Talk:Great Britain and Ireland: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:59, 23 May 2008 editSarah777 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers64,573 edits →This is not a dab page???: c← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:37, 7 December 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,879,760 editsm -redundant class params (2); cleanupTag: AWB
(369 intermediate revisions by 46 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Old XfD multi\| date = ] ]
	{{Oldafdfull
	\| date = ] ]
	\| result = '''keep'''		\| result = '''keep'''
	}}		}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|1=
	{{WikiProject Ireland \|small= \|nested= \|class= stub\|importance= mid\|attention= \|peer-review= \|old-peer-review= \|image-needed= \|needs-infobox=yes }}
			{{WikiProject Disambiguation}}
	{{WPUKgeo\|importance=high\|class=}}
			{{WikiProject Ireland}}
	== "also known as Britain" ==
			{{WikiProject UK geography}}
			}}

			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	The article currently states:
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	<blockquote>
			\|maxarchivesize = 120K
	The state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, also known as Britain
			\|counter = 2
	</blockquote>
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
	I'm not sure that's entirely accurate, but if people can provide references ... I agree that the adjective "British" is normally applied in this way (particularly in terms of nationality, with British passports and British Citizenship). ] 11:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 2
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Talk:Great Britain and Ireland/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{Archives \|search=yes \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=3 \|units=months \|index= }}

			== Or as separate entities... ==
	: I did some poking around, and ] has a reference to the , which, under the ''Britain/UK'' entry says in part "Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." -- ] \| ] 12:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
			{{Archive top\|result={{resolved}}}}
			Can someone explain the logic of this and why it was agreed to include links to the separate entities? Per WP:DAB: 'Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title'. I fail to see how someone looking for the ], ], ] or ] would search 'Great Britain and Ireland', or similar. They wouldn't. I don't care if this was 'agreed after lengthy discussion'. This is a disambiguation page, it is not for clarifying the difference between the UK and Republic of Ireland. We assume the reader already knows what they are looking for. <b>]</b> (] \| ]) 09:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
			:Hmmmm ... methinks its because of the general confusion/ignorance over whether "Ireland" refers to the island or the state. The separate entities section was included after lengthy discussion (some people would call that consensus) because "the phrase" or phrases can be encountered in many different contexts, and making the assumption that "the phrase" refers to a single entity is most often erroneous. In my opinion, the real problem is this dab page (especially if it means leaving out all the possible combinations and meanings). It should be redirected to ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
			::I disagree with that last bit - I think it's right that this is a disambiguation page. But the "separate entities" thing ''is'' a bit odd. I'm wondering if the intention was to include them to try and emphasise that they ''are'' separate entities, or something like that.
			::Anyway, if there is a case for including links to the separate entities perhaps they could be done inline. ] says "Rarely should a bulleted entry have more than one navigable link" so this could be one of those exceptional cases. Something like:
			::{{talkquote\|
			'''Great Britain and Ireland''', '''Ireland and the United Kingdom''' and similar phrases may refer to:
			* ], an archipelago made up of ], ] and a number of smaller islands
			* ], the formal name of the ] from 1801 to 1927
			* ], the relations between the states of ] and the United Kingdom
			}}
			::I'm aware I've broken another guideline in there by pipelinking ]. So that's a suggested compromise but I'm not entirely convinced we need the separate entities linked at all. ]] 12:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

