Misplaced Pages

In the table itself it says Perring F.H. and Walters. S.M (1990) Atlas of the British Flora, Botanical Society of the British Isl]] " Clearly that should say British Isles. I do not know if it should be linked or not, but is there an agreement to correct that? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

British Isles is correct here, and should be linked. See my comments at User talk:Snowded for some stuff related to the broader argument. LevenBoy (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Now that we've got "Fauna" buttoned down, could we tackle "Flora" next? Would that help with this article? TFOWR 11:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we see how fauna works out first? Looks like we have an agreement on this one --Snowded 11:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that we move straight to adopting a "flora" policy, simply that we begin discussing it now. I agree that we need to see if "fauna" works out first. TFOWR 11:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

List of lichen checklists

It appears to come under Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Fungi and it would be worth opening a discussion there, I will do so. This goes to the general point that in many cases these changes should also be discussed at local articles or projects, since editors here in reality lack sufficient expertise to decide accurately in some cases. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Here the referenced book title is "Great Britain and Ireland" so there is no case to make it British Isles unless we are in the business of correcting the book titles of experts in the field.--Snowded 10:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to change, however disagree with Snowded reasons, as I have said before trying to second guess the reasons why an author chose to use "Great Britain and Ireland" vs "British Isles" is not good. It is quite possible that the wrong one can be used by the title of the book, that does not mean here on WP we should automatically compound any mistake by blindly following what could be a choice made for commercial reasons. Codf1977 (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to look at the overall context - that should be the first step, in the case of List of lichen checklists there is none so use the title of the book as there is nothing else to go on. But as a rule it is not appropriate as it is open to mistakes or errors. Codf1977 (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

List of lichen checklists should say what the book says. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

My only hesitation on the lichens one is that the publication is a reference work of the British Lichen Society - the only geographical scopes they express in their website are here - saying that the society "... arranges annual residential meetings in spring, summer and autumn in all parts of the British Isles... " - and here - showing meetings in the Isle of Man, England, Scotland, Wales, etc. The book isn't stand-alone, it's their specific publication. I suspect they are indeed a BI grouping and that this book is a BI-wide reference work, although I accept the general point about book titles. This may be another case of us clunking a bit into an area we actually know little about. 12:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Stick with the reference @ List of lichen checklists but I agree with what James says above. Bjmullan (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded's reasoning with List of lichen checklists (as per book titles). --HighKing (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That article should have British Isles as a heading. The heading does not relate to the publication beneath it, other than as a broad grouping for it, and potentially other publications. I have found a publication detailing lichens in the IoM, so by adding that maybe British Isles is better. LevenBoy (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC) What say we add these three links to List of lichen checklists -

Then maybe we should have a rethink about the section heading? LevenBoy (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Original research, the title of the book is very clear --Snowded 11:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a difference between the link title and the section titles in the article. That looks like useful material LevenBoy. Also we should encourage collaborative editing when we see it Snowded and not carp. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Come on James, this one was discussed and you yourself with the "chunking around" comment accepted the general point about book titles. Codf1977 on the talk pages says that s/he plans a general reworking of the titles, and if you check I supported that. Pending a wider change this one was closed off, and we really don't want every one which is closed being opened again shortly afterwards. On the other hand this entry starts with reinstating a posting from an established sock farm. There is a difference. and the OR point stands, its not carping its an argument. --Snowded 11:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Lichens one doesn't seem to be closed - what closed it exactly? As regards the titles, I see no reason why continued editing of the article needs to stop because someone has (vaguely) promised that at some future point they will rework the titles. At the moment, there are a variety of section-themes in that article, including down to the State level in the US. Adding material about the IofM and the CI seems very reasonable. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, you obviously didn't read my comments above (20:47, 27 July 2010) so here is the gist, again; the title is just a grouping for publications appearing beneath it. It is not directly related to a particular entry so how you manage to conjure up OR in this context is quite beyond me. You seem to be stonewalling on this one. British Isles is an obvious title for the group of publications that we could now add to. And please reflect further on the comments I placed on your Talk Page regarding just what is, and what isn't OR. LevenBoy (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, if you really want to reopen this one feel free. You might want to look at the flora and fauna point etc. LevenBoy, there is only one title as its a list of lists. If you follow the current page convention then you should create sections for Guernsey, possibly IoM & Ireland (although those are books not lists). On the other hand it might make sense to completely re-organise it into geographical areas (in which case BI is fine if the others are things like North America) or nations etc. I think that was Codf1977's point. However just inserting BI instead of the current title is neither one thing or the other. --Snowded 11:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, the *current* text is correct. The section headings reflect the publications within the lists, and reflect the titles within the publications. There's no grouping - for example, we don't have a section heading entitled "USA" with the appropriate publications under that heading. As Snowded correctly points out above, following the convention within the article would simply require adding a section for "Ireland", and another for "Isle of Man", etc, and listing the publication. In order to *insert* "British Isles" into this article, it requires a rewrite to organize and group by geographical regions. Of course, if it's deemed OK to edit articles to rewrite sections and introduce new material, its best we're all crystal clear on that too... --HighKing (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

They don't currently match up precisely. See for example North America, which is listed as "A Cumulative Checklist for the Lichen-forming, Lichenicolous and Allied Fungi of the Continental United States and Canada." US and Canada is not North America. Clearly there is scope for improving the article. It also isn't up to you HighKing to resist adding material to that article that is appropriate, contextual and properly referenced. I am not sure what the problem is here exactly. If LevenBoy chooses not to add that material, I will. 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If there are more lists then I would add them, in their own sections relating the heading to the list. I'm less sure about the two books which are not (other than by implication) lists bit that is a minor point. I don;t see High King arguing against adding material --Snowded 14:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The ones LevenBoy identified would best be added under a new "British Isles" header with the Britain and Ireland one. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, either add within the current convention or restructure by geographical area (in which case BI or Europe or similar is fine). The latter is a better idea to be honest although it involves a bit more work. FAD No consent to insertion of BI without other changes--Snowded 14:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

@James - the easiest solution is to follow the existing convention. Your North American example, which technically incorrect, is ambiguously referenced since the link brings you to a page entitled "North American Lichen Checklist". If you want to add new material, fine. But the community would ...take a dim view... of an editor completely changing around the current convention of an article, and then adding to an article, solely with the intention to insert "British Isles", especially against a consensus here. --HighKing (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the same way the Lichen Society pages take you to lots of references to British Isles? As for the "current convention" of the article, there doesn't seem to be a straightforward one, as the North American example shows. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The taskforce is primarily concerned with examining usage in articles - as they are currently being used. In this case, usage of "Great Britain and Ireland" is valid and correct, given the existing current naming conventions used within the article. I believe that setting out to materially rewrite or reorganize an article is not within the spirit of this task force. Restructuring the list by geographical regions might validate an insertion of "British Isles" - but I believe there is no justification for restructuring beyond the insertion of "British Isles", and I disagree with that motive. --HighKing (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Compendium of Flora articles

