Talk:Toponymy of England

Major reworking

The following articles need to be reworked as a whole:

• Placename etymology
• British toponymy
• Place name origins
• List of generic forms in British place names
• List of British place names and their meanings

Suggested articles

• Toponymy of continents and countries

Containing all the names of continents and countries (perhaps past ones too) and linking to the specific toponymies of different countries

• Toponymy by country

An article looking at the naming origins of towns and cities around the world, sectioned by country

Removed articles:

• List of generic forms in British place names and Place name origins

Merging them into Toponymy by country

• List of British place names and their meanings

Such information should be included on the article for that place name

Discussion

This would make it much more logical but may create some overly large articles. However, I think this may be worth it because the toponymy in different countries is often linked to other countries (ie UK and US).

violet/riga (t) 14:13, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, Violet. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:24, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

I agree that a list of British place names and their origins would be much too long to tackle in one simple article, and feel that the inclusion of this info in each individual article is best. I've included a link that I did a lot of work on: Etymological list of counties of the United Kingdom in the se also section of the main article, but I can't help feeling that there's a mass of confusion between what article should be where. Can we start a new section and lay out a family tree of articles on toponymy and etymology and where they should be? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:59, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thought required!

The Toponymy articles should not be lists of place names and meanings. They should explain the way that toponymy works in that country/region, with profuse examples. The meanings of non-illustrative place names shiould go into the articles for the approprite places. For example there are 20 Madison Countys in the USA, all named after president Madison (apparently) while of the twelve Polk countys only 10 are named after a president. Either would be tedious to list. Townships even more so. Or so I think. Rich Farmbrough 22:19, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lists of names and their origins are etymologies. See for example this page. I agree with you that toponymy should be about the wider context. This article in part is beginning to do this, I'll be interested in seing where this goes. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:02, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposal

I've reworked this article a bit and feel it's now good enough to stand as an article in its own right. Having looked at some of the others I have a proposal with regard to what to do with all these British placename articles.

Articles that are good enough on their own include:

• British toponymy
• List of generic forms in British place names
• Etymological list of counties of the United Kingdom
• List of civil parishes in England (work ongoing)

Articles to be merged:

• Place name origins into List of generic forms in British place names
• List of British place names and their meanings into List of places in the United Kingdom

Articles to be created:

• List of places in the United Kingdom

The latter article doesn't need to be massive, it can be divided into a list of lists. List of places in Buckinghamshire is good enough as a stand alone article that separates off the place names from the county article (that was why it was originally created) and if one of those is created for every county in the country they can be listed on the new parent page being suggested and it could also a way of determining where wikipedia's weaknesses are with regard to UK place name coverage. See here for a list of the list names.

Let's sort the UK out first of all, then we can worry about what the rest of the world are doing with their toponymy/etymology coverage. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:18, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

the great backformer

I'm told that many backformed river names, like Arun (from Arundel), are the work of one antiquarian named Harrison (fl. 1577). Some info about him might be appropriate here. —Tamfang (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be William Harrison (clergyman), if we can find some sourced info that would be great. GameKeeper (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What I have is Eilert Ekwall's Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-names which mentions that "Arun", for example, first appeared in Harrison's book. —Tamfang (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

equivalent languages

The language spoken by these [Stone Age] people may have been a non indo-european language (roughly equivalent to Basque) . . . .

Does 'equivalent' mean their language is thought (if non-IE) to be related to Basque? or that, on some ranking of languages, the unknown language stands near Basque? or merely that Britain, like Spain, has a substratum of names from an unrelated language? In any case, this ought to be made more explicit. —Tamfang (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what homologous means here, either! I've rewritten the passage, hope you like it. —Tamfang (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Much better. I'd got a little tangled up in the details there, and just taking a step back and making the sentence more vague definitely works (especially since there's nothing definite to say). MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion/Exclusion of Ireland

In my opinion, the removal of text referring to 'Ireland' (N.B. NOT the Republic of Ireland, or Eire) is unneccessary, for the following reasons:

• The whole of the British Isles has a shared history (even if not one political entity); the processes and patterns in toponymy are the shared across the whole region
• The inclusion of Ireland makes allows comparison to the place names in Scotland, which have been similarly altered by Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon influences.
• Northern Ireland IS part of the UK - so to say that Ireland "has nothing to do with the UK" is senseless.

