is now back to the stable version, before TR made any changes. You've also agreed with the following:

• UEFA, FIFA, and the SFA, FA, etc, have no official definition of "foreign player"
• The definition used in this article defined "foreign" in terms of eligibility of national teams
• Many of the definitions use the term "British" to define "foreign". i.e. Not British = Foreign
• The original poster, and other articles, all use "Great Britain and Ireland".

If we all agree that GB&I is inaccurate, this discussion then revolves around what changes, if any, should be made to the article. Your argument for "British Isles" needs clarification, because it doesn't gel with your previous argument for "British" being used in previous definitions. I've outlined the choices above - perhaps you can address the pros and cons of each choice? I believe the best option is to use either "Home Nations" since it is a sporting term that includes UK&I, or that we amend the existing text to simply state "the associations of UK&I". --HighKing (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe i said there was no need for a change before the previous version was restored. I believe a change is needed for both articles now because they incorrectly just say Great Britain and Ireland when clearly they also mean the Isle of Man and Channel Islands.

So we have the following options..

• Remove the term "foreign player" from the title and make this just about people from outside the British Isles.
• Change Great Britain and Ireland to British Isles in the introduction of both articles and explain the situation relating to ROI. (can do this without without the above idea)
• Saying Great Britain Ireland Isle of Man and Channel islands in the introduction just to avoid saying British Isles is totally unacceptable.
• The other option would be to remove the ROI and treat it as foreign players. This would involve us havin to say United Kingdom Isle of Man and Channel Islands but the bigger problem with this idea is we would then have to go through every season looking for Irish players to add to the list.

We would then be changing the criteria of the article because of our dispute here and we would be going against quite a few examples who talk of foreign players from outside of the British Isles. The creator of both lists excluded Ireland as "foreign". We should accept that and not say we do not like it. We just need to fix the terms used, and British Isles is the accurate term and of course the detailed explanation about who is not included can make clear its about the right to play for the associations. But at the end of the day, if people accept that ROI can remain being treated like England on that list, there is no reason not to say British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There's two problems as far as I can see. I can accept that "foreign" isn't intended to include British players - that is, players who are eligible to play for one of the associations of ENISW. But I don't see how "foreign" can include non-British. And that comes back to the definition used within the article - it uses eligibility to play for national teams to determine inclusion on the list. So I believe that is the definition intended, and simply stating it in those terms is clear and unambiguous, and in keeping with the definitions used by sport and association football. --HighKing (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

List of lichen checklists

Unresolved

 – Sorry, not had a chance to look at this either, and I suspect it won't be as easy as the SFA/foreign player issue, either - are there any handy WikiProjects we could ask for guidance at? TFOWR 13:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears to come under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fungi and it would be worth opening a discussion there, I will do so. This goes to the general point that in many cases these changes should also be discussed at local articles or projects, since editors here in reality lack sufficient expertise to decide accurately in some cases. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Here the referenced book title is "Great Britain and Ireland" so there is no case to make it British Isles unless we are in the business of correcting the book titles of experts in the field.--Snowded ^TALK 10:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to change, however disagree with Snowded reasons, as I have said before trying to second guess the reasons why an author chose to use "Great Britain and Ireland" vs "British Isles" is not good. It is quite possible that the wrong one can be used by the title of the book, that does not mean here on WP we should automatically compound any mistake by blindly following what could be a choice made for commercial reasons. Codf1977 (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to look at the overall context - that should be the first step, in the case of List of lichen checklists there is none so use the title of the book as there is nothing else to go on. But as a rule it is not appropriate as it is open to mistakes or errors. Codf1977 (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

List of lichen checklists should say what the book says. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

My only hesitation on the lichens one is that the publication is a reference work of the British Lichen Society - the only geographical scopes they express in their website are here [17] - saying that the society "... arranges annual residential meetings in spring, summer and autumn in all parts of the British Isles... " - and here [18] - showing meetings in the Isle of Man, England, Scotland, Wales, etc. The book isn't stand-alone, it's their specific publication. I suspect they are indeed a BI grouping and that this book is a BI-wide reference work, although I accept the general point about book titles. This may be another case of us clunking a bit into an area we actually know little about. 12:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Stick with the reference @ List of lichen checklists but I agree with what James says above. Bjmullan (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded's reasoning with List of lichen checklists (as per book titles). --HighKing (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That article should have British Isles as a heading. The heading does not relate to the publication beneath it, other than as a broad grouping for it, and potentially other publications. I have found a publication detailing lichens in the IoM, so by adding that maybe British Isles is better. LevenBoy (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC) What say we add these three links to List of lichen checklists - [19] [20] [21]

Then maybe we should have a rethink about the section heading? LevenBoy (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Original research, the title of the book is very clear --Snowded ^TALK 11:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a difference between the link title and the section titles in the article. That looks like useful material LevenBoy. Also we should encourage collaborative editing when we see it Snowded and not carp. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Come on James, this one was discussed and you yourself with the "chunking around" comment accepted the general point about book titles. Codf1977 on the talk pages says that s/he plans a general reworking of the titles, and if you check I supported that. Pending a wider change this one was closed off, and we really don't want every one which is closed being opened again shortly afterwards. On the other hand this entry starts with reinstating a posting from an established sock farm. There is a difference. and the OR point stands, its not carping its an argument. --Snowded ^TALK 11:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Lichens one doesn't seem to be closed - what closed it exactly? As regards the titles, I see no reason why continued editing of the article needs to stop because someone has (vaguely) promised that at some future point they will rework the titles. At the moment, there are a variety of section-themes in that article, including down to the State level in the US. Adding material about the IofM and the CI seems very reasonable. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, you obviously didn't read my comments above (20:47, 27 July 2010) so here is the gist, again; the title is just a grouping for publications appearing beneath it. It is not directly related to a particular entry so how you manage to conjure up OR in this context is quite beyond me. You seem to be stonewalling on this one. British Isles is an obvious title for the group of publications that we could now add to. And please reflect further on the comments I placed on your Talk Page regarding just what is, and what isn't OR. LevenBoy (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, if you really want to reopen this one feel free. You might want to look at the flora and fauna point etc. LevenBoy, there is only one title as its a list of lists. If you follow the current page convention then you should create sections for Guernsey, possibly IoM & Ireland (although those are books not lists). On the other hand it might make sense to completely re-organise it into geographical areas (in which case BI is fine if the others are things like North America) or nations etc. I think that was Codf1977's point. However just inserting BI instead of the current title is neither one thing or the other. --Snowded ^TALK 11:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, the *current* text is correct. The section headings reflect the publications within the lists, and reflect the titles within the publications. There's no grouping - for example, we don't have a section heading entitled "USA" with the appropriate publications under that heading. As Snowded correctly points out above, following the convention within the article would simply require adding a section for "Ireland", and another for "Isle of Man", etc, and listing the publication. In order to *insert* "British Isles" into this article, it requires a rewrite to organize and group by geographical regions. Of course, if it's deemed OK to edit articles to rewrite sections and introduce new material, its best we're all crystal clear on that too... --HighKing (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

They don't currently match up precisely. See for example North America, which is listed as "A Cumulative Checklist for the Lichen-forming, Lichenicolous and Allied Fungi of the Continental United States and Canada." US and Canada is not North America. Clearly there is scope for improving the article. It also isn't up to you HighKing to resist adding material to that article that is appropriate, contextual and properly referenced. I am not sure what the problem is here exactly. If LevenBoy chooses not to add that material, I will. 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If there are more lists then I would add them, in their own sections relating the heading to the list. I'm less sure about the two books which are not (other than by implication) lists bit that is a minor point. I don;t see High King arguing against adding material --Snowded ^TALK 14:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The ones LevenBoy identified would best be added under a new "British Isles" header with the Britain and Ireland one. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, either add within the current convention or restructure by geographical area (in which case BI or Europe or similar is fine). The latter is a better idea to be honest although it involves a bit more work. FAD No consent to insertion of BI without other changes--Snowded ^TALK 14:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