List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland is practically a disambiguation page for a number of lists of different types of plants. At a cursory glance (including some of the lists) it seems that it should be "British Isles", or at least "Great Britain and Ireland". Happy to leave this on hold till we get something larger on flora sorted out though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it looks like it should have been "British Isles". Codf1977 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You are talking about renaming a range of pages to replace a commonly used alternative to British Isles. I suggest seeing if people involved in those articles think its worth the effort. --Snowded 05:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly be more accurate to say British Isles rather than just two islands. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes a rename would be in order. Given the very low activity on the talk page or article page, a BOLD action is appropriate. Any attempt to open debate on the talk page is likely to result in a duplicate debate to here. Codf1977 (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not just one article, several are effected. Its not a case for being bold, just put a move proposal on the page and see what happens --Snowded 10:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would be worthwhile posting on the talkpage, however, pointing editors at this discussion. Sorry, I'm about to get stuck into some real-life busy-ness, so if someone else could do that I'd be ever so obliged ;-) I'm also kind of holding off on flora issues, to see how fauna works out. I'd like to see a "blanket ruling" like fauna applied to flora. No reason why we need to hold off on discussing vascular plants in the meantime, however. TFOWR 10:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Id agree with posting on the talk pages although i dont think a formal RM is required at this stage unless theres disagreement on there. Give it awhile BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As above with fauna. If not all, 99.999% are going to be, and actually already mean, British Isles. This is a good, clean, clear adult editorial guideline we are working on and it should take priority above all constituent specialism in order to establish a consistent policy. --Triton Rocker (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Lets see what people say. I'm not too fussed on this one, but I will point out that there is evidence that Britain and Ireland is in use as a substitute for British Isles (see the evidence on the main article) so its not that black and white. Conventions will differ in different fields and we should go with what the evidence shows --Snowded 10:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps but the winds are changing. Technically speaking, however, it is inaccurate and, arguably, an offence to the independent Crown Dependent islands. I am suggesting we move on beyond the past - many of the references are very old - and, in our setting of a consistent Wikipedian editorial guideline, keep one eye on technical accuracy.

From a professional point of view, I would say that in many cases the use of the term "Britain and Ireland" is an anachronistic throwback to a more Imperial and chauvinistic period when it was first used and established --- when it was Britain and Ireland. It is not now. (<irony alert> and you know what a bunch of rabid Neo-cons and Proto-fascist imperialist Poms the Linnean Society are.</irony alert>). --Triton Rocker (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Where are we with this then?

There are:

38,600 papers on Google Scholar for "British Isles and fauna" 48,200 for "British Isles and flora".

I am look for a clear, simple editorial guideline.

As below, I think that in non-political topics, BI should be the acceptable default and B+I accepted as generally confusing and erroneous. --Triton Rocker (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Flora

We've got at least a couple of outstanding "flora" issues. Is there any value in looking at flora as a "blanket ruling" candidate, same as "fauna"? I seem to recall there was a good reason not to lump flora and fauna together - does that translate to a flora ruling being problematic? Thoughts, diffs, pointers, etc welcomed. I'd like to wind up the oustanding flora issues one way or another. TFOWR 10:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support an agreement on Flora like fauna. Whilst i was initially sceptical of the fauna agreement it seems to have been a good agreement and there has been no flood of changes one way or another which i thought might happen. On the issue of the unresolved case on the atlases. The specific problem is with an un sourced sentence that could just be deleted. Although if that article should be about the British Isles or continue to be Britain and Ireland is another matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I thought that was what we were aiming for. We based the blanket ruling for fauna on the scientific distribution region - "British Isles". Therefore we should now support a blanket agreement on Flora where we follow he scientific regions - which are "GB + IoM", Ireland, "CI included with France". There will be some problems - there are some British-oriented publications that use "British Isles" for some subjects - usually books that are published with topics such as "Oak Trees of the British Isles". --HighKing (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Then i guess it is going to be far harder to reach agreement on this one. lol BritishWatcher (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hang on - why? Methinks there's a lack of consistency here... --HighKing (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a more complicated topic than fauna. Might be hard to get an overall guidline. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

True. Actually I'm not sure if a blanket ruling can be applied for flora, although we can probably agree a "Guideline" whereby when distribution of plants is discussed we should use scientific regions *unless* referenced otherwise (perhaps by a publication). --HighKing (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. But what happens if the article covers more than one scientific region? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We've been all over this before - lots of academic books, publications and organisations use the dread BI phrase in all sorts of ways, including in the names of scientific and membership bodies. If your argument is going to be that only a very limited official distribution region nomenclature used by scientists can be used in article text and titles for the whole of WP flora articles, you aren't going to succeed. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

@James, I think you're replying to me here. If so, sure I agree - that's exactly the point I'm making. Some books and publications can use British Isles in lots of ways that are perfectly fine. But equally, other usages are not. Here's some examples of usage which are questionable at best:

• Unreferenced - for example, there's articles that state things like "This plant can be found in Northern Europe and the British Isles" or "This plant is found as far west as the British Isles, and as far east as China" - all unreferenced and unscientific.
• Other articles may use a reference from a specific publication to discuss the *distribution* of the plant - except the publication just so happens to limit itself to "British Isles". There can be a danger in using these stats since it fails to place the plant in a world, or european, perspective. Using these references to describe *distribution* often ignores the fact that the plants are also grown elsewhere, are common elsewhere, etc, and there's nothing notable about stating whether they are common, etc, in the British Isles - because the WP articles are not BI-centric. Other articles may state that they are rare in the British Isles - again, this may be notable from a purely BI-centric POV, but not notable otherwise, and not notable for a general WP article.
• Lots of articles also appear to use "British Isles" as a distribution, but are unreferenced. Let's not discuss the merits or otherwise of specific examples here, but to give you an idea of what I'm talking about - for example, Fucus vesiculosus states that it is one of the most common algae on the shores of the British Isles, and uses a publication entitled A Check-list and Atlas of the Seaweeds of Britain and Ireland. The publication doesn't state that. And the problem is that it also happens to be *one* of the most common seaweeds in the north-eastern Atlantic. Of in Gooseberry where it states The climate of the British Isles seems peculiarly adapted to bring the gooseberry to perfection. No reference, and ignores the fact that Russia is probably the biggest producer, followed by central Europe. Or Ulmus glabra uses another reference to denote "common in the British Isles" and references a book "Elm" - except the book states no such thing (it states that Wych Elm occurs mainly in northern England and along the Welsh border, and in a number of books states that it died out in Ireland). Or Alnus glutinosa, etc, etc.
• Some articles might use a latin name, and then also introduce a common name. For example, in Nut (fruit) it states The nut of the horse-chestnut tree (Aesculus species, especially Aesculus hippocastanum), is called a conker in the British Isles. No it's not - it's called a conker in British English. I've never heard anyone call them conkers here, although I'd know what a conker was - but only in the same way that I know what a "sidewalk" and a "trash can" are. --HighKing (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Too many issues at once HighKing? Maybe we need to make the distinction between mentions of flora in and area and mentions of the areas flora is found in. On the first BI may be appropriate, on the second we should go with whatever sourced ecoregions that have been provided. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Lots of interesting and well-argued points there HK - I will have a careful think about them and we can discuss further. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