To remove Ireland from this article because the Republic of Ireland is a separate political entity to the UK is pointless, given the context of the article (there is nothing political here). However, maybe the article should be more clear about the scope, and inclusion of the whole British isles - I will look into this. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the term "British" should be taken as including any or all of Ireland is highly contentious, to put it mildly. The term usually relates to the island of Great Britain, and its use in relation to the whole of the UK is imprecise and colloquial if not simply wrong. It is used by some (a probably decreasing number) to refer to the "British Isles", but that term itself is contentious, and offensive to some. Placenames in Ireland predominantly derive from Irish, a language unique to the island, and are addressed through the page Toponymy of Ireland. The whole of "the British Isles" does not have a "shared history" any more than, say, the whole of Europe has a "shared history". There is no need for this article to deal with toponymy in Ireland at all, so I've reverted it back again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I realise that there are some who find the idea of the 'British Isles' anachronistic, but really, what else would you call the group of islands "Formerly known as the British Isles"??? Also, to suggest that the British Isles do not have a "shared history" is bunk - what about the period 1603-1916, when all parts of the British isles had a single Monarch? Or the period 1801-1916, when all parts of the British isles had a single government? (Not that I'm suggesting that this was 'willingly' shared!) Again, I am aware of the sensitivity of some to the use of these labels, but I don't agree with re-writing history for the sake of political correctness.

However, I agree that Ireland doesn't necessarily need to be covered in this article. I still think it would be instructive to have it in the article, but if it is to be removed, I would still like to be able to explicitly link to it in this article, if nothing else, for the sake of completeness.MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Having just looked around, I don't think I want to involve myself in any debates about the use of the word British. That's not something that I have a strong opinion about. I'm not interested in national issues, only in informational content. I do stand by the fact that the "Britain & Ireland" have a shared history however.MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, although modern Irish Gaelic may be unique to Ireland, Gaelic is not unique to Ireland; many place names in Scotland are Gaelic, probably brought there by Irish settlers...hence the shared history... MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict.No sorry Ireland is the name of the country not part of the UK. (Those terms you mention are dated and inaccurate) This is not an article about the British Isles. Using the word British means either is about the UK or Great Britain. Ireland is a completely seperate country to both. Northern Ireland is part of the UK, it is not part of the the country of Ireland, the cities mentioned are so feel free to but in a section about Northern Ireland, but putting in a completely seperate country. Just imagine an article called 'Spanish toponymy' with a section on Portugal! A see also link is whats needed there.Cosiman (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My usage of "Ireland" is neither dated nor inaccurate. 'Ireland' IS the name of the whole island...how else could you have 'Northern Ireland', if Ireland does not refer to the geographical entity??? "Ireland" is also used of the political entity, but it is not wrong to refer to the island as Ireland. Perhaps you'd like to check wikipedia's own articles on Ireland and Republic of Ireland (where I'm sure these arguments have been done to death)? And perhaps that is why the Irish rugby team (including players from North and South) is just called "Ireland" and not "Ireland and Northern Ireland"

And incidentally, as to your example of Spain/Portugal, I could well imagine an article called "Iberian Toponymy" which included both; since Iberia (like Ireland) is a geographical entity. Until the names of "Ireland" and the "(Republic of) Ireland" are changed for greater clarity, I'm afraid you'll just have to live with the geographical concept of Ireland.MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would guess (though I've no evidence) that, until 1492 (when Aragon + Castile + Granada were united) at the earliest, the word Spain included Portugal; and most place-names are much older than that! —Tamfang (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify - Toponymy of Ireland deals with the island of Ireland, not the state of Ireland, and I think that is the correct approach. In my opinion, Northern Ireland should be addressed in that article, not in this one, unless there is a strong consensus here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that is a much more logical approach to seperating Ireland and Northern Ireland. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Minister that Ireland and Scotland have enough in common that separating them is awkwardly artificial; and I can't see the harm in two brief sentences mentioning Ireland. If the insurmountable difficulty is that the Irish can't stand to be included under a "British" label, perhaps England rather than Ireland ought to be separated and a new name found. —Tamfang (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No-one could legitimately object to the section here on Scotland cross-referencing to Ireland, nor to a "See also: Toponymy of Ireland" reference at the foot of the page. The objection, in my view, is to a sub-heading "Ireland" within the "Toponymy by region" section of an article on "British toponymy", when Ireland is not a part of Britain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made a new section, briefly examining the links between Britain and Ireland (which are instructive), which provides the links to the Ireland articles. It also (I hope) makes it sufficiently clear that Ireland is not part of Britain, but being compared and contrasted with Britain. I hope this will be an acceptable compromise! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good and sensible solution to me. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Move?

