Talk:Shell Guides
 | Books Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
New Shell Guides
I have a New Shell Guide (Sussex, John Godfrey) first published in 1990, six years after the Thorold one mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bill Tegner (talk • contribs) 07:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
Shell Guide to Ireland
There is a Shell Guide to Ireland. The long-running series was not just about the counties of Great Britain. The reference no.1 is misleading, and the mention of British Isles has been removed due principally to a dislike of the term for political reasons. 86.27.186.36 (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please be civil - no ad hominen attacks are permitted or entertained. The term "British Isles" was changed because it implied that a shell guide to the British Isles had been written (one had not), or that guides covering all of the British Isles had been published (they had not). I have added a comprehensive list of the areas covered which is a better and more accurate way to show the depth and scope of coverage of the Shell Guides. Bardcom (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Come on! The term was changed because you don't like it. Please credit me with enough intelligence to see what's going on here. Even a cursory look at your edit history demonstrates that your over-riding priority is to remove the term from the encyclopedia. You have many instances of its removal to your credit, in a whole range of subjects and areas. Often your edit summary does not reflect the nature of the change, mentioning "local POV" or something similar. Here is a particularly egregious example [1]. This was summaried as "Removed unreferenced local POV". There were plenty of other unreferenced statements in the article, so why single out that one? You could have just put a citation tag on it. You have a mission, and it's an unsavory one. So don't accuse me of being incivil and threatening me with a block. I'm merely stating the obvious. Getting back to this article. There are Shell Guides for England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. They are essentially geographic guides. British Isles is a geographic term encompassing the areas of the home countries, so it makes sense to use it here rather than a list of the constituents. Now if the guides were of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland then it wouldn't be appropriate here, but such is not the case. You are clearly determined to remove the term at all costs, but I'm putting it back for the reasons just noted. Can you not direct your editing energies to something more productive than the systematic removal of British Isles? 86.27.186.36 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've re-worded it again. Now if this version is factually incorrect then by all means correct it (don't just revert though, there are some uncontentious edits in there as well). I would claim it as a fact that the nations of the British Isles include Ireland. There are debates elsewhere challenging this, but most of the world accept it as given, and the issue shouldn't be fought out here. 86.27.186.36 (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Now we have "most of the countries in NW Europe". I suggest that's not as good as before. It's too general. Less information is being imparted. Was my version factually incorrect? 86.27.186.36 (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've re-worded it again. Now if this version is factually incorrect then by all means correct it (don't just revert though, there are some uncontentious edits in there as well). I would claim it as a fact that the nations of the British Isles include Ireland. There are debates elsewhere challenging this, but most of the world accept it as given, and the issue shouldn't be fought out here. 86.27.186.36 (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Come on! The term was changed because you don't like it. Please credit me with enough intelligence to see what's going on here. Even a cursory look at your edit history demonstrates that your over-riding priority is to remove the term from the encyclopedia. You have many instances of its removal to your credit, in a whole range of subjects and areas. Often your edit summary does not reflect the nature of the change, mentioning "local POV" or something similar. Here is a particularly egregious example [1]. This was summaried as "Removed unreferenced local POV". There were plenty of other unreferenced statements in the article, so why single out that one? You could have just put a citation tag on it. You have a mission, and it's an unsavory one. So don't accuse me of being incivil and threatening me with a block. I'm merely stating the obvious. Getting back to this article. There are Shell Guides for England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. They are essentially geographic guides. British Isles is a geographic term encompassing the areas of the home countries, so it makes sense to use it here rather than a list of the constituents. Now if the guides were of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland then it wouldn't be appropriate here, but such is not the case. You are clearly determined to remove the term at all costs, but I'm putting it back for the reasons just noted. Can you not direct your editing energies to something more productive than the systematic removal of British Isles? 86.27.186.36 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)