its clear the issue of Flora is far more complex than the issue of Fauna. There for a blanket ruling is going to be impossible to reach agreement on. We should go back to considering the specific case of the article that is still has not been sorted. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could agree that no article should just list plants of the UK and Ireland or Britain and Ireland or other variations? It should be British Isles or the ecoregions, but not political. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Flora is more complicated, I agree. What do you mean by "but not political"? --HighKing (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I meant was that descriptions of Flora distribution should probably stick to geographical regions, not political units. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's complicated. For example, when a publication is funded by a government (for example some Red Lists), it usually limits itself to the political jurisdiction. --HighKing (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Conkers as part of Nut (fruit)

Given that there is an Irish Conquer Championship listed on discoverireland.com, the official Governmental tourist agency for the RoI, and it has its own website, it suggests that many or most people in Ireland do know and use the term, and reduces HighKing's credibility in this area even further.

For goodness sake, an Irish Conker Team even played at the World Conker Championships and NI, (Belfast) also has its own annual conker competition.

Honestly --- how long do we really have to put up with all this level of argument over a nationalistically inspired campaign?

Are you really telling us that the seaweed magically does not grow around the Isle of Man and the CIs but yet does everywhere else in the Irish Sea?

Come guys, it is laughable. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! If they don't call 'em conkers in Ireland WTF do they call 'em? LevenBoy (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

the official Governmental tourist agency for the RoI? Wrong, Tourism Ireland is the agency responsible for marketing the island of Ireland overseas as a holiday destination. Tourism Ireland was established under the framework of the Belfast Agreement of Good Friday, April 1998, to increase tourism to the island of Ireland as a whole. --HighKing (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So come on then, what do they call conkers in the Repuplic of Ireland? LevenBoy (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Horse chestnuts. Perhaps as suggested by TFWOR, they're referred to as "Conkers" when being used as a sport - fair enough. --HighKing (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't quote me on that - I had a headmaster who insisted they be called "horse chestnuts", but he also insisted that "kid" meant "baby goat" and not "child". He had a cane, and was bitterly disappointed he was no longer allowed to use it... Anyway, this was in England, not Ireland. TFOWR 13:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced

Just reading through HighKing's comments above, and one of the problems he identifies is where there is unreferenced text referring to the British Isles. Yes, being unreferenced isn't ideal, but neither is it a problem. There is a huge amount on wikipedia that is unreferenced, but we do not remove it on that basis, but only if is 'likely to be challenged'. I do not think that simply having 'British Isles' in the text is a valid reason to doubt the veracity of the information presented. In other words British Isles should not be removed for being unsourced unless there is also reason to believe it is inaccurate. That's what I think anyway. Quantpole (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And I believe you are absolutely right. We can interpret sourced material as we think fit, provided it does not become inaccurate. So, if a source says "Great Britain and Ireland" and we interpret that as "British Isles" I believe we would be justified to do so, given the definition of British Isles. Forcing a requirement for sourcing every instance of the words "British Isles" tantamounts to gaming the system. LevenBoy (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

@Quantpole, unfortunately in my experience (and feel free to check the archives for real examples) the unreferenced usage is nearly always inaccurate. I note that some editors wish to widen the interpretation of the term "British Isles" to become synonymous with terms such as "Great Britain and Ireland". This leads to disagreements and experience here has shown that there is no consensus for that interpretation. --HighKing (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Quantpole is quite right about the scope of evidence needed to support a usage - usages only need citation when they are challenged. In that you are challenging them HK, they may need citation, but the mere proposal by you that "he unreferenced usage is nearly always inaccurate" is insufficient for it's removal. Hence this page. It would be useful to hear from Quantpole on future specific examples, as we are always in need of additional input here on what can be unfortunately rather partisan. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Highking, BI is used in 1000s of articles, the number of cases raised here where its un sourced use is incorrect is tiny in comparison. Although in some of the cases where we have accepted a change, BI has not been incorrect, a different term has simply been chosen which is more accurate for the subject at hand. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

@James - not sure if I'm interpreting what you mean by "usages only need citation when they are challenged" but it appears to be the opposite of WP:BURDEN. And I never intimated or stated that because a lot of unreferenced usage was inaccurate, therefore all instances should be removed. Also @BW, I never stated it was incorrect - although it wouldn't be stretching the English language to say that when an article is being made more accurate, that it has been corrected. I don't even like the idea that someone would take that away from my comment, which was simply to highlight the number of instances where usage has been inaccurate/incorrect in the past. But like you, I'd also like to welcome Quantpole to discussions here - outside views are always useful and valued. --HighKing (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. I was talking about a discussion to change an existing usage - I assumed BURDEN was about adding new material, but maybe I've misunderstood the scope of it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Although maybe I'm right - to quote from it, "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

@James - it simply means that content must be referencable. If refers to existing content as well as any potential changes or future content. If content cannot be referenced, it should be deleted. And obviously, a large dose of common sense also applies. --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That is the section that I had in mind when I was thinking about this. I am well aware that 'British Isles' is in itself a disputed term. However, simply because the term itself is disliked is not a valid reason to challenge its use and require a source. It is only if there is good reason to doubt its correctness as a geographical locator that a source could be insisted on or the text removed.

In terms of what HighKing talking about British Isles not being synonymous with GB and Ireland, I'm not quite sure what the issue is. If something is found in GB and Ireland then it is found in the British Isles. That doesn't mean that it has to be found on all 6000 odd islands. In a lot of cases it may be unclear the exact distribution of a plant (e.g. is it on the Isle of Man, the Shetlands etc?) in which case using British Isles may be better as it encompasses everything. If it is clear that something is only found on the islands of Great Britain and Ireland then it would certainly be appropriate to use the more precise terminology.