Is there an argument for moving this article to Toponymy in Britain? I feel like that is a more precise title, more encyclopedic, and is perhaps the way all these articles should go. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My only comment is that it should read Toponymy in Great Britain, as that is the more correct name for the island. But I should wait awhile for any other comments before making a move. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And now someone has moved it from Toponymy in Great Britain to Toponymy in the United Kingdom without discussion, apparently on the grounds that the political unit is what counts, a premise that I reject, not least because it would require Northern Ireland and the Republic to be treated separately. —Tamfang (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Scots

However, extension of the Norman system into the lowlands of Scotland resulted in the development of Scots as the spoken language, a hybrid based on Anglo-Saxon.

A hybrid with what? I had understood it to be a distinct branch of Anglo-Saxon. – I didn't know "the Norman system" reached so far. —Tamfang (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ley

Where does the ending "Ley" which occurs frequently in place names in the English Midlands originate? -- PBS (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

See the first link under 'See also': List of generic forms in place names in the United Kingdom and Ireland. —Tamfang (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Toponymy in the United Kingdom → Toponymy in Great Britain – To reverse an undiscussed move to a less-natural unit. The new (present) title absurdly splits Irish naming into two articles. —Tamfang (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. There is so much intertwining of the history of the UK and Ireland and their place names that really any geographical boundary will be arbitrary. The boundary of Northern Ireland and the Republic seems to be more arbitrary than the boundary between the islands, however, being only formally completed in 1921. The only other realistic solution would be something like "Toponymy in the UK and Ireland", but this is a bit of a mouthful and would also result in an overly long article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy with ...British Isles, but I gather that not everyone loves that phrase. —Tamfang (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, in the long run, moving to Toponymy in the British Isles, along with AjaxSmack's proposed split may be the best solution. That way we can include the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles, which would get left out of both articles about Great Britain and the United Kingdom. To me, this article seems best off as a summary article for all the countries in the British Isles. In the short term, I think Great Britain is a sensible choice until articles about Scotland and England get written. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Ahhh, ok, forget I said that. If British Isles is going to be offensive to people, we shouldn't use it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Why 'Great Britain'? It's neither a country nor a subdivision of a country! Either you have the British Isles, United Kingdom, or England. 'Great Britain' makes no scholarly, cultural, geographic, historic or political sense ... just another arbitrary division that makes Wikipedia an anarchic mess. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment it's an island (the largest one of the archipelago), so is a natural subdivision of geography. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • You haven't said why you care that it's "neither a country nor a subdivision of a country". This article is not about politics (or anything organized by "countries" such as postal addressing), so there's no obvious reason to define its scope by political units. We could break it down into England+Scotland+Wales, but that would require some repetition: Cornish naming is akin to Welsh naming, Scots Lowlands naming is akin to English naming. —Tamfang (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • On my passport it says "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", so it is a political unit, albeit not one that is used very much. Anyway, any boundary will be arbitrary, as I noted above. I think our job is to find the least arbitrary boundary, and then describe this in the article as best we can. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
    • All such things are organized by countries. Great Britain is just an island, it's not a state, a subdivision of a state, a cultural region or anything else that would work as a coherent subdivision on the larger scale. Are we to have articles like Toponymy of Skye, Toponymy of the isle of Man, Toponymy of Orkney mainland, or articles like Toponymy of France, Toponymy of Belgium. Yes, the borders between United Kingdom and Ireland may be "arbitrary", but no more so than any other European state. Think bigger picture! Toponymy of Great Britain is a preposterous way to classify toponymy, and it's existence would mean that the United Kingdom would be the only European country that couldn't theoretically have such an article (owing to overlap with "Great Britain").Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