@James - the easiest solution is to follow the existing convention. Your North American example, which technically incorrect, is ambiguously referenced since the link brings you to a page entitled "North American Lichen Checklist". If you want to add new material, fine. But the community would ...take a dim view... of an editor completely changing around the current convention of an article, and then adding to an article, solely with the intention to insert "British Isles", especially against a consensus here. --HighKing (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the same way the Lichen Society pages take you to lots of references to British Isles? As for the "current convention" of the article, there doesn't seem to be a straightforward one, as the North American example shows. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

James, restructuring the list by geographical regions is the obvious and least controversial solution - why not just go with that? I'll even do the work if you want --Snowded ^TALK 17:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The taskforce is primarily concerned with examining usage in articles - as they are currently being used. In this case, usage of "Great Britain and Ireland" is valid and correct, given the existing current naming conventions used within the article. I believe that setting out to materially rewrite or reorganize an article is not within the spirit of this task force. Restructuring the list by geographical regions might validate an insertion of "British Isles" - but I believe there is no justification for restructuring beyond the insertion of "British Isles", and I disagree with that motive. --HighKing (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Arts and Crafts Movement

Unresolved

 – Given the differences between the movement in England and elsewhere, I'd suggest "England" and "Elsewhere in the British Isles". I don't have a problem with BI in this context, but believe that England merits it's own heading, at least until the Scotland/Glasgow and Ireland parts of the article are expanded. TFOWR 13:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The more straight forward move would have been to revert them to the prior state and see if anyone wanted to nominate them for change or make a case. That should happen anyway, but I thought I would try out a quick proposal first --Snowded ^TALK 10:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

agree with Snowded Codf1977 (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that British Isles is a reasonable addition to the Arts and crafts one. The section currently called UK has a paragraph at the end on Ireland and this is talking about a period where it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland rather than just the present UK. So British Isles seems reasonable as a section heading there. I found this sorce [22] which says "the earliest and perhaps the fullest development of the movement was in the British Isles". So that change seems ok to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded's reasoning on Arts and Crafts Movement --HighKing (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if this is explained elsewhere, but how do we proceed if one is classed as "unresolved" - revert the article to the status quo? Personally, having just read through the article, I can't see much that isn't really about Britain and specifically England and Scotland - there is a small amount of material on Ireland in the article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In the past that's been the decision - to revert to just prior to any editing by participants here. Unresolved basically is the same as no consensus for the edits. Although not that it doesn't mean that the edits can't continue to be discussed. If nobody else objects to this reasoning, I suggest that this becomes the norm from now on. --HighKing (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think British Isles is totally justified in this case. Based on the fact the section in question mentioned Ireland and there are sources talking about the movement beginning in the British Isles. Unresolved = need more debate, the matter is not considered closed. Otherwise it would be "resolved" - with no consensus for change and a revert made. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Irish Traveller

Resolved

 – I'm really not seeing a case for BI here, because... they're Irish Travellers. Use "Ireland" and a term applicable for that part of the BI which doesn't include Ireland. I'd suggest "Ireland and (to a lesser extent) the British Islands [or... the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man ]". Outside Ireland the majority of Travellers are not Irish Travellers. TFOWR 13:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Usual problem, used more than once Ireland and Great Britain when, of course, clearly referring to the British Isles as one cannot exclude the Isle of Man and Channel Isles.

It is easy to drop some references to support this. --Triton Rocker (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I read through the article, is it stated that they are on the channel islands? Can't find it anywhere.

Additionally, is there a reason Ireland is always first? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose on that one it's first because the article is mainly about an Ireland topic. I did some searching and couldn't immediately find any references online to traveller communities in Isle of Man, CI, etc, although I'm sure something could be found with sufficient effort. This one seems a bit of a stretch really, the existing article at least is about Britain and Ireland. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

They why are they listed on the British Isle box at the bottom of the page? [23].

Propose "predominantly in Ireland and Great Britain" to "predominantly in the British Isles". --Triton Rocker (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

They could be there because they are in the British Isles. Whether they are outside of Great Britain and Ireland is the question. I reckon it should be Great Britain and Ireland though, spelling order. Especially in this article, where Ireland appearing out of the blue seems to detract from the Irish when the people are described, though that may just be me. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry TFOWR but its not resolved yet, is it? --Triton Rocker (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I've removed the Resolved tag, becuase it isn't. Can someone please explain precisely what the problem with British Isles is here? How does it differ from Britain and Ireland - the latter being an ambiguous term that we should try to avoid if at all possible. British Isles is clearly appropraite here. I support Triton's suggestion.LevenBoy (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I replaced the resolved tag since it was placed there by an admin who looked at the arguments and made a decision. If you disagree, open a new section. --HighKing (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Objection

(copied LB comment from above)Can someone please explain precisely what the problem with British Isles is here? How does it differ from Britain and Ireland - the latter being an ambiguous term that we should try to avoid if at all possible. British Isles is clearly appropraite here. I support Triton's suggestion.LevenBoy (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a complex subject. It's not quite as simple as may seem from a simply skimming of the surface. The Irish Traveller is distinct from other travellers such as say the Roma or Scottish Travellers. But it's possible that British Isles is appropriate here - Irish Travellers are nomadic. I'd like to take up TR's on his claim that references would be easy to drop, to support TR and LB's claims that Irish Travellers have settled in the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. --HighKing (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Irish Travellers means exclusively from Ireland, at least not by the article. They seem to have spread, and the ethnic group is called Irish travellers, not just the ones in Ireland. If they have moved to Manx I think British Isles is appropriate. If not Great Britain and Ireland. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What's needed is some good source material about their geographical extent within these islands - I couldn't see any from a brief online search and there isn't any on that article. Therefore the admin resolved call was a good one, at least for now. I think these are examples of articles where progress still needs to be made in terms of referencing, additional material, etc. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are we looking at this as being "unresolved" based on "progress still needs to be made in terms of referencing, additional material, etc"??? Our function is not to serve as content experts, but to look at usage. The article didn't use "British Isles" and no references can be produced to back that up. Closed. Move on. --HighKing (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think I was saying it was unresolved HK - the reverse - I was merely commenting that the article could do with more material and sourcing as it's interesting. Or perhaps you are not particularly interested in the detail of any given article? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry just to be clear on this that BI is only correct if there is evidence that they moved to IoM, so given the definition of Great Britain in this non political instance as "It refers to the largest island only" and not for example Isle of Wight, Anglesey, the Isles of Scilly, the Hebrides, and the island groups of Orkney and Shetland what you are saying is that BI can only be used if it can be shown that they moved to every island that makes up the BI ? Codf1977 (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow had to move Codf1977's comment there.

British Isles is more appropriate if they live throughout the British Isles, it is more accurate than the current "Ireland and Britain". I think that this article mainly uses that phrase when speaking about geography, not politics, as "UK" is often used.

To clear up Codf, Great Britain is an island, the largest in the British Isles. The Irish Travellers do not have to move to every island in the British Isles for that term to be applicable. However, if they only live on Great Britain and Ireland, than that phrase should be acceptable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This question underlines the whole problem with this silliness, the futility of the argument in non-political, non-sensitive areas.

Where and when is "Britain" ... There is no such place. Are you talking about Great Britain, the United Kingdom, some previous incarnation (some of which included all or parts of Ireland). Can excluding all the smaller islands, as well as Isle of Man and Channel Islands etc?

"Britain and Ireland" is an anachronistic term, used as an abbreviation for the formal name of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1927, i.e. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland), when Ireland and the Irish were subject to Westminister. Anyone supporting the use of Britain and Ireland is, essentially, harking back to that period.