	==~~Proposed merger~~==		===Split?===
			I think the real problem is that we are trying to disambiguate multiple phrases with different meanings on one page. 'United Kingdom' ≠ 'Great Britain' ≠ 'Britain'. Maybe we should define each phrase at it's own page:
	It is currently proposed that this article be merged into ]. Should it not be the other way around? or in the alternative change the name of British Isles to Great Britain and Ireland.
			{{quotation\|'''Britain and Ireland''' may refer to:<br> • ], two islands off the north-western coat of continental Europe.<br> • ], two sovereign states off the north-western coat of continental Europe<br>       • ], the relations between the states of Ireland and the United Kingdom<br> • ], an archipelago made up of Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands<br> • ], the formal name of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1927}}{{quotation\|'''Great Britain and Ireland''' are two islands off the north-western coat of continental Europe.<br>'''Great Britain and Ireland''' may also refer to:<br> • ], an archipelago made up of Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands<br> • ], two sovereign states off the north-western coat of continental Europe<br>       • ], the relations between the states of Ireland and the United Kingdom<br> • ], the formal name of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1927}}{{quotation\|The '''United Kingdom and Ireland''' are two sovereign states off the north-western coat of continental Europe.<br>'''United Kingdom and Ireland''' may also refer to either:<br> • ], an archipelago made up of Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands<br> • ], the relations between the states of Ireland and the United Kingdom}}
	] 19:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
			:<small>Please note, the order of the terms 'United Kingdom' and 'Ireland' can be changed per an agreed criteria (alphabetical, population size, common usage, etc), but it's not important right now.</small>
	:(long overdue response?) Personally, I'd prefer this article be given an AfD. But, I suppose the anti-British Isles folk, need their own article. ] (]) 20:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
			This way we are actually defining the terms clearly, and in line with MOS, as oppose to trying to summarise the differences between the terms, in a format simply not designed to do so. I agree with High King, if we want these phrases to redirect to a page explaining there differences, then why not redirect to ] where this done effectively? Otherwise, we need to disambiguate (and therefore define) each phrase individually.<br>
			<b>]</b> (] \| ]) 14:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
			::Thinking about this, I still believe that a dab page is simply the wrong idea for what this page is trying to do. I mean, is "Great Britain and Ireland" an entity (today)? Or was it a common phrase when there was a "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" that has since fallen into disuse? Today, in my opinion (i.e. not a shred of real evidence :-) the phrase is used to refer to two separate entities. Thinking it over, I believe the page should simple be redirected to a section in the "Terminology of the British Isles". ]<sup>]</sup> 20:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
			:::I think redirecting ] and ] to ] is something we should consider. However, I strongly believe ] should have it's own disambiguation page. It is a phrase with clear meaning and can easily be disambiguated. Redirecting users who are most certainly either looking for UK–Ireland relations or the British Isles to here, or Terminology of the British Isles, is not helpful. <b>]</b> (] \| ]) 21:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
			:::I'm going to start a split proposal below for this. <b>]</b> (] \| ]) 22:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
			::::If we think that users are typing "Great Britain and Ireland" when they mean to search for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" I don't see the logic in redirecting them to ] instead of ]. If, on the other hand, we think they might possibly mean something else, then a disambiguation page is exactly the right solution.
			::::I can kind of see the logic in splitting the disambiguation page into separate disambiguation pages as ] proposes, but I'm also aware we've only recently merged various redirects and disambiguation pages into this page. I'm keen that we don't endlessly fluctuate between these two states like some kind of slow motion edit war. ]] 11:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
			{{Archive bottom}}
			==Split proposal==
			{{Archive top\|result={{Stale}}\|status=none}}
			I think we should create a new disambiguation page at ].<br>
			'Britain and Ireland', and 'Great Britain and Ireland' are highly ambiguous as they refer to either the states or the islands, while 'United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland' clearly refers to the states. We can further refine what the reader is looking by spiting this page:
			{{quotation\|'''Great Britain and Ireland''' may refer to:<br> • ] and ], two islands off the north-western coat of continental Europe<br> • ] and ], two sovereign states off the north-western coat of continental Europe<br>       • ], the relations between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom<br> • ], an archipelago made up of Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands<br> • ], the formal name of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1927}}{{quotation\|The '''] and ]''' are two sovereign states off the north-western coat of continental Europe.<br>'''United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland''' may also refer to either:<br> • ], an archipelago made up of Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands<br> • ], the relations between the states of Ireland and the United Kingdom}}
			Anything with either 'Republic of Ireland' or 'United Kingdom', can be redirected to ] as the reader is clearly referring to the states, not the islands. For example, 'United Kingdom and Ireland', or 'Republic of Ireland and Britain'.<br>
			<b>]</b> (] \| ]) 22:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
			:I understand your thinking. I'm not a big fan of one big dab page tbh. Am I right in summarizing that where a term exists that is unambiguous, then locate the dab there instead? There's a nugget in this proposal - just trying to unearth it. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
			::I don't understand what you're asking. Please elaborate. <b>]</b> (] \| ]) 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
			*I oppose a split. It isn't that long ago that we merged various heavily overlapping pages into one place to avoid duplication of effort and confusion about what should and shouldn't be on each page. Yes the states and geographical entities are different, but the terms people use to refer to them are overlapping, inconsistent and precise. There is no benefit (indeed quite the opposite) from people having to visit more than one disambiguation page and no benefit from having duplicative disambigs. I'm not even really clear about what problem splitting will be able to solve that can't be done on one page? ] (]) 22:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
			::It's as simply as 'United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland' ≠'Great Britain and Ireland'. Why should these be disambiguated on one page? Simply because the topics are similar? Splitting refines what the reader is looking for and therefore reduces confusion. We can give some readers a more refined set of results if we split the article. Why not? Duplication doesn't cause any problems. <b>]</b> (] \| ]) 22:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
			:::People use all terms to refer to either geographical and political entities, so refining what people are looking for is not possible. ] (]) 10:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
			::::] is right. The point of a dab page is not to punish readers for typing the wrong thing ("You might mean x or y but you shouldn't use this phrase to mean z so we're not going to link to that from here"). When someone types "Britain and Ireland" they could mean the islands, they could mean the states (past or present), they could mean the terminology... it makes perfect sense to list all those options in one place and let the reader make an informed choice. ]] 11:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
			:::::'People use all terms to refer to either geographical and political entities'. That's simply not true. 'Great Britain', 'Britain' and 'Ireland' are used to refer to either geographical and political entities, but 'United Kingdom' and 'Republic of Ireland' are only used to refer to the political entities. This split only refines what readers making search queries with either 'United Kingdom' or 'Republic of Ireland' are looking for. When a reader searches either of those terms, they are clearly not looking for the islands, so why take them to a page which disambiguates the names of used to refer to the islands? <b>]</b> (] \| ]) 12:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
			::::::Is there any evidence that (many) readers are searching for 'United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland'? I'm fairly sure such a dab page would be largely redundant, as it's not a popular search term. So what's being suggested isn't a split, it's essentially making the political entities a sub-dab-page of this one. It means readers would have to click on two links instead of one to get to the article they're looking for, and we'd have two dab pages to maintain instead of one, for no discernible benefit for either party. ]] 13:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
			:::::::I don't see how readers would ever have to click two links instead of one... I have no idea where you have got that idea from. And no, I doubt many readers are searching precisely 'United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland'. But that isn't the only query which is obviously referring to the states (and hence would be redirect to the new page):
			:::::::*]
			:::::::*]
			:::::::*]
			:::::::*]
			:::::::*]
			:::::::And so on...
			:::::::There are many search queries that are clearly only referring to the states. We can provide a refined set of results for readers searching these terms. Maintaining an additional disambiguation page in order to provide some readers with a more refined set of results is surely worthwhile? In my opinion, this page is confusing. Maybe it has to exist, but it's confusing. And if we can redirect some readers to a more refined set of results, which wont be so confusing, then I think we should.
			:::::::I rarely support splitting pages like this. I think it's nonsensical that ] and ] are separate pages (and I will probably propose a merge soon). But in this case, I really think we could benefit some readers by spiting the page.
			:::::::I know, I'm repeating myself, I'm sorry. But from your replies, it's clear that you don't realise, or agree with, the benefits of this proposal.
			:::::::<b>]</b> (] \| ]) 14:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
			{{outdent}} Apologies, I misunderstood the proposal - I thought you were trying to separate the disambiguated items into geographical and political entities, so that someone searching for something that could be either (such as 'Britain and Ireland') would only be served one set of 'results'. I'm still not convinced the status quo is broken and needs fixing though. ]] 12:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
			===Arbitrary break===
			Generally, I don't think a few irrelevant entries causes any inconvenience for a reader. However, I think this page specifically potentially confuses readers because, unlike most disambiguation pages, the terms being disambiguated are not synonymous, and it's not clear as to which terms are being disambiguated to which entries.<br>
			For example, if a reader were to search: 'Britain and the Republic of Ireland' and then read 'Great Britain and Ireland, two islands off the north-western coat of continental Europe', they may interpret the page as implying that 'Britain and the Republic of Ireland' may refer to 'two islands off the north-western coat of continental Europe'.<br>
			In essence, I think the split will ensure both disambiguation pages are only disambiguating terms which may refer to all entries on the page, and therefore, to some extent, improving clarity. It also improves presentational consistency as I'm not aware of any other pages disambiguating two or more terms that aren't synonymous.<br>
			<b>]</b> (] \| ]) 20:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
			: I think I understand where you're coming from now, but the word "synonymous" is the wrong word to be using. Disambiguation pages exist to differentiate between the different meanings of the same (or similar) phrases. By definition the contents of disambiguation pages won't be synonymous - that's the whole point of them! I think the word you mean is - in other words, talking about "Great Britain" when the user has searched for "United Kingdom" is misleading. I think I agree with that for the most part - although there are still people who .
			: The page already deals with this though with the first sentence - "Great Britain and Ireland, Ireland and the United Kingdom and similar phrases may refer to:" makes it clear the list is not just about 'Britain and the Republic of Ireland' or any other specific phrase, but a host of similar phrases. ]] 10:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
			::It makes clear that the list is not just about one specific term, but it still doesn't make clear which terms refer to which entries. It would be clearer to some extent to split the page right? <b>]</b> (] \| ]) 11:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
			:::But on the other hand, the explanations for the different terms is already provided at "Terminology of the British Isles"... and that is the reason why I believe this page should really link there. But. Rob makes a good point in that some of the phrases are unambiguous (such as UK and ROI) and perhaps there's a case to be made for unambiguous terms to not point to the terminology page. But right now, I still haven't heard anything that makes me think we need this page to provide explanations that are already provided somewhere else. Thoughts? ]<sup>]</sup> 17:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
			::::One issue at time HighKing. We should establish a consensus on this slit proposal before considering redirecting the page. Also, if this is split, then I think you would have a stronger argument for redirecting the page to ]. <b>]</b> (] \| ]) 20:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
			:::::Sorry I wasn't clear previously. I agree that some terms are unambiguous, and therefore don't need a dab page, and therefore should have their own page(s). Is that what is being proposed? The other terms we can deal with later. Is it possible to list the search terms that are unambiguous? For example, what are your thoughts on someone searching for "United Kingdom and Ireland"? ]<sup>]</sup> 16:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
			::::::Maybe we should go through some case-by-case examples as clearly there won't be a one-size-fits-all solution for all search terms related to this topic. I disagree that a simple redirect to the terminology example is going to work in the majority of cases. If someone searches for "United Kingdom and Ireland" they ''might'' be interested in the terminology but I think it more likely that they would be looking for ], with ] a distant third. Because of that uncertainty, a disambiguation page makes sense; the alternative would be a redirect to ] with a {{t1\|Redirect}} hatnote but given the number of terms that could redirect there I think that would be too messy.
			::::::If someone searches for "United Kingdom and Ireland" I agree with Rob that it's unlikely (but not impossible) that they really mean ], and almost certain that they don't mean ] and/or ]. But I'm not convinced that warrants creating a separate DAB page for a term that's very rarely searched for:
			:::::::{\| class="wikitable"
			\|-
			! Month !! Searches for "United Kingdom and Ireland"
			\|-
			\| August 2013 \|\| 16
			\|-
			\| September 2013 \|\| 31
			\|-
			\| October 2013 \|\| 24
			\|-
			\| November 2013 \|\| 15
			\|-
			\| December 2013 \|\| 15
			\|-
			\| January 2014 \|\| 13
			\|-
			\| February 2014 \|\| 18
			\|-
			\| March 2014 \|\| 18
			\|-
			\| April 2014 \|\| 30
			\|-
			\| May 2014 \|\| 24
			\|-
			\| June 2014 \|\| 17
			\|-
			\| July 2014 \|\| 21
			\|}
			::::::Those figures are of course artificially high in some months because of the likes of us doing the search when it's under discussion! ]] 08:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			:::::::You need to take into account all the terms that could be redirect to the separate disambiguation page. Not just 'United Kingdom and Ireland':
			:::::::*'Ireland and the United kingdom'
			:::::::*'Republic of Ireland and Britain'
			:::::::*'UK and Ireland'
			:::::::And so on...
			:::::::Also, the only term on this page which would mislead readers searching for the states is 'Great Britain and Ireland'. All the others could be included on the new disambiguation page without causing any confusion. We don't have to excluded 'British Isles'.
			:::::::<b>]</b> (] \| ]) 13:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
			{{Archive bottom}}

			== "Ireland and the United Kingdom" ==
	:It survived an AfD already, but shouldn't be deleted or merged as it is a ligitimate dab page for either ] or ]. Normally a "dab" page wouldn't have any "content" such as this one and in principle I wouldn't oppose stripping it down to being just a dab page, but I see that that was one of it's charms during the AfD. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
			{{Archive top\|result={{Done}}}}
	::Okie Dokie. ] (]) 23:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
			Moving on from the discussion above, I think ] is the ] of this phrase. I propose we redirect all phrases including the terms "Republic of Ireland" and/or "United Kingdom" to ]. Thoughts? ] (]) 18:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
			:{{noredirect\|Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland}}
			:{{noredirect\|United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland}}
			:{{noredirect\|Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland}}
			:{{noredirect\|United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland}}
			:{{noredirect\|Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom}}
			:{{noredirect\|United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland}}
			:{{noredirect\|Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom}}
			:{{noredirect\|United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland}}
			:{{noredirect\|Republic of Ireland and UK}}
			:{{noredirect\|UK and Republic of Ireland}}
			:{{noredirect\|Republic of Ireland and the UK}}
			:{{noredirect\|UK and the Republic of Ireland}}
			:{{noredirect\|Ireland and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland}}
			:{{noredirect\|United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ireland}}
			:{{noredirect\|Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland}}
			:{{noredirect\|United Kingdom and Ireland}}
			:{{noredirect\|Ireland and United Kingdom}}
			:{{noredirect\|Ireland and the United Kingdom}}
			:{{noredirect\|Ireland and UK}}
			:{{noredirect\|UK and Ireland}}
			:{{noredirect\|Ireland and the UK}}
			:{{noredirect\|Britain and Republic of Ireland}}
			:{{noredirect\|Republic of Ireland and Britain}}
			:{{noredirect\|Britain and the Republic of Ireland}}
			:{{noredirect\|Great Britain and Republic of Ireland}}
			:{{noredirect\|Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland}}
			:{{noredirect\|Republic of Ireland and Great Britain}}
			:Anybody object to redirecting these terms to ] per ]?
			:] (]) 19:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