      • First let's get our definitions clear. Great Britain is comprised of England, Scotland, Wales, and their surrounding islands, but not the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. The United Kingdom is comprised of England, Scotland, Wales, their surrounding islands, and Northern Ireland, but not the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. So the Isle of Man wouldn't be included in the UK article or a Great Britain article, but Skye and the Orkney Islands would be included in both. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. We already have Welsh placenames. If similar (or better) articles were created for England and Scotland, the issue would no longer exist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • As a discipline place-names are usually surveyed by historic country (England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland), or by language. Toponymy of England might be the most appropriate title of the article, though remember that the United Kingdom is still a modern sovereign state it's by those that things are normally done (relevant more maybe in a few years when we have more such articles).Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support per nom. There's nothing inherent in toponymy that requires it to follow modern nation-state boundaries. It's done for convenience and, in most cases, it works fine. However, in this case historical states and islands make more sense since the toponyms were largely determined prior to the formation of the UK of GB and NI. I.e., there's no good reason toponymically to split Northern Ireland from Ireland and group it with GB. And, in the long term, separate articles for England, Wales, Scotland, etc would be in order. —  AjaxSmack  02:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Having looked at the article a little more, I think a split is in order. The article is predominantly about England, Wales already has its own article, and Scotland needs more input (better served with a separate article especially considering the copious Scottish place names in other countries). If a split is conducted, maintaining the current title, Toponymy in the United Kingdom for an umbrella (dab) article is appropriate. I am willing to do the split work if that is an issue. —  AjaxSmack  02:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    • A split sounds like a commendable idea. You have my full support. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Your first contention makes no sense. Are we just to make up any boundaries at random? United Kingdom is a state. Great Britain is an arbitrary collection of parts of Scotland, England, and Wales depending on whether they are mainland or island. On cutltural and lingustic grounds it makes more sense to group Ireland with Scotland but that's not a political unit. All borders are always arbitrary ... there are no special cases. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• • I didn't make up anything. Great Britain hardly arbitrary. That it is a specific island surrounded by a lot of water which has had profound cultural, linguistic, and historical influence. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has only been around since 1927 (or 1922), hardly an important grouping vis-à-vis toponymy. Also note my comment above about a split which I made after your reply. —  AjaxSmack  02:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• • • Neither Great Britain nor the United Kingdom is relevant to topomymy. Both are arbitrary in that regard; the latter happens to be a real unit of modern political geography. I seriously hope the closer will use his brain here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Just commenting that, in common use, "Great Britain" is not just "an arbitrary collection of parts of Scotland, England, and Wales depending on whether they are mainland or island". It is England (including its adjoining islands), Wales (including its adjoining islands), and Scotland (including its adjoining islands). That is, it is primarily a political entity rather than a geographical one - although it is also true that the name Great Britain is used for the main island. Great Britain includes the Isle of Wight, for example, just as much as Australia includes Tasmania. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, Great Britain is primarily an island. The political entity is the United Kingdom. "England, Scotland and Wales" are not a political unit, though they are part of the United Kingdom just like Northern Ireland. Likewise Tasmania is part of a state called Australia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So, the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" excludes the Isle of Wight? Don't think so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah the straw man. Anyone want a reasoned argument? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Merely pointing out that if your argument in relation to a move were based on the idea that "Great Britain" is only "an arbitrary collection of parts of Scotland, England, and Wales depending on whether they are mainland or island", it would rightly be considered to be preposterous. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you believe that's what you are "pointing out", but all you're actually doing is playing out the etymological fallacy and showing you haven't processed either your own or my arguments. Your contention was that today Great Britain is a political unit. No it isn't. The fact that the full title of the United Kingdom doesn't list every island and rock off its coast is pretty irrelevant. United Kingdom is the state, Great Britain is an island. Great Britain is not a modern political unit (unlike, for example England and Wales). Fairly simple. Even if GB is used as a short-hand for the state (and well as the three countries in it before the 19th century), it is confusing usage. Why support confusing usage? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it's used with that meaning in many, many, sources, and doesn't appear to cause confusion. I never said that GB is a "modern political unit", because in administrative terms it obviously isn't. However, it is a political entity, as it is named within the title of the sovereign state. This article deals with long term historical processes anyway, so current political boundaries are of very limited relevance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It is used with that meaning, but when we are being rational and clear the state is called "the United Kingdom" because "Great Britain" refers primarily to an island that is part of that state. You seem to be moving the goal-posts a bit now btw. You were telling us before that "Great Britain" was primariliy a political concept, whereas in fact as you acknowledge it is not a political concept at all (though I grant you that it may be an ideological one in Ireland).

