Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:03, 25 October 2010

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 issues surrounding the term British Isles, in view of facilitating a more universal approach, on a specific article-by-article basis.

This page

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cailil (talk), Black Kite (talk) and TFOWR (talk) (that would be me...) are all in broad agreement that civility is going to be strictly enforced. There seems to be a general acceptance that this is A Good Thing. Newcomers (as well as "old hands") should be aware that attacks - even inadvertent - on other editors will be removed, and the editor responsible warned. Further occurrences will result in blocks. Editors should all familiar themselves with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. TFOWR 09:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask that you please make sure that a message is placed on the talk page of articles under discussion here as a matter of course as soon as discussion starts here, and not after a day or two. Also, please consider notifying relevant Wikiprojects via their talk pages as well? I've already seen one case where talk-page notification was delayed, when notification there or at the Wikiproject would have resolved the issue with the wording more quickly (indeed, at least one of the regular editors on this page knew about the guideline applicable to the article, but didn't mention it in the debate here, and anyone else who had bothered to read the Wikiproject guidelines on the article talk page would have known about it too). Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines

Fauna Guideline

Use the following guideline to decide the terminology to be used when referring to the geographical spread of a member of the animal kingdom. Report exceptions in this thread as described below.

The geographical distribution area referenced should either be (i) the largest area of distribution (so if it is Western Europe, use Western Europe not British Isles) or, if appropriate (ii) a list of the main geographical areas (for example British Isles & Scandinavia). Geographical and Political entities should not be mixed.
If there are subsections within the article for different distribution areas, the same rules apply. The largest referenced geographical area is used, or a list of the main geographical areas as per the example above.
Any change to any article should be notified with a link to the article at the time in the subsection below this guideline, and signed by the author
If any author disagrees with the change, then they may revert it if, and only if they set up a discussion area on this page with reasons.
If an uninvolved editor carries out the edit and it is seen by one of the participants in this process, then they should notify it to the subsection below. If they (or anyone else) reverts it then they should provide a link to this discussion and the sanction ruling on the talk page of the article concerned.

(section set up by --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note changes here

Banded Demoiselle From Great Britain and Ireland to British Isles
__

Additional discussion which did not lead to any modifications of the above

As the initial proposer of this issue, I am not sure that it is complete.

I think an 'inclusive statement' needs to made to the effect, e.g.

"Where species are common across all islands, British Isles should be used in place of the exclusive Great Britain and Ireland".

commonsense applying in recognition of the independence of the British Crown Dependent islands.

The bottomline is all of those ' xyz of Great Britain and Ireland ' are just plain wrong and a legacy of a period prior to the consideration of editorial guidelines such as these. The weakest of investigations prove that they are ' xyz of the British Isles '.

I appreciate this a grownup resolve that could be argued against with an immature reading of references --- but, honesty, British Isles they are. --Triton Rocker (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We had the discussion and agreed on the above, I don't see the point of reopening it. Lets see how this works out and have a look at the pattern of accepted changes. Also I'm sorry Triton but I don't agree that your statement above is a universal one. Also Triton - do you want to make the case for you to be allowed to edit the Fauna articles based on the above rules. At the moment your sanction prevents it. My offer to support that application stands if you agree to abide by the rules --Snowded ^TALK 10:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the inclusive statement is implied in the first one, citing largest geographical distribution, so don't worry, that's already covered. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but no. I indicated that I would still have to considering it and your response misses the point I am raising entirely.

One would have to be blind or daft to suggest that "decisions" or resolutions are not being rushed through right now.

Thanks to The Red Flag's comments below, I have realised that there are two separate principles here;

a) naming conventions (British Isles) - for titles of topics, and

b) manual of style (British Isles) - for the content within topics

The proposal above 'might' answer the manual of style element but not the title naming convention. I am addressing the lack of a consistent editorial policy for the latter. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly these are non-starters:

Any change to any article should be notified with a link to the article at the time in the subsection below this guideline, and signed by the author

If any author disagrees with the change, then they may revert it if, and only if they set up a discussion area on this page with reasons.

If an uninvolved editor carries out the edit and it is seen by one of the participants in this process, then they should notify it to the subsection below. If they (or anyone else) reverts it then they should provide a link to this discussion and the sanction ruling on the talk page of the article concerned.

This page appears to be moving ever closer to a self-appointed cabal with greater speed at each passing month. --RA (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flora issues

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)[reply]

Is anyone going to bother mentioning this debate on the talk page of the article? DuncanHill (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1] and 8 mentions of the Isle of Man [2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Now that we've got "Fauna" buttoned down, could we tackle "Flora" next? Would that help with this article? TFOWR 11:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we see how fauna works out first? Looks like we have an agreement on this one --Snowded ^TALK 11:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing that we move straight to adopting a "flora" policy, simply that we begin discussing it now. I agree that we need to see if "fauna" works out first. TFOWR 11:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Structured discussion
Boilerplate text about "summarising arguments from above, based on policy and precedents, and backed with diffs and links" goes here. TFOWR 16:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ping. I'll start closing these out as "no consensus" unless there's some movement here... TFOWR 11:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ping again. It's only been four days since the article talkpage was notified, so I'm no immediate rush to close this out, but the sections below are remarkably empty... TFOWR 10:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for "British Isles" @ Atlases of...
Arguments against "British Isles" @ Atlases of...
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)[reply]
Is anyone going to bother linking to this debate from the talkpage of the article? DuncanHill (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion pre-dates {{BID}} but yes, someone should. I'll do it now. TFOWR 13:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Already done: Talk:List of lichen checklists#British Isle book contains references to IoM By Triton Rocker on 25 July. TFOWR 13:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's well hidden. Needs to be an explicit link so people can see what it is without having to click on it first. DuncanHill (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a {{BID}} template now. This discussion pre-dates the template by sometime. I'd like to say that we've improved since those dark days, but letting article editors know is still one area where editors here need to be reminded far too much. TFOWR 13:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
List of lichen checklists should say what the book says. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 [3] - saying that the society "... arranges annual residential meetings in spring, summer and autumn in all parts of the British Isles... " - and here [4] - 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)[reply]
Stick with the reference @ List of lichen checklists but I agree with what James says above. Bjmullan (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Snowded's reasoning with List of lichen checklists (as per book titles). --HighKing (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 - [5] [6] [7][reply]
Then maybe we should have a rethink about the section heading? LevenBoy (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, the title of the book is very clear --Snowded ^TALK 11:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]
Structured discussion
Boilerplate text about "summarising arguments from above, based on policy and precedents, and backed with diffs and links" goes here. TFOWR 16:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ping! Only four days since the article talkpage was notified, but I'm not going to hang around for ever. HighKing, thanks for your arguments. Anyone else? TFOWR 10:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for "British Isles" @ ...Lichen checklists
Arguments against "British Isles" @ ...Lichen checklists
The reference uses "Great Britain and Ireland". Changing the reference is WP:OR and against WP:V. --HighKing (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland
List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland is practically a disambiguation page for a number of lists of different types of plants. At a cursory glance (including some of the lists) it seems that it should be "British Isles", or at least "Great Britain and Ireland". Happy to leave this on hold till we get something larger on flora sorted out though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it looks like it should have been "British Isles". Codf1977 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about renaming a range of pages to replace a commonly used alternative to British Isles. I suggest seeing if people involved in those articles think its worth the effort. --Snowded ^TALK 05:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly be more accurate to say British Isles rather than just two islands. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a rename would be in order. Given the very low activity on the talk page or article page, a BOLD action is appropriate. Any attempt to open debate on the talk page is likely to result in a duplicate debate to here. Codf1977 (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its not just one article, several are effected. Its not a case for being bold, just put a move proposal on the page and see what happens --Snowded ^TALK 10:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It would be worthwhile posting on the talkpage, however, pointing editors at this discussion. Sorry, I'm about to get stuck into some real-life busy-ness, so if someone else could do that I'd be ever so obliged ;-) I'm also kind of holding off on flora issues, to see how fauna works out. I'd like to see a "blanket ruling" like fauna applied to flora. No reason why we need to hold off on discussing vascular plants in the meantime, however. TFOWR 10:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Id agree with posting on the talk pages although i dont think a formal RM is required at this stage unless theres disagreement on there. Give it awhile BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As above with fauna. If not all, 99.999% are going to be, and actually already mean, British Isles. This is a good, clean, clear adult editorial guideline we are working on and it should take priority above all constituent specialism in order to establish a consistent policy. --Triton Rocker (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lets see what people say. I'm not too fussed on this one, but I will point out that there is evidence that Britain and Ireland is in use as a substitute for British Isles (see the evidence on the main article) so its not that black and white. Conventions will differ in different fields and we should go with what the evidence shows --Snowded ^TALK 10:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps but the winds are changing. Technically speaking, however, it is inaccurate and, arguably, an offence to the independent Crown Dependent islands. I am suggesting we move on beyond the past - many of the references are very old - and, in our setting of a consistent Wikipedian editorial guideline, keep one eye on technical accuracy.

From a professional point of view, I would say that in many cases the use of the term "Britain and Ireland" is an anachronistic throwback to a more Imperial and chauvinistic period when it was first used and established --- when it was Britain and Ireland. It is not now. (<irony alert> and you know what a bunch of rabid Neo-cons and Proto-fascist imperialist Poms the Linnean Society are.</irony alert>). --Triton Rocker (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we with this then?
There are:
38,600 papers on Google Scholar for "British Isles and fauna" 48,200 for "British Isles and flora".
I am look for a clear, simple editorial guideline.
As below, I think that in non-political topics, BI should be the acceptable default and B+I accepted as generally confusing and erroneous. --Triton Rocker (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Structured discussion
Boilerplate text about "summarising arguments from above, based on policy and precedents, and backed with diffs and links" goes here. TFOWR 16:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the template to the article, see if there are any responses. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ping! BW, you promised us examples, where are they? ;-)

Blimey, what a curious list. I'm going to ask a couple of list-specialists for general advice: I'm finding the whole concept a little bizarre right now. TFOWR 10:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for "British Isles" @ List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland
It deals with flora on "Britain and Ireland", which I'm not sure is Great Britain and Ireland or the UK and Ireland. Either way, I find it hard to believe the plants would not cover the Isle of Man. Noting the wider geographical area would be much more appropriate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a book with the title "List of Vascular Plants of The British Isles" [8]

Category the group is in is Category:Lists of the vascular plants of the British Isles, the article titles should reflect this too.

There are not separate articles on Vascular plants of the Isle of Man, it would make sense for them to be covered in these lists rather than a separate article which could cause a lot of duplication. List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland 4 mentions the Isle of Man Cabbage which exists in Great Britain and around the Isle of Man.

There are a large number of books that talk about Flora and the British Isles rather than just isolating Great Britain and Ireland. (Examples will follow). BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments against "British Isles" @ List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland
The article is largely unreferenced, and the sub-articles are also largely unreferenced. Probably a candidate for a clean-up or reorg - and failing that, an AFD

As already stated, the global scientific community does not recognize "British Isles" as a "flora" geographic unit, but it does recognize the islands.

As a side-note, the "category" is also wrong and should reflect the article title --HighKing (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
James Kay (British inventor)

Article states a British inventor who developed a successful wet spinning process for flax in 1824, helping industrialise linen spinning in the British Isles. The entire statement is unreferenced as regards helping to industrialise anything. I recommend the statement should be removed, but no harm in tagging first and seeing if something turns up? We can leave the tag for a week maybe before making a decision? --HighKing (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Older discussion

{{Resolved|I'm not seeing any argument not to use BI. The article is new, un-assessed, poorly sourced, etc - but that's going to be the case whether it says that Kay's process helped industrialise linen spinning in England and the Isle of Man, or in the British Isles. As the process had an affect on Irish linen (as BW's source supports), then BI is justified. TFOWR 09:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

That's reasonable. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is correct. What is wrong is "English and Irish linen industries". It should read British and Irish linen.

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, I am not "banned" from adding or subtracting "British", only "British Isles", so I will fix it. Linen was equally produced on the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your changes as they weren't supported by your included reference. I also suggest to not edit any articles here while they're under discussion. --HighKing (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good changes, I found this book [9] on "The linen houses of the Bann Valley" It mentions James Kay and says that Irish Manufacturers quickly adopted his process of wet spinning. Use of British Isles in this case is absolutely justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a page number - I don't see where it states that Irish Manufacturers quickly adopted his process. Also, still no reference to state he helped industrialize the linen industry anywhere. --HighKing (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? No mention of either IoM or Channel Islands. Britain and Ireland is far more accurate. Fmph (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use of British Isles in the sentence is not inaccurate there for there is no need for it to be removed. It is questionable if his processes had no impact on the Isle of Man, but even if they did not British Isles is still totally justified. We do not need to provide evidence that every single island in the British isles was impacted by something to say it. For example you can say something had an impact on Europe, it does not have to mean every single part of Europe. British Isles should only be removed where its incorrect. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accurate geographical description, so no problem with BI in this case. Quantpole (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And this constant withering about BI is not justified because IoM and CI are not included is getting beyond a joke. BW makes the excellent comparison with Europe. I would urge the controlling admins to place sactions on users who continue to suggest that BI is not valid if every single element of it is not somehow included. LevenBoy (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Isle of Man had its own fine linen industry introduced in the1600s as, of course, did Wales. What were Welsh hats made of? In the case of Man, linen, herring and paper where about all it did have --- until they invented motorcycles, which is where I come in.

This suggestion and the limited support it garnered underlines the typical futility of this conflict. Why should the rest of us be labored with having to respond to individuals who do not know the subject and are not willing to educate themselves whilst promoting some political campaign on the Wikipedia? --Triton Rocker (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Triton Rocker, I've done my best to explain this to you previously, but here goes again: Wikipedia is not written by experts. It's written by lay-editors. We use sources rather than our own knowledge. We do this so we're able to write about subjects we have no real knowledge of, and so that equally ignorant readers can verify what we write. I do not believe it is necessary, desirable or even possible for us all to become subject-matter experts on every subject that arises here. Our role here (at WT:BISE) is to consider specific examples of BI usage and consider whether they are correct usages in their respective fields and articles. So knock off with comments like the above. We're all aware of "political campaigns" - an editor has already been sanctioned for engaging in one such campaign. TFOWR 12:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make such comments. I expect you'll soon be receiving a warning from an admin. --HighKing (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is all so simple and straightforward, let's see the simple and straightforward reference that Kay helped industrialize the linen industry in the British Isles. Oú est le Boeuf? Until then, can we cut down on voicing opinion and keep the comments to useful additions of facts and references. --HighKing (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need one. There are references mentioning Britain and others mentioning Ireland, and that constitutes the British Isles. LevenBoy (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. That constitutes exactly Britain and Ireland. And are there references mentioning James Kay helping to industrialize the linen industry? --HighKing (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently so. Triotn got one but you deleted it. LevenBoy (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If so, please point out the page number and paragraph. The reference TR found didn't state anything remotely close to what he added to the article. --HighKing (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typical.

The other reason to use British Isles is because, as every one knows, there are now fiscally separate linen industries in both Northern Ireland and Eire. This arrangement was not always the same, the two were once one.

And so, in broad historical topics, just as with flora and fauna related topics, one needs the accurate yet broad and non-discriminate brush of "the British Isles" --- and, yes, the Channel Islands also had their own linen industry.

Please stop wasting our time and energy HighKing. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look this isn't a difficult process. Simply produce the references here so we can all take a look. --HighKing (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do not see a need for removal of British Isles in this case. Sources have been shown stating the guy had an impact on Ireland rather than just Great Britain. That is all that is needed, no further sources are required to justify this use. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a source states he had an impact on Ireland, that doesn't translate into British Isles. And there's also nothing stating he helped industrialize anything. --HighKing (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the book i linked above it clearly stated the guys name and that his process quickly spread to Ireland. That is all that is needed to justify British Isle. It is clear this is not just about Great Britain. There for use of British Isles is fine. We do not have to change everything to Britain and Ireland even if something does not impact on every island of the British Isles. There is no reason not to believe it also had an impact on the isle of man too. so i do not see a problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen

@TFWOR, this is a fundamental ruling which has implications for many articles so I'd like to be clear. There are a number of reasons why British Isles is not appropriate.

The objection I raised in the opening is that the entire claim is unsupported - there are no sources to back up the claim that James Kay helped industrialize anything, anywhere. Under the sanctions, I cannot change/remove this claim without bringing this up here first, which is what I've done. Your ruling effectively retains an unsupported claim.

We all agree that "British Isles" is a geographic term. But how do we decide that a geographic term is more appropriate than a political term? This topic concerns an industry - linen spinning. The references are solely concerned with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Why is "British Isles" more appropriate given the topic and areas referenced?

Final point - you state As the process had an affect on Irish linen (as BW's source supports), then BI is justified. What hierarchy is this operating on? If a reference uses Great Britain and Ireland, it is OK to use "British Isles"? This need a lot of debate because this is a fundamental sticking point. --HighKing (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, this article is new, un-assessed, and poorly sourced. One of the few sources we do now have is that Kay's process impacted Irish linen. I do not accept that my ruling "effectively retains an unsupported claim". I'm also unconvinced that this ruling on one specific example has quite the far-reaching implications you suggest.

The article deals with a period during which "British Isles" was a political term as well as a geographic term. The claim made ("...helping industrialise linen spinning in the British Isles") is accurate in both contexts: no claim is being made that the process helped industrialise linen spinning throughout the BI, merely within the BI. I do not have any strong objection to using United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but neither do I have any objection to using BI. Actually, I'd prefer BI in this context because it's immediately obvious that it includes more than just the contemporary UK.

Where a source specifies the location(s) we should follow the source. The source used here does not specify Great Britain and Ireland: it says that Kay's process was developed in Preston and discusses it in the context of the affect it had on Irish linen. It would be inappropriate to infer from that that Kay's process helped industrialisation throughout the BI; it is not inappropriate to support the claim that Kay's process helped industrialisation within the BI. TFOWR 10:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the few sources we do now have is that Kay's process impacted Irish linen. As far as I'm aware, no we haven't. No source makes this claim - can you provide me with the reference?

deals with a period during which "British Isles" was a political term as well as a geographic term. This is probably an innocent remark from your point of view, but this is a major sticking point and the subject of much debate. Note that the "British Isles" article does not acknowledge this point, nor any of the dispute or terminology articles. The consensus is that the term is geographical, and should only be used in a geographical context. And this is a point that has come up again and again over time. Interestingly, it is British nationalists that are keen to not mention this point. Anyway, I'm more than happy to keep the text if we can add a footnote pointing out that "British Isles" was historically used as a political term - perhaps a template along the lines of Birland can be developed? (Half joking)

I'd prefer BI in this context because it's immediately obvious that it includes more than just the contemporary UK Is this another new ruling? I have very serious reservations about this one and the basis of the ruling, and it seems to me that you are not concerned with accuracy of usage, references, context, and appropriate historical terminology. We should not use the term as a "shorthand" for more appropriate terms, and your reasoning is really without foundation in any principles and is expressed as a personal preference.

I know it's tough and complicated, but we need to be consistent (or have reasons why it might not be apparent that we may not seem consistent). --HighKing (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well this source [10]
"In 1825 James Kay of Preston invented a wet spinning process" and "Irish manufacturers quickly adopted wet spinning" and "According to Green, 1963 wet power spinning was responsible for the most profound changes which had so far taken place in the Irish linen industry"

It is clear from that James Kays process had a big impact not just on Great Britain but the rest of the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Itemised responses:
The ref is the one BW mentioned above: The linen houses of the Bann Valley: the story of their families - Kathleen Rankin. It details the wet spinning process's growth in Ireland after Kay's development.