			::This seems to make sense. The fact that the two states are linked to in the first sentence of that article means that if someone ''wasn't'' looking for that topic, they'd still have a link to their topic of interest right there. ]] 12:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
	==Article creation==
	I have changed this from a dab page to a stand-alone geographical article. This article (a work in progress) refers to the '''geographical''' archipelago of Great Britain and Ireland and surrounding smaller islands. Being solely geographical it excludes the islands off the coast of France known in English as "the Channel Islands" and also, more debatably, Rockall. ] (]) 01:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:We should take these things slowy, Sarah. Wait & see what happens at ]. -- ] (]) 18:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

			:::{{Done}}. ] (]) 18:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
	== Redirect ==
			{{Archive bottom}}
			== Requested move ==
			<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
			:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

			The result of the move request was: '''no consensus''' to move the page. Note that this is a navigational page; as Newyorkbrad brought up in the deletion discussion so long ago, "The page briefly and usefully discusses use of the ''term'' 'Great Britain and Ireland.'" While there is some dispute here as to whether this is a common or accurate term, the disambiguation page is working as intended by presenting all possible targets, and the discussion below shows no consensus to move at this time. ]<small>]</small> 15:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
	I've set this article as a redirect. Most of the content is repeated at ] and the rest is just an excuse for a political rant by the group of users who don't like using British Isles. ] (]) 10:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	: I have reverted this blatant '''VANDALISM'' by this IP. We ''really'' need to do something about these sockpuppets. Can someone do a Usercheck on this IP please? ] (]) 11:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:: No not blatant vandalism. I'm just trying to eliminate duplicate material. What is the purpose of this article? What will be in this article that will not also be in ]? Answer: Nothing. This article is just a device to facilitate the ultimate removal of the British Isles article. In time, if this article survives, it will be a near mirror of BI, and then - oh yes, why don't we merge them, and what should we call the merged article? Oh, how about Britain and Ireland? If that is your objective then please say so, or deny it. In which case I again ask the question, what will be in this article that won't be in British Isles? Misplaced Pages is here to convey information, not to act as a vehicle for a political point-of-view. As for requesting CheckUser - what, because I've made a redirect and then done one revert? Look at the policy and you'll see it's a last resort for dealing with difficult cases. This IS NOT a difficult case, it's a controversial one. I find your approach to numerous admins, including one that you might consider to have "Irish" sympathies, to be quite distasteful. Fishing expeditions are not allowed! ] (]) 17:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::At ], I said it would be acceptable (if ] wasn't breached), to have this article while making the BI article 'historical'. Until that ''idea'' is accepted, perhaps this article should remain a 're-direct'. We've got to take these things, one step at a time, folks. ] (]) 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::I concur. It should be a re-direct. I don't see any article called "USA and Canada", although there is an ] article; it re-directs to Australasia. This article is of no use whatsoever. If not a re-direct then it should be flagged for deletion again. Could someone do that, failing agreement on a re-direct. ] (]) 19:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Absolutely not. Until I started to expand this article it was ignored. And it '''was not''' a simple redirect when I found it. ] (]) 21:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::And IP, your view of my attitude (or anything else) is of no interest to me - I have no regard for folk who hide behind IPs in order to push an agenda. Calling for Admin assistance to deal with vandalism is not "trawling"; on the other hand, what you have said above, is trawling. ] (]) 21:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	:You mean ''trolling'', of course. ] (]) 21:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Well, no, I actually meant 'trawling'! But maybe trolling as well! ] (]) 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

			----
	:::Redirect. This article is pointless. We might as well have an article called "Denmark, Sweden and Norway" as well as ]. Furthermore, since I suspect the anti-BI brigade will continue to wage a war of linguistic attrition no matter how long it takes, I'll ask them a simple question: What would you like to call the British Isles when Scotland becomes independent? ] (]) 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

	::::Incorrect. This is a purely Geographical article; unlike "British Isles" which by inclusion of the Channel islands manifestly isn't. If (hypothetically) the Scots ever mustered the courage (unlikely) to declare independence they would still be on the island of "Great Britain". If they decided they weren't then in that far distant hypothetical situation we could change the name to whatever was appropriate at the time. ] (]) 00:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

	'''Redirect''' - its a POV fork. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

	::::The "usual suspects" pushing British pov are noted. And I think Bastun your comments on another editor's reference to "British genocide" fairly nailed your colours to the mast! ] (]) 23:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

	:::::It's clearly a POV fork. Just as there is clearly a campaign to remove the phrase 'British Isles' from Misplaced Pages, although if you say so you get threatened, called a vandal, etc. I'm an American with more Irish and Scottish in me than English, and I can see where in some cases it can be a sensitive issue, but this wholesale attempt to eradicate a phrase is ridiculous.--] (]) 14:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Truse me 'British Isles' ''won't'' be eradicated from Misplaced Pages. The term (at the very least) is historical. ] (]) 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Seems to me that what is being discussed here is the eradication of the term "Great Britain and Ireland" from Wiki. An act of unacceptable intolerance that may well be provoking a "counter-offensive". (Which, personally would discourage). ] (]) 04:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

	===Protection?===
	Will I have to request 'page protection', to curb the edit warring? ] (]) 00:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Heck, this is just the '''stub'''; much work remains to be done. ] (]) 00:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	I just don't wanna see the article getting 'roughed up' & editors getting blocked. ] (]) 00:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
	::So long as it ain't me being blocked I can live with it! ] (]) 00:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

	==Wrongly named==

	If this article is called Great Britain and Ireland, why does it state in the introduction that it's actually about all the surrounding islands as well, and then go on to list them? ] (]) 14:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:I'm growing concerned about this article. Having this & the ] article? only adds to the confusion over which term to use throughout Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

	::Let's ask Bardcom and Sarah777 what they think. It would be nice to know (seriously) clearly what their opinions are. When which terms should be used where. And none of this 'when justified'.--] (]) 15:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::In the hope that you genuinely are interested.... You are familiar with the RfC? If not, it articulates my views well. You can read the Talk page on British Isles - at this point in time, the top article also contains my views over the usage in a wide variety of subject. Or check my edit history (everyone else seems to) and read the edit summaries or the discussions on the Talk page. If you still can't figure it out, I'd welcome your questions at my Talk page. Reminds me, when does the RfC conclude, because I think that both Tb and Batsun were starting to put together a proposal which was potentially a great idea.... --] (]) 21:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

	:::Britain and Ireland is the common name for the islands of Great Btitain, Ireland and surrounding islands; purely geographically. If "Channel Islands" (geographically part of France) are included the area becomes what Wiki calls the "British Isles". If someone in Dublin uses the term "Britain and Ireland" there is no implication that the Hebrides or Isle of Man or Ireland's Eye are excluded - it being purely geographical; unlike the geo-political term "BI" which refers to a different set of islands. The list helps to explain this to the reader, so I think it is helpful. ] (]) 04:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

	::::You haven't answered my question, when is it appropriate to use the term 'British Isles' (which is not a Wiki phrase). Britain and Ireland mean to me the 2 islands, nothing else. Dubliners may be different but I think most readers would not think of 'Britain and Ireland' as including the Orkneys, etc.--] (]) 06:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

	::::"Britain and Ireland is the common name for the islands of Great Btitain, Ireland and surrounding islands; purely geographically." No, it isn't. Well, ''possibly'' on the island of Ireland, it is. But not worldwide. "British Isles" still is. ] applies, and this is just a PoV fork. This article should be deleted. Or possibly left as a disambig page with links to "British Isles" and its forks and the BI-related articles such as ], etc. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
	:I must admit, seeing the term '''British Isles''' mentioned in this article? is quite a surprise. ] (]) 18:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Huh? --] (]) 23:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Just kidding (couldn't help myself, with all the recent BI usage disputes). ] (]) 00:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

	==]==
	what an ''idiotic'' dispute. The article on the archipelago is at ]. If you don't like that status quo, propose a {{tl\|move}}, basing your rationale on ], don't create spin-off articles. ] <small>]</small> 11:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Can this not be flagged for deletion or speedy deletion - whichever it is? ] (]) 13:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

	::Of course not. The article titled the "British Isles" is about a geo-political entity; this article is purely geographical. ] (]) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::The current consensus is that "British Isles" is purely a geographical term - or has the consensus changed recently? --] (]) 23:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

	== New merge proposal ==

	Propose this is merged to ] = which is already better referenced. This article is unreferenced and contains nothing that isn't in ''that'' article. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
	: Contrived proposal; yet another attempt to assert an imaginary acceptance of the term "British Isles" and deny the widespread and consistent objections in Ireland to that most rabidly British nationalist of terms. ] (]) 03:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Not very impressive coming from an SPA with an IP address. 'British Isles' is the common name in America and worldwide.--] (]) 06:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
	::: Oddly enough, the views of a bunch of clearly undereducated Yanks and assorted anglophiles on ] are so completely irrelevant that it doesn't bear thinking. This is the people whose "common name" for the ] has been "Indians" for centuries. By your "British Isles" logic, we should name the wikipedia article "Indians". ] (]) 09:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

	::'''Oppose:''' <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] \| ] </span></small> 10:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::'''Comment'''. This is not a !vote. Care to provide a reason? ]<sup>]</sup> 10:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

	'''Merge''' as per nom - this is a redundant article which serves no purpose. (as an aside, it doesn't matter if an editor doesn't like Americans, the English, or whoever, Misplaced Pages guidelines on 'common names' don't take personal feelings into account, or even education - and most Native Americans still prefer the term 'Indian').--] (]) 11:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

	'''Merge''' as per nom - also, this article may intensify disputes over BI usage on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 14:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

	::: Yes, GoodDay, we must keep those rebel Irish in their place, mustn't we. ] (]) 20:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Boring. ] (]) 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
	:: But entirely accurate. ] (]) 21:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