Thanks for the welcome btw. I have popped in here now and again, but to be honest it can get a bit draining getting overly involved! Quantpole (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

@Quantpole, it can be draining and intimidating, but I've found with civility being patrolled by TFOWR, this place is starting to lighten up. You've made a number of points. You say simply because the term itself is disliked is not a valid reason to challenge its use and require a source - I believe everyone here agrees. The term is never challenged for that reason, and if it was, would be given short shrift. Your next point is one of the most heavily disputed points here. You say talking aboutBritish Isles not being synonymous with GB and Ireland. There are so many contexts and topics where this has come up where there's reasons why it is not synonymous (and others where it can be), and this is what we're trying to work out here. We've recently agreed, for example, that using GB+I and BI for the distribution of fauna is fine - one of the main reasons being that the scientific community treats the British Isles as a geographic unit for the distribution of fauna. But this is not the case for flora - the Channel Islands are grouped with France for example. So we are discussing usage of "British Isles" in flora articles to see if there's any guidelines that make sense.

Hopefully the atmosphere here will improve and encourage more participants, and that you'll pop in to contribute from time to time. --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

More constructive contributors is always useful. I personally don't see a simple blanket guideline for Flora, seems it'll differ greatly depending on what exactly the articles scope is. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, getting a single agreement on this matter is going to be far more difficult than Fauna. Would be less time consuming to handle it on a case by case bases by the sounds of it. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've identified some patterns above which take place in a number of articles, so I'd say that rather than an over-reaching guideline for 90% of articles, we may end up with 4 agreements that cover 90% of flora articles. Unfortunately to date, I've yet to see any evidence of an agreement which might cover situations where BI shouldn't be used emanating from you guys. --HighKing (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning. I thought you were saying that being unreferenced was a problem in itself - my point was that it isn't (well, no more than stuff in general being unreferenced) unless there was good reason to doubt it.

In terms of the channel islands being grouped in with France well that depends on what you're looking at. The BSBI are probably the best resource for flora distribution of the British Isles and they include the channel islands. Quantpole (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If the subject matter is dealing solely with the British Isles, then the BSBI are the best resource, no doubt, and they deal with the geographic area as a unit. But the scientific community at large doesn't classify it in this way. --HighKing (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Who are "you guys" HighKing? I've stated many times that there are some situations where using British Isles may not be appropriate, my point here is that the term(s) used will probably differ on both the scope of the article and the descriptors it is using, so it might be best to finish individual flora discussions above. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Arts and Crafts Movement

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

agree with Snowded Codf1977 (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that British Isles is a reasonable addition to the Arts and crafts one. The section currently called UK has a paragraph at the end on Ireland and this is talking about a period where it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland rather than just the present UK. So British Isles seems reasonable as a section heading there. I found this sorce which says "the earliest and perhaps the fullest development of the movement was in the British Isles". So that change seems ok to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded's reasoning on Arts and Crafts Movement --HighKing (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if this is explained elsewhere, but how do we proceed if one is classed as "unresolved" - revert the article to the status quo? Personally, having just read through the article, I can't see much that isn't really about Britain and specifically England and Scotland - there is a small amount of material on Ireland in the article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In the past that's been the decision - to revert to just prior to any editing by participants here. Unresolved basically is the same as no consensus for the edits. Although not that it doesn't mean that the edits can't continue to be discussed. If nobody else objects to this reasoning, I suggest that this becomes the norm from now on. --HighKing (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Arguments for "British Isles"

Arguments against "British Isles"

Gravity anomalies of Britain and Ireland

{{Resolved}} Punted to AfD. Looks like AfD is headings towards WP:SNOW, so may as well keep this open until after the AfD is closed. TFOWR 12:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This one is interesting as it appears a little different to other cases we've discussed previously, since it discusses the surrounding seas. The lede states Such gravity anomalies have been mapped across the British Isles and the surrounding seas. The title of the article and of the publications all relate only to Britain and Ireland, with none listed for Isle of Man or and of the Channel Islands. So based on previous discussions, it might seem irrelevant to note that gravity anomalies were mapped across the British Isles, and that the sentence should be removed or corrected to "Britain and Ireland". But. Although there's no gravity anomalies listed for the Isle of Man or Channel Islands, it does list the basins surrounding the Isle of Man, and this reference clearly shows that mapping took place on the Channel Islands. Therefore I believe that using "British Isles" in this context is of value - both correct and factually true - since it is referring to the larger geographic area, and dealing with a geology-related subject. Comments? --HighKing (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Move the article to Gravity anomalies across the British Isles and the surrounding seas ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Or Gravity anomalies of northwestern Europe? Fmph (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland definitely doesn't cover it. Gravity anomalies on and around the British Isles? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

British Isles should be in the title instead of Britain and Ireland. yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Good piece of research HK, I agree with you - and thanks for taking the time to look for examples other than those some expect you might normally seek out. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything suitable to merge this into, if not then Gravity anomalies on and around the British Isles would seem suitable for the moment. Codf1977 (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how this image helps us Fmph - can you explain a little more please? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)\

I figured out how it helps, the article needs a photo! I'll add it in. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

On the face of it, its North West Europe isn't it? --Snowded 11:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if that's the reason for Fmph showing it to us, but yes, it's North West Europe. Jack 1314 (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's British Isles. Why is this one even being considered? The article text lists numerous places throughout the islands - Skye, Lundy and others, for example. Proposing this for amendment is verging on provocative. LevenBoy (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got no real problem with BI on this one, although I don't think its necessary. The only reference is the British Geological Survey. There are no references at all in the text so for all we know it is OR or Synth. Now if I remember my A Level Geology aright (and that is several decades ago) the information is correct, but it does need some references. However we do need to see some consistency of argument. Levin Boy, your normal argument is that if there is anything in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands then it justifies the use of BI. Here all the examples are either on the island of Ireland or the island of Great Britain. You can't have your cake and eat it. --Snowded 12:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't that image in fact show that there is a rather severe anomaly running right through the BI? However, I'm no geologist! Yet again though we are seeking to locate angels on complex pinheads about which, truth to tell, we know little. I exempt from this Snowded Geology A Level. Of course. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've eaten around a cake before, the outsides have more icing.

