Talk:Military history of Britain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Disambig-Class)
MILHIST This disambiguation page is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Dab Disambiguation pages do not require a rating on the quality assessment scale.

Military history of Britain[edit]

So article title has been changed, considering how close the vote was i fail to see how this option is far less controversial especially as several of the people who voted against British Isles were told to come here and vote a certain way on an Irish forum.

I can live with the current article title but we need clarification about what on earth this article is meant to be about? Is this an article just on the island of Britain? is it about the whole of Britains past including during the period of the United Kingdom so we talk about the British Empire. OR do we just delete everything from this article (what a waste) and replace it with links to

Military history of England Military history of Scotland Military history of United Kingdom

This is a complete mess. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

An article under this title is basically redundant to Military history of the United Kingdom. Stop messing about with title changes and page moves, and decide what the page should actually be about. A page about wars and military action occurring on the land of the British Isles would have served a purpose; a page rehashing the content of Military history of England, Military history of Scotland, Military history of Ireland, Military history of Wales and Military history of the United Kingdom is pointless. If we're not going to have a page about the wars on the soil of the British Isles, then get on with creating Military history of Ireland and the so-far-ignored Military history of Wales, and restore the title of this page to Military history of the British Isles with links to those other articles, with Military history of Britain being a redirect to Military history of the United Kingdom. Fences and windows (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I have complained to the admin about his ill-judged actions. There was clear external canvassing and he was made aware of it. This move goes completely against the rationale he was arguing for and if the move persists it will set a dangerous precedent. LevenBoy (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
If the article remains at this title? it should be adjusted to Military history of Great Britain & then a Military history of Ireland article, should be created. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
No. I'm making the point about external canvassing. It swayed the vote. The article title, current or otherwise, is not relevant to the issue. This is vote rigging pure and simple. LevenBoy (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You state which drew numerous new editors to the vote and which bolstered the option you say has won.. What new editors? --HighKing (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'm concerned about all those newbies having cast their opinons. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Who? --HighKing (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Wait a sec. Are we speaking about the poll held from May 31-June 3? GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thats the poll which was mentioned which resulted in the choice between the two options.. It was very close as we said at the time and there was certainly a couple of editors who came out of nowhere, clearly being encouraged to post after seeing the comment on the Irish forum.BritishWatcher (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'm concerned about those newbies. Intially, I suspected that sockery was at hand. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Same question. Who? --HighKing (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
These blokes: Clem McGann, Colm Dawson,, Jonsnow27 and Navnite. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Navnite , ColmDawson and especially Jonsnow27s interest in this article all of a suddent was interesting. (didnt think McGann was a problem), and lets not forget it was only because we closed the poll right away announcing the results.. dozens of others could of came and posted to totally swing the vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure Clem will have something to say about that. --HighKing (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont blame the admin for making the choice made and putting this article at the current title. Whilst i disagree with the choice, its certainly more accurate and clear than the previous title which was a complete joke. But i do think we should decide on what the content for this article was going to be if it was changed to the current title (before the change happened). With or without those editors it is clear the vote was very close and no consensus was going to be reached from it so it seems rather unfair that one person has decided the outcome. (although as i said before its certainly a better title than it was) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Military history of Britain excludes, by definition, Ireland, and while we're talking about what should be in the article and if it should be about the Military History of the British Isles - someone's gone and removed some of the content relevant to Ireland - and removed the Irish wikiproject box that was on this talk page. (They've missed bits, but the intent is clear). *sigh*... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Lol sorry the removal of the several mentions of Ireland in the intro and the wikiproject was by me in response to the articles name change. If this isnt a permanent name change then those edits can be undone. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the point is that sometimes the military history of Britain is going to bump into some of the military history of Ireland at some points, so it might not be a good to remove all references to Ireland.... --HighKing (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Lmao well im glad you accept that now HighKing, it has been one of the main arguments for keeping this title at British Isles, the fact that Military history of Britain "bumps into" military history of Ireland ALOT of the time. There for commonsense was to have a single article. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
What is the difference between British military history (which redirect to Military history of the United Kingdom) and the military history of Britain? And what is the difference between the military history of the United Kingdom and the military history of Britain (since we all know that there are "bits" that will "bump off" Ireland)? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
(update after PBS's edit) PBS's seems sensible. I think British military history should redirect here also - going to do that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been bold and created a dab page. Whether "British military history" redirects to Military history of the United Kingdom or here depends on whether British is an adjective for the state or the island. If a Military history of Wales is written it can be added to the page, and I would suggest that when the Military history of Ireland is written, it is added to the bottom of the page under "See also", Whow I see someone has already done it. --PBS (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I wrote a REALLY rough military history of Ireland. Can people please go there to add bits and edit as necessary. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
We should all accept the outcome which does resolve the problem by removing the previous crazy article title. Oh just so everyone knows, i removed the See also section linking to Ireland. This is about Britain, Ireland has nothing to do with it anymore. The fun now is how on earth an article on military history of Ireland is going neutral and accepted by all sides. Cya all there BritishWatcher (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
"This is about Britain, Ireland has nothing to do with it anymore." Oh, if only :) I've put it back in. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Why? This is now about Britain ONLY not Ireland, A link to the Irish page doesnt belong here. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Frankly it`s a disgrace.--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This page disambiguates to Military history of the United Kingdom among other articles. That would be the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland, no? Formerly the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? That article overlaps with that Military history of Ireland entirely during the period 1801-1922 and partially thereafter. It would strike me that Military history of Ireland is a reasonable See also in that circumstance. No? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
No sorry i find it totally unacceptable to have military history of Ireland linked on the military history of Britain which is a completly different island. The fact there is huge overlap is exactly why many of us argued against a change and split to these articles. Now that has happened i really see no need to link the Ireland page here.
Irelands involvement between 1800 to today belongs at Military history of the United Kingdom, i have no problem with a link on that page to Military history of Ireland but it doesnt belong here this is about Britain. This issue made me laugh, its a bit like going for a divorce and wanting to keep wearing the wedding ring afterwards. Weve split the articles, Britain and Irelands military history with the exception of the United Kingdom is sadly no longer a shared one. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a dab page. "Britain", as you know, can mean either the island of that name or the UK. Hence, "Military history of Britain" dabs to Military history of the United Kingdom. You may find it "totally unacceptable to have military history of Ireland linked on the military history of Britain" but the fact is that for the past 206 years, they are linked. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Not linked enough to justify a shared article which many of us were arguing for. This is a dab page for links about Britain which ofcourse includes the United Kingdom, but thats where the link to Ireland belongs on the Military history of the United Kingdom not on one just about Britain. I dont know what others think, but i find it very strange we split the articles in two and then decide theres such a shared history they must be linked. Military history of Australia or Canada isnt going to be listed here despite a shared history as they were part of the British Empire.
Britain and Ireland have a huge history together, clearly shown by the current Military history of Ireland article which mentions either England or Britain / British in almost every single paragraph. That is why it made sense to use the fact we share a geographical area known as the British Isles to talk about everything together. Sadly people want to wipe the British Isles off the map and they are starting with wikipedia. People can not argue on one hand that Ireland and Britain are so different they cant be put together on a single article, then think Ireland deserves a link on a page just about Britain. I dont think there needs to be a link on the Ireland page to here, although one to the Military history of the United Kingdom is ofcourse justified and a good idea. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, that's bit more reasoned. (But I did smile at reading, "Not linked enough to justify a shared article which many of us were arguing for." It's only a 'See also' link for heaven's sake.) Anyway, let's see what others say it ain't no biggey anyway. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