	'''Merge''' there's nothing in this article that isn't elsewhere. ] (]) 15:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

	'''Merge''' What is the point of this? Just an excuse not to use ]. ] (]) 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

	'''Merge''' content yes (they clearly overlap), but '''Redirect''' the name to ]. 'Britain and Ireland' isn't notable in the way 'British Isles' is: people don't make TV programmes called "Britain and Ireland". The British Isles article should cover alternate names and have a 'name controversy' section - that way 'Britain and Ireland' as an alternate name can be covered there. I personally don't favour the 'dispute' fork - this should redirected to the main article only (but prior to that could be redirected to the fork if consensus required it). I think merging with ] is missing the intention of this article, which is to compete with the "]" article. We need to meet that face-on, merge the information per the proposal, but redirect to ]. --] (]) 22:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Redirect to ]''' - there's no content here to merge (ie. nothing here that isn't already in the suggested target articles). ] (]) 12:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' because there's a (technical) problem with the current ''British Isles'' article. The consensus is that the term "British Isles" is a geographical term, and is a term to describe the archipelago of islands, etc, etc. If that is true, then the Channel Islands should not be included in the article. Also, the article swerves suddenly into a history section that talks about the states (and the arguments start, etc) - if it was truly a geographical term and article, this should not be here. This article avoids the mistakes of including the Channel Islands, the the political content of "British Isles". --] (]) 13:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

	'''Merge''' The content of this article is almost a word-for-word copy of material in other articles. There is no useful purpose served by it. ] (]) 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

	'''Oppose''' - for all the reasons stated previously. Is this the third re-wording of the same motion? ] (]) 20:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

	'''Oppose''' - because the proposal is not clear due to ] being in place. As there is a diff between BI and GB&I, there needs to be something here. A list of islands is a bad idea. A dab page is a good idea. ] (]) 11:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	'''Merge''' content and '''redirect''' to ]. Pointless article. -] \| ] 11:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	'''Merge''' and '''redirect''' article serves no purpose at all. ] (]) 14:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	'''Redirect''' to ]. That is clearly where this content belongs per several above.] (]) 18:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	'''Merge''' content ] and '''Redirect''' to ]. Page is a clear POV fork, and even if it weren't it contains no information that is not dealt with elsewhere. — ] (]) 23:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	===Naming dispute - questions===
	I'm sure I have been told elsewhere that the term Great Britain and Ireland is generally assumed '''not''' to include Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Is that the general consensus? Personally I never make that distinction but in some of the more vitriolic arguments, I'm sure I have been told that the wiki consensus was that BI covers Britain, Ireland, IoM and CI (+ Rockall, if necessary). If that is so, then surely it makes no sense to merge this article back into BI? Or am I missing something? ] (]) 06:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

	:The article is to be merged back into ] (which is identical anyway) and ideally redirected to ]. The ] are not part of the UK, but are "traditionally" part of the British Isles (according the the ] article - obviously they are closer to France and part of the landmass of Europe). The ] and ] are clearly part of the British Isles! --] (]) 17:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

	::Things which are different Matt, are, by definition, not identical. ] (]) 20:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

	:::What is different about it that isn't there to avoid consensus somewhere else? It is against Misplaced Pages policy. The basic information is covered elsewhere.--] (]) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::Perhaps it shouldn't be elsewhere, but '''should'' be here. WP is a dynamic encyclopaedia that anyone can (and should edit). Stuff can be moved, edited and added. There is a real problem here as the article keeps changing from to . My questions were posed (and are relevant to) the version, whilst it seems the merge is pointed fair and square at the list-of-islands version. TBH, I have very little sympathy with the list version (sorry Sarah), whereas I am passionate that because there is a notable difference between BI and GB&I (or B&I), then that needs to be reflected in separate articles. And that is not the naming dispute article, which could quite easily be lost IMHO. ] (]) 09:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	===Close Debate===
	Maybe we can close this debate now. As it the stands, the article is a disambiguation page, which seems to make a lot of sense. Anyone want to oppose maintaining the current status? ] (]) 12:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

			] → {{no redirect\|Britain and Ireland}} – <br>In academic use, "Great Britain" refers solely to the island, while "Britain" may refer to either the island or the state.<br>Therefore, in academic use, "Great Britain and Ireland" refers only to the islands.<br>This article shows uses of phrases which refer to both the islands, and the states. Therefore I think "Britain and Ireland" is a more appropriate title.<br> ] (]) 19:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	:Looks fine - a good compromise (but need to get the "British Isles naming dispute" back into the British Isles article, where it surely belongs.) --] (])
			*'''Strong support''' as per official and, as a resident of our little land, the sooner we stop advertising ourselves as "Great" the better. ] ] 23:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

			*'''Oppose''' and suggest re-ordering of the current list. The most obvious use-case for this - in fact I'm surprised this title doesn't redirect there already - is ]. Which, well, has "Great Britain" in the title. And should probably be 1st on the list. Nom's argument seems wrong to me - as stated above, this phrase usually refers to the historical state to my knowledge, so the claim it refers "only to the islands" is off. (And the backup argument for this move is apparently that Britain really isn't that great, which, uh, no comment). ] (]) 00:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Not sure I understand what is meant by maintaining the current status - the current status is that two articles exist, fulfilling a related and overlapping, but different, role. I don't think anybody has yet addressed the issue that the article "British Isles" currently includes the Isle of Man and that the article also includes lots of non-essential political historic stuff. A merge only makes sense if the current article on "British Isles" is overhauled so that it mainly discusses the geographical land masses (and can gently point out the anomoly of the Isle of Man), and the political/historical sections moved to their own or other articles. If there is a consensus for these suggestions, I would support a merge. Otherwise, this article is fulfilling a unique and different role, and is therefore a valid article and shouldn't be merged. --] (]) 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
			::I'm not sure why that matters? There's no primary topic here so we should treat every topic equally. All the topics on this page (including ]) may be referred to as "Britain and Ireland". This is not the case for "Great Britain and Ireland". ] (]) 00:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

			::And if you want to redirect ] to ] per ], then this pages needs to be moved to a different title. ] (]) 00:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::"Therefore a valid article"? Absolutely not! Misplaced Pages does not support 'forks' simply because you cannot get what you want in the main article! You have simply given another reason for deleting this one. When was the ] not part of the British Isles, anyway? You would simply have to change it in the ] article first, as it states clearly that it is in the British Isles. --] (]) 18:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
			:::It would be acceptable for me to move this disambig page to "Britain and Ireland" and redirect this directly to ], yes. But I'd be opposed to having Great Britain and Ireland be a redirect to Britain & Ireland. ] (]) 18:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

			::::Why? ] (]) 19:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::Bardcom, by current status I meant the current status of this article, that is, as a disambiguation page. The consensus was to merge, but since there's actually nothing to merge, the current status as a disambiguation page is probably acceptable. One thing is certain; the article as it was, consisting entirely of duplicate material, was not acceptable. Let's give it another 24 hrs then close this off. ] (]) 19:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
			::::And I oppose redirecting "{{noredirect\|Great Britain and Ireland}}" to ]. Most sources using the phrase are referring to the two islands geography, so "British Isles" is a likely topic. ] (]) 20:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

	:::::Close it by all means - so long as the result is '''"don't merge"'''. And even looking at the count (excluding socks/IPs) 4 'merge' and 3 'oppose' isn't consensus. Do not vandalise this article again please. ] (]) 20:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::edit conflict What on earth are you talking about? Not that it's a vote here, but the count is 7:3 in favour of merge. The IPs count the same as anyone else as far as I understand it. ] (]) 20:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

	::'''No they do not'''. Not is a topic area that is infested with socks (on both sides). ] (]) 23:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

	:::the sock monsters round here have six left feet to every right one (and I'm not talking wings, I'm talking feet). --] (]) 01:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	::::::I like the disambiguation page, which I see ] reverted (temporarily). That seems the best compromise.--] (]) 20:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
	<s>:If I didn't know any better? I'd suspect this article existed ''because'' of what its name is (or more importantly, what it isn't). But again, I know better. ] (]) 20:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)<s>
	:I'm behind the times, folks. I hadn't noticed the article was changed to a disambiguous page (until now). ] (]) 21:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

	::I have restored the status quo while discussion is ongoing. Any further reverts will constitute ] ] (]) 23:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

	:::No 24-hour deadlines this time, Sarah? Odd, that. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Jumpin' Junipers, I'm getting dizzy. ] (]) 23:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
	::What is odd about it? ] (]) 00:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	There is not a consensus on this issue (yet) as far as I can see. I've asked some very reasonable questions which have yet to be addressed, and I've suggested that the existing article is overhauled to reflect the geographical nature of the term - by removing the political/historical sections from the main "British Isles" article (no probs moving to their own articles if appropriate). This article is not currently a fork, given that it is not duplicating the "British Isles" article. I've no problem merging so that only one article exists, but only when we have an agreement on a geographical article. --] (]) 00:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	:Who are you to make all those cross-article demands? ''This'' article is simply a fork. --] (]) 01:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	The usual bullying and ] here: accusations of "vandalism", followed by ] (ie insisting that discussion is "ongoing", making unreasonable demands, claiming their edit represents the "status quo" etc). Don't be afraid to make a revert people - you have to get involved to show you mean business. Otherwise the page will just stay and the game will go on forever. Before I'm admonished for encouraging people to edit war - all I'm saying is that there ''is'' strength in numbers in Misplaced Pages, and the most 'courage' in this debate (if you can call it 'courage') has been shown by the people who are dedicated to the 'anti-British Isles cause' (and they rarely if ever follow WP policy). If people are afraid to revert in these cases they simply never change. Nobody has to 'war' - there seems to be a big 'thing' on Misplaced Pages against reverting these days (1R warnings, threats of locking etc) - and some partisan editors are simply thriving on the fact that so many editors are afraid to revert them. Boy I feel better for saying that!--] (]) 01:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	:You are absolutely right about strength in numbers Matt - thanks for being so honest and explicit, it is refreshing. I was only pointing out on another page that British pov is poisoning Wiki not because of any 'rules', 'verifiability', right or wrong - but simply because there are sufficient British editors to impose British pov. You clarion call to your compatriots says all there is to say on this! ] (]) 01:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
	::The point I was making of course, was that the odd dedicated few can control so much though playing a variety of 'gaming' tactics. The clarion call was to common sense, but thanks for making me sound so valiant. --] (]) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::Hey! You're in a large tribe - why wouldn't you be valiant? ] (]) 02:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	@Sarah: Once '''again''' - stop insisting you speak for all Irish editors. You don't. And stop assuming all British editors think the same - they don't.