From what I understood from the article the anomalies appeared on some islands offshore, as well as I think extending to the sea? (Not sure, not the best explained)

That would suggest to me that British Isles be used, not only to cover what is there, but to be more inclusive. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't on that image, it appears to be blatted all over the BI - but as I said, we are not geologists. Apart from Snowded. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Does this help? Fmph (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does, thanks for adding it. The Pyrenees anomaly on that one seems to be related to one covering parts of Spain and unconnected to the one covering the BI. In fact, this does seem a good candidate for use of BI, particularly as it affects surrounding seas, which are not part of either "Ireland" or "Britain". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There must be something wrong with my eyes. When I look at it I see a purplish swathe of colour stretching pretty much unbroken from the south east corner of the Bay of Biscay, in a north-westerly direction along the continental shelf through Ireland and much of the west coast of Britain, before heading back in a north easterly direction to the coast of Norway, in a pretty much unbroken seam. One which almost perfectly matches the north west eauropean continental shelf. Am I the only person who sees that? Fmph (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Good call on that continental plate comparison. Anyway, it gets noticeably bigger when it reaches the British Isles. The division of colour on england actually reminds me of the first geological map ever made of England. Either way, the British Isles are noticeable for being on that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's in the eye of the beholder. I see a clear gap between the Spain one and the northerly one. There are a lot of complex features right across the BI, not just the edge of the contintental shelf. However, this debate really goes to the existence of such an article at all - if editors are challenging that, they should begin a delete debate at that article. Here, where we discuss use of "British Isles", I really can't see a problem with using it in that article, unless other referenced material is brought forward better than us untrained people studying geological imagery. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you point out approx where the 'clear gap' is? between the Spain one (one what?) and the northerly one (Norway?)? I don't see what you are talking about. I think that here we discuss making the encyclopedia better. You can avoid those discussions if you so wish, but that is the intent of all the discussions here. If the consensus here is that the article is actually not ] then of course we can move the discussion to WP:AFD. But it would be a bit silly to do that if the consensus was that the article is notable. BTW, there isn't a series of articles titled Gravity anomalies of xxx. This seems to be the only one. Fmph (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's always difficult with images, so without us both in the room and a pointer or a shared Electronic Whiteboard, I can't point to it - but it is right there at the left-hand corner of the Pyrenees and again just a little into the Bay of Biscay. However, none of this really matters. The points you are making are to do with either a Move or Delete of the article, so yes, you would need to take those to the article, because this is about use of the phrase "British Isles". So I'm not trying to avoid the discussion. It really doesn't matter what we non-geologists think of that image. What would help would be written sources on it like this one from the Earth Institute. Beyond that, notability is a matter of Move or Delete and not for this page. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Before James gets carried away I claim no expertise after several decades absence. However this does seem to relate to Granite outcrops and those do extend over the whole shelf. To be honest I debate the value of the article. Its not referenced, it describes something which is the case all over the world. Its a so what type article. --Snowded 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You would still need to tag it for delete and open a discussion on the talk page. We cannot have this page taking on Misplaced Pages-wide delete/move discussions every time someone sees "British Isles" or thinks they would like to add it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll tag it, but only if there is a consensus here that it's a good idea. Consensus first. Tag second. This is no place for ].

Then it will go to the wider community. And Snowded's move to contact the original author seems like an appropriate move. Fmph (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that the really discussion (which should be at the article talk page) is is this article noteworthy. I think not. Bjmullan (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this article actually provides a template for what this article should be. It is primarily a list, so it should really take the naming style List of xxx.... No one has yet produced any evidence that gravity anomalies in Ireland or the UK are in any way notable, other than that the regional geological societies publish regional geological maps. If the geographical location of gravity anomolies is notable in wikipedian terms (and I'm not yet convinced that they are) then the starting point should be a global list of them with regional headings/subheadings. If the list gets too long it can be split off into regional articles, and we might, just might, come back to having a Gravity anomalies of BI article at some distant point in the future. But for now we only need one article for the globe, if at all. Fmph (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Article contents aside

I agree with the use of British Isles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, the image is of North West Europe. But, the sources back up the use of British Isles (and they seem to be good sources). I think any further discussion should be on the article talk page. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't have an intimate knowledge of this subject and I don't have an A level in Geology like some people. :) Jack 1314 (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Few of us have achieved even O Level I suspect. Not all though. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

But do the sources suggest notability? Fmph (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What section or sentence from WP:Notability do you think would put into doubt the notability of the sources? Jack 1314 (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I also agree with the use of British Isles for the reasons set out above. Discussions over whether the article has merit or is notable don't really belong here - the same as discussions over whether articles could be improved, etc. There are other places where those discussions are more appropriate and are seen by a wider (and hopefully more content-knowledgable) audience. --HighKing (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not the sources that need to be notable. Its the article. I can find sources that say more people paint their bedrooms blue than red in the UK, but that doesn't mean there should be an article entitled Calming effects of colours in the United Kingdom. So why do we need an article on gravitational anomalies, wherever they may be? Fmph (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

On that one I can't answer. Those in the know would probably be more than capable of answering. As HK suggests, perhaps asking at the article talk page would be more informative. Jack 1314 (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So another case of maybe deleting the article just because it contains the words "British Isles". What a thoroughly disreputable suggestion. It's amazing how some of the above contributors feel qualified to comment AT ALL on this subject. LevenBoy (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't contain those words, does it? And I agree that your suggestion thats the only reason for deleteion is a thoroughly disreputable suggestion. Good self-flagellation there. Fmph (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You should look at the discussion before commenting, LevenBoy. Jack 1314 (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Original article compiler here! The principal source of the material is stated in the references section and the title of the map produced by the British Geological Survey is this: Colour Shaded Relief Gravity Anomaly map of Britain, Ireland and adjacent areas. The map istelf therefore includes the seas adjacent to the group of islands off the northwest coast of Europe (along with islands such as the Channel Islands, Isle of Man etc - however you wish to name them collectively - and I don't want to get sidetracked down that naming alleyway! As to whether the gravity anomalies of briatin etc are notable - well that's a matter perhaps of some subjectivity. Are the mountains of Britain notable, or its rivers, or any other aspect of its topography or geological structure? I'd probably say yes to all of these because they have cultural associations. And the anomalies - well they both reflect the existence of and inform the scientific understanding of many of the major physiographic features of these islands and their neighbouring seas. If there's an issue about referencing then I can probably trawl up some more material to back up what I've put down. Geopersona (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

thank you for coming here and sorry if we have wasted your time because of this dispute, it tends to drag other editors and many articles into the conflict. It is clear the area in question is the British Isles and so use of it within the article is totally justified, and also using the name in the article title would be justified too. How would you feel about the article title being changed to say of the British Isles rather than of Britain and Ireland? if you would rather keep the present title then i think we should leave it alone, but there is a good case for the change. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it to those who have more interest in the naming of geographical and political entities than do I to sort out what name it ultimately goes under. I understand there are sensitivities but life is too short for me to get hung up on this issue. Thanks. Geopersona (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

lol ok thanks, the sad thing is all of us here know you are right about life being too short to worry about this issue, doesnt stop us wasting our lives away on it though :( BritishWatcher (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I just hope you enjoyed seeing us clueless geology-wannabees wrestling with your anomaly maps, Geopersona. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There were some interesting observations there - in fact gravity and indeed magnetic anomaly maps function equally as works of art or decorations for the wall - you don't need to know anything about geology to appreciate them on the one level though knowing something about the subject as some contributors to the discussion clearly do, does aid that appreciation. And, Jamesinderbyshire, the more detailed map used as the article's principle source shows a positive gravity anomaly which coincides with the limestone outcrop of Derbyshire - the White Peak - with all the cultural associations which that splendid area can boast.Geopersona (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion really goes to the article content, not the inclusion of BI specifically, although I accept that the veracity of article content is relevant, we seem to be (as with Irish Traveller) talking about what should be included in an article, rather than the "simpler" issue of BI - in or out? I suspect Geopersona would welcome some discussion on that article at Talk:Gravity_anomalies_of_Britain_and_Ireland as the current level of talk there is, er, nil. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should leave this one completely as it was found. Mention British Isles in the article but leave the title as it is. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. And, um, that was kinda my original point all along. --HighKing (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