The article discusses the growth of an industry due to the development of a piece of technology, and it describes the geographical area in which this occurred - not the political usage, though I regard that as accurate as well.

I am not proposing that we use BI as a shorthand for UKofGB&I: I am proposing that this is an example of an instance in which BI's usage is accurate and appropriate - in context (a context that includes the standard of the article). Yes, BI is my preference here, and I believe I made it clear that it was a preference. My ruling is that using BI here is perfectly acceptable. My real preference is for the article to be substantially expanded and properly sourced: I do not believe we should be setting in stone anything based on a stub-class article, hence my reluctance to buy into your belief that this "has implications for many articles". Specifically, I do not want to examine new articles and reach conclusions that exist long after the article has been substantially developed: I do not want to set in place a system whereby an article remains forever locked into either BI or not-BI. As regards usage, BI is in common usage to describe the linen industry during this period: see here, here, here and here for examples from the first 10 in A Google search. As regards references, I'm happy with a source that demonstrates more than one country/island within the BI for a claim that something happened within the BI. Again, I'd prefer that the article be expanded and better sourced, but until then I remain happy with BI. As regards context, the spread of a technology from England to Ireland seems fine to describe growth within the BI. As regards historical terminology, BI does seem to be widely used to describe the area in which linen industries developed in Western Europe.

I believe that the usage of BI here is consistent with common usage when treating the contemporary linen industry of the 19th century. At least, I am yet to see any arguments to the contrary, either in the initial discussion or subsequently in this thread.

In conclusion: I am not making a ruling that applies outside this article, nor am I making a ruling that applies for the lifetime of the article. I do, however, believe that my resolution is one that we can get broad consensus for. TFOWR 12:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reference quoted by BW states In 1825 James Kay of Preston invented a wet spinning process in that he discovered that a thorough soaking in cold water made flax fibres more slippery so that they could be drawn by machinery into a really fine yarn, at the end of a paragraph describing the progression of the linen industry. The book does not support the statement that James Kay helped industrialise the linen industry within the British Isles, and is clearly in breach of implying a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

You didn't respond to the point about British Isles being a political term. Clearly from your own admission, the term is being used in a context more appropriate for a political term such as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Google searches are flawed. Most of the results you point to are not academic sources and are commercial sites associated with linen production in Northern Ireland.

As regards references, I'm happy with a source that demonstrates more than one country/island within the BI for a claim that something happened within the BI. This is a major decision. Let's put it up for a poll to establish consensus. My gut feeling is that there is no consensus for this, but I'm happy to test it.

I believe that the usage of BI here is consistent with common usage when treating the contemporary linen industry of the 19th century I disagree. I don't understand the basis of your making that statement, but if we're using Google hits, then searching for "Ireland" returns more than 10 times the number of hits than your search involving "British Isles". Searching for "United Kingdom" returns more than twice as many hits. Searching for "England", "Scotland" and "Wales" all produce large multiples. This shows that using a geographic term is the least consistent way to deal with the industry.

Sorry TFWOR, but I believe at the very least, this needs more discussion. --HighKing (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you're unhappy with BW's first ref, are you happy with his 2nd and 3rd refs below? I can probably dig out more dead-tree refs as well, but Kay's process is usually considered, IIRC, a fairly text-book case of an industrial process hastening development through the BI during the Industrial revolution.

I thought I had said I was happy with its usage as both a geographical and a political term in this context? If I didn't, I am. The geographical area in which UKofGB&I developments had their greatest initial impact was the surrounding islands - the British Isles. For an overview of an industry I'd be happy with UKofGB&I (the political entity within which the industry was located); for a detail of the spread of a process or innovation I'd be happier with BI (the geographic entity across which the innovation spread).

You can be reassured that I am by now familiar with the drawbacks of Google. It is extremely useful, however, in providing a quick indication of a term's usage. You can tailor the search yourself, restricting it to academic sources if you wish.

I don't regard this to be a major issue, as it affects but one stub-class article. However, if you wish to assess consensus for my view that two countries exist within the BI, and can be described as such, then go for it.

There were local industries, that's not in dispute. Irish linen, in particular, was well renowned. There was also a BI-wide industry, which is the appropriate industry to use when discussing the spread of an innovation from one local industry to another.

By all means, let's have more discussion. But to my mind this is a fairly clear-cut case - academic sources discussing the industry (and the wider Industrial Revolution) in the BI tend to use the term "British Isles". TFOWR 13:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No - it is still WP:SYN to attempt to join different references together to imply a point not contained or supported by the references. None of the references produced by BW places James Kay in the context of industrializing the linen industry in the British Isles. To date, no references have been produced that make this assertion and I'm sure we've all looked extensively by now. All we've got are references for regional industries. The newest references produced by BW are a case in point as they discuss Ireland or Northern Ireland and the impact on the local industry. Only one reference mentions "British Isles", the last one. But that's just shooting himself in the foot. It was published over 50 years ago in 1957, and uses the term "British Isles" as a shorthand for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" as evidenced by the table on page 50 which lists the "countries" of the "British Isles" and expresses the results as a percentage. No mention of the crown dependencies. This is an example of the flawed approach of simple searching without taking the time to understand the context (Where's MickMack when you need him!)

For an overview of an industry I'd be happy with UKofGB&I (the political entity within which the industry was located); for a detail of the spread of a process or innovation I'd be happier with BI (the geographic entity across which the innovation spread) Please explain why this is so? Perhaps there's something here... We're discussing an industrial phenomenon, spreading across a geographic area .. OK. So if we could establish why the spread in the British Isles was different, notable, significant, etc, than say, Northwestern Europe, I'd live with that logic. Otherwise, again, using "British Isles" as a geographic area for the spread of the linen industry outside of the United Kingdom makes no sense.

academic sources discussing the industry (and the wider Industrial Revolution) in the BI tend to use the term "British Isles" That's a circular argument :-). What we need is to ask if discussing the Industrial Revolution, or discussing the Linen Industry, is normally done within the context of the "British Isles" or "The United Kingdom" or "Britain and Ireland" - what is the most appropriate term? Searching academic sources suggests that of all the terms to use, "British Isles" is the least common.

But this form of discussion and summarization fails to look at the entire statement which is still unsupported. To summarize the logic within the arguments put forward:

James Kay is credited with the invention of a wet spinning process. Not disputed.

Did James Kay help to industrialize the linen industry within the British Isles? Sources state

applied withing the North of Ireland and the whole nature of the local linen industry was altered

the production of yarn was transformed gradually from a domestic to a mechanized factory industry

On the subject of "Mill based spinning of linen yarn" in the context of the "Irish cotton industry" - its expansion accelerated after 1825 due to the powerful external technological challenge posed by the invention of the wet spinning process by James kay of England

So no. There's no sources for this. There's not even sources to state it impacted the linen industry outside of Ireland although I find it difficult to believe that one doesn't exist. But it, again, highlights the levels of WP:SYN and WP:OR going on here.

The argument then attempts to break the sentence into component parts. Was there a linen industry in the "British Isles"? How significant was wet spinning? Did James Kay contribute to the linen industry outside of Ireland? Using this form of argument is WP:SYN since it is attempting to combine different sources to support an assertion not made by individual sources.

@TFWOR, I appreciate the time you're taking on this. I get the strong impression that you're not for turning on this and you state that this article is a stub and is trivial. That's disappointing as a summary. To many, it may seem like a waste of everyone's time. But this article touches on many different aspects of "usage" where there isn't agreement. For example, is it OK to use "British Isles" in historical contexts? Even if it actually refers to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland"? Or where sources only refer to GB&I? Or where the article context is not purely geographical and where usage is ambiguously political? etc. In the absence of a clear reason like a reference, I don't understand the underlying reasoning, and it makes it difficult to apply this reasoning to other cases we may come across. Is it too much to ask for a clear restatement of your summary with the references you're relying on? --HighKing (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here is another more clearer source. In The industrial archaeology of Northern Ireland - [11]
"The position changed dramatically with the invention of the wet spinning process and once this had been patented by James Kay in 1825 and succesfully applied within the North of Ireland the whole nature of the local linen industry was altered within the space of little more than a decade" BritishWatcher (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And in "The impact of the domestic linen industry in Ulster" - [12]
"It was about this time too that i realised the signifiance of two paraliamentary reports on the Irish linen industry about the evolution of the domestic linen industry in those important years befre James Kay introduced mechnaisation into the wet spinning of linen in 1825" BritishWatcher (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And in "The hidden famine: poverty, hunger, and sectarianism in Belfast, 1840-50" - [13]
"In 1825, James Kay patented the wet spinning process by which the finest yarns could be spun by machine. As a consequence, the production of yarn was transformed gradually from a domestic to a mechanized factory industry. Although cotton production continued to be significant, Belfast entrepreneurs recognized that future economic success lay in linen manufacture through mechanized flax spinning." BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And in "The warp of Ulster's past" [14]
"Mill based spinning of linen yarn rose from the ashes of the short lived Irish cotton industry. Its expansion accelerated after 1825 due to the powerful external technological challenge posed by the invention of the wet spinning process by James Kay of England, which allowed both fine and coarselinen yarn to be produced cheaper and faster by machine." BritishWatcher (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And in "Pre-famine Ireland: a study in historical geography" [15]
"In 1825, James Kay of Preston invented wet spinning, soon adopted by Irish manufacturers." It also says... "By 1838 there were forty spinning mills, most of them larger than those in Britain: at this date Ireland had only 10 percent of the mills in the British Isles but 18 per cent of the horsepower and 21 per cent of employees." Anyway off for lunch now. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one is resolved. I suggest editors stop engaging in further discussion on this matter. LevenBoy (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Off-topic comment removed. TFOWR 09:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)][reply]
LB is referring to this SPI report against me. Comments such as those will no longer be put up with on this page. Either strike that comment, or I expect you will be dealt with by the wandering admins. --HighKing (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect TFOWR is right about this one - there do seem to be a range of sources credibly backing up the assertion that Kay's inventions spread throughout the BI and I don't really see a good reason to NOT use BI here, so I back it's usage in this article. LevenBoy, you really need to take a chill pill and stop trying to dig dirt on people and generally make attacking remarks. We need reason and calm on this topic, not allegation and rancor. If you can't stop it, ANI is surely the next stop. You obviously don't like HK, but he behaves a lot better than you do around here, regardless of anyone's opinions. Please cease and desist. Thank you. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
James, don't be silly. The fact that HK has already had one stab at this article, and yet continues to try and force the issue, is highly relevant to the current argument. Hopefully the information I've provided here may help to bring this mind-numbing debate to a swift conclusion. LevenBoy (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lol thanks for the link although we should avoid the history on this page now and focus on the different open cases, people getting into trouble over comments here will make the whole situation worse. It is a shame that this one has not been fully resolved considering the large number of sources clearly available showing Kay had an impact on Ireland as well as Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arb break

At this stage, I just want to restate the facts - could other editors hang on to give TFWOR a chance to respond first?
There's no references linking Kay's invention with use outside of Ireland. All the references link with Ireland, and most specifically with Northern Ireland.

I found this reference which supports the statement that Kay helped to industrialise the linen industry, but again it only puts it in the context of Ireland.

There are no references linking the type of industrialisation brought about by Kay with other areas of the British Isles outside of the UKoGB&I. No references linking outside of BI either.

Some references appear to use the term "British Isles". But, the reference "Ireland: a study in historical geography" uses "British Isles" when referring solely to the UKoGB&I - which appears to be a political usage, not a geographic usage. As does "Textile history". Consensus is to avoid this usage.

Had a discussion with Jamesinderbyshire last night at his Talk page. He states I mean using British Isles here to mean the spread of industrialised spinning in Britain and Ireland. In summary (correct me if I'm wrong James) it appears that some editors are happy to use "British Isles" if the topic is historic and references use the term even if it only refers to B&I or UKoGB&I. I don't agree. But I'll go along with consensus no matter - this is how progress is made. And if that is what has happened here, but I'd like to be very clear on what basis this resolution was made. If I'm wrong in my summary, I'd really appreciate being put right. Could other editors hang off to give TFWOR a chance to respond first? Thanks. --HighKing (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be dense HK, but can you spell out for me exactly what you mean by the phrase "B&I or UKoGB&I"? In full words. Just want to be sure I understand you properly. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry! B&I is "Britain and Ireland". BI (without the ampersand) is "British Isles". UKoGB&I is the historical "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" as opposed to the current UK or UKoGB&NI - the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, rechecking various sources I have to agree you about linen: Kay's process covered more than just linen (it was originally targeted at flax, for example) but it was only in Ireland that it impacted the linen industry (it helped hasten the demise of the linen industry elsewhere). I'd be happy with removing either "linen" or stating that it helped "industrialise linen spinning in Ireland". Ideally the former, since that relates more to the significance of the innovation.

Following on from the above, Kay's process was developed in England but I can't confirm that it was actually used with linen in England - Kay seems to have mainly concentrated on flax (he was, I think, a member of the Scottish flax manufacturers' association).

I can find plenty of sources discussing Kay's process and the British Isles (you link to a few yourself) - whether the sources are using it as a geographical or political term is debatable, however see below:

I'd greatly prefer to stick to common usage. If the greater part of available sources use the term BI I'd prefer to replicate that usage. As far as I can see, BI is common currency when discussing innovation during the Industrial Revolution. What is the consensus here on that? My view on "rulings" (and I still don't regard this as anything that's going to be set in stone) is that they need to be accepted here, and by the wider community. I feel it would be harder to justify a ruling that was unintuitive, i.e. one that was out of step with common usage, but I'd like to assess what consensus is here (and I'll acknowledge that we also need to determine common usage, but first things first). TFOWR 11:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
British Isles should absolutely not be removed from this article. I am open to debate about all other matters relating to the article and how its worded. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key point is, we do not have to provide evidence that something has impacted on every part of the British Isles for a sentence using British Isles to be accurate and acceptable. If there are sources showing use in Ireland and Great Britain, then it is not wrong to state within the British Isles. For example. Europe was at war in World War 2. This is without doubt true, yet quite a few countries like Ireland, Spain and Switzerland remained neutral in that war, so not all of Europe was "at war". BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that if the reference says Britain and Ireland, we should use British Isles, and if that if it says British Isles we can't use Britain and Ireland? Isn't that a bit of POV nonsense? Fmph (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. How does the reference define "Britain and Ireland"? That would affect how it is used here. This of course, doesn't affect the above conversation, unless you are proposing using Britain and Ireland? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have sources mentioning the guy had an impact on Ireland and Britain. We do not need to state Britain and Ireland, British Isles is perfectly acceptable. I am only prepared to support removal of British Isles where its use is inaccurate. It is accurate in this article, there is no need to change. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BW, on a different page, you're arguing that "British Isles" should never be pipelinked as "Britain and Ireland" because they're not the same thing, etc, etc. Here, you're essentially arguing that they are they same thing. Which is it? --HighKing (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its both. As i explained before. You can say something happened in Europe without it being about the WHOLE of Europe, like Europe being at war in WW2 when countries like Ireland, Spain and Switzerland remained neutral. So saying British Isles when talking about Britain and Ireland is often fine, that is very different to pipelinking GB+I to the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Common usage

TFWOR asked to determine consensus here - from the comments above I'd say we have a split here. Question: How can we determine what is "Common Usage" for use of "British Isles" in relation to the "industrial revolution"?

The Industrial Revolution article doesn't mention British Isles, but focuses a lot on Britain, England, and the UK.

Google Books reports about 63,100 books for "industrial revolution" + "United Kingdom", and only 14,100 books for "industrial revolution" + "british isles".

Google scholar reports 43,100 articles for "industrial revolution" + "United Kingdom", and only 7,900 articles for "industrial revolution" + "british isles".

From the looks of it, "United Kingdom" is common usage. --HighKing (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guy impacted both Great Britain and Ireland. It would be incorrect to just say United Kingdom. British Isles is the appropriate term for this case. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've given no reasoning beyond "The guy impacted Great Britain and Ireland". Have you anything else to add? --HighKing (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If British Isles is not to be used, then the statement will have to states "United Kingdom, which at the time included the entire of Ireland" - as that is more accurate. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or simply link to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which is what is normally done. --HighKing (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying British Isles is fine, there is no reason to change this. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous editors have given reasons to change it above. What's missing is a reasoned argument why it shouldn't be changed. --HighKing (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No they have not. We have established the guy had an impact on both Great Britain and Ireland, there for use of British Isles is perfectly acceptable. British Isles does not HAVE to be removed in this case, there for we shouldnt remove it because its not incorrectly used. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The political term at the time is the UK of B&I, the references say GB and then show that the ideas were picked up in Ireland but its not synth to summarise that. I would say this is a best as Britain and Ireland (why we know is used as a substitute for British Isles, a term which is not used with its precise meaning either). However its one of those where British Isles would be OK. --Snowded ^TALK 05:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Snowded, perhaps I'm missing something. I don't agree that "Britain and Ireland" can be translated to "British Isles" in most cases (including this one). To me, going from country terms to geographical terms, if someone is referring to the UK, they're not referring to the British Isles, but referring to the geopolitical unit. Less clear are geographical terms because some of the terms are used synonymously with political. The context is important in these cases. So if someone is using the term "Britain", and they're dealing with a human activity like, say, currency, the likelyhood is that they're using the term as a geopolitical unit. If they use the term describing the coasts of Britain, it would likely be the geographical unit of "Great Britain". In this case, since most of the sources refer to country units (e.g. Scotland, Ireland, England) as well as "Britain and Ireland", my interpretation is that they are using the terms as geopolitical units and there's nothing to suggest that "British Isles" is the intended interpretation. --HighKing (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geographical terms are more clear because what is the British Isles today covers the same area that was the British Isles 100s of years ago. It is the political entities that have changed and saying British Isles rather than having to put the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland makes sense. You certainly could not just pipe it as the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High King pointed out to me that Kay's process for linen actually only had any impact in Ireland. His process affected flax and other materials in various areas (flax was, I think, Scotland, for example). My thinking at this point is that we either say (a) "helping industrialise spinning in X" or (b) helping industrialise linen spinning in Ireland". In principal I have no objection to "British Isles" being used for Industrial Revolution articles, so if we went with the generic "spinning" option I'd be OK with BI (but we would need to look at the article in more depth, to work out whether/how Kay helped flax, jute, etc). Since I regard this article as stubby, and I'd prefer to wait until topic-experts develop the article more, I'm coming round to the latter option ("linen spinning in Ireland") which can be referenced, and doesn't prejudice any later article-development or use of BI. TFOWR 09:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still see no reason to change British Isles in this case, it should only be removed if it is wrong. Not because there is another term that could be used which is less controversial. By the way, ive moved James Kay to James Kay (British inventor), it turns out theres several James Kays and none of them stand out as the most notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a case to be made for it being wrong with regard to linen, and there's a case to be made for it being correct with regard to textiles. It's all a question of (a) deciding whether we use "linen" or "textiles", and (b) making the case. I think in this instance (and my fault, as much as anyones) we're putting the cart before the horse. I caught your page move, good call, and I've updated the section heading accordingly (with an {{anchor}} to the old title, in case anyone's linked to it). TFOWR 10:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has the bloke had any impact on the Isle of Mann & the Channel Islands? -- GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Structured discussion
Same as in other discussions, I'm hoping the discussion above can be edited down into arguments based on policy and precedent, backed by diffs and links, and that this section should be quick and easy. TFOWR 16:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ask another admin to take a look at this. I'll likely do that later today (there's been plenty of time to make arguments, below) so if anyone has any last minute additions - do it soon. TFOWR 11:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for "British Isles"
This is a new article (virtually a stub) and so lacks sourcing. Various books exhibit the complexity of the early linen industry, Kay's impact on it and the many connections between Ireland and Lancashire. For example, [16]. This one [17] gives information about the spread of linen production throughout the islands following Kay's invention. More research and writing is obviously needed for the article but in the meantime, there is sufficient reason not to delete BI. In historical contexts like this one, BI is accurate and valid as a phrase representing mentions of Britain and Ireland. The alternative inference is that BI could never be used to mean historic Ireland and Britain, which must be false. It need not be replaced or deleted unless further sourcing becomes available proving otherwise, which seems unlikely. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The linen houses of the Bann Valley: the story of their families By Kathleen Rankin "From Yorkshire power spinning of flax was taken up in the linen manufacturing districts of the east of Scotland where it soon became an important industry." So it did not just impact on Northern Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments against "British Isles"
a British inventor who developed a successful wet spinning process for flax in 1824, helping industrialise linen spinning in the British Isles. No references for to state he helped industrialise linen spinning in the British Isles. All of the references point to his invention used in conjunction with linen solely in Northern Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference by BW above is perfect example of OR. It shows how an editor will try to combine difference facts from publications in order to support an assertion not explicitly made within said publications. There are no references that support the statement that James Kay revolutionized the Linen industry in the British Isles. Period. --HighKing (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Augustus John
The article contains the follwing statement: He was, throughout his life, particularly interested in the Romani people (whom he referred to as "Gypsies"), and sought them out on his frequent travels around the United Kingdom and Europe. In this context UK is wrong and should be replaced with British Isles. Using UK alongside Europe mixes apples and pears, and use of UK is too specific, meaning we are saying that in his travels throughtout the islands John never visited anyhwere other that the UK. If he did, then UK is wrong, but BI, encompassing all areas of the islands, is likely to be more accurate. LevenBoy (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before anyone asks the question, this confirms that he visited Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree BritishWatcher (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't comment earlier as I was going to ask that question Ghmyrtle! Good find, include that in the article somewhere. I agree with changing this to British Isles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LevenBoy, can you template Talk:Augustus John to let editors there know about this discussion? Ta! TFOWR 09:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LevenBoy (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, thanks. TFOWR 12:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some points:
"In this context UK is wrong ..." - According to the source he visted Ireland in 1907. At that time all of Ireland was a part of the UK. Even today, it is entirely possible to be in both Ireland and the UK at the same time.