	@Bardcom: Whether this article is a PoV fork of ] is debatable. Its abundantly clear, though, that its a content fork of ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	:::''Wow! In one sentence you manage to accuse me of TWO things I haven't done. You really should read the lines rather than the space between them - you might learn something.'' ] (]) 14:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	I've reverted the article back to the disambiguation version. Anyone who doesn't like it should take it to whatever arbitration facility is available in cases such as these. The remark that the IP comments don't count is nothing short of astounding. Sarah777, your vitriolic approach to this matter does not help anyone. Please try to be more sympathetic to opposing views and accept the consensus - and don't say (again) that there isn't a consensus, there clearly is. ] (]) 10:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	:::'''There is clearly no consensus.''' What you did was edit warring and vandalism. ] (]) 14:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	:Indeed. 8:4 for merge/redirect including the anon IPs and the voter who left no other comment. But it's still 7:3 for merge/redirect excluding the anon IPs and still including the voter. And some ] last night. A ratio of 2:1 (or slightly more than 2:1) seems like a sufficient consensus. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
	:: More nonsense. I haven't voted, and neither have I emailed this page to anybody I know, none of whom would ever, ever, ever use the term "British Isles" to contextualise Ireland's place in this planet. ] (]) 11:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	:::Whatever. 8:3 or 7:2, then. The canvassing wasn't by you, it was by Sarah777. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	::::There was no canvassing. I was alerting interested parties to preemption of the discussion by a cabal of socks and edit-warriors. At the time I reverted the move the score was 6 - 4; not 70%. ] (]) 19:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	:::::Either way, it isn't acceptable to revoke the status quo here based on a vote; the political motivation and past record of several of the British side make ] impossible. This probably needs to go to arbitration. ] (]) 19:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Arbitration? no doubt, indeed. ] (]) 22:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	::::::British side? There you go again... So, just who are you accusing of being a sock? And I make it 12:3 now in favour of merge/redirect. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	(outdent)@Batsun, your proposal for a merge was based on ''contains nothing that isn't in ''that'' article'' in reference to the "List of Islands in the British Isles". I've added a number of sections to this article, focussing on geographic attributes. I hope to add additional sections and expand some of the current ones - but I think you get the gist of where I'd like to take the article. As the original proposer, I'd ask that you take a look and comment? Thank you. --] (]) 00:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

	:It was a PoV fork of "List of Islands in the British Isles". Now its also a fork of ] itself. Sorry, Bardcom, my proposal still stands. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

	::Ok, fair enough. I'll go with the consensus - merge and redirect. --] (]) 09:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

	== Jersey ==

	Aside from being an obvious POV fork, the opening paragraph does make me laugh: "Unlike the term British Isles, it does not include Jersey." Does this mean that Guernsey ''is'' included? Mind you, any lazy Google search would thrown up instances of the term that explicity include Jersey e.g. to . --] (]) 19:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	:Actually that was vandalism. I've removed it. And I don't do lazy searches. ] (]) 19:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

	== No agreement; no consensus ==
	For the record, I don't accept there was any consensus here. This is a disgraceful act of imposition of British pov on Wiki. Another one. ] (]) 07:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	:What is it about 11:3 that doesn't reflect a consensus? ]<sup>]</sup> 09:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	:: 12:2 now as Bardcom has agreed to merge and redirect. ] \| ] 15:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	:::(edit conflict) No, the 11:3 was including Bardcom's agreement. Though admittedly I was running light on only one coffee when I counted... (I also excluded the anon IPs). ]<sup>]</sup> 15:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


	:::It's a clear consensus, but some people will never accept anything that doesn't accord with their position and won't accept that they might be wrong (and of course will explain their loss by conspiracy theories, etc).--] (]) 15:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	::::No conspiracy theory necessary to explain the numerical dominance of British pov over ]. National numerical strength is sufficient explanation. There is no '''consensus''' - period. Just a vote of 3-1 imposing British pov. ] (]) 10:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

	::::The idea that this is a 'British POV' is pure POV (and 3-1 is not the same as 3:1). ] (]) 10:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::It's quite obvious to me, that there's a consensus, Sarah. ] (]) 13:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

	== May refer to... ==

	Great Britain and Ireland, may refer to Great Britain and Ireland? Why isn't it ..refer to British Isles..? Clarify please? ] (]) 21:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	:Great Britain and Ireland does'nt include the Isle of man or the Channel Islands. ] (]) 21:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Or Rockall :-) Or Iceland. --] (]) 21:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
	But erroneously, people do view BI as being ''Great Britain'' and ''Ireland'' only. That's how I used to think of it. ] (]) 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	:::People who view it that way are simply wrong!:) ] (]) 21:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
	Okie dokie. ] (]) 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	== How shall we show it? ==

	Should it be ] ''or'' ]. This is to avoid a suspected 'edit fight'. ] (]) 22:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	:Your far too suspicious! Say nothing and nothing will happen. ] (]) 22:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	::As this is now a disambiguation page, see ], specifically:

	{{quotation\|Entries should not be pipe linked — refer to the article name in full.}}

	::and...

	{{quotation\|Do not pipe the name of the links to the articles being listed. For example, in the entry for ], the word "physics" should be visible to the reader. In many cases, what would be hidden by a pipe is exactly what the user would need to be able to find the intended article.}}

	::If a certain user wants "Ireland" over "Republic of Ireland" he'll have to take it up with the ]. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] \| ] </span></small> 23:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

	:::This article '''is not''' a DAB page. No such decision was taken. Piping per IMOS. ] (]) 10:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

	::::It's got a disambiguation footer, so I've restored the compliant version. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">] \| ] </span></small> 11:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::It look like a DAB page, to me? ] (]) 13:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::: ] ]<font color="black">e</font>] 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Eh...no. This Duck staggers more than waddles. It discusses the issues rather than give clear, precise direction. ] (]) 01:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Yes. ] (]) 18:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::''Disambiguation in Misplaced Pages is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles'' - are you saying that there other subjects vying for the same title? There isn't => it is not a dab page. --] (]) 23:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::It's not? then what is it? ] (]) 23:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Good question and as they say, thank you for asking. It's an article that was deemed a fork. The consensus was to merge and redirect. Why certain editors are now claiming it's a dab page is beyond me. --] (]) 23:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::I'll have to let others respond to you, on this. I'm sure the answers will be interesting. ] (]) 00:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

	==Roll back the clock==
	I wonder did any of the usual edit warriors bother to read the AFD conclusion from 2007, which concluded perfectly politely and reasonably and didn't include too many of "the usual suspects". The page from Feb 2007 was useful, educational, about the term "Great Britain and Ireland", and was a far better dab than anything left now. Shame on the lot of you. ] (]) 23:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Oh well, a little dab 'ill do ya. ] (]) 23:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Link? --] (]) 23:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

	:::The AFD is linked at the top of this page, but for those that haven't read this page, here it is . It was a polite, well reasoned discussion. It would have been good for people to follow the example of that discussion rather than the sh**fest that took place recently. A version of this article that is stylistically a little messy but which is certainly BETTER than the result of all the partisan arguing above is here . It's a dab page but with some value added. Again, am shocked that so much effort went into actually eliminating value from WP. ] (]) 15:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

	::::That version of the article looks OK with me. Hard to argue with it really... --] (]) 20:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

	:::::I also think it's fine. Much better than the mess we have now. Unless anyone disagrees, this should be reinstated as soon as possible. Then a consensus can be established on the changes necessary with this new (old) article.] <sup>]</sup> 00:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
	===Is this a dab page or not?===
	Let's get this straight, so there's no more back-and-forth editing on this. See discussion below. ] (]) 19:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

	== POV tag ==

	So what is exactly disputed about the article that the POV is disputed. I see it's been added back in, but no comments on how it is disputed. If you put the tag in the onus is on the putter to dispute it, just putting the tag in will only get it removed if there is no dispute reason. ] ] 01:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

	:(1) I contest the removal of most of the article without due process.
	:(2) There is no need to make any reference to the "British" Isles in the article as it was clearly stated that GB&I is '''not''' the same place. That confuses the reader.
	:(3) Certain editors keep inserting a "dab page" tag when this isn't a dab page.
	:(4) I'm rather surprised Ben that you can't see all this for yourself.
	:] (]) 01:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

	::I also asked you to protect this page (as you have the "British" Isles page) and I note you didn't do so. I am disappointed in you Ben. ] (]) 01:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

	:::I'm even more disappointed to see a certain mentor of mine engaging in what (to me) looks like edit-warring on behalf of the British pov inserters. ] (]) 01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