British Isles is backed up by sources mentioned above. Mabuska 10:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

I believe we're all violently agreeing. The point was that context and subject can justify use of a wider geographical area, such as the British Isles, even if there are no clear references and sources. Closed with no change as proposed. --HighKing (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait who proposed no change? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If no one has done, can I do so now, with the proviso that a discussion is started on the article talk page wrt a move/del/rework into a more notable article? Fmph (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, someone refer it to a relevant wikiproject. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Has this been referred to a relevant WikiProject? If so, which one? TFOWR 12:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. Its on my to-do list. I was going to take it to WP:AFD with the suggested action being to Move to List of Gravity Anomalies, creating the list by continent. Are you happy with that? Fmph (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to get input from a relevant WikiProject (Geography?) first, but an AfD will at least draw in outside input. I don't feel competent to prevent an AfD (it's not within the mandate given by ANI), so make no formal objection to an AfD. TFOWR 13:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't think it should be deleted, but it could be a controversial move. So Afd may be the best route. I'll notify here and the UK and Irl projects and see if there is an appropriate 'interest' project. It'll take a few days to put it together I'd guess. Fmph (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I've kicked off the process. More to come. I think it probably best if we give other interested parties a couple of days to comment over there, before we drag all our own provincial prejudices over there for all to see. Lets see what they come up with on their own. Fmph (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ping! AfD has now closed as keep. Any further thoughts? TFOWR 13:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaning in the direction of using British Isles, as the subject at hand is about a definite geographical topic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

I notice that there is an omission in the lead of the Republic of Ireland article, a very important one, while it correctly points out it is "is a country in north-western Europe" it fails to mention the important geological fact it is part of the British Isles archipelago. Shall we add it ? Codf1977 (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the ireland article really needs to follow the general practice that applies of United Kingdom and France, to name but two, that place them in a European context. --Snowded 08:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think Codf1977 was suggesting we replace the Europe in that sentence and put British Isles. However it is a valid point that article fails to mention anywhere that it is part of the British Isles. It may not be deserving of a mention in the introduction but it certainly belongs in the geography section.

So we should add a sentence pointing this out. To leave it out simply to avoid offending a few people is unhelpful. This appears to be another example of where fact is "left out" to avoid causing offence. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Has it been in at some time in the past and subsequently deleted? If so, it would be useful to see what explanation was given for the deletion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Also the UK article does not use BI and geologically the area is much wider - remember the English Channel is a product of ice age flooding. --Snowded 09:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, im suprised the United Kingdom article doesnt, that certain needs correcting. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The following articles do need to mention the British Isles, to avoid mentioning fact because it may make some people here unhappy is unacceptable.

• Geography of Ireland
• Ireland
• Republic of Ireland
• United Kingdom

I do not think it needs to be in the introduction of Ireland/ROI, in the geography section is fine like on Northern Ireland. But British Isles does belong on the Geography of Ireland articles introduction. Great Britain handles it well i think. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)BW, please stop this continuous speculation as to the motives of other editors. In respect of the articles on the two states they are clearly political entities. In respect of the geography sections and articles, while British Isles is a geographical term, it is not a required geographical term or the only one which is appropriate, the case needs to be made in each case. Would you point to the part of Great Britain which you think is a good illustration, I cant find that. --Snowded 09:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In some cases it is not speculation. Codf1977 (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly but the idea that any article which does not include the term is a result of such a motivation is absurd and it is not helpful for it to occur in around half of BW's comments here and elsewhere. At the moment the number of proposals to include BI, and related proposals such as those at Derry would indicate that the issue has reversed! --Snowded 09:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont think just because something fails to mention it saying BI its because of the crusades, when i said above "to avoid mentioning fact because it may make some people here unhappy is unacceptable.", i was talking about it can not be a reason for us not to agree to add it now. Some have talked about avoiding use of BI on Ireland related articles before, it was in the proposed MOS we all debated a few weeks back. As for the situation being reversed, it does not look like that from where i am sitting. I see systemic bias on wikipedia against Britain, British people and yes treatment of the term British Isles remains a problem. The situation has not been reversed, it may have calmed down a bit compared to a few years ago, but the blood is still on the carpet as they say.(just a metaphor)BritishWatcher (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The point BI is that you should not assume the reason that BI is not present is due to political motives, it may just not be appropriate. Please focus on the content issues --Snowded 10:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but we have plenty of evidence to suggest BI has been removed or a different term used for political sensitivities. I have provided another example of this below. after a very clear pattern across wikipedia for several years, there comes a time when assumptions in obvious cases are sadly unavoidable. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course there have been the point is (i) that you should not always assume that is the case and (ii) you have told us so many times now, do you think we don't know its your view? --Snowded 11:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I accept it is not always the case, but when we are talking about certain articles where its use is clearly justified, it does point to exclusion for "political sensitivities", and a look through the history shows such assumptions can turn out accurate. I have been very clear about my view on these matters in the past yes and i will continue to express my views. As in the debate above about rules, i think its healthy for us to be open about these sorts of things, although i will avoid in future the bit about books, i also speak in general terms i am not attacking a specific editor, although again.. the evidence of some editors activities on these matters are clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the GB article in the terminology section mentions the BI, the infobox mentions BI and it has the BI template with the correct name. I suppose it could be worded better and in another section, i just meant it handles it better than the other articles which fail to mention it entirely, dont have the template and in one case rename it. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

So you are arguing for the insertion of a "Archipelago" section in the information box of some articles? Is there a precedent elsewhere in equivalent articles? --Snowded 10:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it does need to be inserted on the island article yes, that is one of a number of issues that need addressing about these core articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Or deleted from the Great Britain one. Is the "Archipelago" label used elsewhere in WIkipedia information boxes? I think we should follow common practice here --Snowded 10:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep it. Codf1977 (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Majorca Codf1977 (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