"...we are saying that in his travels throughtout the islands John never visited anyhwere other that the UK..." - No. The article says he sought out Gypsies when he traveled elsewhere in Europe also (he was from the UK). Are the islands not entirely contained in Europe? What would make a visit to the independent 26 counties of Ireland after 1922 any more notable than a visit to France?

"... and use of UK is too specific ..." - We don't like being specific now? Naming the country of origin of the artist specifically and elsewhere in general terms is hardly "too specific".
About the priciple of not mixing "apples and pears", that related to listing "British Isles" alongside states and countries as if it was one. It does not mean that we cannot say that a painter was from the UK and traveled elsewhere in Europe. --— RA (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the above points are intended as a criticism of the reasons given to make the change proposed. ~~I actually don't think it would make a fig of a difference either way. However,~~ I don't think it is the business of this Task Force to go "correcting" articles for no good reason. Where this Task Force does make changes, they should be the most minimal possible to correct possible sources of confusion. (I also think this Task Force should avoid adding or removing cotentious terms where it can.) Therefore, in respect of this article, I suggest it be changed to "... and sought them out on his frequent travels around the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe." --— RA (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I looked the whole of the UK and Ireland were in Europe, so lets just keep it to that, delete United Kingdom--Snowded ^TALK 17:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd second Snowded here. It could be changed to British Isles and mainland Europe, but that seems to be pointless. Just change it to Europe, full stop. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not! If he were from America or Borneo, possibly, but for someone from & living in the UK, especially at this date, to talk of "travels in Europe" clearly implies continental travel. Even now, if I'm living in London & go to Ipswich for the day, that is "travelling in Europe", but it is just misleading to describe it so. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if they went from London to Ipswich, it would be misleading, but the travels here extended beyond Ipswich to other areas of Europe outside his home country. He travelled around the UK, he travelled around France, he travelled around Europe. Use Europe. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for adding "British Isles" @ Augustus John
~~The article already uses Europe & AJ was on the island of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
I do wonder if UK is confusing to some readers in pre-1922 contexts - many may associate UK with the modern geographical boundaries and be somewhat unaware of the Irish dimension. For that reason, I do favour BI in some of the older contexts where it is intended as a passing geographical reference rather than some political explanation. John seems to have travelled pretty widely around these islands, so that aspect seems to fit as well. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can't say UK & Europe or BI & Europe James, UK and BI are both a part of Europe --Snowded ^TALK 11:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, yes, but people frequently do draw a distinction between the two, even though to purists one includes the other. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you in the "Fog in Channel, Europe cut off" group then? Its nothing to do with purism, its a straight forward error --Snowded ^TALK 11:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it's just a way of speaking. BI is officially in the EU, if that's what you mean, it's geographically part of Europe and it's also distinct from Europe. If we're going to get rid of every place in Wikipedia where it says something like "throghout Italy and Europe" to take an analogy, we are in for a big job. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to search them out, but correcting them when they come up ... --Snowded ^TALK 12:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is your objection then to any attempt to insert BI in a context where Europe is also mentioned? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Object is to either BI or UK being used with a "and Europe". Take the highest geographical area applicable --Snowded ^TALK 15:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to your opinions of course, but that can't possibly be a rule - how can you legislate to say people can't say "the UK and Europe"? Here are 1,880 examples of where they already do in en-WP [18], just to get us started - shall we go through them one at a time to see how they hold up? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come on you know better than that. Several thousand people expect the rapture to come soon and the number of hits on the return of the green feather serpent god of the myans in 2012 is legion. We are building an encyclopedia here and we have some responsibility when the opportunity presents it self to get things right. --Snowded ^TALK 17:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean "better than that" from your particular viewpoint - there's nothing wrong with "Britain and Europe", "UK and Europe", "France and Europe", etc - they are just useful turns of phrase. Unless you happen to have a strong need to justify exclusion of a certain phrase, perish the thought! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a strong preference for accurate language and avoiding tautology. I have a further strong feeling about phrases which seek to imply that somehow or other the UK or BI are not a part of Europe. You last sentence is uncalled for, there is a stronger case that people arguing for a tautology are seeking to impose a "certain phrase" --Snowded ^TALK 17:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing "innacurate" about "Britain and Europe". It's a matter of opinion. Apparently you reject the notion that it is a matter of opinion, yet it remains one, regardless, not a matter of "accuracy". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it or is it not a tautology? "the saying of the same thing twice in different words" --Snowded ^TALK 18:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs to that class of things that sound superficially tautological but on close inspection are not, because they are not comparing like with like. Saying "France and Europe" is a compound statement - it is about France and Europe as a comparison, not about the unique identities, France and Europe, one of which belongs to the other. People who hold the view that Europe is superior to Britain, for example, those nationalists who favour that approach because it downgrades their membership of the UK and, they feel, enhances their potential as seperate nations "within Europe" would obviously argue against the existence of a "UK and Europe" and for a position that the UK was always subordinate to Europe. So it is politically loaded from top to bottom and personally, I find appeals to simplistic argument on this topic, pretty silly. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are reading an awful amount of speculation about motivation into what is a simple (not simplistic) issue. Tautology is be avoided, that isn't silly its just plain good sense. --Snowded ^TALK 18:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you are determinedly avoiding a genuine debate - simply repeating that it's a tautology, when it isn't, advances nothing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that is my argument James, its a tautology and tautologies should be avoided. Not sure what else you want me to debate really. --Snowded ^TALK 19:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In cases like nations, nothing is ever as simple as a logical tautology. A sentence containing the phrase "carrots and vegetables" is perhaps tautological, but a sentence containing the phrase "British Isles and Europe" need not be. That is because the phrase "British Isles" can contain many shaded meanings. It can be a concept, a literal physical entity, an identity, a set of values.... the list goes on. I really won't take more time on this, we will have to agree to disagree, but I am making it clear that I can't accept the idea that those phrases can't co-exist in Wikipedia - and at least several thousand other edits in WP agree with me on a single usage. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So why introduce a term in addition to Europe to complicate things? --Snowded ^TALK 19:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To people in Britain, "Europe" does, I'm afraid, have two meanings. One is "the continent of which we are part", and the other is "the mainland of which we are not part". One may be more "correct" to us, but language doesn't always work like that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's objection to adding BI? shouldn't those objections be placed under the 'Arguments against...' section? GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UK and Europe was once present on the UK article, I changed Europe to Mainland Europe, appears to be an ingrained problem. Anyway, GoodDay raises a point on process, this isn't an argument against adding it in a way, but to remove the option completely... slightly different? I guess the new system still has kinks.
Arguments against adding "British Isles" @ Augustus John
I'm convinced of the opposition to Europe and British Isles being used. Indeed, let's just use Europe, as the British Isles is within that continent. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, it reads better --Snowded ^TALK 17:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, adding "British Isles" is not supported in the context of the article. The text in the article is somewhat at fault and isn't accurate or clear in places. For example, strictly speaking, Romani people are a single ethnic group while "Gypsies" include other nomadic ethnic groups including Irish Travellers. It's probably more correct to say he was "particularly interested" in Gypsies (which is the term he used himself) even though many references state he was interested in "Romany" life and culture. That said, the predominant ethnic group in England was Romani. He even learned to speak Romani. In his travels to France, Italy, Ireland, etc, he also met and interacted with other ethnic nomadic groups such as Irish Travellers. It's not altogether accurate or correct to say that he "sought out" gypsies on his "frequent travels". This appears to be WP:OR. Is there a reference for this? In a sense, he saw himself *as* a gypsy. For a time, he lived like a gypsy, frequently traveling in a caravan up and down the roads of England, and travelling to France. Sure - he visited Ireland several times and he was a friend of Lady Gregory, but his "frequent travels" were around England, and northern France as these were annual during that period. On the whole, his obsession with Gypsy lore is downplayed significantly in this article, and for such an important artist, this aspect of the article is poor. --HighKing (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of which has virtually nothing to do with the subject in hand. I suggest "British Isles and mainland Europe" as a sensible alternative to the present text. LevenBoy (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing like a good point-by-point riposte. --HighKing (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, the whole thing is unreferenced so it can be struck anyway, if there is a reference then we can take whatever that says. --Snowded ^TALK 19:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we are (I thought) discussing the simple issue of add/delete here, not the wider issue of all other modifications to an article that may or may not arise. Unless there's another scope creep coming in that we didn't agree to. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of Add/Delete, the current text is WP:OR and should be struck. As to what can be referenced, I've tried to produce a summary of what was intended or meant. Part of the problem I encountered is that the current text is so poor, it needs expansion. --HighKing (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That last argument (by HK) I may agree with. The reference for the suggested BI inclusion passage refers to "The Art of Augustus John" - a quick search for the word "Romani" in that book [19] gives information about visits to Wales only. So there may be a good debating point there. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the reference to sources makes most sense --Snowded ^TALK 19:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC ref says that he "was deeply influenced by the Romany tradition, lifestyle and language; he spent time travelling with gypsy caravans in Wales, Dorset and Ireland." Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LevenBoy, knock it off. Snowded, you should know better than to reply to this. TFOWR 20:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I smell policy shopping in some of the above responses? I think so. LevenBoy (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you smell people trying to find references to support facts rather than just taking a POV position without providing any reasoning or argument. --Snowded ^TALK 20:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is typical of what happens in these debates. A reasonable proposal is made and then it's all hands on deck to identify some method or other (i.e. policy) that can be used to counteract it. This might include aggressive challenging of references, citing OR, NPOV, and proposals to delete whole passages or even whole articles. LevenBoy (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent, "aggressive challenging of references" is a pretty good description of the Wikipedia editing process LB, so I wouldn't overdo that point. You were on firmer ground looking for refs to support inclusion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To summarise, we have two relevant references in the article.
(1) The reference to the intended target sentence for the "BI add", in the Provence section - this reference only mentions visits to Wales in connection with the "Romani" people that the artist was interested in painting.
(2) A general reference higher up in the article to a BBC Wales article about the artist [20] that does, as Ghyrmtle points out, reference visits to Ireland in connection with Romani people.
Strictly speaking therefore, the inclusion in the proposed sentence falls, as the ref in that sentence does not support it. On the other hand, if we take the BBC article as a source for the page in general, then it succeeds.
Therefore we need to decide if general pre-existing refs in a given article are valid for inclusion at any point in the article. If not, then it has to be an existing ref in exactly the sentence at question. Views? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that it's perfectly acceptable to find new refs to support a position. In fact, it's encouraged (so long as WEIGHT, RS, etc, is observed...) --HighKing (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well we could just reflect the BBC quote and say "Wales, Dorset and Ireland." Its accurate and informative and folloes the reference --Snowded ^TALK 21:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The shortest and easiest way of saying that is "British Isles". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Scotland, only one English county, no mention of IoM etc. etc. That is stretching things a bit. Source is informative as it shows the limit of his travel, and in general following the source is the best way on these disputes --Snowded ^TALK 21:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which just goes back to what geographically constitutes "British Isles". What are the limits for what is regarded as acceptable? Until that is clarified, we are clearly going to get - exactly - nowhere. I would rather all further deletes/adds be frozen until such time as that is agreed, since it's clear that no argument for inclusion on geographical grounds is acceptable under the current rather ill-defined conditions. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I'd say we need to include at least Ireland, GB, and one of the Crown Dependencies. Otherwise it would simply be "Britain and Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the question. LevenBoy (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we structure it in a new section? We can each say what we would find acceptable. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused again. This is the section for arguments against usage of British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a separate discussion. Probably a good idea to break it off from here and start a new section, although if the discussion is going to get filled with mindless comments with no substance, then we may have to move it elsewhere - maybe one of our Talk pages. --HighKing (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Best to move to AJ talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conkers (Resolved)

Resolved
– Far too much wikilawyering on both sides. It's discussions like this one that give BISE a bad reputation. "Conkers" is played throughout the British Isles and in some former British colonies. Where "conkers" is traditionally played is left as an exercise for folk who enjoy finding sources. My recommendation is "Conkers or conker is a traditional childrens' game. It is played in the British Isles and some former British colonies..." There is no reason not to use British Isles, as "conkers" is played throughout the British Isles; this is a geographical description. Our goal is precision and accuracy: "Britain, Ireland, and..." is not as accurate or precise, since "conkers" is demonstrably also played elsewhere. TFOWR 14:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Usual problem. Prior history of "The Troubles" vis-a-vis Ireland.
Comonsense applies as usual.
Yes, kids play conkers on the Isle of Man [21] and Channel Islands [22] and, no, they are not part of Britain or Ireland.
Move from "Britain and Ireland" to "British Isles". --Triton Rocker (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

Clearly should say throughout the British Isles and former British colonies. Yes BritishWatcher (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triton Rocker, can you use {{BID}} to let the local talkpage editors know about this discussion? Thanks! TFOWR 11:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PING! Triton Rocker, can you do this? It's not fair on article editors to hold discussions in relative secrecy. Openness is all... TFOWR 09:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditionally" - just a thought, but isn't it "traditionally" that's the problem here? There seems to be concern that conkers hasn't been "traditionally" played in Ireland, and I'm fairly certain it won't "traditionally" have been played in most former colonies. Canada, maybe, but Australia is unlikely and New Zealand just doesn't have the history to support it ("Traditional games" in New Zealand being more a Māoritanga thing...) Just a thought, and don't read too much into this comment, but I'd prefer not to go too far down a side-road, only to realise later that the issue was much easier than we thought... TFOWR 09:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, Yes. The use of "traditionally" suggests the author wants to attribute the origins of the game, and the popularity of the game, with schoolchildren hailing from a specific area. Dropping "traditionally" would remove some objections for sure. Although I would be concerned that we're materially changing the authors intention, and that we're altering article simply to accommodate using "British Isles". --HighKing (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for "British Isles" @ Conkers

Since conkers is played by children, on the CI, IoM, GB & I? then use British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At present the article says Britain, Ireland and former British colonies. Britain links to the United Kingdom. There is evidence showing conkers is played on the Isle of man too yet the Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom. There for we are not informing the reader of valid information. As this clearly applies throughout the British Isles, we should say throughout or within the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These two sources are about the Isle of Man.

[23] "CONKERS might have been outlawed in some UK schools, but it's still being played in Manx schools and this weekend it's hoped a competition will boost the playground game's profile. "Braaid Young Men's Club is staging its annual conker competition on Saturday, starting at 7pm, and it's open to all children and there'll even be the chance for mums and dads to have a go too. Organiser Sue Howe said: 'We are trying to maintain this traditional sport and the committee was out last weekend collecting conkers."

[24] "AS AUTUMN approaches, the Island is going bonkers about conkers."

And about Ireland..

[25] "Irish Conker Championship. The most important game of many an Irish youth. - Threading a chestnut (conker) with a piece of string and then hitting your opponents..."

[26] Irish conker championships.

These sources show that conkers is not just restricted to England or Great Britain. They are clearly also played in Isle of Man and Ireland. if the word "traditionally" concerns people then we should simply replace that with "mainly" or something like that. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most sensible

British Isles works for me so made the edit. --Blue is better (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which I've reverted. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue is better, the purpose of this page is to discuss proposed edits, reach a consensus, and then make any change required. Please don't make edits until there issues are resolved. TFOWR 21:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, silly old me and there was me thinking the Irish played conkers too or are they all [unacceptable comment removed TFOWR 21:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)]? --Blue is better (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed part of your comment. Please don't make comments like that. Focus on discussing why changes should or should not be made, and leave the ethnic slurs for ... well, anywhere but Wikipedia. TFOWR 21:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think people accept the Irish play with conkers (GB + Ireland is in the article already). We have to prove to everyone that people in the Isle of Man and Channel Islands are not isolated enough never to play with Conkers. If that can be proven then people throughout the whole British Isles play with conkers and clearly British Isles should be used. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the consensus is that children throughout the British Isles play conkers. QED --Blue is better (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about having to prove conkers in the IoM. I think if it's played in GB and also Ireland then that's sufficient for British Isles to be used. If they are also played in IoM or CI, or both, then fine - that's definitely a clincher. LevenBoy (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LevenBoy is correct and I already gave you references for Ireland, the IoM and CI. Individuals should stop playing policeman on others edits provocative as Snowded and now GoodDay are doing. I have read up and it is actually one of the Wikipedia's principles. Please do not bite the newcomers. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brought a tear to me eye. GoodDay (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Came across this issue by default but wonder why so much time and energy has been taken up by something so simple. It occurs to me that some editors are out to cause trouble whatever the disagreement may be about. --Blue is better (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has got to be one of the most obvious where British Isles is preferable. The game is played across the islands - it's already mentioned that this is the case (GB & I). Now we have evidence it's played in other parts of the British Isles as well. There is just no valid reason why this one shouldn't be changed. If the arguments proffered below not to change to BI are accepted here then we're basically saying that British Isles is inappropriate in all cases. LevenBoy (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it does seem to be one of the obvious ones, yet a change is dismissed as tokenism. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this one closed. It is obvious. --LevenBoy (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against "British Isles" @ Conkers

The word Traditional in the sentence implies that conkers is a traditional game played in Britain and Ireland. This is not the case. This is Traditionally and Culturally a British game. --HighKing (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why we need to use a broader brush like "British Isles" as it includes past and present. How long is tradition? (I must ask a Balkan friend if they played the game there and what they called it).

Commonsense would suggest that as long as their have been chestnuts, good bits of string and little boys there have been games of conkers played 'on the British Isles' [27].

Historically speaking, and certainly as we are using it here, a large part of Ireland is culturally Anglo-Norman, which is what I think you mistaking "British" for, and has been so since the Middle Ages. Again, you are also mistaking Great Britain with British.

What is more important is that it is wrong to exclude the IoM and CI as the current topic says.

The problem with the references, most of which are non-academic, is that they make exactly the same mistake as we are highlighting about the misuse of the Britain. --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No discernible benefit. This is not an argument against use of "British Isles" in this case but against tokenistic changing one form of wording to another in general. This is important in order to keep a handle on the purpose of this page and to keep a focus on the purpose of our contributions to this encyclopedia. Unless there is a reason why a change (one way or the other) would genuinely (non-trivially) improve the article, I can't see any good reason to go inserting/removing charged wording from an article (any article). Otherwise, this page is simply a theatre for the same few belligerents to go trawling through the 'pedia and propose pointless changes from British Isles to something else or vice versa. There are probably tens thousands of instances where either turn of phrase is fine. The point of our being here is to write an encyclopedia, not to write an encyclopedia with the most/least instances of the phrase British Isles. --RA (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References:
World English by Robert Hendrickson, 2001 - This name for the horse chestnut is used mainly in England, but the British game called "conkers" is sometimes played by children in the United States

The genie in the bottle: 64 all new commentaries on the fascinating chemistry of everyday life - So in the early 1900s British children played conkers, a game that is perhaps best described as an early form of Survivor

British language & culture By Lonely Planet - Conkers is the name of a game played by children using horse chestnuts, which has been around for at least 400 years.

Eccentric Britain, 2nd: The Bradt Guide to Britain's Follies and Foibles By Benedict Le Vay - It took me an embarrassingly long time to realise she was talking about good old British conkers

Pay per click search engine marketing for dummies By Peter Kent - For those of you not fortunate enough to be Britist, Conkers is a kid's game in which the nut of the horse chestnut tree is dried, drilled, and threaded onto a string;

British phrasebook By Elizabeth Bartsch-Parker, Stephen Burger, Roibeard O'Maolalaigh - a game played by children using horse chestnuts, which are also called conkers. English children have called horse chestnuts conkers since the early 17th century.

New York's best-kept secrets by Mike Michaelson - Best British Kids' Game to Go Nuts About - Conkers

Leisure and recreation management By George Torkildsen - Some of the games embedded in British culture are shuttlecock, spinning tops, hopscotch and conkers and some of these games have been played all over the world for centuries and later on Conkers appears to be a very British game

Overall, I believe most people view Conkers as traditionally a British game. --HighKing (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with RA --Snowded ^TALK 08:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you view it as a British Game does not mean that it is not played in Ireland and throughout the British Isles. Ireland is already in the article text, so if you are concerned about this being applied to Ireland when it shouldnt, we could say within the British Isles, making it less strictly applied to Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it was not played traditionally in Ireland (I don't know - it has evidently been played there recently, to some extent, see article text), a solution would be to simply remove the word "Ireland" from the first sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And insert British Isles. If this has been played in GB, Ireland and we have sources above about Isle of Man and Channel Islands, i dont see the problem with BI in this case. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Britain and some former British colonies" is more than adequate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with that --Snowded ^TALK 09:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand this although i must admit ive not looked in any detail at this case. Ghmyrtle has said that it has been played in Ireland to some extent. If the article says that, how can we now just say Britain and former colonies? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit like saying that "Hurling is traditionally played in the British Isles" since hurling is recently being played in London. --HighKing (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is played in Great Britain, Ireland, Channel Islands and Isle of Man then we clearly can say British Isles, we do not need every part of the BI in order to say it, but in this case it appears there is sources for all. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to insert words that are potentially misleading. There are refs for the fact that it is, or has been, played in Ireland, but not that it was traditionally played in Ireland. ".. [T]raditionally played...in Britain and some former British colonies" is, simply, a clearer and more accurate wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could delete "traditionally" BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and/or "Ireland". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most games have been played somewhere at some time and this case wherever there are horse chestnuts. The "traditional" is important in articles like this as we are talking about origins. We are getting into tokenistic insertion (per RA) which is as bad (and currently more prevalent) thank tokenistic removal. --Snowded ^TALK 10:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article covers Ireland, i there for do not see why Ireland should be deleted. And if it does not have to be deleted, i see no reason why British Isles is not more appropriate, they play with Conkers in the Isle of Man and Channel Islands too. If sources back that up, where is the problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Needless insertion per Ghmyrtle and RA above. Current version is just fine and valid --Snowded ^TALK 10:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if this has been mentioned before or if it is sourced in the article. But a quick search found this..
"Irish Conker Championship. The most important game of many an Irish youth. - Threading a chestnut (conker) with a piece of string and then hitting your opponents...""[28]

If that is right surely traditionally is fine in relation to Ireland? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but an ad for the Irish Conker championships in the Lonely Planet book listing "events" throughout Ireland .... really? And nobody is saying that Conkers has never been played in Ireland, or that is never gets played in Ireland. You've tried to turn this into a simple matter of showing that conkers is played in Ireland, whereas what you're failing to do is show that Conkers is traditionally played in Ireland, and shares origins within Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you do not have to convince me, other editors seem to think the current wording is fine. Of course if we changed it to say "traditionally played within the British Isles" it would avoid mentioning Ireland specifically. I do not see the problem with the word traditionally being used with Ireland though, it is clear its a traditional game in Ireland too. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time ive paid attention to this conkers issue, but i am honestly not understanding the case people are trying to make? The present article introduction clearly states:
"Conkers or conker is a game traditionally played mostly by children in Britain, Ireland and some former British colonies using the seeds of horse-chestnut trees – the name conker is also applied to the seed and to the tree itself. "
Snowded is saying the current version is fine. Others are claiming it does not apply to Ireland at all, or that there are sources for Ireland, but its misleading if we say "traditionally". BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for inclusion of British Isles in this case is not tokenism. We have to ask the question.. Does this apply to Great Britain - Yes. Does this apply to Ireland - apparently yes. If sources show it also applies to the Channel islands or Isle of Man then clearly they should be mentioned too. There is no point in saying Britain, Ireland, Channel Islands, Isle of Man along with former colonies. When we can just say throughout the British Isles and former British colonies. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found two new refs - here (scroll down - near bottom of page), and here. Having seen those, I agree that the current wording seems OK and should be left as it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So we know it definitely includes GB + Ireland. If there are clear sources showing its use in the Isle of Man or Channel Islands too what should we do? There has to be some change, saying throughout the BI rather than listing them seems easier. If there are not clear sources about either the IOM or CI then i too support keeping the status quo. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ive found this [29]
"CONKERS might have been outlawed in some UK schools, but it's still being played in Manx schools and this weekend it's hoped a competition will boost the playground game's profile. "Braaid Young Men's Club is staging its annual conker competition on Saturday, starting at 7pm, and it's open to all children and there'll even be the chance for mums and dads to have a go too. Organiser Sue Howe said: 'We are trying to maintain this traditional sport and the committee was out last weekend collecting conkers.

It seems to be this is a traditional game throughout the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this: "AS AUTUMN approaches, the Island is going bonkers about conkers." - [30] BritishWatcher (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[Snip. If you have to write "at the risk of being snipped..." you clearly realise that the post was unacceptable. LevenBoy, knock it off. Any more of that and I'll start with remedial actions. TFOWR 12:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)][reply]

As per RA, no benefit in changing. BI and B and I are synonymous in most people's eys. Fmph (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we should keep Britain + Ireland there because people incorrectly think "Britain and Ireland" covers the Isle of Man and Channel Islands? How wonderful. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One benefit would be the wording would actually be more accurate. But i suppose that is not too important. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the average reader has any idea of the detailed questions of what is or is not included in British Isles, its not clear even here at times when you look at the citations. Britain and Ireland is a valid equivalent for British Isles --Snowded ^TALK 15:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every single reliable source states Ireland is part of the British Isles. You can not say the same thing about Isle of Man and Channel Islands being part of Britain and Ireland. The opposite is the case. I am still waiting with interest to see a source saying Britain and Ireland is an archipelago in North West Europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that Ireland is a part of the British Isles, I can say based on reality and references that Britain and Ireland is often used as a substitute for British Isles. --Snowded ^TALK 15:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fully accept Britain and Ireland is used instead of talking about the archipelago in north west europe known as the British Isles. But that does not mean Britain and Ireland includes the whole area covered by the British Isles. Britain either means the island or the UK. Ive not seen sources saying it covers UK+IoM+CI or GB+IoM+CI BritishWatcher (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the references to it being an equivalent that I have seen don't exclude those areas and the various Atlas's tend to include them--Snowded ^TALK 16:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources i have seen do not describe GB + and Ireland as an archipelago in north west europe. That is the key. Sure you can have a map titled GB and Ireland which shows the Isle of Man on it, considering its position its rather hard to avoid it on a single image. But that doesnt mean the archipelago is Britain and Ireland. If there is a map of the USA and Canada it does not mean that is now the title of the North American continent. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've said, this one is just so obvious that it should be BI, that really it should be immediately changed. LevenBoy (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an opinion it doesn't necessarily have agreement (and it contains no argument). BW - Reliable sources say that B&I is an equivalent to BI and it is clearly used as such. GB&I is a different matter. In terms of practice, well the Atlas titles used to be BI so are you saying they excluded IoM then? --Snowded ^TALK 09:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen sources that describe Britain and Ireland as the equivalent of British Isles (an archipelago in north west Europe). Some atlas titles may now just say Britain and Ireland, and they may include showing the isle of man. It does not mean Britain and Ireland is an archipelago. B+I is a term used instead of referring to the archipelago. But in this case the article says "Britain, Ireland and former British colonies" Britain links to the UK and Ireland links to the island. There for the Isle of Man is excluded and yet we have sources showing they play conkers there too. This is a tradition throughout the British Isles and some former British colonies. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowded. Whereas it is correct to say "Britain and Ireland is often used as a substitute for British Isles", it is equally true to say that the world over "England" is used for the whole of Britain. Both statements are equally wrong. And you know it. So why argue it?

You would not dream of arguing for the use of England for Britain, so why argue for 'Britain and Ireland' for British Isles? No, it is not an equivalent.

We can build an encyclopedia on ambiguous or erroneous statements albethey referenced from children's books, popular media and archaic sources. Or we reflect an accurate view of the situation. Which would you suggest?

I mentioned an very good academic book recently which summarised the problem in its introduction. The problem lies within the chauvinist academic view pre-1960/70s when "British history" was really used to mean "English history" (the victor getting to write it), when England was commonly used to mean Britain (as it still is the world over thanks to that time), and the "Celtic Fringes" were merely an non-serious aside. This has changed. Partly to do with the political movements in Ireland but more to do with the changes in our shared class system and academia. It has become far more interesting and respectful.

This particular partisan conflict above really encapsulates the entirety of conflict here (again). Yes, it is used but it is used ERRONEOUSLY.

If we are to allow Ireland the courtesy of identification, then we must also allow the same courtesy to the IoM and CIs. We cannot and so therefore we are forced to accept British Isles.

My position therefore is not anti-HighKing's removal of the term British Islesn or his "equal" placement of the world "Ireland" at every opportunity, but pro an eglatarian recognition and inclusion of the IoM and CI --- the shorthand for which is "British Isles" every time.

I cannot help but feel the problem is in the misunderstanding and misassociation of the term British Isles, and even British, within a few minds. Britishness has been co-created by the Anglo-Norman-Saxons, the Picts and Celts, the Romans, more than a few Belgians and Jews, and even the Britons --- of which some of the Welsh are probably the last survivors. Historically, since the Middle Ages, Irish society has been Anglicised, particularly its gentry, arguably even moreso that the Scots and remote Welsh. Britishness continues to be changed by Black and Asian influences. It is not England's.

At some point, you have got to give up and accept that. --Triton Rocker (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

England is mistakenly used instead of Britain, agreed and its wrong to do so and a common error. The difference is that the BI to B&I switch is a deliberate one, a matter of choice by various authorities. So its not a mistake and its not in error, its part of the evolution of language (something your academic reference reinforces). As to your speculation on "misunderstandings and mis-associations" I don't see the particular relevance of this to the issue so I make no comment --Snowded ^TALK 09:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But where are the actual sources saying B+I is the term for an archipelago in north west europe. All the sources ive seen simply suggest alternative terms are being used instead of talking about the archipelago. I have yet to see sources stating B+I is an archipelago. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like Wikilawyering to me BW. If a reliable source says that B&I is an equivalent to BI it doesn't need to spell out the archipelago stuff. I assume you are not saying that only references that use the archipelago word count? --Snowded ^TALK 09:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Usual disclaimer: too little coffee, etc. Is B&I solely a geo-political term, and is this solely a geographical issue? I'm not saying either way, just asking. TFOWR 09:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New disclaimer, too much coffee. I think B&I is geographical in use --Snowded ^TALK 10:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
B+I can be used geographically, the trouble is i have yet to see sources stating it can be used geographically to describe an archipelago in North West Europe commonly known as the British Isles. This is not wikilawyering. I believe the following sentence: Britain and Ireland is an archipelago in north west Europe would be totally incorrect, and until i see several reliable sources stating otherwise that will continue to be my view on this. I am still waiting to hear why British Isles is incorrect or unacceptable for this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that I or anyone else suggesting that such a wording be used. However when we say something like "originated in" it is perfectly OK to say "originated in Britain and Ireland" or "originated in the British Isles". Both are valid and will be better or worse in different contexts. --Snowded ^TALK 12:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, if that wording i put in bold would not be considered correct then B+I is not another name for the archipelago which includes the Isle of Man and channel islands. It is simply an alternative term to avoid mentioning the archipelago all together. The two areas it talks about are different. The article does not say "originated in". It says traditionally played in, yet its clear that its played in the isle of man too. Britain at present on that article links to United Kingdom. The Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom. Simply saying played within the British Isles and Former British colonies seems like the easiest solution. Use of something like "within" does not mean it has to be played in every single part anyway. And we could always add, "mainly in England where it originated" or soemting like that. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BW, it is really really tedious when you just repeat the same point time and time again. Please see all my other comments --Snowded ^TALK 18:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that all your other comments ever Snowded? That should keep BW busy for a while. In the meantime, this is becoming quite the lamest debate we have had so far, and that's saying something. I was thinking of proposing adding BI to Bonkers but I suppose that would be a step too far, even for BISE. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would do him good :-) Actually this is not about conkers anymore, its a more serious point about if B&I is an alternative to BI - should probably be a separate thread but without repetition. --Snowded ^TALK 19:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Britain that at present links to the United Kingdom. I am not sure what Britain should link to if its to include the isle of man and channel islands. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alot of editors seem to agree with me, that BI should be added. Yet none of them have joined up with me at the Arguments for... section, why? GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your one line perfectly sums up the situation lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on decision please
Call for a recount please.
The original text uses the word "traditionally", and it confers a specific meaning to the text - that conkers is a traditional game, originating in Britain and Ireland, and played in the colonies. Yet the abundant sources clearly show (overwhelmingly) that conkers is a British pastime, and no sources were found that contradicted this fact. The phrase that "Conkers is a traditional British childrens' game" should be used.

TFOWR uses the logic of "Britain, Ireland, and..." is not as accurate or precise, since "conkers" is demonstrably also played elsewhere. to suggest that a phrase of It is played in the British Isles and some former British colonies..." That is equally inaccurate and imprecise. It's played in Europe, and all over the world, and not just former British colonies either. The recent World Conker Championships (used as a source to show that conkers are played in Ireland) stated that there were 320 participants from 17 countries such as England, USA, South Africa, Northern Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Scotland, Ukraine, Wales, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Australia, France and Philippines.
Please don't close this until TFOWR reaffirms or rethinks the decision. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, arguments like this need to made in the original discussion, not shoe-horned in after close. A line has to be drawn under discussions - I draw that line when discussions have petered out. I don't expect new arguments to be made after close, which is what you're doing here. You made four comments in the "arguments against" section: none of them referred to the international nature of conkers. If you can't make your case in the original discussion, I do feel there needs to be some form of sanction to ensure that future discussions are better argued. Put simply: waiting until a discussion is closed and then presenting a new argument is disruptive. If you want this re-opened now, ask Black Kite or Cailil. I'll defer to their judgement. Alternatively I'm obviously willing to open a new discussion in the future - with new arguments, coherently stated, i.e. not descending into the mess of threaded arguments and counter-arguments displayed above. TFOWR 21:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a second. I believe that requesting a short explanation on your thinking and the resolution is well within the scope of what we're doing here, as is a *short* discussion that may point out potential flaws with a resolution. We need to be confident that decisions are good and should be defended and upheld. Nobody here is assuming that you're infallible, and sometimes (especially in a looonnggg discussion thread) you may have missed some relevant statements. If you want to insist that your resolution is binding and infallible, and you're never for changing even in the face of other facts .... well, I don't believe that is your intent.

Roll back up to earlier in the discussion where we exchanged views:
"Traditionally" - just a thought, but isn't it "traditionally" that's the problem here? There seems to be concern that conkers hasn't been "traditionally" played in Ireland, and I'm fairly certain it won't "traditionally" have been played in most former colonies. Canada, maybe, but Australia is unlikely and New Zealand just doesn't have the history to support it ("Traditional games" in New Zealand being more a Māoritanga thing...) Just a thought, and don't read too much into this comment, but I'd prefer not to go too far down a side-road, only to realise later that the issue was much easier than we thought... TFOWR 09:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In a word, Yes. The use of "traditionally" suggests the author wants to attribute the origins of the game, and the popularity of the game, with schoolchildren hailing from a specific area. Dropping "traditionally" would remove some objections for sure. Although I would be concerned that we're materially changing the authors intention, and that we're altering article simply to accommodate using "British Isles". --HighKing (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I also made the point to BW that what you're failing to do is show that Conkers is traditionally played in Ireland, and shares origins within Ireland.

Your suggested resolution of "Conkers or conker is a traditional childrens' game. It is played in the British Isles and some former British colonies..." changes the meaning of the sentence, and introduces a completely new fact.

It loses the fact that it's traditionally a British/English game, and introduced a completely new fact about the distribution of where it is played.