	::::If I may be permitted to say so I think one major problem we have in trying to improve this article is that certain Irish editors lack a certain intestinal fortitude when it comes to combating British pov. As ] said - it only requires the good to cower in the corner for the evil to triumph (or somesuch - I'm no great admirer of Mr Burke but I can see his angle in this case). ] (]) 01:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

	:::::Addressing the above:
	:::::# Due process took place (not to your liking, well so be it) but the article cannot in any circiumstance be described as POV.
	:::::# Must be pretty dim readers if they can't see that GB & I are part of the British Isles.
	:::::# As far as I can see, it is a dab page.
	:::::# I'm surprised that you can't see all this for yourself.
	:::::# Haven't you considered that the bulk of editors (Irish, British, the rest of the world) DGAF about about this so called dispute and you appear to have a very jaundiced view of British '''AND''' Irish editors. ] \| ] 08:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

	::::::Bill, calling me "dim" is a breach of ]; if you were not pushing British pov that could get you blocked.
	::::::#Due process is about as real as the British claims of Iraqi WMDs I fear - there ain't any.
	::::::#I think it was clearly spelt out that GB&I are a different geo-entity to the "British" Isles.
	::::::#I have a jaundiced view of folk trying to insert British pov into Ireland-related articles. I DGAF what nationality they are; British Nationalists, Irish Unionists or Anglo-American Supremacists - and if '''they''' DGAF, why do you? ] (]) 00:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

			* '''Support''' ''Britain and Ireland'' is the more frequent form when talking about a set. ''Great Britain and Ireland'' sounds to me like it is talking mere about the individual islands conjoined by the word ''and''. Also, a number of other pages redirect here: ] and ]. I'd suggest simply dropping off the first listing ("Great Britain and Ireland, two islands") and simply list things things that the term (and not term''s'') may refer to. --] (]) 22:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	==British Isles==
	I think this should be linked. One of the Irish terms listed as a translation of BI on the ] article translates back as "Ireland and Great Britain", and the first bullet point on ] states "The British Isles is an archipelago consisting of the islands of Great Britain, Ireland and many smaller surrounding islands." ]<sup>]</sup> 14:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
	:I'm quite ''neutral'' about. Whatever you guys/gals prefer, I'll go along with it. ] (]) 14:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Ack, me too, really - certainly not going to revert over it :-) ]<sup>]</sup> 14:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::I'm getting confused to be honest. I thought this page was to be merged and redirected? But I really disagree that the term GB&I is sometimes used to mean BI. Whatever about the term British Isles being used to mean anything from Britain to GB&I to all the islands, etc, the reverse is not true. --] (]) 15:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

			* '''Support''' per nom and Tóraí. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
	== This is not a dab page??? ==
			*'''Comment''' "Britain and Ireland" can be used to refer to both the geographic region, or the political entities. I've been against these articles from the start, mainly because I disagree that "Britain and Ireland" is a singular collective term. I also disagree that "UK and Ireland", or most of the other examples, are singular collective terms. I've said it before, but the best option is to redirect this page to ], where it is already fully explained. While I don't at this point in time oppose the proposed move, I also don't believe it is the correct option. Comments? ]<sup>]</sup> 15:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
			::We could redirect various terms to various locations per ]. For example, the vast majority of uses of the term "{{noredirect\|United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland}}" refer to the relations, so could be redirect to ]; and the vast majority of uses of the term "{{noredirect\|Great Britain and Ireland}}" refer to the geography of the two islands, and so could be redirected to ]. I don't support your proposal because you're assuming the reader is searching these terms without knowing what they are looking for. I think we can direct the majority of users to the topic they are looking for. The few who are unsure can use the link in the "See also" section to ]. ] (]) 17:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
			::They're good points Rob984, and I'd go along with that suggestion, as opposed to simply renaming the currect article as I don't believe it solves anything. I'm not opposing the rename, just (slowly) coming around to what you've been suggesting all along above. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

			*'''Weak oppose'''. Frankly I don't see the point of a move - either way a reader searches for a term and is presented with this same disambiguation page, albeit with possibly a slightly different title at the top. Arguing about "academic use" seems irrelevant as not all our readers are academics or using Misplaced Pages for academic activities. ]] 12:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
	Is this page a dab page? If so, why? This is against the agreed consensus of a merge and redirect. If it's not being merged and redirected, then I'm going to just restore the article. It's either a valid term that merits a seperate article, or it's not. The previous AfD discussion (link on top of Talk page) did not vote to delete - inferring it is a valid term. I don't agree that it becomes a dab page. --] (]) 19:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
			::I think "Britain and Ireland" is more ambiguous then "Great Britain and Ireland". Yes, to some readers, "Great Britain and Ireland" ''may'' be used to refer to ], but most readers would consider that incorrect. Whereas, most readers would regard "Britain and Ireland" as correct in referring to ] (both terms being generally accepted names for either state). ] (]) 15:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''', this disambiguation article should be '''deleted''', IMHO. ] (]) 15:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
			::I don't agree with deleting (and you technically can't). "Britain and Ireland" could refer to either ] or ]. However "{{noredirect\|Great Britain and Ireland}}" should possibly be redirected to ] and "{{noredirect\|United Kingdom and Ireland}}" to ] per ]. If that is the case, then this page must be moved to either "{{noredirect\|Great Britain and Ireland (disambiguation)}}" or another term. You can't delete this page because there are sources that show "{{noredirect\|Britain and Ireland}}" being used to refer to ] and ]. So the only options are the ''status quo'', or redirect. See ] for "{{noredirect\|United Kingdom and Ireland}}". ] (]) 15:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
			<hr />
			:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

			==MOSDAB overrides grammar?==
	::Well, I for one don't agree with merge and redirect. I belive the AFD in 2007 reached a far better conclusion than anything from the recent shouting match and that the article in 2007 was far superior. "Great Britain and Ireland" is a self-standing phrase in a number of contexts and the old version of the article described that quite nicely. ] (]) 19:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
			edit removes the definite article from before "United Kingdom" and ] on the grounds that ] says the "The link should come at the start of the entry."

			This literalistic interpretation is probably wrong based on meaning - the guideline intends, I would say:
	:::Er - it's a dab page, get over it. It looks like a dab page, it works like a dab page. Look it up in the Observer Book of Dab Pages. It's there for all to see on page one. What's the problem with a single little symbol? What the hell, why don't we just delete this page? It's causing so much trouble for just a silly little page that no one's really interested in! Should I nominate it for deletion? ] (]) 19:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Whatever it is, or suppose to be? hopefully it's decided (once & for all). ] (]) 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

			* ] (1900-1999), Australian bartender and hang-glider pilot.
	::This vote below is a bit pointless. There's no point asking what it is now after a flurring of consensus breaking edits. The vote (if one should be taken at all) should be 'what should the article be?'.] <sup>]</sup> 20:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

			Rather than
	Should this page be a DISAMBIGUATION PAGE? Please give your opinion, and maybe we'll get a "consensus":

			* The Australian bartender and hang-glider pilot, ] (1900-1999).
	*'''Yes''' ] (]) 19:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''' ] (]) 20:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Obviously No''' - and pl remember a vote isn't consensus. (At least that's the Wiki-mythology). ] (]) 00:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

			Even if it it did not, it would be wrong to subvert good English to comply with it.
	Sorry anon IP, perhaps you are unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policies. There isn't any voting, there are discussions and a consensus forms. Also, the issue is not what the page currently looks like, but what the article should be. Should it be an article? Should it be merged and redirected (which I thought was the consensus above)? Should it be a dab page? If you want to retest consensus, I suggest you start a new section and make a proposal. --] (]) 20:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

			All the best: ''] ]'',<small> 18:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC).</small><br />
	Well I've just read all the above discussion. One thing is pretty clear; you'll never, ever get a so-called consensus here. There's at least one contributor who won't take no for an answer. I can only think that a vote is the way forward - an opinion survey if you don't like the word '''vote'''. I've changed the wording above to refect this, and maybe people could continue to offer their opinions, but just on the disambig issue for the moment - how's that sound? ] (]) 20:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

			:I don't think it is incorrect grammar. It ''mentions'' the phrase, then, after a comma, describes what the phrase means. If it were ''using'' the phrase it would be incorrect, for example: "Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom are two sovereign states". ] (]) 21:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
	:Oh well, that was quick. ] (]) 20:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:37, 7 December 2024

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disambiguation

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages. 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.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

Ireland

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland

UK geography

This disambiguation page falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Or as separate entities...

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone explain the logic of this and why it was agreed to include links to the separate entities? Per WP:DAB: 'Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title'. I fail to see how someone looking for the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Great Britain or Ireland would search 'Great Britain and Ireland', or similar. They wouldn't. I don't care if this was 'agreed after lengthy discussion'. This is a disambiguation page, it is not for clarifying the difference between the UK and Republic of Ireland. We assume the reader already knows what they are looking for. Rob (talk | contribs) 09:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... methinks its because of the general confusion/ignorance over whether "Ireland" refers to the island or the state. The separate entities section was included after lengthy discussion (some people would call that consensus) because "the phrase" or phrases can be encountered in many different contexts, and making the assumption that "the phrase" refers to a single entity is most often erroneous. In my opinion, the real problem is this dab page (especially if it means leaving out all the possible combinations and meanings). It should be redirected to Terminology of the British Isles. ---- HighKing 12:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with that last bit - I think it's right that this is a disambiguation page. But the "separate entities" thing is a bit odd. I'm wondering if the intention was to include them to try and emphasise that they are separate entities, or something like that.