• Encyclopedia of world cultures by David Levinson. 1992 "Irish Travellers live and travel throughout Ireland and in the neighboring British Isles (Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England)."
• Irish travellers: culture and ethnicity by May McCann, Séamas Ó Síocháin, Joseph Ruane. 1994. "Within the British Isles we have four such "old" Travelling groups - the Welsh, English, Scottish and Irish Travellers".
• Ethnic groups worldwide: a ready reference handbook. David Levinson - 1998. "Irish Travellers are ethnic Irish whose ancestors as long ago as the 5th century came to be viewed as a distinct group ... Travellers are found throughout the British Isles."
• Roma, gypsies, travellers. Jean-Pierre Liégeois - 1994 "There are also Traveller groups who speak ancient dialects, the origins of which remain obscure: for example the Irish Travellers of the British Isles whose language, Gammon, seems to go back to Celtic structures"
• Nomads Under the Westway: Irish Travellers, Gypsies and Other Traders by Christopher Griffin. 2008. "Several of the older men had travelled extensively in Ireland and other parts of the British Isles."
• The world in so many words: a country-by-country tour by Allan A. Metcalf - 1999. "That language, along with the Irish Travelers who speak it, has spread to the rest of the British Isles"
• Ethnicity and the American cemetery by Richard E. Meyer - 1993. "Travellers and Roms abound to this day in the British Isles".
• Gypsies, tinkers and other travellers by Farnham Rehfisch - 1975. "Unlike the Gypsies who spread over rather a wide area, Irish Travellers are limited to the British Isles"
• Irish Travellers: Racism and the Politics of Culture by Jane Helleiner
• Health care needs of travellers by P Van Cleemput. Archives of disease in childhood, 2000. "In the British Isles they mainly comprise English and Welsh Romanichal or Romany Gypsies, Irish Travellers, and Scottish Travellers, in addition to a growing number of European Romanichals (Roma)."
• Tinkers: Synge and the cultural history of the Irish Traveller by Mary M. Burke. "aboriginal authenticity in the British Isles ... treking throughout the British Isles"
• The Gypsies by Angus M. Fraser - 1995. "In the British Isles, the itinerants in Ireland, who are popularly referred to as Tinkers but now prefer to be called Travellers"
• Ethnic challenge: the politics of ethnicity in Europe by Hans Vermeulen, Jeremy Boissevain. Edition Herodot, 1984

You have obvious never ridden the Douglas ferry ... how many more references do we need? --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've no objection to British Isles on this one, but for the record "Britain and Ireland" is not anachronistic, it is in current use. --Snowded ^TALK 05:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And the examples above go to the heard of TR's editing. Nearly all references are talking about the wider group of Travellers and not just Irish Travellers. TR is politically POV-pushing to create new content simply to insert "British Isles" into articles, as he has done on previous articles. This is not the job of this task force, and the sanction is very clear on systematic insertion. I say again, the current *usage* within this article is correct. --HighKing (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I object to "Britain and Ireland" on a semantic basis, but that shouldn't matter now. I do think that British Isles does seem more appropriate here, reading through the article, the sources provided by triton and the article, and basing it on the information provided by this taskforce on usage. Describing their extent seems to be a geographical basis, talking about the islands in which this ethnic group has been settled on. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Britain and Ireland" is a very common phrase - although I grant you that it can be ambiguous. But it's not synonymous with "British Isles". Also, none of the sources provided by TR actually back up the statement, and is more of an attempt to insert "British Isles" into the article by adding content - which would be seen as in breach of the sanction. --HighKing (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think TR's first reference is spot on. Lets change it to Ireland and the British Isles. Fmph (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed interesting. The first reference clearly limits the "British Isles" to the "United Kingdom" by listing the constituent countries. So if we want to redefine "British Isles" to be limited in this way, then sure, I'm fine with that also. (not) --HighKing (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This one seems to be quite a struggle. At least partly I think this is down to the article itself being rather unclear - for example, on some rather key demographic points, it has unreferenced sources or dead links - it also has rather little about the precise geo-spread of Irish travellers specifically. Another point from the above discussions is that it isn't clear from the sources if everyone thinks "travellers" in, say Britain, are by definition the same as "Irish Travellers" or something else. There seems to be a little bit of glossing over this and looking back in the article history, I would guess Irish Travellers was started as a sort of catch-all for "travellers" plus a dash of stereotyping. I find this discussion a bit counter-productive. What really needs to happen is improvement to that article as a whole. We are bogged down because the article is also a hard subject to gain accurate evidence on. I would suggest a "do-nothing" policy on this one. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article can be improved. --HighKing (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If you say "Britain and Ireland" is in "current use", Snowded, you would still have to define 'for when' and 'for what', and by whom, because it is clumsy and inaccurate. Does it play by the rules of the Wikipedia?

I am sorry but here you have,

• on one hand, a clumsy, inaccurate technically meaningless term without references; and
• on the other, 13 perfectly clear and acceptable references staring you in the face offering a solution.

What is the problem?

As a minor point, by nature this group do not just "settle", they "travel" wherever the work, opportunities or other reasons lead them. Hence British Isles. --Triton Rocker (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton please read what I say don't just react. I said I had no objections to BI on this one, but corrected you on your anachronistic comment. If you check out the various BI discussions you will find references that show it increasing in use for Atlas titles (to take just one example. --Snowded ^TALK 08:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it can definitely be improved, however it seems that in referring to a group of what seems like nomads, whom could move around the area, British Isles should be used. Although they probably began in Ireland, the article seems to say that they are old enough to have existed when Ireland was part of the UK, and thus they probably moved around the entire area of the British Isles.

Either way, British Isles seems more appropriate, currently and if the article is improved. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So that is agreed then. No one has presented one reference for "Ireland and Britain" as it is at present.

Please bear in mind what a ridiculous waste of time and energy this debate is in face of such a preponderance of evidence. --Triton Rocker (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

it is not a waste of time to discuss changes in controversial areas and get agreement before moving on. That way we avoid edit wars, topic bans etc. etc. The more normal approach for you to have taken would have been to say something along the lines of "OK it looks like we are all agreed on BI here, if no one objects in the next 24 hours I will change it". Its Ok this time, but other articles might be more sensitive and the world will not come to an end if we give people time to respond. --Snowded ^TALK 03:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to help out TR in his quest for Britain and Ireland references:

"Travelling people of Great Britain and Ireland ..." - The Travelling People --Fmph (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, my request was for "Ireland and Britain" references - which account for zero. "Britain" and Great Britain are entirely two different matters. Anyway, I went and did some work. The rest of your "foremen" rest on your shovels for as long and you want and natter. --Triton Rocker (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Britain and Great Britain are pretty synonymous. Fmph (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

But if you want an Ireland and Britain reference instead then this one will probably suffice. "This group are an indigenous nomadic ethnic group in Northern and Southern Ireland and Britain....". Plenty more out there. And the point of this is what? Fmph (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If people haven't already noticed TR has already made the change without getting consensus and going against his topic ban. I have asked him to self revert but he will not engage in the discussion preferring instead to redirect his talk page. Bjmullan (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've done the snitching, so you don't have to. Fmph (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

@Fmph, unfortunately 'Britain' and 'Great Britain' are not synonymous in the context of this argument. as 'Great Britain' (which is not as defined a term as at first appears) does not include the outer islands, and sometimes does not include the Western Isles either. Whereas when sources say 'Britain', they sometimes mean 'the British Isles', they sometimes mean 'the British Isles' but shove 'Ireland' on also in a kind of belt-and-braces approach, they sometimes mean Great Britain (any definition of same), they sometimes mean 'the UK', and they sometimes mean some vague concept about empire and Britannia ruling the waves.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Euler diagram of states and government in the British Isles

Which is precisely --- if in doubt --- why we have to move away from politicized terminology and use the geographic alternative --- especially when it is obviously well referenced --- and end this waste of time and energy.