See section below --Snowded 12:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding British Isles to Great Britain & Ireland articles is acceptable, but not urgent. Adding British Isles to United Kingdom & Republic of Ireland is not necessary. For example: we don't need to have New England mentioned in the article Vermont. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This appears on the Northern Ireland article at the bottom but not on the others except Ireland where someone has renamed it "Great Britain and Ireland" which pipelinks to the British Isles. I strongly oppose pipelinking, even if it means that BI is not mentioned at all. But in this case clearly it should say British Isles, its a British Isles template for goodness sake. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In 2008 instead of it saying Great Britain and Ireland rather than British Isles, it said "British Islands and Ireland" , "British Islands" is simply a legal term and was clearly incorrectly used there. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed, that pipe link is wrong, I also question the template group on the Ireland page I can't see why the {{British Isles}} is in that as it is related to more than Ireland. Codf1977 (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

British Isles template belongs on that article, it belongs on all the main articles (UK,Ireland,ROI,England,Wales,Scotland,NI, IOM, CIs etc) within the British Isles. At the moment it appears only on about 3, one being Ireland with its renamed "Great Britain and Ireland" title. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In December 2006 it said "Great Britain, Ireland and the Isle of Man" rather than British Isles on the British Isles template. Clearly inaccurate as it missed out Channel Islands lol. I dread to think what other names it got given. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In Feb 2006 the Ireland article included Categories: Islands in the British Isles. It is going to take a long time to go through all these edits. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In August 2006 the Ireland article said :

"The island is sometimes referred to as being part of the British Isles. However, notwithstanding the level of acceptance of the term within Northern Ireland, exception is taken by many Irish people to the extension of this nomenclature to include Ireland, as it infers an identity at odds with historical, cultural and political reality. For this reason, "Britain and Ireland" is sometimes used as a more neutral way of alluding to the archipelago of which the two islands are the essential constituents. Another suggestion, although much less frequently used, is the Islands of the North Atlantic (IONA)"

It is quite interesting looking back at the history of articles lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Lmao @ this removal of the British Isles from a sentence on the Ireland article in British Isles was replaced with Ireland or Great Britain by Sarah777 with the edit summary saying "(remove political pov)"

The debate about including the BI template is in the Talk:Ireland/Archive 5 and thats where they discussed having a different name for the template in 2006. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Specific Proposals

• Republic of Ireland proposal 1

In the Republic of Ireland#Geography section insert at the start of the sentence "It is bounded to the north and.." the following "Part of the British Isles archipelago, it"

• Republic of Ireland proposal 2

Add {{British Isles}} after the current template group.

• Ireland proposal 1

In the lead change the sentence "It lies to the northwest of continental Europe and is surrounded by hundreds of islands and islets" to "It lies to the northwest of continental Europe and is part of the British Isles archipelago".

* Ireland proposal 2

In the {{Infobox islands}} add the "archipelago = British Isles" tag.Moved to a new section below Codf1977 (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ireland proposal 3

move {{British Isles}} out of the template group to after the template group and remove the piped text.

• Ireland proposal 4

Add the geographical fact that Ireland is the second largest of the British Isles into the first paragraph. This is basic info that everyone should know about. LemonMonday Talk 17:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That could be easily merged with Ireland proposal 1 as "It lies to the northwest of continental Europe and is second largest island in the British Isles archipelago" Codf1977 (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we need the word "archipelago"? Surely just "British Isles" (linked) is sufficient? LemonMonday Talk 16:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Geography of Ireland proposal 1

Change the lede from "The geography of Ireland describes an island in northwest Europe in the north Atlantic Ocean." to "The geography of Ireland describes an island in northwest Europe in the north Atlantic Ocean part of the British Isles archipelago"

• Geography of Ireland proposal 2

Add {{British Isles}} after the current Geography of Europe one.

• United Kingdom

Add {{British Isles}} after the current template group. (fix the template group)

Codf1977 (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

General comments

The archipelago label is not present in the information boxes of other groups that I can see, so there could be a case for removing it from Great Britain The appropriate geographical location for the two countries is North West Europe, there is no particular reason for British Isles here, especially on articles about political entities On the geography articles or sections there may be a case if it can be shown that the addition adds anything of significant value --Snowded 10:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment "The appropriate geographical location for the two countries is North West Europe" - as defined by who ? the two islands are part of the British Isles are they not ? Also how does not detailing the group of islands an island or country is in not add value ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well for a start both countries are members of the European Union, and the European link is more important than an archipelago. Most other country articles in Europe relate to a compass point aspect (Western Europe, Southern etc). So the general practice is clear and one important way to avoid conflict is to follow general practice. In addition we have generally been working on the heuristic of not using BI in a political context unless there is a really solid argument. In general my view is that removing BI just for the sake of it is a mistake but the corollary is also true; trying to find places to insert it when another geographical term has been in use for some time (and conforms with precedent elsewhere) could be seen as tit for tat. --Snowded 10:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

But this is about including it in the infobox under the term archipelago. Putting that in does not mean we must exclude mention of Europe. " In addition we have generally been working on the heuristic of not using BI in a political context unless there is a really solid argument." Have we? I have never agreed to that rule because it depends on peoples point of view if its political or not. This is the reason i strongly opposed such suggested wording in the MOS debate recently. The British Isles is a geographical term. There is nothing political about having a geographical term in an infobox. It is only political and a misuse of the term if we said "British Isles declared war on Germany". Saying Germany invaded the British Isles is not using it in a political way, simply as a geographical term and there for accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You have not addressed the main issue what is wrong with providing this small extra information. Codf1977 (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if you don't accept the political heuristic (which is a pity), then you need a find a reason to add something in, especially when, in general, only one geographical locator is used on most country articles in Europe and I can't find another example of archipelago in an information box. --Snowded 11:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Did not take me long Majorca Codf1977 (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In most case in Europe one is all there is, here we have a opportunity to provide a little more information. Codf1977 (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Most places in Europe are not an island and not part of a archipelago. Also if you look at the proposals above, the infobox bit was for the island of Ireland. Not the country. I think it belongs in the infobox of the island articles, i do not think it is needed in the infoboxes of the 2 country's however those articles do need to include the British Isles template at the bottom and they do need to mention it in their geography sections. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No, but places like Indonesia are and that is more comparable - the Malay archipelago has more than one state. I think the case is stronger to remove it than to add it. I am open to some wording in the geography section of the geography articles. --Snowded 12:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we are all getting mixed up here. I support British Isles to be in the infobox on the island of Ireland like it is on Great Britain at present. I agree there is no need for it at all in the infoboxes of the country articles, im not even sure if there is a setting available for it. But take Indonesia, 3 of its 5 islands do state archipelago. Java, Sumatra and Sulawesi. One island has no infobox, and one doesnt mention archipelago. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The three you mention are all part of Indonesia, there is no mention on the Indonesian or East Timor articles (both of which are countries). I can see no value in this unless there is some general standard somewhere that says it should be in the information boxes. The Great Britain article is also fairly political by the way, its not really a geographical article about the island. The number of additions of BI being proposed here is getting silly, creating information box labels for the sake of it. --Snowded 12:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