How could anyone have predicted that you'd decide to introduce a completely new fact? My request to clarify doesn't introduce any new arguments. I already made the point that conkers is a traditional British/English game, and I provided the references. And since we were never discussing the distribution area of where conkers is played, it is only now that any opportunity to list the countries has presented itself. Although in fairness, the list of countries that participated was only made known last weekend, after the discussion had petered out. --HighKing (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, my resolution is not binding. Nor it is infallible. I've even told you how to go about getting a second opinion: If you want this re-opened now, ask Black Kite or Cailil. I'll defer to their judgement. There was ample opportunity to discuss distribution during the original discussion. I closed based on the arguments made, not on what you might present after the close. I am gifted with many things, but foresight ain't one of them. As I noted on my talkpage (and keeping this discussion in one place would be appreciated, by the way) I intend to discuss how to deal with "new evidence" with Ncmvocalist, Black Kite and Cailil - clearly the primary goal has to be the accuracy of articles. However, I am very concerned at new arguments - distribution etc - being made to challenge a close. Make arguments during the discussion, not afterwards. I repeat: waiting until a discussion is closed and then presenting a new argument is disruptive. I do not accept that "it is only now that any opportunity to list the countries has presented itself". TFOWR 13:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was ample opportunity to discuss distribution during the original discussion. I agree. And it would have been *if* the point we were discussing was the distribution of where conkers are played. The focus was on the word "traditional". I explicitly made the point, many times, that nobody was arguing whether conkers were played in Ireland or not. That point was immaterial. The point was about whether they were played "traditionally" in Ireland.

waiting until a discussion is closed and then presenting a new argument is disruptive. I agree normally that a close is a close. But in this case your suggested close has added a new point to the article - that of distribution.

I do not accept that "it is only now that any opportunity to list the countries has presented itself". The conkers world championships were only held on the 10th, and the announcement about participation and winners was only made on the website after that. Today is only the 14th. But the point is, up till now, nobody was arguing about distribution. That's a new point that you've introduced only now.

I'm not going to request a review. My intention was not to "present new evidence" or disrupt this page or undermine your decision making. It's your decision and if you're still happy with it, let's move on as a community. --HighKing (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and Aesculus, Aesculus hippocastanum (Resolved)

Resolved
– As Conkers, above. TFOWR 14:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(I've removed Aesculus from the above section, as it's a separate issue: childhood game vs. tree. TFOWR 09:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
(And I added Aesculus hippocastanum at no extra charge! I'm wanting a decent Christmas bonus, however... TFOWR 10:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Extended content

And can someone state the reasons why this case has been opened? Using policies and references. Otherwise, can @TFWOR simply close this. --HighKing (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I opened it procedurally, as Aesculus had been added to the "Conkers" discussion above, and childhoold games and trees are two separate issues (though there's arguably a case that this what's decided at "conkers" would apply here, too). I think there's value in having a discussion: at present the article simply says "Britain" (no wikilink). The Aesculus hippocastanum article discusses "conkers" in "Britain and Ireland", it may be that Britain and Ireland is better, or that British Isles is better. Again, I think it's worth having the discussion since it's been (indirectly) brought up by way of the "conkers" discussion. TFOWR 13:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK - a procedural open. OK, but we still need to see what the case for changing the article is. Just some simple reasons is fine - as in why should the article be changed - is there a reference to suggest it should be changed, is it wrong, etc. --HighKing (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for "British Isles" @ Aesculus, Aesculus hippocastanum

Aesculus hippocastanum should have an "introduced to the British Isles in the 17th Century" somewhere. You could extend it to something like "introduced to the British Isles in the 17th Century where its nuts, called conkers, have become a popular game played mainly by children" as it has become a notable part of our shared culture. --Triton Rocker (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aesculus should have British Isles instead of Britain and Ireland, as usual, because the latter is just plainly wrong. It is as simple as that. It is another case for the blanket ruling. --Triton Rocker (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accept BI and close, as above. (Chestnut trees are not even "traditional" to anywhere on the BI, they came from the Balkans). --LevenBoy (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against "British Isles" @ Aesculus, Aesculus hippocastanum

No case made for change. No diffs, no references, etc. --HighKing (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Isles rockpool life
Raised by IP editor here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well he needs a better excuse that the "politically motivated" title cry. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be primarily "fauna". TFOWR 09:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it is unreferenced, I hardly see how an editor can claim it ignores ireland. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be primarily "fauna" ???? Except for the entire section entitled "Plants" :-)

The first order of business would suggest that we find a reference. My first quickie pass doesn't show anything obvious on the first few pages of Google Books. Did we not come across a book before dealing with the Sea Coasts of the British Isles or something like that?? --HighKing (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the species list it could as well be for North Western Europe - you find the same species in Brittany for example. It seems harmless, geographical and all that but it would be nice to see a reference to say there is something distinctive --Snowded ^TALK 16:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "Plants" consists of two sub-division: "algae" and "lichens". I'd imagine that would greatly simplify our examination compared to the "animals" section, which consists of seven sub-divisions. Fortunately we have a general rule for "animals", so we can focus on "plants" and whether they can be treated as we'd treat fauna. TFOWR 16:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What will you do if there are slime moulds? They are vegetables that become animals then revert ;-) --Snowded ^TALK 16:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes feel trapped in another dimension. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No change is needed. The article has had that title for years, the creator has responded to the IP claim the title is politically motivated. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. Perhaps not. T'would be nice to have a concrete reason based on precedent and/or policy/guidelines, no? --HighKing (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When concrete reasons to change the status quo are presented, i will look into this matter in more detail. Some random IP claiming an articles title is politically motivated, is not a just reason to consider this an open case for us all to waste our time on. if it is justification it sets a terrible precedent that could flood BISE in an hour with dozens of cases.BritishWatcher (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true and given that it's just a list page, it's particularly difficult. Many of the individual items in the list (to take this seriously, which perhaps one shouldn't) do mention both Ireland and Britain incidentally. Cancer pagurus for example. The list article does obtrude into flora but it is mainly fauna-related. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As requested, concrete reasons to examine usage on this article are that without references, it does not denote notability, and is WP:OR. --HighKing (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a category entitled "British Isles coastal fauna" although no article. I've come across a number of publications. This book A student's guide to the seashore covers the British Isles although doesn't outline why it's notable in any way, and covers more than just rock pools. There appears to be a number of other books that detail much the same topics, but none from the point of view of the British Isles. A Beginner's Guide to Ireland's Seashore by Helena Challinor, Susan Murphy Wickens, Jane Clark and Audrey Murphy, Handbook of the marine fauna of north-west Europe, The biology of rocky shores (worldwide), and Seashore of Britain and Europe. Perhaps this article could become the basis of an expanded (and referenced) list to include more than just Coastal fauna (and even flora). As it is, the main objection is that it is unsourced and thereby WP:OR. What if the article was moved to List of fauna of the British Isles and expanded to more than just rockpool life, and included a lot of the articles in the already existing category? --HighKing (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for changing from "British Isles" @ List of British Isles rockpool life
Until/unless we get a reference, this is WP:OR and arguably not notable. --HighKing (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for retaining "British Isles" @ List of British Isles rockpool life
There doesn't appear to be any discernible benefit with respect to the article or topic that would come about from a rename. --RA (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No specific valid reason for the change; list article, therefore difficult to build referencing cases; listed items include previously discussed fauna guideline parameters; listed articles include multiple mentions of localities across the archipelago. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article title has been stable for 3 years since it was created.

Article created by an uninvolved editor who has responded to the random IP's accusation of "political motivation" and "a British jingoistic claim over Ireland and the Irish" on the talkpage of the article.

Article is in categories Category:British Isles coastal fauna Category:Ecology of the British Isles so having an article which covers the isles is not out of place.

Article does cover some Fauna, something people have agreed is a valid area for use of British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article deals with rockpool life, and there is no basis for the IP's claim that it is only for Great Britain. Snowded mentioned it would be the same for much of north-west Europe, so Ireland would be included there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Usual arguments. --LevenBoy (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Student
Just noticed this edit by an IP at Student. This is obviously someone making major changes to a stable article so that they can use the term BI. When it comes to education it's hard even using the term UK as Scottish, England/Wales and Northern Ireland all have different systems. I propose that this unexplained edit is reverted.
Revert. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be deliberate - it looks to me like a novice user attempting to improve the article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the edits made by this editor, I believe it is someone who is very knowledgeable on Ireland/British issues, and knowledgable on Wikipedia policies and conventions. Their edits display a lot of wiki-editing knowledge. Their second edit summary mentions hat-notes for example, and they also "clean-up" numbers for text, and insert a reference. It is unlikely in the extreme that this editor is an innocent novice user. I also note the removal of the pipelinking of Republic of Ireland. Interestingly, that particular IP address also doesn't have a great reputation and is blacklisted on not one, but two, major spam prevention databases (check out senderbase for details). I'm going to revert "Student" immediately as per BRD. --HighKing (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revert, and notify the IP about this discussion. WP:AGF, everyone. TFOWR 18:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
High King - reference this discussion in your edit summary when you revert. It'll keep the potential drama to a minimum. TFOWR 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a perfectly justified edit to me. The fact there are different education systems within the UK makes his edit all the more sensible. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing great to worry about IMHO (not least because the IP is based in Dublin). The only query I would raise about the edit is the slight mixing of United Kingdom and British Isles: "In the past, the term "student" was reserved for people studying at university level in the United Kingdom ... However, the American-English use of the word "student" to include pupils of all ages, even at elementary level, is now spreading to the British Isles."

Suggested rephrase: "In the past, the term "student" was reserved for people studying at university level in the United Kingdom and Ireland ... However, the American-English use of the word "student" to include pupils of all ages, even at elementary level, is now spreading to the British Isles." Suggest the heading be changed to "United Kingdom and Ireland" also.

There's no need to be suspicious of IP editors by default: IPs are human too. --RA (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True - except this IP demonstrated a working knowledge of both Wikipedia and Irish/British articles. In previous articles, this editor removed the Republic of Ireland wikilinks - so I'm not suspicious by default, just by their behaviour. For this article, I initially reverted. I've since continued to edit and I've now split the UK and Ireland into separate sections - there's no justification for treating them under a single section - and I've created sections for the other European countries too. --HighKing (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the IP address does not track to Dublin. It is a Vodafone *Mobile* address. Could be anywhere. --HighKing (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, evidently it isn't a "novice" but I suppose though that an experienced editor preferring not to register and moving between his/her own PC and a mobile laptop would look like this. I just mean there may be no element of bad intention there. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that was the only edit by that IP so far that affected British Isles, this seems to not be a case of socking or trivial IP noviceness. Should it not therefore be a structured discussion rather than a reflex revert TFOWR? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the usual procedure is revert and discuss? Regardless, it's been reverted now (though the edit summary could have been improved, High King...) But structured discussion? Yes. I'll start one now.
Are you looking at the right edit summaries? My first edit summary was "revert to use countries as per original article, fix to use pipelinking where appropriate, and generally tidied up some pieces". The second edit summary was "Reorganized by country, added tags for countries under Europe, split UK and Ireland into separate sections.". Both edit summaries describe the actions taken, and looking through the history of most people's edit summaries, I believe I'd be in line for a prize for consecutive descriptive edit summaries. --HighKing (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am. I was hoping for a link to this discussion. Something like "Per discussion at {{subst:dtag|nowiki|WT:BISE#Student}}". Sorry if that wasn't clear. TFOWR 11:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for "British Isles" at Student
Usual argument, we cannot exclude IoM and CI. The comments apply to NI at least probably RoI too. We cannot use "UK and Ireland". --LevenBoy (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments against "British Isles" at Student
~~The article was changed by an IP editor that appears to have knowledge of this topic, and other contentious topics such as wikilinking Republic of Ireland -> Ireland. Appears mischievous at best.~~

No basis or reasons given for changing to use British Isles.

Article originally grouped UK and Ireland together - no basis for that either --HighKing (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue of what the IP did is largely irrelevant, but it is correct that this article is best divided by country and the practises and culture surrounding the word "student" do vary a little both inside different parts of the UK and also between the UK and Ireland. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the opening it's hard to even use the term UK due to the many different education systems and traditions and therefore BI would be even more ridiculous. Bjmullan (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quarth
The article currently states Quarth was released on the Konami Net i-mode service as Block Quarth, with an updated Block Quarth DX in 2001—this was released in 2005 on O2's i-mode services in the British Isles minus the "DX" suffix.. O2 does not have a "British Isles" service, instead it has a UK service and and Ireland service. Also the Channel Islands don't have an O2 service. --HighKing (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland, in this instance. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Codf1977 (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree. Bjmullan (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
United Kingdom and Ireland per MOS. --RA (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do ya mean [Republic of Ireland|Ireland]? GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Usual and typical proposal. Fails due to O2's IoM and CI services. We need to establish what are "good faith" proposals and silly "bad faith" or time wasting proposals. Confusion over the Irelands leading to an overly wordy alternative. BI fits the bill. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you make that argument below, can you link to O2's IoM and CI services? That seems to be an easy way to disprove HighKing's argument. Ta! TFOWR 11:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O2 don't offer any services on the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. (Though for a while Manx Telecom was wholly owned by O2.) --RA (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And just to clarify my request, we'd need O2's i-mode service, not merely O2. TFOWR 11:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh ... no O2, no O2 i-mode.

O2 offer services in the UK, Ireland and Germany. Here's the press release around the release of O2's i-mode services. It mentions release dates in the UK, Ireland and Germany markets. The markets in which O2 offers services. Further down it mentions how O2 (at that time) owned Manx Telecom. It does not mention anything about a roll-out of i-mode services on the Isle of Man. Why? Because that's Manx Telecom, not O2. Whether Manx Telecom ever offered an i-mode service, I don't know. --RA (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that something as clear-cut as this needs to go to the arguments for/against - but - it does perhaps highlight an important guideline. If a company operates at a corporate level in different countries, due to different legal jurisdictions, then I believe articles should properly reflect this. It's the balancing argument for using British Isles in geographic contexts where no legal or country jurisdictions apply. --HighKing (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for keeping "British Isles" at Quarth
Arguments against keeping "British Isles" at Quarth
O2 does not have a "British Isles" service

O2 does not operate an i-mode service on the IoM or CI

O2 operates at a country level, therefore countries should be used. --HighKing (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polls
Britain and Ireland is an invalid equivalent for British Isles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Some sources do use "Britain and Ireland" as an alternative to "British Isles". Some sources use it to mean "Great Britain and (the island of) Ireland". I'm not prepared to rule out the former just because there may be some confusion between the two uses. Disagree? WP:ANI is that-a-way. TFOWR 17:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did we did pick up and finish the discussion Snowded raise above on the 24th of Sept regarding "Britain and Ireland being an invalid equivalent for British Isles"? Excuse me if I missed it due to my "holiday". If so, can anyone point out where and when it happened?
I think this hits the nail on the head and we have to address it for once and for all.
Britain and Ireland is not a valid equivalent for British Isles for all the reasons we keep having to repeat Britain and Ireland - or UK and I or UK and RoI etc.
Do we have a clear agreement on this? Let's keep this simple in the first place. --LevenBoy (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its already referenced in the British Isles article LevenBoy --Snowded ^TALK 03:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We all know what it is. It may be referenced in the topic, or not but I am talking about what our position. You raised the issue.

We have a problem where individuals are attempting to insert Britain and Ireland as an equivalent for British Isles. Sometimes this even on the basis of a references that clearly refers to the British Isles as Britain and Ireland. How do we address this? --LevenBoy (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case by case, but if the references say Britain and Ireland then its pretty clear --Snowded ^TALK 04:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I think Snowded's last point is right here. We can't create a general rule for this, because it will depend on a number of factors in each case, including sourcing and context. I think all we can safely say is that sometimes it is a valid equivalent and other times it is not. This is why the argument often goes to geographical extent and is not simple, hence at some point we need to agree acceptable "spreads" of geographical mentions in some cases. This is not to say that there aren't a whole bunch of cases where BI is fully correct and the argument that it should be replaced with B&I fallacious; it's just that it can't be a "rule". So sorry but the basis of the alternatives presented below is not one founded in practical reality. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Isle of Man & Channel Islands considered to be included in the term Britain and Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. We all know that Isle of Man & Channel Islands part of Britain or Ireland. That would be a good second question though.

There is no proposal of a rule here. It is just a simple yes or no poll. HighKing, you are free to discuss or vote as you wish but please do not move other editors opinions or changing the poll after votes have been made.

Technically speaking, is "Britain and Ireland" is a valid equivalent for "British Isles"? --LevenBoy (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another question could be is the Channel Islands a part of the British Isles? From a geographic point of view they are not. But then the term BI is not a purely geographic term but a political term used to describe the bounds of the UK government. Bjmullan (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many months ago, there was a RfC on whether the CI were a part of the 'British Isles', but (if memory serves me right) it came to no conclusion. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, the moves of votes here are getting silly. Codf1977 is taking a similar position to mine, namely that its not a blanket equivalent but it is valid in some contexts; and King supported that. Wherever it sits neither Codf1977 or HighKing are supporting LevinBoys proposal. I'm not even voting as this is an absurd discussion. There is referenced material from RS in the main article which state that B&I is used as an equivalent. You can't outvote a reliable source and I'm not legitimising this particular bit of nonsense by taking part in it. And just to deal with a couple of issues
Great Britain and Ireland excludes the Isle of Man but Britain and Ireland in common use doesn't

If we make specific reference to the Archipelago of X, the in current usage X = "British Isles" although that might change over time

--Snowded ^TALK 05:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends on how you define "equivalent" then. Can "Britain and Ireland" include exactly the same area as the British Isles? I have yet to see a single reliable source that says that is the case. The sources shown at presently simply mean instead of talking about the British Isles which some people think is controversial, some simply say Britain and Ireland. Its very different. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One gets a feeling of counting the number of angels on the head of a pin here. There are sources that say B&I is increasingly used in preference to BI, we have actual examples of use in the Atlas name changes. So where people used to use the phrase BI they now use B&I for the same subject matter. Language evolves over time BW, mixing metaphors after counting the angels you have continued on to clutch at staws --Snowded ^TALK 10:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a rectangle of the world covered by an atlas is labelled something doesn't necessarily mean that some certain body in the rectangle is called that, although this is often the case. I'm not sure that these atlases are saying "this group of islands is called Britain and Ireland", I would think they were saying "this is the countries of Britain and Ireland". Just as they have a map for, say, "Germany", so they have for "Britain and Ireland". This would be political and not geographical. This whole discussion proves that the term is a case-by-case basis if you ask me. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've argued above its case by case so agree with you there. In your example however we are talking about Atlas publications that used to be titled "British Isles" and have changed to "Britain and Ireland" without changing content. So when looking for a collective name for the UK and Ireland along with the Isle of Mann etc. they have chose to use a different one.--Snowded ^TALK 11:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They may just be ignoring the Isle of Mann etc., I'm sure the exact political situation doesn't bother most people. Anyway, it's irrelevant, I think we should probably close all these polls, sapping time away from other things. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't but you are right all of these recent polls should be closed; off topic and time wasting --Snowded ^TALK 11:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These polls cut to the very nub of the debate. We will come to the question of references in a short while. Stop changing the poll after it has been set.

I am not asking question of "whether they are used or not".

I am asking the questions of whether techinically, legally, geographically these terms are equivalent and interchangeable.

That is to say, beyond the point of opinion.

The honest truth is, we all know they are not. There are no territorial disputes between the various nations or states. We are discussing a very stable legal defined geographic area. But it is only fair to poll individuals about their beliefs first. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, "Britain and Ireland" is not a valid equivalent for "British Isles"

Agreed, as per common knowledge and endless references. --LevenBoy (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which references state that Britain and Ireland and British Isles are not equivalent terms? There are many cited elsewhere that equate the two. --RA (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - We shouldn't be using Britain and Ireland in place of British Isles on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely thats not the question that was asked? Or was it ? Are we just talking about Wikipedia? Or in general conversational and editorial terms? I assumed it was a general question to try and hone a WP guideline in this area. I'm getting confused now. Fmph (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it concerns just Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case this seems to be a circular discussion. If we are just talking about Wikipedia, then it is only a valid equivalent if the MOS says it is. Outside of Wikipedia (and its only outside of WP that counts as references to 'prove' the case) is a different case. Fmph (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - "Britain and Ireland" excludes the Isle of Man which isn't a part of the UK. "British Isles" is the most well-known and commonly used name for the islands regardless of peoples political motivations. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Britain and Ireland is simply a completely alternative term to avoid talking about an archipelago in north west europe known as the British Isles. No reliable sources clearly stating "Britain and Ireland" is an archipelago in north west Europe have been provided. (as i have said on a couple of occasions, the wording at British Isles and British Isles naming dispute does not clearly explain the situation. People could easily read it as saying its an alternative name for the archipelago known as the British Isles, something that is not the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - for the many reasons given above. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - It is clearly not a blanket equivalent for British Isles, however in some cases it's use can be appropriate. Codf1977 (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agree with Codf1977. In most cases it's not equivalent, but in some cases it's use is appropriate. --HighKing (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Yes, "Britain and Ireland" is a valid equivalent for "British Isles"

Agreed, as per common knowledge and endless references. Fmph (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The meanings of terms change over time. "Britain and Ireland" is a fuzzy term, that is used, in practice in the real world, to mean either the UK and Ireland (the state), or the islands of GB, Ireland, and the smaller ones around their shores, or both meanings simultaneously. Yes, WP should explore and tease out the technical differences between the terms, but it should also recognise that, in reality, most people do not necessarily use terminology with the same forensic accuracy employed by editors on this page, and not criticise or "teach" others to be "correct". The very fuzziness of the term encourages its wide use - it allows people to use the term without thinking about precisely which of several very slightly different things they mean. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "Britain and Ireland" is often used in place of "British Isles". Daicaregos (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not only is it equivalent but it is preferred by many as a more NPOV term. Bjmullan (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per RS. Britain and Ireland is cited as "becoming preferred usage" (Davies:2000) or "is the more favoured expression" (Hazlett:2003) to British Isles for example. As with all terms in this arena (including British Isles), editors should consider what it most appropriate to the topic and to the context. Language in this arena is highly charged and use or non-use of any turns of phrase (even seemingly innocuous ones such as this) should be considered carefully. --RA (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Codf1977. In most cases it's not equivalent, but in some cases it's use is appropriate.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are the Isle of Man & Channel Islands a part of the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland? (Resolved)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is very silly. The Isle of Man is a self-governing British Crown Dependency. It is neither part of the United Kingdom nor the Republic of Ireland. Likewise, the Channel Islands are an archipelago of British Crown Dependencies, none of which are part of either the United Kingdom or the Republic or Ireland. These aren't things we can change via a silly poll - they're commonly known facts which could have been easily ascertained simply by reading the relevant articles and the associated references. This poll has nothing to do with a specific example of usage of the term "British Isles", and I'm closing it. TFOWR 11:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following GoodDay above, another simple poll.
Are the Isle of Man (islands) & the Channel Islands part of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland? (If yes, please state part of which nation). --LevenBoy (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

Speedy close - beyond the scope of this page to decided this, and as such just a waste of everyone's time, what next - Are Man U going to win the 2011 FA cup ? Codf1977 (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Cof1977, total waste of time bordering on disruptive behaviour --Snowded ^TALK 11:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Britain and Ireland meant Great Britain & the island of Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Isle of Man & Channel Islands are not a part of the United Kingdom nor Republic of Ireland?

Agreed. As per common knowledge and legal definition. --LevenBoy (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - IOM / Channel Islands are not part of United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland. Nor are they part of Great Britain and Ireland. There for i have not got a clue how its possible to think they are part of "Britain and Ireland". When Britain either means the state or the island, neither of which consists of IOM/CI. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're not a part of either country or either island. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Isle of Man & Channel Islands are part of the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland?

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are the Isle of Man & Channel Islands a part of the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland? (Clarification)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It's gone to WP:AN. TFOWR 17:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, TFOWR, allow me to go through this slowly and logically without disruption. These are important leading questions.
Just to clarifying then, do we all agree that Isle of Man & Channel Islands a part of the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland then?
The correct answer is "no, Isle of Man & Channel Islands a part of the United Kingdom nor Republic of Ireland". I just want to make sure we are all singing from the same hymn book.
TFOWR, I would prefer to ask you to open the poll again and allow it to complete with all regular commentators contributing. There is no good reason to close it early.
It is not "beyond the scope of this page to decided this". It has already been legal decided a long time ago by the governments involved. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not going to re-open the poll. It is completely beyond the scope of this page to decide this, for precisely the reason you yourself cite: the status of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are legal issues, decided by the respective governments - not by a bunch of anonymous editors on a website. What possible benefit would derive from having this poll? (Hint: none). TFOWR 14:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. May I re-open the poll then without being threatened with a blocking or banning?

There is no question of "whether it is within or without the scope of this page to decide".

The matter has already been decided by the governments involved.

What I am polling is contributors' knowledge of those decisions and acceptance of it. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take the view that re-opening it would be disruptive. Polling contributors' knowledge is off-topic. Contributors' knowledge of constitutional law is of no relevance here - what matters is contributors' knowledge of Wikipedia policy and precedent. TFOWR 14:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but no. I have 3 very simple questions. How on earth can you say knowledge of constitutional matters are of no relevance when we are discussing and deciding matters of nation and statehood? If contributors do not know, then I will provide them with those details. Where individuals genuinely do not know, surely they need to start with that understanding, don't they?

Does Wikipedia really work on the basis of precedents? I think you are wrong there. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Howabout transferring those questions to your own talkpage & invite folks there to participate. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. All your poll serves to do is to examine contributors' knowledge. As GoodDay says, you can do that on your own talk page. Not here. This page certainly does work on policy and precedent: not on votes, polls, opinions or any other cruft. TFOWR 15:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is called consensus building, TFOWR, which is Wikipedia precedent.

I would rather TFOWR just answered the question or, even better, allowed each and every individual to answer the question. Just to clarifying then, do we all agree that Isle of Man & Channel Islands are not part of either the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland then? --LevenBoy (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're not a part of the UK or the RoI. Howabout having this questions at your talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus never overrides policy, and consensus never overrides reality. A consensus that "the sky is red" will never be an acceptable reason to change the article Sky to describe a state that is unrelated to reality. TFOWR 15:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I agree. Reality does override consensus and policy.

I have three simple questions to be discussed here with everyone in order to gain the mandate of all users.

At present, TFOWER you are blocking that consensus being agreed and made by your actions and creating more disruption than if we just ran the poll. I actually think you are acting beyond your authority.

We are agreeing what reality is. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be alright to move these questions to BISE's main page? GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if it keeps the disruption on this page down. I still think LevenBoy's talkpage would be the best bet, but LevenBoy seems determined to have this poll somewhere visible. So long as the disruption here stops, I don't really care. TFOWR 15:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to "poll reality", you can do it on your talkpage. If you want to check whether I'm acting beyond my authority, you can do it at WP:ANI. The poll is off-topic here because it serves no purpose - we all already know what the constituional status is of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and it will not, in any event, be decided here. TFOWR 15:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will. You are twisting my words to insult and provoke me TROWR. I never said I wanted to "poll reality". I am polling what other users' positions are on the most pertinent questions relating to the British Isles naming dispute and you are disrupting it. The poll had support and you are causing more disruption by closing it early than if it was allowed to run. --LevenBoy (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With it transfered to the mainpage, I reckon it'll be alright to 're-open' the closure-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take responsibility for pushing TFOWR in the direction of a closure, as I suggested it one his talk page. I'd rather this be moved to LevenBoy's talk page, if it is opened somewhere else.

Everyone here agrees that Crown dependencies are not part of the UK or Ireland. EVERYONE. If anyone ever argues otherwise, I'm sure they'd be shut down by other editors very fast. The poll serves no great purpose. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was an attempt to derail the discussion above. It was incredibly WP:POINTy, and I've warned the editor responsbile. TFOWR 16:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tad harsh reaction if you ask me, I can see it as a perfectly goodfaith non-pointy change, an editor combining two polls he set up under a greater heading. Still, your edit summary was nice. Anyway, combined or not, shift it please. Somewhere, anywhere, not on the specific example page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The combining of the polls was fine (though I'd prefer it if people didn't refactor discussions once people have contributed to them): it was the martyr-tastic "Forbidden" heading change. If LevenBoy wants to complain about being forbidden to dick around, they can do it at ANI where folk have an even lower tolerance for disruption and WP:POINTy nonsense. TFOWR 16:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's transfer these to BISE mainpage. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep the Polls together for just now as they are linked to from ANI. The problem is, there are too many discussion places. We should have just one. Everyone who cares about these issues from whatever point of view is here, so let's address the matter peacefully here.

I am sorry but the Poll was not "resolved" it was unilaterally closed.--LevenBoy (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)--LevenBoy (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. A snow close, with everyone agreeing with the bleeding obvious. It's best if discussion on this pointless poll continue at ANI. TFOWR 17:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What do we do when a reference contradicts technical facts?
3rd quick poll, please bear with me on this because there are editors from outside of the British Isles that will not appreciate the subtle technicalities of this discussion. Bear in mind that most of the rest of the world thinks England is Britain and has not a clue where the Isles of Man are, or why it is such a big issue.
We are all, basically, in agreement that, legally or technically, "Britain and Ireland" is not actually equivalent to "British Isles".

TFOWR has unilaterally decided that we all agree that neither the Isle of Man & Channel Islands are parts of either the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland. I disagree with the way in which he did so but I agree with his conclusion. It just would have been better to get everyone's mandate on it. This is all really to address an issue Snowded raised sometime ago on the page above.
What do we do when a given reference contradicts what we know to be technical accurate, e.g. a reference calling the British Isles "Britain and Ireland" to the exclusion of the IoM and/or CI?
We are all, basically, in agreement that, legally or technically, "Britain and Ireland" is not actually equivalent to "British Isles" We are? It looks to me like the two "sides" are about evenly matched in terms of numbers. I've not looked at the arguments, however.

There was, I thought, a third option in the B&I/BI poll saying "sometimes" equivalent. To my mind that highlighted why this was one area where a blanket ruling would be impossible - sources use terms in varying ways. We do what we always do: we cite the source, and explain/clarify any discrepancy. None of this should be new to us - this isn't an issue that's arisen out of the blue, an issue that the community hasn't thought of previously or encountered before. TFOWR 18:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@LB, can we see an example of an issue? --HighKing (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry TFOWR but I must remind you politely, you don't speak for anyone else but yourself. Please allow others to speak for themselves because everyone has their own specific point of view.
You have already derailed one poll causing a massive disruption where you clearly could and should have "assumed good faith". There is an open channel of communication between us, please ask first. Essentially you are only an equal here, despite your administrator tools. You do not act on others behalf.
@HighKing, e.g. one thing that has come up is Fmph's comment at 14:37, 8 October 2010 saying, "Britain and Ireland is a valid equivalent for British Isles". If that can be true, it contradicts the 2nd Poll which everyone agreed the Isle of Man and Channel Islands are not in UK nor Ireland.
Sorry, I don't see a contradiction. One poll asked if it is a valid equivalent. Another poll asked if the Crown Dependencies were a part of the UK or Ireland. Both polls are answered. Yes, they are used as valid equivalents. But No, they are not part of UK or Ireland. This perceived contradiction should help you understand why some Irish people find it equally contradictory to find Ireland as part of the "British" Isles. --HighKing (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In such a case, I would like to ask him to explain directly how and where the Isle of Man and Channel Islands exactly fit in then. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise. But to pick up on your plaintive "allow others to speak for themselves because everyone has their own specific point of view." I'll gladly do so - what I'm not prepared to do it allow off-topic discussions and/or polls. Take it to ANI if you disagree with that stance. In this case, seeing as you have taken it to ANI, simply accept the result. TFOWR 14:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec. IoM and/or CI are not a part of the UK or RoI. However IoM & CI are generally grouped with the islands called Ireland & Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. One name for such a grouping is "British Isles". Another name is "Britain and Ireland". "Britain and Ireland" isn't always equivalent: sometimes it just means "[Great] Britain and Ireland". Hence the value in the "Britain and Ireland" poll. And, indeed, in considering each case on its merits. There's no such value in considering whether the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom etc etc, unless one wanted to attempt to make a WP:POINT. TFOWR 15:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is where you have to be very careful TFOWR because on one hand you are playing the part of an impartial judge and jury (chairman) but here you are expressing a personal opinion which is technically wrong. "Britain and Ireland" is not a name. I think you should play either one role or the other.
To state the obvious, "Britain and Ireland" are two clearly defined names and exclusive of the CI, as we have agreed. No one would or could argue the CIs are in Britain or Ireland. Personally, I would not argue that the IoM is in Britain either. Last time I looked, it was off Britain. Britain and British Islands are not synonymous. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be sure not to mix up UK & RoI with GB & I. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing "Britain and Ireland" with "Britain" and "Ireland". The former is a term that is sometimes used as an equivalent to "British Isles" - that's not (I believe?) disputed. What's disputed is when it's appropriate to use it as an alternative to "British Isles". The latter is the name of two islands. I don't believe I am expressing a personal opinion - I'm simply explaining to you what the issue at hand is. If you want my personal opinion - it's that "Britain and Ireland" is less than ideal, precisely because of the ambiguity you've fallen into. But that's just my personal opinion which, as you say, is something I seek to avoid. What matters is the well-reasoned arguments of other participants. TFOWR 16:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Legal and geographically, there is no confusion. I suggest the only way to avoid conflict is to stick to what is clearly defined. You have just clarified that for us. IoM and CI are in neither and so, logically, Britain and Ireland cannot mean British Isles.
"Britain and Ireland" means "Britain" and "Ireland". The problem that we have is, that in an area of dispute, individuals are using a mixed quality and age of references. This is why I want to poll whether we "Follow what we know to be technically accurate or the literal words of the references". It is impossible for us to mystically divine what each and every author meant when they wrote "Britain and Ireland". They may have just be slack, chauvanist, colloquial or plain wrong, that is why I am asking, do we go along with what is erroneous or adopt a policy of technical accuracy. Do we accept what is clearly defined as a priority.
If we are honest, the cause of the confusion in this whole dispute is the Irish editors confusing a 2,000 year old term taken from the native Celtic-language name (Brettanic Isles from which we get British Isles), with the crimes of the United Kingdom. --LevenBoy (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LevenBoy, if you're unable to accept that some sources do use "Britain and Ireland" as an alternative to "British Isles", there's not much I can do to help you. We consider each source on its merits - some clearly do use "Britain and Ireland" as an alternative to "British Isles", while others are less precise in their use. I'm not going to make a blanket ruling saying that we run away from the challenge and only consider sources that use "British Isles" because it's "easier". Dealing with challenges is part and parcel of editing - not just here at WT:BISE but in general.

And if you make a crack at other editors again, I will start remembering your civility parole. TFOWR 17:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was no "crack at other editors" above, so please wind down your threats and remove it. I mean the authors of the original references which individuals are chosing to quoting. --LevenBoy (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...the cause of the confusion in this whole dispute is the Irish editors confusing... You have been told time and time again to comment on contributions, not contributors. TFOWR 18:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and we are dealing with that matter over at ANI. It is impossible to discuss the matter with discussion the matter and so please do not conflate to separate issues by dragging partial and prejudicial statements, out of context, and back here where it will obvious cause disruption.
My full comment was, ... If we are honest here, the historical problem that has caused the naming dispute is Engligh chauvanism over the Irish. I accept that. If we are honest, the Wikipedia naming dispute was about primarily Irish editors trying attempting to replace every incident of British Isles with "Britain and Ireland". I understand the Irish's feelings. The problem is, we cannot resolve Engligh chauvanism over the Irish with British and Irish chauvanism over the Manx (Isle of Man) or Channel Islanders .... --LevenBoy (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, your comment was If we are honest, the cause of the confusion in this whole dispute is the Irish editors confusing a 2,000 year old term taken from the native Celtic-language name (Brettanic Isles from which we get British Isles), with the crimes of the United Kingdom. You seem to be confusing your comment at WP:AN with your comment here. I'm quoting the latter. You raised an issue here, I addressed it here. TFOWR 18:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I utterly reject @LevenBoy's assertion that ... the Wikipedia naming dispute was about primarily Irish editors trying attempting to replace every incident of British Isles with "Britain and Ireland"..... There is no evidence for that. Remove the word every and replace it with many/some/plenty/most or any other of a multitude of quantifiers and you might be starting to get close. Anyone who believes that it might be possible to replace every instance is living on cloud cuckoo land. The defining characteristic of this dispute is actually the offence taken by many on the other side on any such replacements, referenced, valid or not! Fmph (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the techincal error and use the words of the reference
Follow what we know to be technically accurate
Agree. Technical accurate, or reality as TFOWR calls it above, has priority above opinion or consensus. --LevenBoy (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other possible alternatives
Follow the MOS or the consensus. This is what usually happens whenever there is a confusion of terminology. The reason I know that is because we've been doing it here for many moths now. Fmph (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Problem, there is no MOS yet. TFOWR has thankfully made it clear that reality takes priority over policy and consensus. We are dealing with areas which have clearly establish legal existences and definitions. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind above all: United Kingdom does not equal Great Britain & Republic of Ireland does not equal Ireland (the island). GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There may be no MOS (actually there are plenty of them - there just isn't one yet to deal with BI vs B&I - your question was phrased generically about WP, not specificaly about BI), but there is always consensus, which is what most of us have been working towards on this page for a long time. Fmph (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I may offer a drive-by opinion, is this usage in a direct quotation or a paraphrase? If it's a direct quotation, it should be quoted exactly as the writer presented, warts & all. If it's in a paraphrase, then the wording needs to be considered. -- llywrch (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coming late to this after a days travel I have got to ask why LevenBoy is raising the same issues again and again. We have citations which establish B&I is used as an alternative to BI; we have clear citations that the etymology of the term BI starts with Dee. This is 101 Wikipedia stuff; references from reliable sources. --Snowded ^TALK 21:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categories
What is the current state of play regarding adding British Isles related categories? --LevenBoy (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No comments? What is the bottomline? Is adding categories equivalent to adding terminology to topics, or not? --LevenBoy (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --HighKing (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion. Show me where that is stated. I think categories are a different case because with categories you can have numerous overlapping categories without any conflicting "either/or" situations. "Both" situation are possible. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
United Kingdom
Talk:United Kingdom templated. Wikiproject talks templated: Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography
Well, I'm sure this is an interesting article to be brought here. I bring it up because I noticed in geography "It includes Lough Neagh, at 388 square kilometres (150 sq mi), the largest body of water in the UK and Ireland." The source calls it the largest body of water in "Britain and Ireland". I don't think saying it is the largest body of water in the UK and Ireland is correct, as in an article about the UK saying it is the largest in the United Kingdom and somewhere else is pointless. Using British Isles puts it in a better, and I think more relevant context. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you approach this geographically, LN is the largest body of water on the island of Ireland. If you approach this politically, LN is the largest body of water in the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but notability is conveyed through area. The article on Nepal, for example, states that mount everest is one of the highest peaks in the world. Tanzania calls Kilimanjaro Africa's highest peak. There is no need to shrink it just down to Ireland. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the UK and Ireland is actually correct, if you are referring to the two countries, sharing as they do the same group of islands. It's also more all-encompassing than using Great Britain and Ireland, because those are only the two largest in a large number of islands within that group. I do rather think that the former is a better description. -- role^player 15:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does seem to me a case of mixing countries and islands here - just change it to "...body of water in the British Isles" using Oxford dictionary of Celtic mythology By James MacKillop as a ref. Codf1977 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for using "British Isles" in respect of Lough Neagh at United Kingdom
Removes a case of mixing Countries and islands, simpler, all encompassing and above all is supported by a source Codf1977 (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"largest body of water in the British Isles" reads better than the current "largest body of water in the UK and Ireland"

