Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples/Closed7

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


Arts and Crafts Movement (Resolved)

Resolved
 – There's been a staggering lack of real arguments, but BW has provided plenty of sources showing that "British Isles" is used in the same breath as "Arts and Crafts Movement". Sources don't necessarily make the case - there are other considerations that can be made - however in the absence of any real arguments for or against, and in the presence of sources showing that British Isles is used, I'm closing this as resolved: use BI. TFOWR 11:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

{{Unresolved}} Given the differences between the movement in England and elsewhere, I'd suggest "England" and "Elsewhere in the British Isles". I don't have a problem with BI in this context, but believe that England merits it's own heading, at least until the Scotland/Glasgow and Ireland parts of the article are expanded. TFOWR 13:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The more straight forward move would have been to revert them to the prior state and see if anyone wanted to nominate them for change or make a case. That should happen anyway, but I thought I would try out a quick proposal first --Snowded TALK 10:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Extended content
agree with Snowded Codf1977 (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I do believe that British Isles is a reasonable addition to the Arts and crafts one. The section currently called UK has a paragraph at the end on Ireland and this is talking about a period where it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland rather than just the present UK. So British Isles seems reasonable as a section heading there. I found this sorce [1] which says "the earliest and perhaps the fullest development of the movement was in the British Isles". So that change seems ok to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Snowded's reasoning on Arts and Crafts Movement --HighKing (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Apologies if this is explained elsewhere, but how do we proceed if one is classed as "unresolved" - revert the article to the status quo? Personally, having just read through the article, I can't see much that isn't really about Britain and specifically England and Scotland - there is a small amount of material on Ireland in the article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
In the past that's been the decision - to revert to just prior to any editing by participants here. Unresolved basically is the same as no consensus for the edits. Although not that it doesn't mean that the edits can't continue to be discussed. If nobody else objects to this reasoning, I suggest that this becomes the norm from now on. --HighKing (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think British Isles is totally justified in this case. Based on the fact the section in question mentioned Ireland and there are sources talking about the movement beginning in the British Isles. Unresolved = need more debate, the matter is not considered closed. Otherwise it would be "resolved" - with no consensus for change and a revert made. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, this has been hanging about for bloody ages, and it should be a nice, "easy" (yeah, right!) one to get shot of. I'd also like to trial the "for" and "against" approach, so have created sub-headings below. Please stick to supported arguments, not personal opinions: "I prefer" and "I like" will be ignored by yours truly... "WP:THISPOLICY says" and "This diff shows" will be accorded much more weight. TFOWR 11:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad link TFOW - what did you mean? --Snowded TALK 06:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
:-) Deliberately bad link - the diff was equally bad ;-) All I'm saying is that I'd like arguments backed by links to policies or diffs/links to precedents - either where it decided in the past that we'd use one form or t'other, or examples of one form being used. TFOWR 09:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, early, too little coffee, etc etc.
    • Would "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" (piped to UK) be OK? (If so, why? If not, why not?)
    • Did the A&CM exist on the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands? Does this matter? (If so, why? If not, why not?)
    • Is there any merit in having a generalised discussion about the A&CM in the British Isles, and localised discussions about England, Glasgow, and Ireland? (If so, why? If not, why not?)
    • ...and a general "ping"-type comment - please follow HighKing's example and move/add arguments into the sections below? Ta! TFOWR 08:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Incidentally, I am not intending to close this just yet - I'd like to see the section below be filled out. If that was done next weekend would maybe be a target for closing. TFOWR 08:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings, but I would like the result to be elegant and not obviously written by policy wonks. Marshall46 (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles"

  • The section in the article titled British Isles, is a subsection of "History of the movement" The United States of America is the only country in the list, which also includes the wider continent of Europe and specific developments. This is not a list of countries so the British Isles is not out of place.
  • The text clearly covers both Great Britain and Ireland. To avoid confusion the British Isles which has never changed is more clearer in this case than having to say the former title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which has the potential to mislead/confuse people when they see it next to a current country.
  • The present setup is stable. The article clearly states it originated in England and had a major impact within the British Isles. To change this now would require splitting sections that make sense.

A few mentions of the British Isles..


Specific mentions of arts and crafts movement + Ireland.

Links with the Isle of Man..

British Isles is justified on this page. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against "British Isles"

  • Note that this article was changed without consensus, and as such, this is not an "Argument against "British Isles"", and the headings should reflect this.
  • In a nutshell, no reasons have been put forward that have consensus for adding "British Isles" to the article. The article should be reverted. --HighKing (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


Artemisia_vulgaris (Resolved)

Resolved
 – On the strength of the current text and references the case for "British Isles" has not been made.

Stating that mugwort is a British Isles native is absolutely redundant in an article that has already stated that it's a native of Europe and Asia. For that reason I've discounted the first two references (Clapham, Tutin & Warburg, and Wright). Wright is also used as a second reference (seriously: use named refs to avoid that) to support the claim that mugwort was used by Roman soldiers. I have no doubt that this claim is true, but the Roman occupation was limited to Great Britain.

Llewellyn states that mugwort is a BI native, then goes on to discuss - without obvious reference to BI - some ancient and modern uses of mugwort. These include modern uses that are not specific to BI, and ancient uses involving childbirth and soldiers' feet. Note that I've not considered whether Llewellyn is a reliable source, simply whether it justifies the claims made.

Hanrahan fills in the gaps: the soldiers were Roman. Hanrahan hints at the use of mugwort by Anglo-Saxons. It's possible, though uncited, that mugwort was used for beer in Ireland and/or elsewhere in BI before hops were introduced. Other uses of mugwort are not specific to the British Isles, including its use in modern pagan ceremonies and as a nicotine-free smoking preparation (Hanrahan does not discuss where these uses occur).

Beyond saying that mugwort is a BI native, which is not dusputed - mugwort is a native of Europe and Asia - the usages appear limited to Great Britain. It's possible - in my view - that mugwort may have been used as an alternative to hops in Ireland and elsewhere. There is, however, no evidence of this in the current set of references. Llewellyn is vague as to where mugwort was used in childbirth. I couldn't find evidence supporting the interpretation that mugwort was used in childbirth in Ireland. I could, however, find evidence that this use was not limited to BI. TFOWR 08:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've removed the British Isles section, and incorporated the info under "Middle Ages" and "Witchcraft" sections. --HighKing (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

{tlx|Unresolved|It's "flora". I'd like to tackle flora along the same lines as fauna. Can we leave this until that's done? TFOWR 11:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)}}

Insertion of British Isles by User:Triton Rocker. OK some useful general edits with reference etc. and its plant life so may well be a valid use. However addition need to be discussed here first --Snowded TALK 14:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Extended content
It should indeed have been raised here first. I'm assuming TritonRocker wasn't aware, though. Could someone let them know? My ability to edit is severly impaired. TFOWR's left sock 14:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I have told him, and also expressed surprise he hasn't brought it here as its probably a valid use. However we've had a revert after he came off his block for mass insertions, then a revert with multiple listings so it feels a bit like game playing to me. --Snowded TALK 14:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Would seem to be a clear cut case of when to use British Isles it has a ref (Flora of the British Isles, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 1962. Clapham, Tutin & Warburg ) and is being used to describe the whole group of islands anything else just looks contrived and a kin to avoiding the word Christmas. Codf1977 (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Well said Cod, seems about as reflective a comment of the situations as have seen recently. Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, this is clearly a case where British Isles is justified. Its inclusion should be restored and in future he should always come forward with places he wants BI added. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Its pretty amusing that a new editor in this dispute is getting in trouble for adding BI, whilst the core editor involved in the removal of British Isles, got defended earlier for removing a British Isles wikilink and people dismiss the idea he did anything wrong. Considering hes the one who people voted to ban fully from adding/removing BI, the double standard is pretty shocking. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not from me, HighKing should have brought the case here. I think he is right to remove it in that case, as I think BI is a valid term in this article but we either have a rule or we don;t --Snowded TALK 14:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the change highking made was justified and id of supported its change, its the fact he thought he could just change it himself without getting agreement, despite all of the debate within the past few days that really gets to me. But is Triton Rocker actually falling foul of a rule? Does this constitute "systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification" ? It would be helpful if editors came here first, but unless Triton is listed on the sanctions page, like Highking should have been, what did he do wrong? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
As I read it all editors come here first, or if not first after they have been reverted once. --Snowded TALK 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree after it has been reverted an editor should come here. But there is nothing saying all editors must come here before making a change if its sourced. This is part of the problem and loophole which seems to allow Highking to make his change earlier. Certain editors need placing on the sanctions list who are not allowed to make any change at all themselves, but if they aint on that list and they make a sourced change (unless its reverted) at present it doesnt seem like they must come here. Id be ok with ALL involved editors (of which Triton Rocker would clearly now be one) along with me, u and everyone talking here having to come to this page before any of us make a change. But that isnt anywhere in the rules yet. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, I must be missing something here, but it seems no progress whatsoever has been made since the ANI and threat of topic bans which was supposed to stop all this garbage of the type above. HighKing still won't take no for an answer, endless arguments about whether British Isles is right or wrong ensue, and no doubt a steady stream of cases is about to follow. Does anyone see solution? I do, of course, but it seems there's no appetite for it. LevenBoy (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Deal with each case on its merits LevenBoy, it will take less effort than your current approach --Snowded TALK 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
No, there will be less effort if HighKing is topic banned. Then we could all quietly get on with more important matters. As it is, he's escaped again and look what we've got. BTW, do I have permission to change back to British Isles for Artemisia_vulgaris following your edit warring? LevenBoy (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
If HighKing is banned then the political position you represent wins, that is as bad a result as HighKing being allowed to change without control. Each case on its merits and fewer personal attacks. The suggestion above is 24 hours from posting for views to be expressed. I think that is sound. --Snowded TALK 16:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
That is the point where nationalist POV pushers and the run of the mill editor couldn't care less about such issues differ, to such editors it is not political at all it is geographical and a simple which is the best expression for this situation. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
There has to be a limit to the number of cases each editor may bring forward to request a change one way or another. We also need to wipe the slate clean.. all of the above debates which have not been touched for months should be archived with no change to the present wording. That is the only way we are going to be able to keep on top of things, we can not spend many days going over the backlog. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to be bold folks. That thoroughly stupid list of countries is going to be replaced by British Isles. Here we go ..... LevenBoy (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, there is clear support on this talk page for its use. Even the editor that undid the original edit seemed to agree this was the sort of case where it can be used. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Please revert. There is an agreed 24 hours of discussion first in order to give people a chance to see this and discuss, which hasn't happened, and LevenBoy should not have reinserted British Isles. If we're playing by the new rules, that's a blockable offense. For a start, I can't see use of either the list of islands, or the British Isles, supported in any of the references. Can we see a reference for the uses which makes it somehow exclusive to the British Isles please? Second, this version of the article didn't even mention British Isles, so clearly Triton Rocker was playing a dangerous game by creating a reason to insert it, without sources. --HighKing (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that use/non-use of British Isles in that article has not been the subject of this thread so far are the choices between:
  1. "British Isles"
  2. vs."England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Eire, Isle of Man and Channel Islands"
  3. vs. "Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man and Channel Islands"
  4. vs. disprove "British Isles"?
Triton Rocker's change to v.2 was POINTy. So too was Snowded's change to v.3 (to the extent anyway). Meanwhile, I presume we are now going to play that game where we dash around trying to disprove British Isles with all our muster? Hands up anyone here who even knew what Artemisia vulgaris was before they started examining Triton Rocker's edit history?
My opinion of Triton Rocker's editing on this topic, from what I've seen elsewhere, does not leave me with a good impression. I presume we are all in consensus about that. However, on the face of it, since I know absolutely nothing about this topic, I cannot determine if British Isles is correct or not here. So I will assume good faith. I'm sure we will find a few expert botanists suddenly bloom in our midsts that can contradict that though. --RA (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
As per WP:V then. --HighKing (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you really going to make an issue of of this - do you really think that your choices 2 or 3 are anything other than a long winded way of avoiding using a phrase you don't like. There are clearly places where BI is used incorrectly, there are places where you can debate it and there are places, like this one, where it is totally appropriate. Feel free if you want to keep this tread going for 24 hours but I think as per WP:SNOW there is no need in this case. Codf1977 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm ... time for me to review Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful :-)
Just to clear matters up, Codf1977 - I don't know the first thing about Artemisia vulgaris. I don't believe anyone else here does. And at face value, to my lay eyes, there doesn't seem to be a thing wrong with use of British Isles in this circumstance. --RA (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I am glad there seems to be agreement on this, bar Highking. Now would be a great chance to show us all how reasonable towards British Isles he now is and accept its inclusion with no more fuss in this case. I can only hope. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Please reread what I actually wrote - less knee-jerk reactions. I agree with you all - this is actually a good use of the term "British Isles". I'm certainly not disputing, and never would, a replacement of a list of islands (as was made) with "British Isles". Should the facts on usage prove to be verifiable that is. And the "facts" added by Triton Rocker don't appear to be supported by the references. So this isn't about usage per se, it's about verifiable content as per WP:RS. Secondly, there's a 24hour discussion period before changes. We're either going to agree and observe that, or not. As such, the recent edit should be reverted. --HighKing (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok if you think this is a good use of British Isles, i do not see the big problem. Most editors above have supported its use in this context. I am unaware of some 24 hour rule existing. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The source seem to back up its use, page 79 talks about where Artemisia is found and by what other names it is known by and clearly mentions native to the British Isles. The intro of the article says : "Artemisia vulgaris (mugwort or common wormwood) is one of several species in the genus Artemisia " .[2] I have absolutely no clue about this subject but it seems to back up what is said unless im misreading it. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Scratch the 24hour rule - looks like it was only mentioned on my Talk page and doesn't appear to have been carried through as a condition. Indications on my Talk page were that it was to be - my bad. I have no problem with usage in this instance *if* the facts are verifiable. If they're not verifiable, the entire section should be removed. If they're verifiable according to WP:RS, why would I disagree? BW, the section isn't talking about distribution, it's talking about medicinal uses. Stating these uses as being somehow exclusive to the British Isles is WP:OR. We can have a discussion about how best to represent flora distribution separately, best not to get the two mixed up here. --HighKing (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I see all the policies are being trotted out here. WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR to name but three, and if all else fails get rid of the section in question, and if that fails then go for PROD. We've been here before, I think. BW, have you not yet worked out the HK does not take no for an answer, apart from in very exceptional cicumstances. LevenBoy (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

<personal attack tirade redacted>

This is post broken up, it should conform with other posts. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Broken up or not, this tirade does not belong here. Jack 1314 (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Repeat: I have no problem with usage in this instance *if* the facts are verifiable. If they're not verifiable, the entire section should be removed. If they're verifiable according to WP:RS, why would I disagree? BW, the section isn't talking about distribution, it's talking about medicinal uses. Stating these uses as being somehow exclusive to the British Isles is WP:OR. We can have a discussion about how best to represent flora distribution separately, best not to get the two mixed up here. --HighKing (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - An editor inserted a new paragraph into this article headed "British Isles" under Uses. Three references where included in the paragraph (all available on Google Books)
The first two references don't discuss uses at all.
The third reference discusses uses, but does not attribute them to the "British Isles". Furthermore, the publisher does not appear to meet WP:RS - is essentially a self-published New Age source and is described as:
Llewellyn Publications has grown and expanded into new areas of personal growth and transformation since it began as the Portland School of Astrology in 1901. Along with the strong line of astrology books the company was founded upon, Llewellyn publishes books on everything from alternative health and healing, Wicca and Paganism, to metaphysics and the paranormal-and since 1994 has published a growing list of Spanish-language titles.
Llewellyn has long been know as one of America's leading publishers of New Age books, producing a wide variety of valuable tools for transformation of the mind, body and spirit. Reach for the Moon-and discover that self-help and spiritual growth is what Llewellyn is all about.
There may be some other references for the "uses" inserted into the article, and it may be useful information and a good addition to the article, but there is nothing to suggest that these uses are attributable to the British Isles. I suggest the paragraph is deleted unless a more reputable source can be found, and that the uses are moved to a more general section, not attributed solely to British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
As per my last post above, which nobody has commented on although lots have seen it, I propose to partially revert TR's edits today as follows: The "Alternative Medicine" book is self-published and not a reliable source, and nothing suggests that the "uses" are limited to the "British Isles". TR has "combined" facts from multiple sources to construct a new section called "British Isles", yet none of the sources represent the data in this way. Comments welcome. --HighKing (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Before you do anything, can you make it clear exactly what you plan to revert to ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I plan to remove "uses" and the "British Isles" section, since they are taken from the Llewellyn Publications book, unless another reference can be found. --HighKing (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
You've no consensus to do it. LemonMonday Talk 22:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Following the process

As per the process we appear to be using - this article is unresolved, yet the addition is still in place in the article. The edits should be reverted until this discussion is resolved. I assume this is one for @TFWOR? --HighKing (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In an ideal world I'd have done this as soon as possible. Apologies for not so doing. I think at this stage - several uninvolved editors having edited the article since then - I'd prefer to ignore procedure. Again, apologies for that. I'd like to try and concentrate on this fairly soon, so hopefully my laziness/reluctance won't be a huge issue...? I've been holding out in the hope that we'll magically come up with a flora system without me/us doing anything. Unsurprisingly, this hasn't happened. My fault for not driving it forward. With that said, lets press on with individual flora issues, and hopefully with a few under our belts we can revisit flora as a blanket issue.

Structured discussion

Boilerplate text about "summarising arguments from above, based on policy and precedents, and backed with diffs and links" goes here. TFOWR 16:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles" @ Artemisia vulgaris

Arguments against "British Isles" @ Artemisia vulgaris

  • The lede discusses distribution, and states It is native to temperate Europe, Asia... etc. The section entitled "Uses" has Mugwort is native to the British Isles. This fact doesn't belong under "Uses" and is already covered by the lede.
  • Three references where included in the paragraph (all available on Google Books) and none discuss uses within specifically the British Isles, or fail WP:RS
    • Flora of the British Isles doesn't discuss usage at all, so largely irrelevant. Doesn't even state that distribution within the British Isles, but states distribution as "E and S.E. Europe; Asia"
    • Artemisia By Colin W. Wright, 2002 I can't access this now, but previously I did. I think there's no mention of uses specific to the British Isles in this publication, although it goes into a lot of detail on uses within Traditional Chinese Medicine.
    • Llewellyn's 2010 Herbal Almanac discusses uses, but does not attribute them to the "British Isles". Furthermore, the publisher does not appear to meet WP:RS - is essentially a self-published New Age source, described as Llewellyn Publications has grown and expanded into new areas of personal growth and transformation since it began as the Portland School of Astrology in 1901. Along with the strong line of astrology books the company was founded upon, Llewellyn publishes books on everything from alternative health and healing, Wicca and Paganism, to metaphysics and the paranormal-and since 1994 has published a growing list of Spanish-language titles.
      Llewellyn has long been know as one of America's leading publishers of New Age books, producing a wide variety of valuable tools for transformation of the mind, body and spirit. Reach for the Moon-and discover that self-help and spiritual growth is what Llewellyn is all about.       This clearly fails WP:RS.
  • The paragraph was added by an editor solely as an attempt to add "British Isles" to the article. The tactic used was to try to find references that mentioned "British Isles" and "Artemisia vulgaris" together. This resulted in his addition of "British Isles" as a new subsection under "Usage", but TritonRocker failed to find any references dealing with *Usage* in the British Isles, and simply ended up with ended up adding a piece on distribution. Therefore this subsection is is completely unreffed and should be deleted. --HighKing (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Ping! Can some one do whatever needs done, and mark this as {{done}}? I'll archive it after that. Ta! TFOWR 10:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Evolution of the British Empire (Resolved)

Resolved
 – Issue for Talk:Evolution of the British Empire, unless addition/removal of "British Isles" comes into play. TFOWR 11:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if this isn't the right venue - but seeing as this is the group with the largest concentration of "British Isles" expers... and apologies to immediately create an example which I don't believe requires a template... The term "British Isles" doesn't necessarily need to be removed or added from this article, but I believe the paragraph wording is confusing. It states:

  • The "crown dependencies" of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey (the last two are collectively referred to as the "Channel Islands"). These islands, while often considered to be part of the British Isles, have never formed part of the United Kingdom itself, or its predecessor states. At the same time, they have never been considered to be colonies; while the British Government is generally responsible for their defence and foreign relations, each of the territories has its own laws and political institutions. Strictly speaking their relationship is with the British Sovereign alone, rather than the British Government.

Does anyone else see a problem with the wording and the implied meaning behind the usage of "British Isles" here? Again, I emphasize, I'm not requesting a removal. If anyone reckons the article should be templated, I'll do it immediately! --HighKing (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear what problem you are highlighting? I would say that the sentence "while often considered to be part of the British Isles" is wrong - but probably not in the way you feel? I would say it should read "while they are part of the British Isles".... Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
BTW, if the focus of your question is alteration of that sentence, then yes, this needs to be within the usual structure I would have thought. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph as it currently reads implies that the rest of the "British Isles" are (or were) once part of the United Kingdom. It's inaccurate since it fails to take into account the Isle of Man, which is also part of the British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Yes that should be changed.. perhaps to say something like "The "crown dependencies" of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey (the last two are collectively referred to as the "Channel Islands") are the only parts of the British Isles that have never formed part of the United Kingdom itself, or its predecessor states. " BritishWatcher (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
That would be fine. --HighKing (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh I see. Yes. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
This seems resolved? Can I close it out? TFOWR 21:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Fine with me. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
And me --HighKing (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Not trying to be picky, but wasn't the Kingdom of Mann and the Isles a "predecessor state"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought by predecessor states it just meant - Kingdom of England Kingdom of Scotland Kingdom of Ireland, Kingdom of Great Britain and Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I read BW's proposed text as meaning "predecessor states of the UK". Kingdom of Mann and the Isles was a predecessor state of Isle of Man. I'm biased though - I'm just looking for a quick and lazy close for this ;-) TFOWR 09:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
What about something like "The "crown dependencies" of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey have never formed part of the United Kingdom." Is that not simpler? And doesn't it say everything that needs to be said? Fmph (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
No because that would remove British Isles and there is absolutely no justification or need for its removal from that sentence. It is a valid bit of information that they are the only parts not to have formed part of the UK. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Saying that would remove the notability from the sentence. Currently it says (in as many badly ordered words) "Everywhere in X was once part of Y, except for Z". Changing it to "Z was never part of Y" removes part of the information, and is unremarkable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Arab slave trade (Resolved)

Resolved
 – All good. TFOWR 14:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure of this wikilink by BW here, neither do I think that Ireland was every involved in any slave trading, but I may be wrong (could be the same for IoM and CI). Would be interesting to know if the reference mentions Ireland. (Funny enough I'm in Bristol this evening which was probably the capital of the triangular trade). Bjmullan (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

BW's edit was to re-link after this edit, and following on from this discussion. TFOWR 21:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Maybe surprising, but the slave trade described there is not trade in people from Africa captured by folk from these islands and the mainland and traded form here to the Arabs. The slaves being referred to are people from these islands that were stolen form here by Arab raiders. The entire population of the village of Baltimore, County Cork, for example, was taken into slavery in 1631. The Claddagh ring is said to have originated with a man (Richard Joyce from Galway) captured by Arab pirates in 1675 and kept as a slave by an Algerian goldsmith, where he learnt his trade. He is said to have designed the ring on gaining his freedom.
Use of British Isles (and linking it) is fine. --RA (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry guys I did to a quick search but didn't see this thread. Bjmullan (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
No harm, no foul ;-) And I learned something, too, which is always a bonus! TFOWR 21:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:DerBorg (Resolved)

Resolved
 – All good. Consider a new discussion for issues arising. TFOWR 14:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Last one from me :-) Noticed that User_talk:DerBorg has been added the category BI to a couple of articles. I have reverted these edit (with edit notes) and left a message of his talk page (BRD). Hope that was OK? Now I'm off to bed. Bjmullan (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My 2¢ is that it's fine for the few articles I have seen that user add it to. Per the template docs, the heading can be pipe linked on pages where it is objected to. --RA (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Really i've transcluded the template:British Isles and not the same-named category here and here with edit notes (as you can see on the links). I've transcluded them because i've found the 2 articles still listed (not by me) on that navbox. Sorry if I gave problems to the standards of this project but it was a transclusion of template, not of a general category. I hope that this misunderstanding was cleared because in my work I always search to avoid to include articles into too much general categories, searching for specific subcategories. Greetings. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks fine to me - this is the relevant part of the British Isles template:
...I've bolded the two articles that DerBorg added the template to. TFOWR 07:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Not so sure - the Principality of Wales ends before British Isles comes into use (per etymology) so that should probably be removed --Snowded TALK 09:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    • That would be a "Principality of Wales" issue, not a "DerBorg" issue, however. TFOWR 09:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's a Welsh issue, not Derborgian ;-) . Of course, i have still found them listed by others on the template (i have no edits on BI navbox). Reguards. --Dэя-Бøяg 12:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The British Isles is just modern English for Pretannic, Bretannic or Britannic Isles. In the real world its current retrospective use is not limited to its etymological introduction and it passes according to Wikipedia policy and consensus e.g. see, Roman London, Scotland during the Roman Empire etc etc etc. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
That may be your perspective but the authoritative source on etymology places its start with Dee. The fact that you have Latin and Greek terms that can translate into something similar has nothing to do with this. --Snowded TALK 05:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Translating place-names is tricky business. Especially since it's a relative new phenomenon to separate a place-name from the people that live there. The ancients didn't usually name places in a descriptive way - they simply named them after the people living in those places, or copied what those people already called the places. Anyway, what that boils down to is that "Pretannic" was the name of the tribe, not the name of the island. So it was the "Islands of the Pretannic" to mean the islands where the Pretannic dwell. It's a very modern thinking to even rethink that as "The Pretannic Islands" which confers ownership (in the modern English Language). It was only really in Dee's time that the practice of naming places to confer "ownership" became popular, mainly to fuel expansion and colonisation. --HighKing (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Didn't John Dee's resurrection of "British" have something to do with Elizabeth's Welsh ancestry? The good Doctor was, if I remember rightly, "sucking up" to the Faerie Queen (probably in an attempt to get further funding for his "research". I really shouldn't mock 16th century scientific research, but it's too easy...) (Sorry, this is a wee bit off-topic, but Dee is a fascinating character and not exactly the kind of guy I can discuss down the pub... my locals aren't conducive for this kind of conversation). TFOWR 10:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems like Dee had more plots up his sleeve than Shakespeare most of the time. As regards personal interest, many of us Wikipedians suffer from the same paucity of intellectual company prepared to discuss our obsessions I suspect! There's always the John Dee Society [3] for the true devotee. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow! That's brilliant! Most of what I know about John Dee I know through Peter Ackroyd's book, The House of Doctor Dee, which is, obviously, fiction. But truth seems stranger than fiction: I never knew Dee was the reason the Spanish Armada failed (he put a hex on the armada!) TFOWR 19:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that, LOL. Perhaps it should be introduced as a factoid with some undue haste over at John Dee with the flimsiest possible sourcing, naturlich. On a slightly more academic note, the Beeb (with whom I have some slight connection) are currently making a programme for BBC4 about Dee which will be shown I think next Spring, so watch out for that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Branimir Jelić (Resolved)

Resolved
 – There are three separate "British" stages: interception at Gibraltar, internment on the Isle of Man, and release to London. The section "In exile (first decade)" should use the phrase "interned by the British on the Isle of Man". The current heading ("In the United Kingdom") is incorrect; "In the British Isles" would be too. I'd suggest "In exile (second decade)" as it follows on obviously from the previous section. TFOWR 15:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 Done, mostly by rearranging the text rather than replacing British Isles with something else. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The article states During the 1930s Jelić sojourned in South America, Austria again (in mid-1932), Berlin (July 1932 – spring 1934), USA (until October 1934), Italy (until April 1936), Germany (until early 1939), USA (until September 1939) and Gibraltar (October 1939 – June 1940) before being detained on the British Isles. Since he was detained by the British on the Isle of Man, this should read as "Isle of Man on behalf of the British" or something equally clear. --HighKing (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Extended content
I am confused - I thought there was general agreement that the I of M was a typical marker for BI usage? Anyway, the section title that uses "United Kingdom" in that article appears to be wrong. I would accept it being more precise but at the moment, BI is not wrong from the previous discussions we've had on this sort of issue. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The issue is how many of the components you need. If there is no Ireland then there is no case for BI, if Ireland is there then IoM becomes significant. --Snowded TALK 10:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose if it's just IofM then it should probably just say so, although I wouldn't myself object to it saying IofM in the BI - after all, where is the IofM? It isn't in the UK technically, as stated in the article section title. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I would object. We shouldn't use "British Isles" in a context where the subject matter deals with the UK (politics, wars, invasions, etc). There's a difference between "geographical" usage and "misleading geopolitical" usage. --HighKing (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not referring now to the use of BI higher up in the text. At the moment, the article lower down has the section title "In the United Kingdom (1940–1949)" and this goes on to talk about him being in the IofM and London. My point was that this section title is wrong, because it refers to the IofM as well. Therefore it should be changed. This is one of those cases where the blanket ruling "no politics" just doesn't hold water. Where is the IofM if it isn't in the BI? Clearly, if this section is to have a geographical reference in its title, it needs to be BI. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Its in Britain. Ask anyone. How about changing the section title to "In Britain (1940-1949)"? Fmph (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You will also need to change Isle of Man then Fmph, as that (rightly) says in the intro that it's in the BI. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget it's also in the British Islands, an appropriate geo-political term for articles such as these. --HighKing (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunately just not a very well-known one. Wikipedia needs to use common names wherever possible. Even ones that some people find offensive, or argue are offensive to some. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
What's not well-known about it exactly? It's on every British passport for a start.... Also, why exactly are you bringing up an argument about people finding British Isles offensive in response to my post? AFAIK, I have *never* used this argument (and don't personally find it offensive), and I see this as a cheap shot at trying to assign motives to me - something strictly forbidden here. --HighKing (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You know, it'd be nice if, for once, a discussion could be held without dragging it down to those levels. Not pointing fingers, but there's a strong pattern emerging as to the offenders. Hopefully somebody will take note! --HighKing (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't imputing that motive to you, I was referring to the general backdrop of the debate about the use of the term. It clearly states for example in the introduction to British Isles that "many find the term offensive", so this is hardly news. It's also forbidden to persist in trying to make each small statement in a sentence evidence of an attack. When I want to attack you, I will announce it at the ANI page for speed and convenience. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The British Islands is a legal term that is not used very often as a geographical term. Unlike the British Isles. Ive no problem with this one being changed, on the British Isles clearly makes little sense. Whilst "on the isle of man within the British Isles", would be helpful to the reader by giving them a basic idea of where the Isle of man is its not one im fussed about. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles" @ Branimir Jelić

  • Usual arguments. --LevenBoy (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against "British Isles" @ Branimir Jelić

  • It's a too vague alright - particularly since we are talking about activities by states during WWII. "British Isles" could be anywhere - including the Curragh. The article would benefit by being more specific about with the terminology. Suggestion: "...arrested by the United Kingdom and interned on the Isle of Man." --RA (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You can only be "detained" by a government not a geography, agree with RA proposal --Snowded TALK 10:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • As things stand at the moment in the article, agreed. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wictor Esbensen (Resolved)

Resolved
 – Arguments attempting to derive a location from the source are WP:SYNTH. Only one source seems to be on the table, and it summarises the voyage table for us, so synth seems redundant anyway. I'm amazed no one seems to have picked up on this: "As can be seen in the above Voyage Record she was subsequently mostly in service around the U.K." Stick to the source until/unless a different source is found. TFOWR 20:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 Done, replaced with united Kingdom. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Article states that The ship escaped the German invasion of Norway on 9 April 1940, having arrived in Methil on 3 April, and continued in service around the British Isles. The voyage record shows that the ship only travelled around Great Britain (Scotland, Wales and England), and at least once visited France. Ship voyage link here. --HighKing (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Extended content
Wales & England? whatabout Scotland? GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Whoops. And Scotland too (Methil, Fife). --HighKing (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Yep, we should use Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Before I set up a structured discussion, does anyone think "British Isles" would be appropriate here? TFOWR 08:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
British Isles is not incorrect in this case, it does not have to stop off in Ireland to be in service around the British Isles. However i have no problem with this being changed to say Great Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
One thing is, this is a maritime context. I would worry if this is about setting a precedent that says British Isles also cannot be used in maritime contexts where something is about British coastal waters. A second issue (and I hate to go round this yet again, but it still needs clarifying alas) is that there is no such reference in the article. HK has located an additional source (warsailors.com) and now, based on that source, makes an argument against usage in the article. Should we not be reviewing usages in articles as they stand and not encompassing every possible change? Otherwise, what is to stop going out and looking at all such cases and arguing that on the basis of this or that reference not yet in the article, the usage is either merited or demerited? A final, trivial point is that we can't really tell from that reference if it strayed off the British coastal margin and we also haven't made a ruling as to what BI means in the context of coastal waters. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The ref HK mentions is used in the article - last part of the "Career" section. It's not currently used to support "British Isles", however. TFOWR 10:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I certainly agree about this not setting a precedent if changed. British Isles is 100% accurate and acceptable for how it is used in this article. We should not have to always change BI to Great Britain in such cases. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm i just looked at the source linked above and i see it says "source: "Shipwreck Index of the British Isles". BritishWatcher (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The ref is used to support other claims, but not the "British Isles" claim. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be used to support the claim, merely that it (a) is being used at present, and (b) isn't be used for the claim under discussion. TFOWR 10:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, yes, sorry, I didn't see that last entry. I have struck out that comment. So we are just on the detail - eg, are British maritime waters in the British Isles or just in Britain? At times note the ship was on convoy duty and in Norwegian waters - wartime convoys jinked all over the place and followed wierd routes to evade detection - it could easily, for example, have gone around Ireland, not that we know for sure. Indeed, I suspect none of us are experts in wartime convoy movements and ship operations. BI sounds all right in this instance. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
No worries! Since this seems more interesting now than it did an hour three hours ago, I've opened up the structured discussion stuff below. TFOWR 10:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, i am certainly less convinced there needs to be a change since ive seen the stated source, even if its not directly related to its specific use within the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
". British Isles is not accurate and there are more accurate descriptions available such as "Great Britain" or even "North West Europe"- I do not understand this point because the British Isles is in North West Europe. How can British Isles be less accurate than Great Britain and North West Europe? That is like saying we live on Earth and in the Milky Way but not in the Solar system. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for BI @ Wictor Esbensen

  • Source used to describe the locations the ship visited - "Shipwreck Index of the British Isles" so talking about the archipelago instead of just Great Britain makes sense.
  • It is without doubt accurate - A ship can be in service around the British Isles without having to go round every single part of the British Isles.
  • BI was added by an uninvolved editor when expanding it shortly after the article was created a year and a half ago and there has not been a problem with it. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I tend to the view as described above that British territorial waters are part of the British Isles by definition. Movements by sea and things in the seas that surround Britain, including the little fishes and monks afloat in their handmade boats are surely navigating around the BI. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • If we follow HighKing's logic, if the source say BI then it is BI. It is BI. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • When it comes to maritime BI seems the most appropriate term in the majority of cases. Bjmullan (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against BI @ Wictor Esbensen

  • An article that was written 18 months ago doesn't make it correct or untouchable. If it can be improved, that's what WP is all about.
  • The available references make it clear where the ship voyaged. British Isles is not accurate and there are more accurate descriptions available such as "Great Britain" or even "North West Europe". It is WP:OR to use a reference to make an unsupported claim.
  • That said, for 99% of maritime articles, using British Isles is completely accurate. There's many articles on UBoats and other ships where it's clear the usage is accurate. --HighKing (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • As the ship went up through the Irish Sea, then it only went around Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Westward Ho! (Resolved)

Resolved
 – There doesn't seem to be any objection in principle to using "British Isles". Notability here comes the size of the area concerned: if Westward Ho! turned out to the only place in Eurasia with an exclamation mark in its name, we'd use "Eurasia". This, then, hinges on sourcing. If the largest area with a reliable source is the British Isles then use "British Isles". If sources for "British Isles" aren't reliable, then use the next largest area - geographic or political (notability has no regard to the distinction between the two). Arguments about reliable sources can go to WP:RSN. TFOWR 20:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 Done, replaced with united Kingdom. --HighKing (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The article currently states It is the only such place name in the British Isles, although Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!, Quebec, shares the distinction of having an exclamation mark in its name. The relevant area is either "England" or "United Kingdom" or "Europe". --HighKing (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Extended content
If it is (and the claim is unsupported at this time) then I see no reason to change it. Codf1977 (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Unsourced and dubious notability - why not just delete? --Snowded TALK 13:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Have you got a source for that relevant area? I have found sources for only place in the UK (Britain) [4] [5] with an exclamation point, and for British Isles [6] [7] that it is the only place to have punctation and be named after a book in the British Isles. Whether or not these are WP:RS may be debatable, but the fact is out there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) well it has been there since this edit in June 2006 - so think that rather than remove it should be tagged {{citation needed}} Codf1977 (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Clearly it's a more notable claim to be the only such place in Europe than in the BI, but unfortunately I can't find any supporting references for Europe (despite the apparent lack of a counterexample). There are some references that say it's the only such place in Britain, some that say it's the only such place in the British Isles, and one or two less reliable claims that it's the only such place in the world (clearly wrong). waggers (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you list the sources for "British Isles"? I was thinking this was simple "article/reference fix-up" case, rather than a "proper" BI issue. But if there are refs for BI I'll open a structured discussion and you all can argue it out ;-) TFOWR 13:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC) I need to read all the posts, not just the most recent... Chipmunkdavis has already given BI refs... TFOWR 14:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agreed. And it's dead easy to find sources - but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. What's notable about this is the size of the area in which there's only one placename with an exclamation mark, so the bigger the area covered by the source(s) the better (obviously "the world" doesn't work, since we know there's a place in Quebec with an exclamation mark - or two - in its name). I can find "England" easily - but there are wider areas covered. TFOWR 13:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


British Isles should be used unless sources show it is in fact the only place in the whole of Europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried searching for Europe after I found the BI sources above, couldn't find anything. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

References

References for "British Isles"

  • Everythingexmoor - fails WP:RS, the website simply contains information sent in by the people and businesses of Greater Exmoor.
  • Experience Devon - fails WP:RS, it's a holiday-booking itinerary-planning website

References for "England"

References for "Britain"

References for "UK"

References for "the English-speaking world"

Arguments for "British Isles" @ Westward Ho!

  • The notability of this fact is determined by it's geographical range. Therefore the largest range should be used, and the largest so far found is BI Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Between November 2004 to June 2006 it said UK. Since June 2006 it has said British Isles. There is no need to change something that has lasted over 4 years unless evidence is produced showing its the only name in Europe or proving that British Isles is incorrect. . BritishWatcher (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • As per BritishWatcher - there are sources, which I agree are not what could be called reliable, however it has been that way for over 4 years, so it should be kept and tagged {{citation needed}} in the hope that someone can provide a good source. another option is to use one or both of the above sources and tag with {{Verify credibility}} next to them. Codf1977 (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • For me this one underscores the "why delete?" argument - there isn't really a specific problem with saying it's the only one in the BI - it is factually accurate after all - it is also interesting. Similarly there would be no reason why the addition "and Europe" could not be added. There is no good argument in favour of delete basically. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • British Isles due to shared language and culture and history. Ireland would be a very different place is the Armada was successful! Google shows plenty of references. The most acceptable is from The Times which is a newspaper of record. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Article has long standing reference to British Isles (it's stable). It's also NOT WRONG and a well referenced fact. Concentrate on insttances of incorrectness and there'd be a lot less dispute. LemonMonday Talk 16:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against "British Isles" @ Westward Ho!

  • Seeing as this place is only on Great Britain (geographically speaking) & within the United Kingdom (politically speaking)? then there's only 2 usages: Great Britain or United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No WP:RS references for British Isles, therefore WP:OR.
  • Lots of published references for alternatives - I suggest UKEngland as it has the most. --HighKing (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Seems like strange reference point. What is the common link tying place names in the British Isles together that it would be a natural reference for comparing place names? Would United Kingdom or England not be a more normal scope? --RA (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Got to agree with the argument put forward by GD. Bjmullan (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • England or UK or the notable options --Snowded TALK 21:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force/Specific_Examples/Closed7&oldid=1190235066"