The point being made --- time and time again --- is that "Britain and Ireland" is erroneously exclusive whereas British Isles is inclusive. Southern Ireland is still within the British Isles. --Triton Rocker (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

When people say "Britain" these days, they usually mean the "United Kingdom". It's a term actively promoted by official UK sources to become synonymous with "United Kingdom". For example, the British Tourist Authority is located at visitbritain.com and uses the strapline of "Britain you're invited". Other sources, for example The Economist, uses the term "Britain" interchangeably with "United Kingdom". The UK government uses the phrase, British politicians, the BBC, the list goes on and on. Rarely does the term get used to mean "British Isles", and the WP:COMMON interpretation of "Britain" is "United Kingdom". --HighKing (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

While it's true that in vernacular Britain is synonymous with the UK, whether it is commonly synonymous with Great Britain is the question. I think for this the geographic names should be used, seems the most NPOV and inclusive solution. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on recent references (last 20 years) I would say that "Britain" is synonymous with "United Kingdom", and vernacularly it is occasionally used to have other meanings. You say that the most NPOV and inclusive solution is to use geographic names. Yet most studies and statistics and news stories are carried out within a political jurisdiction - UK, Ireland, USA, etc. Seems to me that it's far easier to stick with the sources, and to stop trying to rewrite content or cherry-pick publications simply to insert British Isles. All the worse since I doubt there's a single content expert on Irish Travellers among this group of participants. --HighKing (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

See here for official British Government position on use of "Britain" - used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

To be fair HK, I think in that context they were just explaining how the word is commonly used as a help guide for reading the site - kind of like those legal shorthands you often get at the top of big contracts. I don't think it means the British Government officially thinks that. I think the document makes it clear that officially the UK composes of Britain + NI. Around the world though and in many sources of course Britain often is synonomous with UK. There are no simple answers to the endless question of Britain (terminology). Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Gravity anomalies of Britain and Ireland

This one is interesting as it appears a little different to other cases we've discussed previously, since it discusses the surrounding seas. The lede states Such gravity anomalies have been mapped across the British Isles and the surrounding seas. The title of the article and of the publications all relate only to Britain and Ireland, with none listed for Isle of Man or and of the Channel Islands. So based on previous discussions, it might seem irrelevant to note that gravity anomalies were mapped across the British Isles, and that the sentence should be removed or corrected to "Britain and Ireland". But. Although there's no gravity anomalies listed for the Isle of Man or Channel Islands, it does list the basins surrounding the Isle of Man, and this reference clearly shows that mapping took place on the Channel Islands. Therefore I believe that using "British Isles" in this context is of value - both correct and factually true - since it is referring to the larger geographic area, and dealing with a geology-related subject. Comments? --HighKing (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Move the article to Gravity anomalies across the British Isles and the surrounding seas ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Or Gravity anomalies of northwestern Europe? Fmph (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland definitely doesn't cover it. Gravity anomalies on and around the British Isles? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

British Isles should be in the title instead of Britain and Ireland. yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Good piece of research HK, I agree with you - and thanks for taking the time to look for examples other than those some expect you might normally seek out. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As this plot shows, there is nothing special about BI in relation to gravity anomalies.

NW Europe Gravity Anomaly plot by the International Gravitametric Bureau

Fmph (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything suitable to merge this into, if not then Gravity anomalies on and around the British Isles would seem suitable for the moment. Codf1977 (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how this image helps us Fmph - can you explain a little more please? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)\

I figured out how it helps, the article needs a photo! I'll add it in. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

On the face of it, its North West Europe isn't it? --Snowded ^TALK 11:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if that's the reason for Fmph showing it to us, but yes, it's North West Europe. Jack 1314 (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's British Isles. Why is this one even being considered? The article text lists numerous places throughout the islands - Skye, Lundy and others, for example. Proposing this for amendment is verging on provocative. LevenBoy (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got no real problem with BI on this one, although I don't think its necessary. The only reference is the British Geological Survey. There are no references at all in the text so for all we know it is OR or Synth. Now if I remember my A Level Geology aright (and that is several decades ago) the information is correct, but it does need some references. However we do need to see some consistency of argument. Levin Boy, your normal argument is that if there is anything in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands then it justifies the use of BI. Here all the examples are either on the island of Ireland or the island of Great Britain. You can't have your cake and eat it. --Snowded ^TALK 12:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing notable about the gravity anomalies of the British Isles. And I agree with LevenBoy that no amendment is necessary. Fmph (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't that image in fact show that there is a rather severe anomaly running right through the BI? However, I'm no geologist! Yet again though we are seeking to locate angels on complex pinheads about which, truth to tell, we know little. I exempt from this Snowded Geology A Level. Of course. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've eaten around a cake before, the outsides have more icing.

From what I understood from the article the anomalies appeared on some islands offshore, as well as I think extending to the sea? (Not sure, not the best explained)

That would suggest to me that British Isles be used, not only to cover what is there, but to be more inclusive. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the anomaly runs from a point in the Bay of Biscay, approx. 100 miles northwest of the Pyrenees to Norway. I can't for the life of me see what BI has to do with it. Fmph (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't on that image, it appears to be blatted all over the BI - but as I said, we are not geologists. Apart from Snowded. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

NW Europe Gravity Anomaly plot (2)by the International Gravitametric Bureau

Does this help? Fmph (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does, thanks for adding it. The Pyrenees anomaly on that one seems to be related to one covering parts of Spain and unconnected to the one covering the BI. In fact, this does seem a good candidate for use of BI, particularly as it affects surrounding seas, which are not part of either "Ireland" or "Britain". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There must be something wrong with my eyes. When I look at it I see a purplish swathe of colour stretching pretty much unbroken from the south east corner of the Bay of Biscay, in a north-westerly direction along the continental shelf through Ireland and much of the west coast of Britain, before heading back in a north easterly direction to the coast of Norway, in a pretty much unbroken seam. One which almost perfectly matches the north west eauropean continental shelf. Am I the only person who sees that? Fmph (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Good call on that continental plate comparison. Anyway, it gets noticeably bigger when it reaches the British Isles. The division of colour on england actually reminds me of the first geological map ever made of England. Either way, the British Isles are noticeable for being on that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's in the eye of the beholder. I see a clear gap between the Spain one and the northerly one. There are a lot of complex features right across the BI, not just the edge of the contintental shelf. However, this debate really goes to the existence of such an article at all - if editors are challenging that, they should begin a delete debate at that article. Here, where we discuss use of "British Isles", I really can't see a problem with using it in that article, unless other referenced material is brought forward better than us untrained people studying geological imagery. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you point out approx where the 'clear gap' is? between the Spain one (one what?) and the northerly one (Norway?)? I don't see what you are talking about. I think that here we discuss making the encyclopedia better. You can avoid those discussions if you so wish, but that is the intent of all the discussions here. If the consensus here is that the article is actually not [WP:N|notable]] then of course we can move the discussion to WP:AFD. But it would be a bit silly to do that if the consensus was that the article is notable. BTW, there isn't a series of articles titled Gravity anomalies of xxx. This seems to be the only one. Fmph (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's always difficult with images, so without us both in the room and a pointer or a shared Electronic Whiteboard, I can't point to it - but it is right there at the left-hand corner of the Pyrenees and again just a little into the Bay of Biscay. However, none of this really matters. The points you are making are to do with either a Move or Delete of the article, so yes, you would need to take those to the article, because this is about use of the phrase "British Isles". So I'm not trying to avoid the discussion. It really doesn't matter what we non-geologists think of that image. What would help would be written sources on it like this one from the Earth Institute. [24] Beyond that, notability is a matter of Move or Delete and not for this page. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Before James gets carried away I claim no expertise after several decades absence. However this does seem to relate to Granite outcrops and those do extend over the whole shelf. To be honest I debate the value of the article. Its not referenced, it describes something which is the case all over the world. Its a so what type article. --Snowded ^TALK 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that one. I'll give you that. I've amended my description above to be more accurate. My apologies for the inaccuracy. And of course notability is for this page. If the consensus here was delete, then there would be no sense in continuing a move discussion, would there? Fmph (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You would still need to tag it for delete and open a discussion on the talk page. We cannot have this page taking on Wikipedia-wide delete/move discussions every time someone sees "British Isles" or thinks they would like to add it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll tag it, but only if there is a consensus here that it's a good idea. Consensus first. Tag second. This is no place for [WP:BOLD|being bold]].