Anyway, if there is a case for including links to the separate entities perhaps they could be done inline. WP:DABSTYLE says "Rarely should a bulleted entry have more than one navigable link" so this could be one of those exceptional cases. Something like:

Great Britain and Ireland, Ireland and the United Kingdom and similar phrases may refer to:

British Isles, an archipelago made up of Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the formal name of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1927
Ireland–United Kingdom relations, the relations between the states of Ireland and the United Kingdom

I'm aware I've broken another guideline in there by pipelinking Republic of Ireland. So that's a suggested compromise but I'm not entirely convinced we need the separate entities linked at all. Waggers TALK 12:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Split?

I think the real problem is that we are trying to disambiguate multiple phrases with different meanings on one page. 'United Kingdom' ≠ 'Great Britain' ≠ 'Britain'. Maybe we should define each phrase at it's own page:

Britain and Ireland may refer to:
• Great Britain and Ireland, two islands off the north-western coat of continental Europe.
• United Kingdom and Ireland, two sovereign states off the north-western coat of continental Europe
• Ireland–United Kingdom relations, the relations between the states of Ireland and the United Kingdom
• British Isles, an archipelago made up of Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the formal name of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1927

Great Britain and Ireland are two islands off the north-western coat of continental Europe.
Great Britain and Ireland may also refer to:
• British Isles, an archipelago made up of Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands
• United Kingdom and Ireland, two sovereign states off the north-western coat of continental Europe
• Ireland–United Kingdom relations, the relations between the states of Ireland and the United Kingdom
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the formal name of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1927

The United Kingdom and Ireland are two sovereign states off the north-western coat of continental Europe.
United Kingdom and Ireland may also refer to either:
• British Isles, an archipelago made up of Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands
• Ireland–United Kingdom relations, the relations between the states of Ireland and the United Kingdom

Please note, the order of the terms 'United Kingdom' and 'Ireland' can be changed per an agreed criteria (alphabetical, population size, common usage, etc), but it's not important right now.

This way we are actually defining the terms clearly, and in line with MOS, as oppose to trying to summarise the differences between the terms, in a format simply not designed to do so. I agree with High King, if we want these phrases to redirect to a page explaining there differences, then why not redirect to Terminology of the British Isles where this done effectively? Otherwise, we need to disambiguate (and therefore define) each phrase individually.
Rob (talk | contribs) 14:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I still believe that a dab page is simply the wrong idea for what this page is trying to do. I mean, is "Great Britain and Ireland" an entity (today)? Or was it a common phrase when there was a "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" that has since fallen into disuse? Today, in my opinion (i.e. not a shred of real evidence :-) the phrase is used to refer to two separate entities. Thinking it over, I believe the page should simple be redirected to a section in the "Terminology of the British Isles". -- HighKing 20:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think redirecting Great Britain and Ireland and Britain and Ireland to Terminology of the British Isles is something we should consider. However, I strongly believe United Kingdom and Ireland should have it's own disambiguation page. It is a phrase with clear meaning and can easily be disambiguated. Redirecting users who are most certainly either looking for UK–Ireland relations or the British Isles to here, or Terminology of the British Isles, is not helpful. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to start a split proposal below for this. Rob (talk | contribs) 22:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

If we think that users are typing "Great Britain and Ireland" when they mean to search for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" I don't see the logic in redirecting them to Terminology of the British Isles instead of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. If, on the other hand, we think they might possibly mean something else, then a disambiguation page is exactly the right solution.

I can kind of see the logic in splitting the disambiguation page into separate disambiguation pages as Rob proposes, but I'm also aware we've only recently merged various redirects and disambiguation pages into this page. I'm keen that we don't endlessly fluctuate between these two states like some kind of slow motion edit war. Waggers TALK 11:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split proposal

NO ACTION

Stale

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think we should create a new disambiguation page at United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland.
'Britain and Ireland', and 'Great Britain and Ireland' are highly ambiguous as they refer to either the states or the islands, while 'United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland' clearly refers to the states. We can further refine what the reader is looking by spiting this page:

Great Britain and Ireland may refer to:
• Great Britain and Ireland, two islands off the north-western coat of continental Europe
• Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom, two sovereign states off the north-western coat of continental Europe
• Ireland–United Kingdom relations, the relations between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom
• British Isles, an archipelago made up of Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the formal name of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1927

The United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland are two sovereign states off the north-western coat of continental Europe.
United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland may also refer to either:
• British Isles, an archipelago made up of Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands
• Ireland–United Kingdom relations, the relations between the states of Ireland and the United Kingdom

Anything with either 'Republic of Ireland' or 'United Kingdom', can be redirected to United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland as the reader is clearly referring to the states, not the islands. For example, 'United Kingdom and Ireland', or 'Republic of Ireland and Britain'.
Rob (talk | contribs) 22:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand your thinking. I'm not a big fan of one big dab page tbh. Am I right in summarizing that where a term exists that is unambiguous, then locate the dab there instead? There's a nugget in this proposal - just trying to unearth it. -- HighKing 12:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking. Please elaborate. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I oppose a split. It isn't that long ago that we merged various heavily overlapping pages into one place to avoid duplication of effort and confusion about what should and shouldn't be on each page. Yes the states and geographical entities are different, but the terms people use to refer to them are overlapping, inconsistent and precise. There is no benefit (indeed quite the opposite) from people having to visit more than one disambiguation page and no benefit from having duplicative disambigs. I'm not even really clear about what problem splitting will be able to solve that can't be done on one page? Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's as simply as 'United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland' ≠'Great Britain and Ireland'. Why should these be disambiguated on one page? Simply because the topics are similar? Splitting refines what the reader is looking for and therefore reduces confusion. We can give some readers a more refined set of results if we split the article. Why not? Duplication doesn't cause any problems. Rob (talk | contribs) 22:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

People use all terms to refer to either geographical and political entities, so refining what people are looking for is not possible. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thryduulf is right. The point of a dab page is not to punish readers for typing the wrong thing ("You might mean x or y but you shouldn't use this phrase to mean z so we're not going to link to that from here"). When someone types "Britain and Ireland" they could mean the islands, they could mean the states (past or present), they could mean the terminology... it makes perfect sense to list all those options in one place and let the reader make an informed choice. Waggers TALK 11:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

'People use all terms to refer to either geographical and political entities'. That's simply not true. 'Great Britain', 'Britain' and 'Ireland' are used to refer to either geographical and political entities, but 'United Kingdom' and 'Republic of Ireland' are only used to refer to the political entities. This split only refines what readers making search queries with either 'United Kingdom' or 'Republic of Ireland' are looking for. When a reader searches either of those terms, they are clearly not looking for the islands, so why take them to a page which disambiguates the names of used to refer to the islands? Rob (talk | contribs) 12:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that (many) readers are searching for 'United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland'? I'm fairly sure such a dab page would be largely redundant, as it's not a popular search term. So what's being suggested isn't a split, it's essentially making the political entities a sub-dab-page of this one. It means readers would have to click on two links instead of one to get to the article they're looking for, and we'd have two dab pages to maintain instead of one, for no discernible benefit for either party. Waggers TALK 13:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how readers would ever have to click two links instead of one... I have no idea where you have got that idea from. And no, I doubt many readers are searching precisely 'United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland'. But that isn't the only query which is obviously referring to the states (and hence would be redirect to the new page):

And so on...

There are many search queries that are clearly only referring to the states. We can provide a refined set of results for readers searching these terms. Maintaining an additional disambiguation page in order to provide some readers with a more refined set of results is surely worthwhile? In my opinion, this page is confusing. Maybe it has to exist, but it's confusing. And if we can redirect some readers to a more refined set of results, which wont be so confusing, then I think we should.

I rarely support splitting pages like this. I think it's nonsensical that Britain and Great Britain (disambiguation) are separate pages (and I will probably propose a merge soon). But in this case, I really think we could benefit some readers by spiting the page.

I know, I'm repeating myself, I'm sorry. But from your replies, it's clear that you don't realise, or agree with, the benefits of this proposal.

Rob (talk | contribs) 14:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I misunderstood the proposal - I thought you were trying to separate the disambiguated items into geographical and political entities, so that someone searching for something that could be either (such as 'Britain and Ireland') would only be served one set of 'results'. I'm still not convinced the status quo is broken and needs fixing though. Waggers TALK 12:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Generally, I don't think a few irrelevant entries causes any inconvenience for a reader. However, I think this page specifically potentially confuses readers because, unlike most disambiguation pages, the terms being disambiguated are not synonymous, and it's not clear as to which terms are being disambiguated to which entries.
For example, if a reader were to search: 'Britain and the Republic of Ireland' and then read 'Great Britain and Ireland, two islands off the north-western coat of continental Europe', they may interpret the page as implying that 'Britain and the Republic of Ireland' may refer to 'two islands off the north-western coat of continental Europe'.
In essence, I think the split will ensure both disambiguation pages are only disambiguating terms which may refer to all entries on the page, and therefore, to some extent, improving clarity. It also improves presentational consistency as I'm not aware of any other pages disambiguating two or more terms that aren't synonymous.
Rob (talk | contribs) 20:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand where you're coming from now, but the word "synonymous" is the wrong word to be using. Disambiguation pages exist to differentiate between the different meanings of the same (or similar) phrases. By definition the contents of disambiguation pages won't be synonymous - that's the whole point of them! I think the word you mean is homonymous - in other words, talking about "Great Britain" when the user has searched for "United Kingdom" is misleading. I think I agree with that for the most part - although there are still people who refer to the UK as an island .