Larger geographical area provides greater notability, the lake should be described for what it's notable for. Just as Kilimanjaro is decribed as Africa's largest mountain in the Tanzania article, so the lough should be regarded as the largest lake in the British Isles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is British Isles because it is a geographical matter not a political matter. Lough Neagh exists in Ireland (island) and Britain (the political state). Using BI resolves all the likely problems arising if you use Ireland. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lough Neagh already states it's the biggest lake in the British Isles. We should maintain consistency. LemonMonday Talk 16:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments against using "British Isles" in respect of Lough Neagh at United Kingdom
Lough Neagh is the largest body of water in the United Kingdom. Factual and succinct, and as the article is about the United Kingdom, anything else is superfluous. Daicaregos (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree, if, for the sake of argument Lough Neagh was the largest body of water in Europe no one would have an issue with the article reading "Lough Neagh was the largest body of water in Europe" Codf1977 (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No discernible benefit to the article. It would merely replace one set of terms with another. Either turn of phrase is correct. However, tokenistic changing of terms in this charged arena is inadvisable. Unless there is an error, leave well enough alone. There are no erroneous or problematic use of term. Lough Neagh is the largest body of water in the UK, in Ireland, and in "the UK and Ireland" (a synonymous turn of phrase to British Isles). Example usage: "Lough Rd leads west from the town centre to Antrim Lough Shore Park, where the vast size of Lough Neagh – the largest lake in the UK and Ireland (see also p621 ) – is apparent." (Lonely Planet guide to Ireland.) --RA (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is benefit as it scans better, "the UK and Ireland" is not the same as "British Isles" and as the British Isles is a large entity than the combination of the UK and ROI, it stands to reason it is more notable. Codf1977 (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the same as "larger". Bear in mind too that the article is about the United Kingdom. Also, "scans" is a matter of preference, about which one's objectivity can be influenced by many factors (including a preference for certain terms regardless of how they "scan").

Unless there is a problem with use of terminology then the proposal here is simply to exchange one set of terms with another. There are no problems that I can see with the use of terminology in the sentence. --RA (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It scans better?? Eh ... No. :-) --HighKing (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As that article is about the UK (thus political), we can say ..largest body of water within the UK. Now, if LN were mentioned at Great Britain and/or Ireland? I'd have no probs with mentioning British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is about the UK, and its the largest body of water in the UK. The Loch Neagh article is the geographical one where the largest unit argument comes into play --Snowded ^TALK 21:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the subject matter is the UK, then we should stick with stating facts about the UK. A nice infobox would be great with "Highest Mountain", "Longest River", etc, all detailed. --HighKing (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has that been done before? If you can point me to a page with that sort of infobox on it, I'd appreciate it. Be useful I reckon, irrespective of this debate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm....I thought it had but I can't find an article that uses an infobox like that....if I come across one I'll let you know. --HighKing (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the subject matter is also body of water in Ireland. Anything non-political should stick with geographical references. --LevenBoy (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for using "Britain and Ireland" in respect of Lough Neagh at United Kingdom
As per source. " ... in the UK and Ireland ..." sounds tortuous. If we stick with UK&I it should change to " ... in both the UK and Ireland ..." Fmph (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even your alternate wording is still tortuous, and as we have this source we can get around that by just using British Isles. Codf1977 (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Source hunting" does not benefit decisions making around this topic, regardless of whether it is to remove British Isles or to add it. It misses the point of Wikipedia:Verifiability and has a ring of gaming and battling to it.

In many cases, such as this one, sources use a multitude of terms (including, in this case, saying that Lough Neagh is the largest body of water in "the UK and Ireland"; see above). In other cases, no source we find may say British Isles (or another turn of phrase). That doesn't matter. The point is that the statement made is supported by references. It doesn't matter whether or not the same words are used that statement as are a used in the reference. --RA (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the UK so keep it the UK. Bjmullan (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
States of Alderney
The States of Alderney appear to lack any mention of the British Isles in the content and template boxes. The template boxes look as though they need some attention. It would not seem to be controversial to include mention somewhere. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since they're a part of the Channel Islands, I've no probs with mentioning British Isles within the article. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Alderney a bailiwick of Guernsey (and hence covered implicitly)? I don't know - I'm basing this on decades' old memories of Summer holidays... TFOWR 15:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, answering a completely different question (adding Alderney to the BI template). Looking at States of Alderney, my first thought is that the article is focussed on the government of Alderney, and BI would be better suited to the Alderney article, if it's not already covered (I've not looked yet). TFOWR 15:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, the same question applies to both. It has its own government and president. It is part of the CIs and BIs, and non-controversial. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What change are you proposing to make, and to which article? TFOWR 16:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above to my question on categories. Personally, I do not see anywhere that says there are any sanctions being placed on introducing categories to any topic, as long as they are relative and individuals do not start edit warring over them. They are merely non-exclusive sorting devices. --LevenBoy (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see what change you're proposing be made, and to which article. Alderney or States of Alderney, or both? I gather the change has something to do with categories, however: what category are you proposing be added/removed? TFOWR 18:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to know what is being proposed here or what problem exists in the article. Is it simply the absence of the phrase British Isles from the text of the article that is a problem? --RA (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No notification as yet on article talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point we don't know what, if anything, LevenBoy is proposing be changed - or even if it affects States of Alderney or Alderney instead. When/if we know what's proposed, and whether it's worth having a discussion, I'll get LevenBoy to template the talk pages then. TFOWR 15:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly impossible then that editors with the article on their watchlist could help find out what LevenBoy is proposing, or have anything worthwhile to say on if a discussion should take place is it? Or do you want to come up with a solution then push it through there by claiming consensus here? DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without any proposal here there will be no solution or claim of consensus here. Editors with the article on their watchlist can edit it as normal - it's not an issue for this page. TFOWR 15:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
North Channel (Great Britain and Ireland)
This one was renamed from North Channel (British Isles) a while ago without adequate discussion (maybe no discussion). The article is purely geographic and British Isles describes the setting of the channel. The fact that the channel runs between Northern Ireland and Scotland, or the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, should be clarified in the text. I recommend renaming this article accordingly. LemonMonday Talk 16:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold the phone. Somebody appears to have deleted our article on the Irish Channel naming dispute. MickMacNee (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Mick hold the phone. The Channel Islands have drifted north from the French coast are are causing delays for the Stena Line ferries between Belfast and Stranraer. I would certainly object to using BI because the North Channel only effect two main islands. But why not rename the article "North Channel" and create a disambiguation page to the only other English article which is North Channel (Ontario)? Bjmullan (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Channel Islands are irrelevant here, and your mocking remarks could be construed as a breach of civility (I imagine). They also add nothing to the debate so I guess they will be ignored. LemonMonday Talk 18:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MickMacNee, Bjmullan those comments aren't helpful. TFOWR 20:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: There's previously been a straw poll on the article's talk page. Consensus can change, etc etc. TFOWR 20:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree TROWR & sorry. But the second part of my post is serious and was used to defuse a contentious topic not long ago that I was involved at Shane Duffy. Worth thinking about. Bjmullan (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: Bardcom is my old username. Hmmm ... looking back, I was a little bollix at times. Belated apologies :-) --HighKing (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
North Channel. I'm for Bjmullan's proposal to just name it North Channel. On the other hand, it appears to my uneducated mind that it's simply between Scotland and Northern Ireland, so following the Ontario naming we could just call it North Channel (United Kingdom) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for reverting to "British Isles" at North Channel (Great Britain and Ireland)
This is about a maritime subject. At present, we have not established a consensus for describing inshore waters that are shared between countries of the BI and for this reason I propose it be changed to BI, particularly as the channel does include some additional small islands. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we need to disambiguate we should at least do it accurately. As the channel passes other islands other than Great Britain and Ireland, British Isles is more accurate. As it is a geographical subject matter there is nothing wrong with using BI either. Quantpole (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The North Channel is in the British Isles. It separates the island of Great Britain and the island of Ireland, it is not "in" Great Britain and Ireland which the present title misleadingly suggests. Surely we should state where the North Channel is, not what borders it? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for retaining "Great Britain and Ireland" at North Channel (Great Britain and Ireland)
If the Isle of Man had been within the North Channel? I'd have argued for reversion. But, since it's not? let's go with GB & I. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal to describe a channel or strait in terms of the bodies of water it joins, and/or the bodies of land it separates. For example the English Channel separates Great Britain from northern France. Similarly the Pentland Firth separates the Orkney Islands from Caithness in the north of Scotland, Cook Strait is the strait between the North and South Islands of New Zealand, Bass Strait is a sea strait separating Tasmania from the south of the Australian mainland, specifically the state of Victoria, and the Strait of Gibraltar separates Spain in Europe from Morocco in Africa, etc. Keeping in line with similar articles would indicate using either Scotland and Northern Ireland, or nothing wrong with simply keeping Great Britain and Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No discernible benefit to the article. Change would simply exchange of one set of terms for another. No terms are used in error or in a problematic manner. If the straw poll on the talk page resulted in a decision to place the article at the current location it is not the business of this task force to reverse that decision. --RA (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agrochola nitida
The article states "It is found in most of Europe, except Great Britain, Ireland and the Iberian Peninsula." Use of "Great Britain, Ireland" is a clear euphemism here for British Isles and the terminology should be replaced to the more accurate British Isles - are we saying it's found in the IoM? At present we could be, so using British Isles should help to clarify it. LemonMonday Talk 16:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any references, either for "British Isles" or for either of the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands? TFOWR 16:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept usage of 'British Isles' as Iberian Peninsula is being used. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did some various Boolean searches with Agrochola nitida and Isle of Man, Channel Islands, no clarifying hits. This suggests to me that it isn't found on them, as if they were they'd probably be listed somewhere. The map here backs up the not Great Britain/Ireland, and also apparently Isle of Man. No call on the Channel Islands though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If only we were certain whether the Channel Islands were in the British Isles or not! Fmph (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The States of Guernsey, Jersey and Alderney seem fairly certain, and that's good enough for me - I'm working on the basis that the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles. TFOWR 13:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Thats good to know. I personally think that the map here may not be the most reliable source as although it includes Sicily IN the range, it excludes Corsica and Sardinia. It also includes Gotland, but excludes Latvia, Estonia etc. Not sure its hugely definitive. Fmph (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it in Corsica, Sardina, or the Baltics? I'm personally interested in how it made it to Finland. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have the usual difficulty with assessing sources from stubs on this one. I'm not clear how authoritative the Polish lepidoptera website cited is, but probably we don't know enough to make a snap judgement and should therefore leave the status quo, as the article requires more expert oversight/revision. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would this fall under the Fauna guideline? I'm wondering, as in this situation we are arguing for the negative, that is that it is not found in the archipelago-north-of-france. Proving a negative is always difficult, and the current wording of the guideline seems to say to accept the largest geographical area, although I think it was not worded for situations of the negative, as opposed to finding the animal in the archipelago. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for "British Isles" at Agrochola nitida
The article uses Iberian Peninsula, thereofore no probs with using 'British Isles', too. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the current state of things, I'd have to say BI would be better, as it would qualify the other islands in the area besides the main two. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very suitable case where the Fauna Guideline should be applied. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "original research" to say British Isles in such circumstances. I thought that principle had been accepted long ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments against "British Isles" at Agrochola nitida
No discernible benefit to the article. A change would simply exchange of one set of terms for another of the same (or essentially the same) meaning. No terms are used in error or in a manner that is problematic. --RA (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the references and sources - none use "British Isles", therefore WP:OR --HighKing (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Livery yard
At present the article states "A livery yard or livery stable (Great Britain, Ireland), or boarding stable (Australia, North America)". Again, Great Britain and Ireland appears to be used as a euphemism for British Isles. British Isles would be more accurate and would be in keeping with the geographic regions used in the same statement - Australia and North America. Again, if we don't use British Isles here we are being ambiguous. LemonMonday Talk 16:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any references, either for "British Isles" or for either of the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands? TFOWR 16:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like something that should be done by countries, not be geographic regions. That, or English dialects. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't care if you say "British Isles" over some other terminology. Just so you know, WPEQ doesn't have a dog in this fight. Just feel free to fix it when you guys decide. Montanabw^(talk) 19:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be tempted here to have British Isles for livery and then Australasia, North America) for boarding stable - if that doesn't work then it should be countries. Per prior discussion, don't mix geographical names with country names use one or other consistently --Snowded ^TALK 21:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's essentially part of the American and British English differences, I'd prefer to refer to the differences with relation to dialects which is far better and more accurate. --HighKing (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Cough* Australia ;-) TFOWR 22:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*nudge* Australian English ;-) --HighKing (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement with Snowded. Use all countries or all geographic names. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wholly agree that since it is dialects of English that are being referred to that it is better to give dialects than geographic entities (or states) i.e. "A livery yard or livery stable (British and Hiberno English), or boarding stable (Australian and American English) is...". --RA (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, horse terms are all over the place; in many cases, Australia uses UK terms for various things equine ("head collar" instead of USA "halter" being a classic example), yet other times Au appears to use US forms, as here. (Yet other times Au has its own unique words, and sometimes Ireland uses different terms from the UK). So, from my totally outside (and American) point of view, this one seems to be more location-related. Montanabw^(talk) 03:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That backs up the dialect argument, and shows why the various strains of English are recognized as separate. --HighKing (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Australian English follows this weird policy of using British English and randomly taking in words and terms from American English, no doubt due to mass media effects. Dialects seem more accurate anyway, a Brit in Australia might call it a livery stable, and get stared at weirdly. Vice versa. Thus dialects are more appropriate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to changing it to talk about dialects. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for "British Isles" at Livery yard
This source shows there is a Livery Yard in the Isle of Man. There for we can not just say Great Britain and Ireland.

North America is not a country or island but stated in the first sentence, there for there is no reason why we must say Great Britain/Ireland or United Kingdom and Ireland. Geographical locations such as the British Isles are perfectly acceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments against "British Isles" at Livery yard
No discernible benefit to article, simply an exchange of one set of terms for another. No terms are used erroneously or in a manner that is problematic. (Though there are other better ways of saying it, such as the suggestion to replace geographic places with dialects of English.)
Also the arguments put forward are ill-concieved (i.e. that British Isles "would be in keeping with the geographic regions used in the same statement"). The geographic terms currently used are three islands (Great Britain, Ireland and Australia) and a continent (North America). Exchaning two of these islands for British Isles would further mix the geographic units mentioned, leading to an island, an archipelago and a continent being mixed in one sentence. That is not necessarily a problem - it doesn't mix states and geographic area (though arguable Australia is both) - but it highlights how the argument is ill-concieved.
I notice this user has few contributions outside of this area. --RA (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per RA, no discernible benefit. A change towards linguistic differences might help, but without references one way or t'other isn't this a waste of everyone's time. I thought that this was a place for genuinely problematic instances where the references needed consensual interpretation? Or should we all just go out and create our own lists of ever-so-slightly dodgy POV usages and bring him back here for a row? Fmph (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is about dialects, not geographic areas per se. I believe a blanket ruling should be possible to cover articles that use (in X, this term is used and in Y, another) phrases. --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article's current text is a bit confusing anyway (it sounds a bit as if the first Livery term might belong to Britain and the second Livery term to Ireland) but the real problem is that switching to BI would mix regions and countries, so I'm for not using BI as the replacement, but mods are probably still needed in the current form. If it was reworded as something like "BI and then other parts of the Anglosphere" that might change things, but I can see why local editors would have wanted to name "horsey" countries like Oz, the US, Ireland, etc. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt Jackson
One off my own watchlist - Kurt Jackson - an unsigned user made this change [31], replacing British Isles with Britain. Not sure if it merits a discussion here - this seems to be the only edit that IP has made. Jackson is an artist whose published work includes paintings in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. If people think this one needs discussion I will open the correct threads below. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and, if required, do the necessary here and here. ;-) TFOWR 18:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...the British Isles and abroad" is problematic because abroad refers to foreign countries (the British Isles is not a country). If the Republic of Ireland figures substantially in this artists work then British Isles may be deserved but as it stands the IP's edit fixes an error. I suggest nothing be done about the fix to "fix" it the other way since it was fixed organically by the IP.

That however is not the only problem with the sentence. The artist, we are told, draws inspiration from "the Cornish landscape around Penwith and elsewhere in the British Isles and abroad." Surely "Cornish landscape" can only be found in Cornwall? But that is beyond the scope of this project.

--RA (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has he made paintings of Isle of Man or Channel Islands? GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's done work on the Greenpeace ship Esperanza featuring dolphins and whales around the coasts of Britain; the works don't say more specifically where they are, just "off the coast of Britain", "off the coast of Ireland", etc. He also published a collection from the Scilly Isles. [32] Plus the usual reminder that we've not established that the IofM / CI are essential pre-requisites for use of BI. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either the IoM or CI shall have to be considered as essential pre-requisites for BI usage, as part of the argument the Britain and Ireland isn't equivalent to British Isles. If Jackson was around either of those too? the BI usage is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are leaving the subject a little, but please indicate where consensus was reached on this last assertion of yours please. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the community agrees with me. I'm merely stating my reasoning for why I'd argue for or against. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, you were stating your opinion, that's OK. From your phrasing I assumed you were attempting to restate a policy. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting random change that IP made lol. British Isles is appropriate there. British Isles and overseas rather than abroad perhaps may be less problematic? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has he made any paintings on the island of Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any notification on the article talk page - see the history. Is there any possibility of this task force behaving itself? DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See this discussion here. I haven't yet checked with the editor who created the templates which one to use - they redeveloped the templates to provide a clearer indication to editors once discussions have closed. I meant to do it this morning but I've been away from my PC until recently and it had slipped my mind as I haven't looked at my talkpage. TFOWR 15:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do apologise DuncanHill, I've been trying to figure out how to do it, but it's done now and an example posted as well at TFOWR's talk page. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for "British Isles" at Kurt Jackson
This source says "

The works range from large-scale oils and acrylics to small-scale etchings and sculpture. All of them are based on projects inspired by rivers including the Thames, Avon, Dart, the Liffey in Ireland and our very own River Tamar." So saying the British Isles makes sense as it is not just Britain he got his inspiration from.