Then it will go to the wider community. And Snowded's move to contact the original author seems like an appropriate move. Fmph (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked the article creator to take a look see. Seems to have done good work on a range of articles so maybe that will help --Snowded ^TALK 14:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that the really discussion (which should be at the article talk page) is is this article noteworthy. I think not. Bjmullan (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this article actually provides a template for what this article should be. It is primarily a list, so it should really take the naming style List of xxx.... No one has yet produced any evidence that gravity anomalies in Ireland or the UK are in any way notable, other than that the regional geological societies publish regional geological maps. If the geographical location of gravity anomolies is notable in wikipedian terms (and I'm not yet convinced that they are) then the starting point should be a global list of them with regional headings/subheadings. If the list gets too long it can be split off into regional articles, and we might, just might, come back to having a Gravity anomalies of BI article at some distant point in the future. But for now we only need one article for the globe, if at all. Fmph (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Article contents aside

I agree with the use of British Isles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, the image is of North West Europe. But, the sources back up the use of British Isles (and they seem to be good sources). I think any further discussion should be on the article talk page. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't have an intimate knowledge of this subject and I don't have an A level in Geology like some people. :) Jack 1314 (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Few of us have achieved even O Level I suspect. Not all though. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

But do the sources suggest notability? Fmph (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What section or sentence from WP:Notability do you think would put into doubt the notability of the sources? Jack 1314 (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I also agree with the use of British Isles for the reasons set out above. Discussions over whether the article has merit or is notable don't really belong here - the same as discussions over whether articles could be improved, etc. There are other places where those discussions are more appropriate and are seen by a wider (and hopefully more content-knowledgable) audience. --HighKing (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not the sources that need to be notable. Its the article. I can find sources that say more people paint their bedrooms blue than red in the UK, but that doesn't mean there should be an article entitled Calming effects of colours in the United Kingdom. So why do we need an article on gravitational anomalies, wherever they may be? Fmph (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

On that one I can't answer. Those in the know would probably be more than capable of answering. As HK suggests, perhaps asking at the article talk page would be more informative. Jack 1314 (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So another case of maybe deleting the article just because it contains the words "British Isles". What a thoroughly disreputable suggestion. It's amazing how some of the above contributors feel qualified to comment AT ALL on this subject. LevenBoy (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't contain those words, does it? And I agree that your suggestion thats the only reason for deleteion is a thoroughly disreputable suggestion. Good self-flagellation there. Fmph (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You should look at the discussion before commenting, LevenBoy. Jack 1314 (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Original article compiler here! The principal source of the material is stated in the references section and the title of the map produced by the British Geological Survey is this: Colour Shaded Relief Gravity Anomaly map of Britain, Ireland and adjacent areas. The map istelf therefore includes the seas adjacent to the group of islands off the northwest coast of Europe (along with islands such as the Channel Islands, Isle of Man etc - however you wish to name them collectively - and I don't want to get sidetracked down that naming alleyway! As to whether the gravity anomalies of briatin etc are notable - well that's a matter perhaps of some subjectivity. Are the mountains of Britain notable, or its rivers, or any other aspect of its topography or geological structure? I'd probably say yes to all of these because they have cultural associations. And the anomalies - well they both reflect the existence of and inform the scientific understanding of many of the major physiographic features of these islands and their neighbouring seas. If there's an issue about referencing then I can probably trawl up some more material to back up what I've put down. Geopersona (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

thank you for coming here and sorry if we have wasted your time because of this dispute, it tends to drag other editors and many articles into the conflict. It is clear the area in question is the British Isles and so use of it within the article is totally justified, and also using the name in the article title would be justified too. How would you feel about the article title being changed to say of the British Isles rather than of Britain and Ireland? if you would rather keep the present title then i think we should leave it alone, but there is a good case for the change. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it to those who have more interest in the naming of geographical and political entities than do I to sort out what name it ultimately goes under. I understand there are sensitivities but life is too short for me to get hung up on this issue. Thanks. Geopersona (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

lol ok thanks, the sad thing is all of us here know you are right about life being too short to worry about this issue, doesnt stop us wasting our lives away on it though :( BritishWatcher (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I just hope you enjoyed seeing us clueless geology-wannabees wrestling with your anomaly maps, Geopersona. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There were some interesting observations there - in fact gravity and indeed magnetic anomaly maps function equally as works of art or decorations for the wall - you don't need to know anything about geology to appreciate them on the one level though knowing something about the subject as some contributors to the discussion clearly do, does aid that appreciation. And, Jamesinderbyshire, the more detailed map used as the article's principle source shows a positive gravity anomaly which coincides with the limestone outcrop of Derbyshire - the White Peak - with all the cultural associations which that splendid area can boast.Geopersona (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Geopersona, so am I correct in thinking that you mapped coloured areas of a printed map to geographical areas/regions of your knowledge? And listed them in the article? So for instance, the inclusion of Connemara and County Donegal in the list, was down to the fact that you recognised the coloured areas of the map by those names? Isn't that a little bit of original research? From the background reading I've done, it's only the northern part of Connemara plus areas of southern County Mayo that seem to have these gravitational anomalies. Similarly, not the whole of Donegal has them.? Am I correct? Fmph (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion really goes to the article content, not the inclusion of BI specifically, although I accept that the veracity of article content is relevant, we seem to be (as with Irish Traveller) talking about what should be included in an article, rather than the "simpler" issue of BI - in or out? I suspect Geopersona would welcome some discussion on that article at Talk:Gravity_anomalies_of_Britain_and_Ireland as the current level of talk there is, er, nil. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should leave this one completely as it was found. Mention British Isles in the article but leave the title as it is. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. And, um, that was kinda my original point all along. --HighKing (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

British Isles is backed up by sources mentioned above. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

I believe we're all violently agreeing. The point was that context and subject can justify use of a wider geographical area, such as the British Isles, even if there are no clear references and sources. Closed with no change as proposed. --HighKing (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait who proposed no change? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If no one has done, can I do so now, with the proviso that a discussion is started on the article talk page wrt a move/del/rework into a more notable article? Fmph (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, someone refer it to a relevant wikiproject. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorting out these pages

Is there a way to tidy up and rationalise these pages?

I am specifically thinking of cutting this one and Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples down to one page.

Discussion seems scattered across a number of page and it is very difficult for newcomers to work out what is going on where.

It seems we have discussion of Specific examples and talk of discussion of Specifical examples. Can we get t down to just one topic page and one talk page with references else where? --Triton Rocker (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I'm missing something here, but THIS page is the talk page for Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples, and you are suggesting cutting them down to one page? I'm not sure that is possible on Mediawiki. Is that what you are suggesting? I think you could make Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples into a redirect for this talk page, but I can't personally see the point. Am i missing something? Fmph (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that should be a redirect or atleast have a link at the top of that page to this one. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

woops no matter, thought that was a second Specific examples page rather than just this ones project page.BritishWatcher (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to deal with personal comments on this page

It has been stated many times to comment on content, not the contributor, though it appears that recently the volume of comments containing personal comments has increased. What can be done? We cannot reasonably expect admins to monitor discussions 24x7, so can I suggest that in future:

• Admins will issue warnings for personal comments
• It is acceptable to remove personal comments from the discussion?