The page already deals with this though with the first sentence - "Great Britain and Ireland, Ireland and the United Kingdom and similar phrases may refer to:" makes it clear the list is not just about 'Britain and the Republic of Ireland' or any other specific phrase, but a host of similar phrases. Waggers TALK 10:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It makes clear that the list is not just about one specific term, but it still doesn't make clear which terms refer to which entries. It would be clearer to some extent to split the page right? Rob (talk | contribs) 11:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

But on the other hand, the explanations for the different terms is already provided at "Terminology of the British Isles"... and that is the reason why I believe this page should really link there. But. Rob makes a good point in that *some* of the phrases are unambiguous (such as UK and ROI) and perhaps there's a case to be made for unambiguous terms to not point to the terminology page. But right now, I still haven't heard anything that makes me think we need this page to provide explanations that are already provided somewhere else. Thoughts? -- HighKing 17:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

One issue at time HighKing. We should establish a consensus on this slit proposal before considering redirecting the page. Also, if this is split, then I think you would have a stronger argument for redirecting the page to Terminology of the British Isles. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear previously. I agree that some terms are unambiguous, and therefore don't need a dab page, and therefore should have their own page(s). Is that what is being proposed? The other terms we can deal with later. Is it possible to list the search terms that are unambiguous? For example, what are your thoughts on someone searching for "United Kingdom and Ireland"? -- HighKing 16:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should go through some case-by-case examples as clearly there won't be a one-size-fits-all solution for all search terms related to this topic. I disagree that a simple redirect to the terminology example is going to work in the majority of cases. If someone searches for "United Kingdom and Ireland" they might be interested in the terminology but I think it more likely that they would be looking for Ireland–United Kingdom relations, with United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland a distant third. Because of that uncertainty, a disambiguation page makes sense; the alternative would be a redirect to Ireland–United Kingdom relations with a {{Redirect}} hatnote but given the number of terms that could redirect there I think that would be too messy.

If someone searches for "United Kingdom and Ireland" I agree with Rob that it's unlikely (but not impossible) that they really mean British Isles, and almost certain that they don't mean Great Britain and/or Ireland. But I'm not convinced that warrants creating a separate DAB page for a term that's very rarely searched for:

Month	Searches for "United Kingdom and Ireland"
August 2013	16
September 2013	31
October 2013	24
November 2013	15
December 2013	15
January 2014	13
February 2014	18
March 2014	18
April 2014	30
May 2014	24
June 2014	17
July 2014	21

Those figures are of course artificially high in some months because of the likes of us doing the search when it's under discussion! Waggers TALK 08:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to take into account all the terms that could be redirect to the separate disambiguation page. Not just 'United Kingdom and Ireland':

'Ireland and the United kingdom'
'Republic of Ireland and Britain'
'UK and Ireland'

And so on...

Also, the only term on this page which would mislead readers searching for the states is 'Great Britain and Ireland'. All the others could be included on the new disambiguation page without causing any confusion. We don't have to excluded 'British Isles'.

Rob (talk | contribs) 13:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Ireland and the United Kingdom"

Done

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moving on from the discussion above, I think Ireland–United Kingdom relations is the primary topic of this phrase. I propose we redirect all phrases including the terms "Republic of Ireland" and/or "United Kingdom" to Ireland–United Kingdom relations. Thoughts? Rob984 (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland

Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland

Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom

United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland

Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom

United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland

Republic of Ireland and UK

UK and Republic of Ireland

Republic of Ireland and the UK

UK and the Republic of Ireland

Ireland and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ireland

Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

United Kingdom and Ireland

Ireland and United Kingdom

Ireland and the United Kingdom

Ireland and UK

UK and Ireland

Ireland and the UK

Britain and Republic of Ireland

Republic of Ireland and Britain

Britain and the Republic of Ireland

Great Britain and Republic of Ireland

Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland

Republic of Ireland and Great Britain

Anybody object to redirecting these terms to Ireland–United Kingdom relations per WP:PRIMARY TOPIC?

Rob984 (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems to make sense. The fact that the two states are linked to in the first sentence of that article means that if someone wasn't looking for that topic, they'd still have a link to their topic of interest right there. Waggers TALK 12:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Rob984 (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page. Note that this is a navigational page; as Newyorkbrad brought up in the deletion discussion so long ago, "The page briefly and usefully discusses use of the term 'Great Britain and Ireland.'" While there is some dispute here as to whether this is a common or accurate term, the disambiguation page is working as intended by presenting all possible targets, and the discussion below shows no consensus to move at this time. Dekimasuよ! 15:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Great Britain and Ireland → Britain and Ireland –
In academic use, "Great Britain" refers solely to the island, while "Britain" may refer to either the island or the state.
Therefore, in academic use, "Great Britain and Ireland" refers only to the islands.
This article shows uses of phrases which refer to both the islands, and the states. Therefore I think "Britain and Ireland" is a more appropriate title.
Rob984 (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Strong support as per official and, as a resident of our horendusly overcrowded little land, the sooner we stop advertising ourselves as "Great" the better. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose and suggest re-ordering of the current list. The most obvious use-case for this - in fact I'm surprised this title doesn't redirect there already - is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Which, well, has "Great Britain" in the title. And should probably be 1st on the list. Nom's argument seems wrong to me - as stated above, this phrase usually refers to the historical state to my knowledge, so the claim it refers "only to the islands" is off. (And the backup argument for this move is apparently that Britain really isn't that great, which, uh, no comment). SnowFire (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that matters? There's no primary topic here so we should treat every topic equally. All the topics on this page (including United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) may be referred to as "Britain and Ireland". This is not the case for "Great Britain and Ireland". Rob984 (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And if you want to redirect Great Britain and Ireland to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland per WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, then this pages needs to be moved to a different title. Rob984 (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be acceptable for me to move this disambig page to "Britain and Ireland" and redirect this directly to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, yes. But I'd be opposed to having Great Britain and Ireland be a redirect to Britain & Ireland. SnowFire (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Why? Rob984 (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

And I oppose redirecting "Great Britain and Ireland" to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Most sources using the phrase are referring to the two islands geography, so "British Isles" is a likely topic. Rob984 (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Britain and Ireland is the more frequent form when talking about a set. Great Britain and Ireland sounds to me like it is talking mere about the individual islands conjoined by the word and. Also, a number of other pages redirect here: United Kingdom and Ireland and UK and Ireland. I'd suggest simply dropping off the first listing ("Great Britain and Ireland, two islands") and simply list things things that the term (and not terms) may refer to. --Tóraí (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Support per nom and Tóraí. Bastun 11:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment "Britain and Ireland" can be used to refer to both the geographic region, or the political entities. I've been against these articles from the start, mainly because I disagree that "Britain and Ireland" is a singular collective term. I also disagree that "UK and Ireland", or most of the other examples, are singular collective terms. I've said it before, but the best option is to redirect this page to Terminology of the British Isles, where it is already fully explained. While I don't at this point in time oppose the proposed move, I also don't believe it is the correct option. Comments? -- HighKing 15:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We could redirect various terms to various locations per WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. For example, the vast majority of uses of the term "United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland" refer to the relations, so could be redirect to Ireland–United Kingdom relations; and the vast majority of uses of the term "Great Britain and Ireland" refer to the geography of the two islands, and so could be redirected to British Isles. I don't support your proposal because you're assuming the reader is searching these terms without knowing what they are looking for. I think we can direct the majority of users to the topic they are looking for. The few who are unsure can use the link in the "See also" section to Terminology of the British Isles. Rob984 (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

They're good points Rob984, and I'd go along with that suggestion, as opposed to simply renaming the currect article as I don't believe it solves anything. I'm not opposing the rename, just (slowly) coming around to what you've been suggesting all along above. -- HighKing 22:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Weak oppose. Frankly I don't see the point of a move - either way a reader searches for a term and is presented with this same disambiguation page, albeit with possibly a slightly different title at the top. Arguing about "academic use" seems irrelevant as not all our readers are academics or using Misplaced Pages for academic activities. Waggers TALK 12:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think "Britain and Ireland" is more ambiguous then "Great Britain and Ireland". Yes, to some readers, "Great Britain and Ireland" may be used to refer to Ireland–United Kingdom relations, but most readers would consider that incorrect. Whereas, most readers would regard "Britain and Ireland" as correct in referring to Ireland–United Kingdom relations (both terms being generally accepted names for either state). Rob984 (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment, this disambiguation article should be deleted, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with deleting (and you technically can't). "Britain and Ireland" could refer to either Ireland–United Kingdom relations or British Isles. However "Great Britain and Ireland" should possibly be redirected to British Isles and "United Kingdom and Ireland" to Ireland–United Kingdom relations per WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. If that is the case, then this page must be moved to either "Great Britain and Ireland (disambiguation)" or another term. You can't delete this page because there are sources that show "Britain and Ireland" being used to refer to Ireland–United Kingdom relations and British Isles. So the only options are the status quo, or redirect. See my proposal above for "United Kingdom and Ireland". Rob984 (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

MOSDAB overrides grammar?

This edit removes the definite article from before "United Kingdom" and Republic of Ireland on the grounds that WP:MOSDAB says the "The link should come at the start of the entry."

This literalistic interpretation is probably wrong based on meaning - the guideline intends, I would say:

John Smith (1900-1999), Australian bartender and hang-glider pilot.

Rather than

The Australian bartender and hang-glider pilot, John Smith (1900-1999).

Even if it it did not, it would be wrong to subvert good English to comply with it.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC).

I don't think it is incorrect grammar. It mentions the phrase, then, after a comma, describes what the phrase means. If it were using the phrase it would be incorrect, for example: "Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom are two sovereign states". Rob984 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories: