Jump to content

Talk:British Isles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cros13 (talk | contribs) at 20:16, 24 December 2020 (→‎or Britain and Ireland). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleBritish Isles was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 26, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 5, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 16, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 5, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Vital article

References

French as a native name?

French is not a native language of anywhere in the British isles. The high rate of some level of french literacy does not make the language native to the islands.

~ I agree, it could perhaps be a reach for Breton, spoken in Brittany, but being Celtic doesn't make it part of the British Isles? Xx78900 (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Demographics Map

The map under the heading 'Demographics' has chosen completely arbitrary regions by which to divide Ireland, with some counties which contain cities being grouped in with comparatively less populated counties (e.g. Cork and Kerry), meanwhile, Northen Ireland has a region of just Belfast city, whereas all of Dublin County is counted as one area, as opposed to separating the city. I can't speak on the division of Great Britain etc. as I'm unfamiliar with its various counties. Should this map be changed to more accurately show Irish population density? Xx78900 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

or Britain and Ireland

Given that Britain and Ireland is used instead of term British Isles in Ireland and that the term British Isles is controversial in Ireland, can I suggest putting "or Britain and Ireland" in the first sentence? This would follow the same convention as "Continental or mainland Europe" in that page. I'd like to wait for feedback here to avoid potential disruptive editing. Ballystrahan (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Britain and Ireland is usually used to refer to the governments rather than the geographic islands. Canterbury Tail talk 17:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Canterbury Tail, I agree. However, your point is not incompatible with my point. It is commonly used in the UK but not in Ireland and the UK is bigger than Ireland so it is almost certainly more frequently used. However, the term Britain and Ireland is instead mostly used in Ireland and should be taken into account. My suggestion would be consistent with the rest of this article and would make this article more consistent with the British Isles naming dispute article. However, if you feel unconvinced about my reasoning, I am happy to leave it at that. Cheers, --Ballystrahan (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid they are incompatible. As Canterbury Tail says, 'Britain and Ireland' is political terminology. Britain is either shorthand for the island of Great Britain only, which would then exclude all the other islands that this article refers to, or it is shorthand for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in which case it is a political term which excludes the Crown Dependencies. The Euler diagram illustrates the complexity. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see what you mean. Thank you for the clarification. While I find the current term unsatisfactory, the alternative that I am proposing would also be unsatisfactory to others! Ballystrahan (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks to my English master, Canterbury Tail, for allowing me to talk again. At His suggestion, I have read the above talk. Having done so, I and any reasonable reader must conclude that the entire exchange is a concoction designed to create the impression that the Paddies have received a fair hearing. Canterbury Tail, your lack of affection for my country has been noted previously. So, in order to save you the trouble of locking this Paddy out, I will edit British Isles errors without logging in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordlugus (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I ain't English, and I actually find the claim that I am rather insulting for the same reason you would. Canterbury Tail talk 00:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You aint British either.
Canadian? Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am many things. Who says I ain't British? Canterbury Tail talk 12:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the continued use of the colonial term 'British Isles' by Britons and there being no reference to the anachronistic nature of the term on this page MUST be addressed. Ireland is not and never has been 'British'. 'Britain and Ireland' covers the geography and 'UK and Ireland' covers the politics. Reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A PhD in History (talk • contribs) 11:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This question is addressed in the fourth paragraph of the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is mention of the dispute relegated to the fourth paragraph? That's a lot of prose to wade through before any inkling that the term is considered offensive or controversial among the majority of the inhabitants of one of the two major islands of the archipelago Cros13 (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
90% of 40 pages of talk archive and the edits of the oldest revisions of this article being related to the dispute, a well sourced article on the dispute itself at British_Isles_naming_dispute and the end result is an article that can't even acknowledge the existence of a controversy in the first 500+ words and three paragraphs. Something is seriously wrong here Cros13 (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you didn't read any of those 40 pages or you'd know that we've followed the Manual of Style closely: The lead "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Which is what we've done, in that order. You may think that the controversy is the most important thing, other disagree and wouldn't have it mentioned in the introduction at all. We've found a compromise. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If so, it's a prime example of the manual of style failing the reader. If those are the objectives, the lead simply has too much verbiage. The MoS itself says the lead "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic" and compose of "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". Frankly the middle two paragraphs in the lead are full of detail about geology and history that belongs under their respective sections and not in the lead. I'm struggling to see what purpose it serves beyond burying mention of the controversy nearly 600 words down the lead. Cros13 (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought... Would anyone think it might be preferable, instead of having the fourth paragraph in the lead, having it instead as a WP:FOOTNOTE linked from the opening sentence? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Should we just semi protect this page? Almost every edit is just the same old vandalism and disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 00:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC aren't you an administrator... so yes please. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I was interested in people'e opinion rather than just going for it. We have a lot of eyes on the article so disruption doesn't last long. Canterbury Tail talk 20:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose protection. The recent IP has rightly been blocked, and I don't think the pattern of vandalism justifies protection. It will simply be interpreted as an established coterie of editors seeking to maintain the status quo. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Isles&oldid=996144793"