With this approach, there is less of an incentive to make personal comments, and this discussion page won't constantly get taken up with pointless name calling. --HighKing (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I would much rather a more open environment where we can speak more freely. The more restrictions in place over a debate the more disputes are likely to spark. Both you and Mick used some foul language, i can live with that. Lets not distract ourselves from the above debate on foreign players by getting into a debate about the rules here. Especially as we now have an article clearly using incorrect use of "Great Britain and Ireland". BritishWatcher (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Tend to agree (and I'll collapse rather than remove discussions, for that reason). In this case I collapsed the part of the discussion that was clearly no longer related to the topic (footy). I suspect a rule that says "anyone can remove/collapse comments" will cause more drama than it will prevent (and I'd recommend leaving removing/collapsing to Black Kite, me, or another uninvolved party), but I'm open to arguments to the contrary. Incidentally, I can live with profanity - provided it's on-topic. "Fucking football", yes: "Fucking User:EditorWithAnAllegedAgenda", no. TFOWR 15:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think as long as third editors can step in and remind others using personal comments not to, it should sort itself out. It's a tricky topic, and I'm sure sometimes if someones editing in a notsogood mood or something issues will occur. I don't think we need to issue warning for them (unless they are obviously directed as a huge insult), and I'm sure admins will be around enough to take care of any blatant insults Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't have responding to the obvious provocation - and normally I don't. But it had gotten to the stage where every single comment made by some editors is a personal attack on me (or Snowded, or whoever. This week, it's me). Then their allegations are repeated as fact by editors who appear here with no knowledge, or by admins who skim AN/I reports or the latest interactions. It's hugely more damaging when nobody seems to react, and I'm still naive enough to expect admins to issue warnings. When I reacted, TFWOR posted a warning - fair enough - and it was promptly ignored by Mick to launch yet another attack. Today, TR posts personal comments, and nothing. What's the answer? Perhaps I should preface all my discussions with 10 lines of invective where I describe an editor in some unjustifiable fashion? Perhaps if the shoe was on the other foot, the idea of an "open environment where we can speak more freely" might lose it's attraction??? --HighKing (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, i always enjoy reading the more imaginative and direct responses. It would be helpful if we all avoid going too far in our comments, but i do think the more we focus on the rules and trying catch them out the more problematic things will become. The sort of thing Mick says here is the same sort of way he talks over on the Admin noticeboard most of the time and other admins have not taken action over it. We just all have to do our best not to be provoked. Thats the key thing rather than what others say. I wish Triton would engage properly here rather than getting swept along with all of the tension and going too far as he did in the past before the block. I hope things have changed now. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. Why I intervened last night is because both of you had gone way off-topic. If any comments today had spawned a similar off-topic rant-fest I'd have similarly warned both/all editors. I expect this page to be messy at times but I don't want it to remain messy for too long. TFOWR 17:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I can not imagine this page ever not being messy :) BritishWatcher (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A "no, absolutely", to HighKing suggesting "it is acceptable to remove personal comments". He is already acting in a far too personally invasive and provocative manner. It would be a recipe for disaster.

I am not offended at all by profanity. It is a lot more healthy than dishonesty or denial. I would rather someone tell me straight, like a man, rather than snooping around my edits trying to find some dirt to wind or trip me up with, and acting like secret police.

I am sorry HighKing but you are never going to be an admin and so you don't get to make rules for others. Personal comments will come up because this is all about personal issues for you on two levels:

• a) relating to your anti-British-Irish separatist issues
• b) relating your self-image. You seem to be attracted to structuring rules and policies for others to follow and are using the issue above.

Personally, I am still waiting for anyone to come up with the reason for a blanket exclusion of the Isle of Man and Channel Islands by sticking pedantically to the use of the term 'Great Britain and Ireland' --- or even more unique to the Wikipedia 'Ireland and Britain'. One cannot.

Funnily enough, I actually went on to further education to study history and geography as a joint honours degree and so I know a little about this stuff. --Triton Rocker (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, personal comments are being made with no reprimand. Do not attribute motivations to me, and especially do not attempt to paint me as anti-British, or Republican or any other nonsense. Show me one anti-British edit I have ever made. I expect admins to issue you a warning - this type of unfounded and untrue commentary has no place on any discussion page. --HighKing (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Such commenting on contributors should be taking place at respective editors talkpages, IMHO. Overall, I'd rather have editors firing f-bombs at each other, then edit warring. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I will comment on the contributor while it is relevant to the debate, as I explained in that debate. "HighKing steers discussions / incorrectly summarises / games procedures / cherry picks references / ignores counter-points, with the explicit and self-confessed goal of removing the term British Isles from the pedia a.k.a. a POV push", is the sort of perfectly valid comment on his contributions here that I will be making, and will continue to make. For that sample statement, I can provide bulletproof diffs for, as each one of these behaviours has occured in that football debate alone. I'll take it to any venue he wants for examination, if he is really interested in clearing his name of this 'wiki-libel' he keeps bitching about, when he's done with making proposals nobody will ever support of course. Me, I'd rather see admins issue warnings when someone blatantly ignores a factual counter-point, that's the sort of wishfull thinking I prefer to engage in. I neither seek or want any admin to stop HighKing from letting his guard down and giving us all a few home truths, as it is usually very informative as to his reason for being here. "HighKing hates the British" or "stay the fuck away from me" is the sort of commenting on contributors I do not make, and will not make, but is the sort of comment HighKing does make when the charade of his wiki-persona breaks down. I will also never attempt to silence my opponents, or game admins, instead of addressing people's actual factual points. If HighKing wants to engage in such behaviour, I could care less if it doesn't get the type of behavioural correction it deserves. If he wants to do that, he can ask Sarah777 how she fared when she went down that route in the Ireland naming poll, and how succesful her subsequent appeals of the resultant blocks of her actually were. Still, she thinks it's because of The Conspiracy that her victimhood driven disruptive fun and games were not tolerated for very long. At the end of the day, HighKing's wiki-career is only going one way, due to the serious issues of self-awareness he has, which I have seen multiple editors observe in him and give feedback on, but without the slightest indication that he gets it. He's not even close to getting it imho. MickMacNee (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Stating "HighKing steers discussions / incorrectly summarises / games procedures / cherry picks references / ignores counter-points" in conjunction with "I can provide bulletproof diffs for, as each one of these behaviours has occured in that football debate" is fine. Please provide these bullet-proof diffs. --109.255.108.96 (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt we'll see any. --HighKing (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Mick I think you should get off your soapbox and go down the pub. Bjmullan (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm get to the pub regularly, wherein we talk about football all the time. How about yourself? MickMacNee (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Whilst i know you are not the only one Mick, i must stress please tone it down! You only loose credibility as an editor with endless accusations and swearing even if you do have a valid point or not. We should always try to contribute on the content and not feed the flames by commenting on the editor! Maybe less time in the pub... ;-) The same to everyone else. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Look Mabuska, people here just need serioulsy get real, and not be so wiki-naive. Imploring people to 'comment on content' is useless if the person you are debating with is a straight up POV pusher. I will say it one last time, if anybody, I mean anybody, has an issue with these 'accusations', then I'll lay my diffs on the table in a venue where we can all get satisfaction. The football debate has probably been the best evidence yet of all the well known classic behaviours of a POV pusher at work, which the people who deal with it daily will recognise quickly and easily, so I'm glad it's come up. As it happens, I did get to the pub tonight for last orders. I told the lads of the new definition of a foreign player. They laughed their fucking tits off. Good times. /JLC MickMacNee (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with MickMacNee we have a number of editors trying to aggressively remove the term British Isles from articles because they feel the term is a "politicly loaded one" and that they have a problem with the fact the Republic of Ireland is located in the British Isles and would rather it was not. This is POV pushing and by trying to pander to them we are legitimising their political view in unrelated articles. Most of them have the stated aim of the end of the use of the term (see Sarah777 comment here). Codf1977 (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

So *who* are these editors who are *trying to aggressively remove the term* and who have a problem with RoI being located on the British Isles? Name names and provide evidence. --109.255.108.96 (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hooray. Drama. Or... we could just stick to discussing each issue on its merits and get away from the tired old format of drama-drama-drama? Just a thought... TFOWR 12:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a valid point in amongst the off-topic book-burning spiel. Feel free to extract the on-topic part. TFOWR 09:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Certain editors attempts to rename the British Isles article itself to erase it from history also highlighted what is taking place here. There can be no doubt, there is a crusade by some editors to remove it, (images of men in the 1930s burning books come to my mind when i think about this problem). Whilst i am glad we are hear because id rather a debate about it than edit wars over dozens of articles, this whole place does give the POV pushing a sort of legitimacy. Whilst i want BISE to continue, one thing we do need and has yet to be agreed, is a strict limit on the number of cases an editor can bring or the number of cases that can be open at one time. Because its impossible when there is like 10 different sections open on this page that we are meant to be following. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC) And now we have some editors on an active campaign to insert it BW. I really think you should strike the 1930s comment, you are in effect suggesting that some editors are Nazis and that is normally unacceptable here. --Snowded TALK 09:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Yeah, I'm not comfortable with that implication either. TFOWR 09:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I am not suggesting anyone is a Nazi or anything else. But i honestly do see some of what has been happening as an attempt to erase history and change the history books to pretend the term British Isles never existed and that makes me think of people burning books in the 30s. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am equally as exasperated with those who seek to add it when it is clearly inappropriate or in an inappropriate way. Codf1977 (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't all need to follow each open issue ;-)

I'd like to see topic-experts being brought in much more: an issue gets raised here: we punt it to the relevant talkpage or WikiProject, they come here with comments, we discuss, resolve, and move on. I think that would make dealing with issues much easier.

I'd also like to see categorisation, so that we can make "blanket rulings" and then deal with the edge cases (e.g. 'Robotics articles always use the term "British Isles" (except for this article, because...)' and 'Space-exploration articles never use the term "British Isles" (except for this article, because...)'

The first one is presumably pretty easy - we've done it before, and I'd like to see it getting done every time it's possible to do it. The second one is probably going to require some thought as to how we go about doing it. TFOWR 09:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

@TFWOR - So what's the position on editors accusing editors of having a "campaign to rid Wikipedia of British Isles"? That's a personal comment, repeated by many, and it's untrue. Nobody ever seem to get a warning for this any more, although they used in the past. It is these personal comments that should be removed on sight, and a warning issued. --HighKing (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

My position is that I really do not consider it necessary to discuss other editors' motivations in order to resolve issues here. I don't currently have a remove-and-warn policy, but if Black Kite's operated that in the past I'm more than happy to continue it, because the constant sniping is pissing me off. I'll raise it with Black Kite. TFOWR 17:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It is very clear some have been on a mission to remove British Isles from wikipedia, i do not see how we can avoid ever mentioning that fact in our very long debates here. I do not see the problem with me talking about the "Crusade to remove British Isles", especially if its in a general sense and not directed at one editors actions today. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The only reason we are all here today is because it is very clear from the history on wikipedia there has been a crusade to remove British Isles. We must accept what has taken place in the past if we are to understand why all this is happening. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

How about I make a template that says something like "ANI got so pissed off with editors systematically adding or removing the term British Isles that they gave a mandate to topic ban editors who continued to do this. Further progress does not rely on mentioning 'crusades' by either side; indeed, continuing to harp on about this history is counter-productive." Now, any danger we could get back to the task at hand and leave the Wikipedia history lessons to the history tab? TFOWR 17:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What would a template achieve? I do see it as a problem. How are content experts supposed to react if they believe that there's a campaign? Calling it a campaign is a tactic designed to turn it into a nationalistic squabble, and to turn the discussions away from references, usage, context, etc. Look above and you'll see that when a usage can't be supported, the discussion turns personal. That has to stop. I'm not sure if you were being funny about a template or maybe I don't understand how a template would be used. And BW has stated many times on pages that "HighKing has a crusade to remove British Isles" so it's entirely two-faced to then claim that he only makes a general statement. --HighKing (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It would save me typing the same words over and over and over. I was hoping that the suggestion that it had reached the point where I'm annoyed at having to repeat this might help editors realise that it's time to stop with the history lessons, and start with the moving forward. So yes, I was being funny. Not to put to fine a point on it, but I have other tools I would use before wasting time creating a template. TFOWR 18:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That's my point. Suggestions ain't working, and I'm requesting a more direct approach in future. --HighKing (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"I do not see the problem with me talking about the "Crusade to remove British Isles", especially if its in a general sense and not directed at one editors actions today." No where in that sentence do i ever say i have never said a certain editor or editors have been involved in a crusade in the past so i am not two faced. My point was i do not see a problem with it especially if we avoid attributing it to a certain editor and are talking about the past. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it is two-faced in the context that you've dropped comments on article Talk pages and other Talk pages about "HighKing's campaign". It doesn't matter if you later refer to it as a campaign if it's clear that it's the same campaign, and you'll already tried to lay it at my door. It's a cheap trick, and it should stop. --HighKing (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly not as policy-stretching as directing it at a specific editor, but it's singularly unhelpful and counter-productive. Editors arriving here do not need to know the full, gory history of the various crusades, ANI, or anything else. Use this talkpage to talk about BI terminology, not to gripe about crusades. TFOWR 18:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well people need to know if its against the rules or not. If we are prohibited from saying here "crusade" or "mission" regarding what has taken place in the past with the removal of British Isles then so be it, i will not say it again, but its seemed like a reasonable statement backed up by the history. If such terms are banned then we need an agreed way to describe what has taken place that states clearly what came first, because it is the case that one side started this even if the situation is now problematic on both sides. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If it serves a useful purpose, i.e. it helps us determine the correct usage of British Isles terminology - it's OK. If it serves no useful purpose, particularly if it's already been said a zillion times before, or if it obviously pisses people off - it's not OK. If you want a ruling, this is it: this board is to discuss terminology in the British Isles dispute. It is not to discuss the past history of the dispute. We do not need - nor should we - continue to rehash the same, tired, boring crap about crusades. We all know why we're here, now can we - please - get on with moving forward? TFOWR 18:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree we should avoid just debating the past here and focus on the present, but what happens when the past comes up? Like in the debate about the proposals below. Checking through the history to find out what happened / when seems valid in a specific case. n those sorts of cases it seems hard to avoid. From this point on though i will avoid mentioning the crusades on this page as it appears to be a problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Checking through the history is fine and useful. Ascribing motivations to other editors, talking about crusades, campaigns, motivations, whatever - not fine, not useful. What's done is done (and blimey! we're talking, I think, about four years ago here) - there is no need to do anything other than say "this was removed (in August 2006)". Who removed it, why it might have been removed - none of that is useful to our current task. TFOWR 18:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks, will try to avoid those things in future on this page. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am ok with us inviting experts here on a specific issue or consulting them on a wikiproject somewhere to try and get to grips with the subject matter. But when it comes to making proposals here about the remove/insertion of BI i think it would be helpful if we try and form a position here first before raising it on the talk page of the article in question. That avoids bringing lots of other articles into our dispute, only raising it on the article itself after we are sure theres not going to be an "involved editor" objecting to the proposed change.

I oppose anything that would say we should use BI in these cases and not in another. This is very problematic and several opposed when trying to agree on the MOS for this. Banning BI for "political matters" is what some wanted as has been shown below by Snowded. I do not considering it "political" to have a geographical term in any sentence or article. Like the example below = Germany invaded the British Isles (this is BI used in a geographical way and its fine), British Isles invaded Germany (this is BI used in a political way as its giving the BI a political action only done by a state, there for its incorrect). BritishWatcher (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

We certainly have enough use cases to attempt a categorization, and they can be used to develop guidelines. I've already started categorization of the oldest cases. Ideally they should have their own pages I suppose. Any suggestions? --HighKing (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

But we recently tried creating an MOS for this matter giving people guidelines on when to use it and when not to use it. We can all agree on the common sense stuff, but it was impossible to get agreement on a couple of the core areas which is where the problem usually is. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• ... Comment on another editor snipped. About to warn editor who posted it. TFOWR 19:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

At least nobody's edit warring. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As I expected, somebody has decided to "test" whether admins are going to enforce WP:CIVIL or not. Let's see what happens with Micks grossly personal post above. --HighKing (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

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 suggest that the ireland article really needs to follow the general practice that applies of United Kingdom and France, to name but two, that place them in a European context. --Snowded ^TALK 08:47, 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. --Snowded ^TALK 09:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, im suprised the United Kingdom article doesnt, that certain needs correcting. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The following articles do need to mention the British Isles, to avoid mentioning fact because it may make some people here unhappy is unacceptable.

• Geography of Ireland
• Ireland
• Republic of Ireland
• United Kingdom

I do not think it needs to be in the introduction of Ireland/ROI, in the geography section is fine like on Northern Ireland. But British Isles does belong on the Geography of Ireland articles introduction. Great Britain handles it well i think. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:16, 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. --Snowded ^TALK 09:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In some cases it is not speculation. Codf1977 (talk) 09:36, 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! --Snowded ^TALK 09:40, 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 --Snowded ^TALK 10:34, 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? --Snowded ^TALK 11:13, 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? --Snowded ^TALK 10:04, 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 --Snowded ^TALK 10:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep it. Codf1977 (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Majorca Codf1977 (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

See section below --Snowded ^TALK 12:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed it is not helpful to assume that as the default reason. Codf1977 (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding British Isles to Great Britain & Ireland articles is acceptable, but not urgent. Adding British Isles to United Kingdom & Republic of Ireland is not necessary. For example: we don't need to have New England mentioned in the article Vermont. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 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)

(edit conflict)Agreed, that pipe link is wrong, I also question the template group on the Ireland page I can't see why the {{British Isles}} is in that as it is related to more than Ireland. Codf1977 (talk) 09:36, 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)

In Feb 2006 the Ireland article included Categories: Islands in the British Isles. It is going to take a long time to go through all these edits. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In August 2006 the Ireland article said :

"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)"

It is quite interesting looking back at the history of articles lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Lmao @ this removal of the British Isles from a sentence on the Ireland article in [25] British Isles was replaced with Ireland or Great Britain by Sarah777 with the edit summary saying "(remove political pov)"

The debate about including the BI template is in the Talk:Ireland/Archive 5 and thats where they discussed having a different name for the template in 2006. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Specific Proposals

• Republic of Ireland proposal 1

In the Republic of Ireland#Geography section insert at the start of the sentence "It is bounded to the north and.." the following "Part of the British Isles archipelago, it"

• Republic of Ireland proposal 2

Add {{British Isles}} after the current template group.

• Ireland proposal 1

In the lead change the sentence "It lies to the northwest of continental Europe and is surrounded by hundreds of islands and islets" to "It lies to the northwest of continental Europe and is part of the British Isles archipelago".

* Ireland proposal 2

In the {{Infobox islands}} add the "archipelago = British Isles" tag.Moved to a new section below Codf1977 (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ireland proposal 3

move {{British Isles}} out of the template group to after the template group and remove the piped text.

• Ireland proposal 4

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)

That could be easily merged with Ireland proposal 1 as "It lies to the northwest of continental Europe and is second largest island in the British Isles archipelago" Codf1977 (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we need the word "archipelago"? Surely just "British Isles" (linked) is sufficient? LemonMonday Talk 16:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Geography of Ireland proposal 1

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 Isles archipelago"

• Geography of Ireland proposal 2

Add {{British Isles}} after the current Geography of Europe one.

• United Kingdom

Add {{British Isles}} after the current template group. (fix the template group)

Codf1977 (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

General comments

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 --Snowded ^TALK 10:28, 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. --Snowded ^TALK 10:53, 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)

You have not addressed the main issue what is wrong with providing this small extra information. Codf1977 (talk) 11:22, 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. --Snowded ^TALK 11:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Did not take me long Majorca Codf1977 (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In most case in Europe one is all there is, here we have a opportunity to provide a little more information. Codf1977 (talk) 11:29, 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. --Snowded ^TALK 12:35, 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. --Snowded ^TALK 12:55, 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)

All of the above seems reasonable inclusions. We also need to add the Category:British Isles to each. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You are making a statement BW, you are not making a case. --Snowded ^TALK 10:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a statement. Plenty of time to argue the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:52, 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)

Just to clarify, is this suggesting that we add "British Isles" to the location part of the geography infoboxes? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The only infobox suggestion was for the article on the island of Ireland to match the article on the island of Great Britain. I dont see any need for it to be included on country article infoboxes. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:38, 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. --Snowded ^TALK 13:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok but i think we should state what the specific proposal was for each of the articles there to avoid confusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:15, 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 --Snowded ^TALK 13:17, 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)

Adding British Isles to the articles United Kingdom & Republic of Ireland is a mistake, IMHO. The better place to add them is at Great Britain & Ireland articles. Afterall, isn't the term geographical? GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 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)

I don't the necessity in that. Both countries are in north-eastern Europe, which is descriptive enough. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: I've have noticed though, that Irish Sea has been used, in those forementioned sections. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 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)

No that was not the proposal. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it should be then! Can it please be added. .... No probs I'll add it miself. LemonMonday Talk 17:01, 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. --Snowded ^TALK 18:49, 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)

LemonMonday, please refrain from speculating about editors' likes and dislikes. TFOWR 21:15, 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)

I agree with LemonMonday above when he says time for "some action? Seems like stonewalling's going on" - can we move this to a conclusion ? Codf1977 (talk) 08:43, 15 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. TFOWR 08:46, 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.

It is just not "collegiate", as they say. --Triton Rocker (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

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. --Snowded ^TALK 09:56, 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)

Ireland's infobox

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 --Snowded ^TALK 19:06, 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)

What is your definition of comparable articles? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:11, 14 August 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. --Snowded ^TALK 19:15, 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. --Snowded ^TALK 19:25, 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. --Snowded ^TALK 19:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

How many examples of those are there? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:37, 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. --Snowded ^TALK 19:46, 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. --Snowded ^TALK 15:09, 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)

The it offends people is never a good reason to exclude it. But, there ya go. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 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. --Snowded ^TALK 15:21, 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)

I thought chip said that, with his "imagine the reaction". GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 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) --Snowded ^TALK 15:46, 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)

"some" is the operative word there --Snowded ^TALK 15:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

These are about geographical articles on the island though. The political state of the island should be irrelevant. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 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. --Snowded ^TALK 16:02, 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. --Snowded ^TALK 16:20, 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)

No probs, inclusion is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 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. --Snowded ^TALK 16:49, 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)

I'd say so. The fact that Ireland is included in British Isles, is why there's much squabbles over the term. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 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. --Snowded ^TALK 16:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I reckon Snowy has a point, there's no need to rush this through as we've got time. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 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)

OK thanks for confirming that, probably best to open up another section on the template --Snowded ^TALK 17:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh what a tight rope we venture onto. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! So now - where to put it. I say in the first para. What say you, GD? LemonMonday Talk 17:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing the Infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, the stonewalling merchants are at it again! Snowy, you are a bit of pain here. Why - do you object all the time to this? What is your problem with it? And BW, this is a geo article so it makes sense to include the fact here. Stop being such a turncoat. LemonMonday Talk 17:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Patience LM, patience. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 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)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 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)