The concern seems to be more about use of "abroad" rather than British Isles itself. Do we have specific sources stating that he has got inspiration from around the world/abroad? So far the source ive looked at simply mentions areas within the British Isles. So the sentence should probably be changed to say "He paints in mixed media, drawing inspiration from the Cornish landscape around Penwith and elsewhere in the British Isles" saying he gets inspiration from Cornwall, Britain and abroad is really quite pointless to be honest. Its basically saying he has inspiration from around the world, which does not seem notable. (perhaps adding "mostly from the....") Just so there is the rest of the world inspiration is not specifically denied BritishWatcher (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a point below. Being "inspired by rivers" in different parts of Great Britain and Ireland as a source shows means the guy has been "drawing inspiration from elsewhere in the British Isles" Clearly Cornwall needs a specific mention, but sources suggest it is appropriate to talk about outside Cornwall too. It is NOT original research to state "elsewhere in the British Isles". In such a case. We surely can not be required to find a specific source specifically stating "British Isles" for every single use of it on wikipedia.. its totally unreasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments against "British Isles" at Kurt Jackson
"British Isles" is unreferenced, therefore WP:OR.

His website uses the phrase Whether working in Cornwall, up country or abroad - which may be where this article got the inspiration for using their version.

These references explicitly mention Kurt's inspiration
mainly inspired by the Cornish landscape

All of them are based on projects inspired by rivers including the Thames, Avon, Dart, the Liffey in Ireland and our very own River Tamar.

who is based in and inspired by Cornwall
The fact that he has painted the Liffey in Ireland does not mean that he is "inspired" by scenes in the British Isles. Most references explicitly state he is inspired by his Dad and his stories, and the Cornish landscape. He has also travelled extensively throughout the world including the Amazon Rainforest and the Arctic Circle so it's not a case that he is only inspired by where he travels. He has also painted rivers in France and exhibited them in London. --HighKing (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions to change the sentence should be referenced also, and not simply made up. Is there a reference for any location providing inspiration other than Cornwall? Obviously, inspired by Rivers is not the same as inspired by British Isles.... --HighKing (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per RA above, "...the British Isles and abroad" is problematic because abroad refers to foreign countries and (the British Isles is not a country). If the Republic of Ireland figures substantially in this artists work then British Isles may be deserved but as it stands the IP's edit fixes an error. I suggest nothing be done about the fix to "fix" it the other way since it was fixed organically by the IP. --HighKing (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Banded Demoiselle
Just thought that I would let people know that I made a change to Banded Demoiselle which changed BI to GB as per the reference that was put in by another editor. The reference was titled Field Guide to the Dragonflies and Damselflies of Great Britain and Ireland and BI + I just didn't make sense. Open and shut case I think but this is BISE :-) Bjmullan (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's with all the insects lately? I've just realised we have a Fauna guideline for this sort of stuff.

Anyway, on the subject, I personally would go with British Isles here, although I agree BI + I doesn't make any sense, and fair enough for fixing that in some way or another. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it genuinely will get silly if we start attempting to go through every lepidoptera article (and let's not even think beetle!) - we need a guideline and then stick to it. TFOWR, is it your view that we finalised this as a consensus guideline? Sorry if I'm being ignorant, just a little hazy now in the morass about precisely where we got to with this. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aye - there's consensus for it. It was discussed here, posted above, and we've been discussing it indirectly since then (e.g. "we have a ruling for fauna, but not for flora") without objections. TFOWR 09:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one should be British Isles rather than Great Britain and Ireland, although clearly the original text was wrong so did need changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I edited it. What's your opinion on the other fauna conversation above TFOWR? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just Agrochola nitida? I hadn't make the connection - damn Latin names. Aye, "British Isles" is fine in principle. The ruling shouldn't be used as an excuse to wedge in "British Isles" inappropriately - if a particular fauna is distributed throughout, say, Western Europe the article should say that - not "the British Isles and the rest of Western Europe" - but I think that's obvious. Also obvious is: stick to references. If the references say "Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, Channel Islands" it's fine to say "British Isles". If the refs say "England and the Channel Islands" we should say "England and the Channel Islands". But again, that's probably obvious. TFOWR 10:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article talk page notification anyone? DuncanHill (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point we don't know whether it's worth discussing this - the article currently says "British Isles", our guideline for "fauna" says use "British Isles", it seems that there's no issue here. If that turns out not to be the case we will, of course, template the talkpage. TFOWR 15:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've no issue with using "British Isles" in this context (geographic distribution, found all over the British Isles, etc). But I'd question why it's being mentioned in this article since it's actually found all over Europe. Not sure what's notable about British Isles in the context of distribution. --HighKing (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True. The article currently mentions only the British Isles and some areas of Russia. I believe an editor probably just added it because they found it in the field guide it is sourced too. I reckon that the current section is useful in what it tries to do, that is more precisely defining the area it is found in. The whole section just suffers from a distinct lack of information. I'll shorten it to "not found in the north of the British Isles" I guess, removing some of the undue weight given to them currently. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source talks about both the Banded Demoiselle and the Banded Demoiselle together and simply states that it they're "apparently intolerant of extreme cold, since neither occurs in the Highlands of Scotland. The Banded Demoisellee occurs througout England, Wales and Ireland". I've leave it as is TBH, and let the content experts decide on what's notable or not. But it is found in Scotland (southern parts at least), so British Isles still seems perfectly fine. I'm also curious as to how this fly is found in Norway and Sweden and Northern Russia if it's so intolerant of extreme cold....another one for the content experts I'd say. --HighKing (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HK didn't you know that Scotland is the coldest place in Europe! :-) Bjmullan (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
British Isles terminology task force
I see an editor has nominated this taskforce for deletion. That would be a removal of the British Isles from wikipedia, so its a specific example that may need attention of this page. Im tempted to vote Delete, id have much more time for other things. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you back that up with WP:RS? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lol no =( BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do some opposers of the Taskforce, believe there's a small group controlling the BI stuff? If a small group is controling anything, it's because of some of the opposers lack of participation. It's like whining, "Why is that small group putting out the house fires, when we don't want the houses to burn down?". GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, on the surface of it, a truly pathetic attitude. However, it appears that as usual those shouting "POV-pushers" the loudest are themselves rather fond of a certain POV, which they refer to as NPOV. Ho hum. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can think whatever made up bollocks you like. Nobody has ever sanctioned me for POV pushing, and nobody has ever so much as placed an NPOV tag on anything I've ever written, not one that has withstood external review anyway. If you want to take any statement I've ever made in here with regard to interpretation of WP:NPOV, and ask it to be reviewed by people outside as clueful or clueless, you go right ahead, be my guest. It's an offer that nobody has ever taken up funnily enough. This task force on the other hand, well, what has it actually done exactly? In the rare examples of actual resolution, it has managed to make a few edits to articles it more often than not knows nothing about, based on 3-2 or 4-3 decisions. That's about it. That is not even a level of participation that would pass the bar of statistical anomaly in most other serious DR venues on the pedia, that set out to seek consensus on wide ranging issue like this, affecting thousands of articles and with massive scope for abuse. The chances of an actual Guideline ever coming out of here are non-existent. And GoodDay, the reason nobody participates here is obvious, any experienced Wikipedian who looks at this venue, takes one look at the unchecked WP:TE going on, takes one look at what passes for cluefull statements on things like writing from the NPOV, takes one look at the obvious and palpable gamery and manouvering and out and out double-standards depending on if the decision is 'for' or 'against' BI, and no doubt rapidly comes to the conclusion that their interpretations and advice wrt policy as an actual neutral editor, would be better expended elsewhere. You cannot criticise anybody for not voluntarily wading into this venue, and you cannot ignore the fact that it is this very place and the people in it that are to blame for that. Plenty of other venues on the pedia have zero problem attracting outside input. Infact, come to think of it, who can even name another venue in project space that even resembles this place? I certainly can't, and I, unlike a few notables in here, roam the pedia far and wide on various topics. 'Unique' solutions and practices certainly are a feature of this arena of dispute, and that's not a Good Thing, unless one is so incredibly naive, nay arrogant, to think this is the only example of such a dispute on the pedia, and the tiny few people in here are genuinely the only ones capable of offering up new ground-breaking techniques in DR. MickMacNee (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there's many out in 'pedia land who feel that way, then by all means seek a community-wide opinon on the Taskforce & this pages existance. If the community wants it pushed into oblivion? then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This rubbish doesn't need pushing to oblivion it is already there. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wowsers, get a community wide review of it. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
republican objectors. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wowsersa? We don't need a community discussion , I have trod in some shit, ow, ask the community for its opinion..? Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is ironic really, the POV accusation is always against a republic POV by Unionists/British Nationalists but the majority of proposals over the last few months have been for the insertion of BI. Its also noticeable that the sanctions and civility patrols are against a small minority of the same group of editors. --Snowded ^TALK 05:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's also become crystal-clear to me over the last year. I think most editors who engage with the subject properly and in a civil way find that it isn't realistic to maintain a rigid attitude to it - those who do effectively keep themselves out of contributing and will continue to do so, given the way admins have now gotten on top of that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's called pushback Snowded, it tends to happen on Wikipedia in reaction to POV campaigns which stretch back years. You can keep spreading this theory all you want, nobody who has a clue about Wikipedia disputes and policy in general, or who has an ounce of a brain or a memory that operates further back than a few months with regard to this issue, is buying what you are trying to shovel here. MickMacNee (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep dealing with cases as they come up Mick, shoveling stuff is your modus operandi not mine --Snowded ^TALK 16:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comment was for the benefit of everybody else who might be stupid enough to buy this drip feed of yours. Your inability to register any opinion not coming out of your own head, or defend any of them in any Wiki-meaningful way, can be taken as read with me by now, you don't need to give the same sort of tiresome non-response response every time, although it does as ever continue to shine the light on your other tedious claims wrt to who around here is/isn't an incivil editor, in the true sense of that particular policy. MickMacNee (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know there is a sort of charm to your contributions Mick (Oh dear that will be another non-response) but I'll keep the case by case drip feed up, its the best way to deal with issues.--Snowded ^TALK 17:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 'drip feed' does not refer to your case input, but I think you already knew that. MickMacNee (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of BISE, is not to comment on contributors. That's what user talkpages are for, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

British Sky Broadcasting
A recent change was made by user Shadow Resurrection to introduce the term BI. This includes in the sentence "It is the largest premium broadcaster in the British Isles" with a reference which makes no mention of BI. I have reverted the change with an edit note. Bjmullan (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reference, no application. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone look for any citations? BJ Mullen changed it without adding a citation, they are easy to find if you really want to. I thought the idea here was to bring things here and discuss and then change not change and then bring here for rubber stamping. Off2riorob (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a large commercial satellite network, available principally to viewers in the British Isles but capable of reception anywhere within the European ASTRA satellite system footprint.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=britishskyb|title=BSB. International Satellite Broadcasting\publisher=Museum TV.|accessdate=October 21, 2010}}</ref>

In my opinion, Mullan's edit to the BSkyB topic is a provocative and bad faith edit. I have experienced a number of similarly provocative and bad faith edits from him.
It takes no degree of intelligence or integrity to surmise that a Satellite company serving the British Isles, or from the East of England to the West of Ireland, would also reach the Isle of Man and/or Channel Island. It also takes no effort to find references for one or both of the other group of islands (e.g. "'Isle of Man on Air'"). So what is going on here?
While we are looking at this area, we need to include Sky (UK & Ireland), and perhaps other similar topics. In the Sky topic, it says, "which has since come to broadcast exclusively to the United Kingdom and Ireland." This is also wrong. It should read BI, "marketed within the BI" would be probably better because satellite signals spill over borders.
Satellite broadcasting may well be another area suitable for a commonsense blanket ruling. --Triton Rocker (talk)
Storm Warning (novel)
Text states but after being severely battered by a storm, is wrecked off the coast of the British Isles. The British Isles doesn't have a coast. (Plot Spoiler!) In the book, the ship crashed in the Hebrides off the coast of Scotland. --HighKing (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, hide your spoiler! My eyes just travelled, I didn't have time to stop them! Crashed in the Hebrides sounds good, although I've never read the book myself. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My spoiler warning was a little tongue in cheek and not serious, especially seeing as how the Wikipedia article states they crashed :-). But, how would I have hidden the spoiler, just in case it happens in the future? --HighKing (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does it say in the book? Is there any citations supporting User Highking statement? Off2riorob (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They actual struck the Washington Reef three miles northwest of Fhada in the Outer Hebrides. See here. Bjmullan (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That snippet is unclear as to the mention of British Isles. Off2riorob (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Off2riorob but I searched the book for the term "British Isles" without any success. If you do a google search for "storm warning Jack Higgins "British Isles"" you get 1 result which has nothing to do with the book if however you search for "storm warning Jack Higgins Hebrides" you get 2 pages of hits mainly relating to the book. Bjmullan (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should I template the article Talk page and start the For/Against arguments? --HighKing (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Not just yet, is there any objections to changing it if the book does use the hebrides? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The coast of the Hebrides in part of the British Isles isn't it? So apart from just removing the expression it is actually correct isn't it? I also have read some discussion recently that the google search like that is not t be explicitly trusted and that it is filtered to show different pages and comments to different locations. It is actually correct isn't it? This is reflective of my issue and others issue with this page in general, mostly it is frequented by people that are searching through a list and the emphasis appears to be the removal of the expression as in this case and the one above, in both cases the British Isles can be also correct but the energy is to remove. I easily found a cite for the section above and that piece of coast can also be described as a location in the BI. The last report I read said to never use those google book snippets as reliable sources and was at ANI in the last week. Off2riorob (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here it is - a bit of a side issue but related to google book searchs, Uncle G says it clearly towards the end. I don't think this change is a problem , it did say the exact place which is preferable to vague locations. Any way carry on, mostly ignore me, just a little comment, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That hyperlink isn't doing a good job, but I remember what he said. Went along the lines of google books are different for people in different areas, so quote the page number. Is that what you mean?

And I agree, "coast of the British Isles" would be wrong, but so would "coast of the Hebrides". Perhaps copyediting it to "in the British Isles" would be a good change for now, after which British Isles can just be replaced by the Hebrides.
I think "wrecked off the coast of Scotland" is the better change, short-term or long-term. It's easy to be precise with something like a crash or a ship-wreck. --HighKing (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be much more concerned about the use of the phrase "... that has foundered off the coast of the Jersey islands." It shows that whoever wrote this piece doesn't have a fantastic command on the English language. Fmph (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- is this better - yes, like me sometimes Fmph. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. I think Elen of Roads closed that off beautifully. But I agree, that looks like something I write when I haven't had much sleep. Then again, it is a stub. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can't see any particular arguments made here for keeping "British Isles", I've nonetheless added the BISE Template added to the article. --HighKing (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,289: / Line 1,289: @@
 {{od|:::::::::::::}}The spirit of BISE, is not to comment on contributors. That's what user talkpages are for, IMHO. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
-== British Sky Broadcasting ==
+== [[British Sky Broadcasting]] ==
 A recent change was made by user Shadow Resurrection to introduce the term BI. This includes in the sentence "It is the largest premium broadcaster in the British Isles" with a reference which makes no mention of BI. I have reverted the change with an edit note. [[User:Bjmullan|Bjmullan]] ([[User talk:Bjmullan|talk]]) 22:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
@@ Line 1,297: / Line 1,297: @@
 It is a large commercial satellite network, available principally to viewers in the British Isles but capable of reception anywhere within the European ASTRA satellite system footprint.<nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=britishskyb|title=BSB. International Satellite Broadcasting\publisher=Museum TV.|accessdate=October 21, 2010}}</ref></nowiki>
+:: In my opinion, Mullan's edit to the [[British Sky Broadcasting|BSkyB]] topic is a provocative and bad faith edit. I have experienced a number of similarly provocative and bad faith edits from him.
+::It takes no degree of intelligence or integrity to surmise that a Satellite company serving the British Isles, or from the East of England to the West of Ireland, would also reach the Isle of Man and/or Channel Island. It also takes no effort to find references for one or both of the other group of islands (e.g. "'Isle of Man on Air'"). So what is going on here?
+::While we are looking at this area, we need to include [[Sky (UK & Ireland)]], and perhaps other similar topics. In the Sky topic, it says, "which has since come to broadcast exclusively to the United Kingdom and Ireland." This is also wrong. It should read BI, "marketed within the BI" would be probably better because satellite signals spill over borders.
+::Satellite broadcasting may well be another area suitable for a commonsense blanket ruling. --[[User:Triton Rocker|Triton Rocker]] ([[User talk:Triton Rocker|talk]])
 == [[Storm Warning (novel)]] ==

Revision as of 16:03, 25 October 2010

This page

Strict observation of WP:CIVIL etc

Archives

Archive list

Guidelines

Fauna Guideline

Note changes here

Flora issues

Summary

Structured discussion

Arguments for "British Isles" @ Atlases of...

Arguments against "British Isles" @ Atlases of...

Structured discussion

Arguments for "British Isles" @ ...Lichen checklists

Arguments against "British Isles" @ ...Lichen checklists

List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland

Structured discussion

Arguments for "British Isles" @ List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland

Arguments against "British Isles" @ List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland

Reopen

Arb break

Common usage

Structured discussion

Arguments for "British Isles"

Arguments against "British Isles"

Arguments for adding "British Isles" @ Augustus John

Arguments against adding "British Isles" @ Augustus John

Conkers (Resolved)

Arguments for "British Isles" @ Conkers

Arguments against "British Isles" @ Conkers

Clarification on decision please

...and Aesculus, Aesculus hippocastanum (Resolved)

Arguments for "British Isles" @ Aesculus, Aesculus hippocastanum

Arguments against "British Isles" @ Aesculus, Aesculus hippocastanum

Arguments for changing from "British Isles" @ List of British Isles rockpool life

Arguments for retaining "British Isles" @ List of British Isles rockpool life

Arguments for "British Isles" at Student

Arguments against "British Isles" at Student

Arguments for keeping "British Isles" at Quarth

Arguments against keeping "British Isles" at Quarth

Polls

Britain and Ireland is an invalid equivalent for British Isles

No, "Britain and Ireland" is not a valid equivalent for "British Isles"

Yes, "Britain and Ireland" is a valid equivalent for "British Isles"

Are the Isle of Man & Channel Islands a part of the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland? (Resolved)

No, the Isle of Man & Channel Islands are not a part of the United Kingdom nor Republic of Ireland?

Yes, the Isle of Man & Channel Islands are part of the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland?

Are the Isle of Man & Channel Islands a part of the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland? (Clarification)

What do we do when a reference contradicts technical facts?

Ignore the techincal error and use the words of the reference

Follow what we know to be technically accurate

Other possible alternatives

Categories

Arguments for using "British Isles" in respect of Lough Neagh at United Kingdom

Arguments against using "British Isles" in respect of Lough Neagh at United Kingdom

Arguments for using "Britain and Ireland" in respect of Lough Neagh at United Kingdom

Arguments for reverting to "British Isles" at North Channel (Great Britain and Ireland)

Arguments for retaining "Great Britain and Ireland" at North Channel (Great Britain and Ireland)

Arguments for "British Isles" at Agrochola nitida

Arguments against "British Isles" at Agrochola nitida

Arguments for "British Isles" at Livery yard

Arguments against "British Isles" at Livery yard

Arguments for "British Isles" at Kurt Jackson

Arguments against "British Isles" at Kurt Jackson