<--outdent. BritishWatcher you are currently in a minority of one on whether to include MhoI in the "see also" section. I am going to reinstate it, because it may be of use for some people. Please don't revert again and lets wait and see if anyone else agrees enough with your arguments that MhoI should not be in the see also section to wish to remove it from the article. --PBS (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me " a minority of one"? I have seen 1 other person defend its inclusion here since this article was radically changed yesterday. What is the point in splitting the articles in two if the article on Britain now has to link to the article on Ireland.. they are two very different things atleast thats what people argued was the case?
The whole matter has been a disgrace. First someone changed the article title from something stable for 7 months with no consensus, got the article locked into where it remained until yesterday. There were two attempts to rig the vote about the future of this article, the result of the vote was clearly divided and ONE person made the choice to split the articles.
Now i can accept the split, i didnt strongly oppose it but i saw the problems of having two different articles. Now after that split people think its right to link to the Ireland page? This is about Britain.. people chose to divide the articles, what on earth does Ireland have to do with Britain?? The link to Ireland belongs on the article about the United Kingdom military history.. NOT on a page about Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The anti-BI brigade want it all ways. They've been temporarily successful in renaming this article for overtly political reasons, now they want it to reference Ireland. No chance. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hold on a second ... this is not about pro- or anti-BI. (If it were then surely the "pro-BI brigade" would want Ireland included?) PBS was out of line to say BritishWatcher was a "minority of one" in a discussion involving only two participants. If Military history of Ireland is not wanted in the 'See also' section then that's fine, it's no big deal. This is a dab page and like BritishWatcher says the link can go on the Military history of the United Kingdom page. Let's not blow things out of proportion and let's put an end to the name calling. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Not out of line as I was also involved in this conversation, that is two to one (see my comments above), and when I made the comment there were on other participants in the conversation. I am more than happy to go with Aervanath's template idea and I now hope this page and debate can be laid to rest. -- PBS (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I must agree with British Watcher and MidnightBlue when they say that it is a bit contradictory to have a link to the Military history of Ireland page here. Moreover, if this page is to link to the Ireland page, then it must link to the Spanish, French and German pages because, if I'm not mistaken, the British have had the odd war with those countries also. I really can't see the logic for the special treatment. I'm Irish. (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The idea of the Europe template was a very good compromise and i hope its accepted by everyone. PBS and comra, im sorry about my comments before i didnt mean to come across hostile, this issue really got to me for some reason, far far more than the article name change itself. It looks as if people are prepared to accept the name change so hopefully this article will be stable now. Thanks everyone BritishWatcher (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
"British Isles" brings out the stress in us all. Don't let it strain you out. (BTW my username is "rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid" (kind of like: ryan-vawrth-ee an-aih-nij), "coṁra" means "discussion".) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
LOL thanks for pointing that out. Ill copy/paste the name next time i was going to type out the whole thing but thought id make too many mistakes as its a rather long name. Saw the Comra and thought hmm thats nice and simple to type :). BritishWatcher (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
No worries ... it's a tough one. "anaithnid" or "anaiṫnid" (if you can do the dot over the 't') will do just fine (it means "anonymous"). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)