Now you are bringing up the arbitrariness argument too and rejecting the relevance of "modern political boundaries" to toponymy. Yet why are political boundaries from 2 and a 1/2 centuries ago to be privileged over modern ones? It was already admitted that the boundaries were arbitrary, yet I showed that this will always be the case for political divisions (which are period specific cultural products). Why is "Great Britain" though less 'arbitrary' than 'the United Kingdom' vis-a-vis toponymy? I ask you to consider too how an article named Toponymy in Great Britain would fit into a wider pattern of toponymy articles? Category:Toponymy by 18th century state? Are we to have England, Great Britain and United Kingdom toponymy articles? Surely not. You are saying the United Kingdom shouldn't have a toponymy article; are there any other modern states that cannot have this, or is United Kingdom an exception? Isn't that a bit insulting to the United Kingdom and its inhabitants? I suspect that support of this move in some parties may derive from Irish nationalism. That's fine. But then it should be Toponymy in Ireland, Toponymy in Scotland, Toponymy in England, and so on; though are the historic nations of the British Isles. We can't shape a whole encyclopedia around Irish exceptionalism by pretending one country really is another. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't said anywhere that the UK shouldn't have a toponymy article. I'm comfortable with separate articles on England and Scotland (and Ireland, of course) to go with the one on Wales. My objection was to some of the arguments being used against an article on GB - which I would also be comfortable with. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't you agree that if the subject naturally breaks down into United Kingdom and England, GB is a bit too close to both to be of any use? There seems to be some support for making this an England article. I would support this too, though there'd need to be a link at Toponymy in the United Kingdom to the four component parts (Ireland the island-nation pertaining Northern Ireland the UK territory, Scotland, England and Wales the rest ... doesn't matter that Scotland doesn't exist yet). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's avoid implying bias on the part of other editors. This debate should be about content, not commentators - see WP:NPA. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm sure everyone here knows about NPA and can make up their own mind about its relevance. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The nom writes The new (present) title absurdly splits Irish naming into two articles. I don't follow that that statement in any way presents an argument for the proposed move. If we followed that argument to its "absurd" logical conclusion then we couldn't have splits on French naming because it would have to be split across Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, etc. German derived place names would absurdly be split across France, Austria, Switzerland, Italy etc. The list will go on and on. No, the only logical way for the article name is by the political country that contains the place name. Articles will be all the richer for the inclusion of this information---the present proposal will exclude information of fact from readers wishing to learn about the UK as a whole as opposed to that of an island within the UK that is sometimes mistaken for the political entity. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think some people have an exaggerated idea of the novelty of arbitrary political boundaries. Arbitrary political boundaries are the norm across Europe. The Republic-North/UK frontier is indeed arbitrary as people say, but this makes it normal. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You have a point. It would make a lot of sense to have a similar naming across articles, and I don't see anyone arguing for changing articles on French or German naming. This issue is especially contentious in the present article, of course. If we go the political route, we will have to move Place names in Ireland to Toponymy in the Republic of Ireland, and we would also have to create Toponymy in the Isle of Man. If we go the geographical route, we go against the de facto naming convention for European toponymy articles, and we risk arousing the anger of some with the contentious phrase "British Isles". I shall have a look at the sources to see how they have approached this thorny issue, and maybe we can have a go at making a convention for toponymy articles Wikipedia-wide. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

With Ireland there is deliberate blurring of the two concepts in political and popular discourse. The best of all options is probably to do that here, but incorporate Toponymy in Ireland in the Toponymy in the United Kingdom page; either using some of its content pertaining to Northern Ireland (if a full encyclopedic article) or just a link if it is a dab page (as it would be if this page were move to England). Absolutely nothing wrong or aberrant about an Isle of Man article btw. There are books dedicated to the topic, and it's a very interesting area for this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I have had a go at finding relevant sources to see how they deal with the naming issue. These are all the sources I could find from Google Books and Google Scholar that treated the toponymy of both the UK and Ireland:
  • Coates, Richard (1989). Toponymic Topics: Essays on the Early Toponymy of the British Isles. Brighton: Younsmere. ISBN 0951230913.
  • British Toponymy: List of Generic Forms in Place Names in the United Kingdom and Ireland, List of Roman Place Names in Britain. General Books. 2010. ISBN 9781156943779.
  • G.B. Adams, Placenames from pre-Celtic languages in Ireland and Britain, Nomina 4 pp46–83 (1980).
  • Name Studies in the United Kingdom. An International Handbook of Onomastics. pp. 23–27. ISBN 978-3-11-011426-3
  • Name Studies in Ireland. An International Handbook of Onomastics. pp. 27–31. ISBN 978-3-11-011426-3
  • Language Contact in the Place-Names of Britain and Ireland.. The Antiquaries Journal (2008), 88: 452-454
• I don't see anything conclusive from this list yet. Does anyone know how the naming is treated in respected toponymy textbooks? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)