But they are islands, we are talking about the island infobox. No one has proposed the Republic of Ireland infobox should include it (from what ive seen), im supporting the inclusion in the infobox on Ireland, i dont think it needs to be in the infobox of the ROI country article, although BI is needed within the article text in the geography section without a doubt, and debatably somewhere in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

All of the above seems reasonable inclusions. We also need to add the Category:British Isles to each. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You are making a statement BW, you are not making a case. --Snowded 10:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a statement. Plenty of time to argue the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's definitely a good idea to include the term in the geography articles and sections. Whether it needs to be in the lead is debatable. The lead about the countries is by default political, they being about countries. Using British Isles there would cause more trouble than its worth in my opinion. Stick to describing them as a european country in the EU. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that and that is in line with the proposal above. The island articles should say British Isles in their introduction somewhere (doesnt need to be the first sentence) and it should be in the infobox. On the country articles it should just be in the geography section, no need for it in the introduction or in the infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, is this suggesting that we add "British Isles" to the location part of the geography infoboxes? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The only infobox suggestion was for the article on the island of Ireland to match the article on the island of Great Britain. I dont see any need for it to be included on country article infoboxes. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Understood! Yes, I agree with that, accepting that a draft of the new infobox is placed in the articles talk page first just to check over. I'm occasionally pathetically pedantic... Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It would definitely have to be mentioned on the Ireland article talkpage before deciding to add it, we should see positions of other people involved here before moving it on to there though, otherwise the debate will take place in two separate places and it can get confusing. In general i think we should try to agree a position here before moving onto the article themselves. That helps protect other parts of wikipedia from our dispute. Theres no point in raising it at all there if some editors here are strongly opposed and would block it anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I placed a notice on the articles concerned so that they are aware of the discussion. Best it takes place here in the round. --Snowded 13:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok but i think we should state what the specific proposal was for each of the articles there to avoid confusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a direct pipelink to the above proposals BW, no need to replicate material on many pages. You made the proposals as a batch (are you going to keep to a ten proposal a month limit by the way) so people can look at them as such --Snowded 13:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I do want us to agree to some form of limit, but at present i do not think there is one. About 10 a month seems reasonable to me, although we will have to work out how we define it per editor though. Codf1977 originally raised the ROI issue and then put forward a list of proposals including issues id mention in text about the BI template problem. Would that count as one of mine or one of Codf1977's? We gonna need to get a sensible policy in place soon, although we will likely have an influx of editors now over these proposed changes so that will have to wait till these have been sorted. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding British Isles to the articles United Kingdom & Republic of Ireland is a mistake, IMHO. The better place to add them is at Great Britain & Ireland articles. Afterall, isn't the term geographical? GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

They belong in the infoboxes of the GB/Ireland island articles. But there is no reason why the geographical information should not be included in the correct section of the articles about the country. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't the necessity in that. Both countries are in north-eastern Europe, which is descriptive enough. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: I've have noticed though, that Irish Sea has been used, in those forementioned sections. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Placing the term "British Isles" in the geography sections of the country articles seems fine. As you said GoodDay, they are geographical terms. We are not intending to change the lead of infoboxes of the Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom articles, just their geography sections and the main geography pages. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's decided to add them there, be prepared for the resulting 'root-canal' expierence at the republic article. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Been away a while and just catching up with the goings on here -- and I see there's no change -- POV pushing goes on! Anyways, is the intention to correct this statement at Ireland: Ireland (pronounced ( listen),; Irish: Éire, pronounced ( listen); Ulster Scots: Airlann) is the third largest island in Europe and the twentieth largest island in the world. It lies to the northwest of continental Europe and is surrounded by hundreds of islands and islets. To the east of Ireland is Great Britain, separated from it by the Irish Sea.?? Correcting it will involve stating that the island is the second largest in the British Isles - is that on the agenda here? Sorry, but I've not had a chance to read all the bullshit yet. LemonMonday Talk 16:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No that was not the proposal. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it should be then! Can it please be added. .... No probs I'll add it miself. LemonMonday Talk 17:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I just spent 10 minutes checking out some of the many thousands islands that belong to these archipelago and NONE of them even mention the word British never mind British Isles. I will not be support ANY inclusion of the term in either of the Irish articles until someone can convince me of it's worth and to date that has not happened. Bjmullan (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm sounds like something we will have to address at another point. But we should not decide the outcome of the above proposals based on areas the taskforce may need to look at in future. Which of the above proposals did you have specific concern about. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) your support or lack of it is not the issue, the issue is, is it correct, and I notice that no one is disputing the facts here, namely that the island of Ireland is in the British Isles and as far as I can see the only reason to avoid saying so is POV pushing. Codf1977 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of "facts" about the various articles, it doesn't automatically mean they are included. We need to see what is done on equivalent articles and discuss whether these proposed additions really add any value or not. --Snowded 18:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me the biggest area of debate right now is over the infobox on the Ireland article, and if it should state British Isles or not. Lets create a new section below so we can go into more detail. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk tlak talk! That's all we're getting. How about some action? Seems like stonewalling's going on here. It is a blatant fact that Ireland is the second largest of the British Isles so why should that basic, up front fact not be put in the article - answers please. Mullan - have you got some dislike of Britain or something? LemonMonday Talk 20:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

LemonMonday, please refrain from speculating about editors' likes and dislikes. TFOWR 21:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with LemonMonday above when he says time for "some action? Seems like stonewalling's going on" - can we move this to a conclusion ? Codf1977 (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This thread was only opened yesterday: I'd like to see it carry on into at least the start of the working week so that editors who can't/don't edit at weekends can comment. TFOWR 08:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Europe related geographical reference points are too broad now that the EU/EFTA spreads from as far as Iceland to Ukraine/Turkey. Speaking geographically, any where within the British Isles should, in the first place, be categorised as being within the British Isles in contrast to Continental Europe. "British Isles" is the non-political, geographical option. Any notable omission of the term again becomes political. We need a simple blanket ruling for the sakes of consistency.

I do not think nannying over other comments on others helps. I think what would help is a simple and obligatory list of participants and their self-defined POV --- which is what I attempted. It would help newcomers, or returnees, to understand the dynamics of what is going on here far more quickly than trawling the talk pages.

I agree. Nothing is being done (see above for a blanket ruling on flora and fauna). Certain individuals are ignoring issues and attempting to talk issues into a grave and where that does not work, going behind the scenes to engineer blocks and bans and provoke others.

It is just not "collegiate", as they say. --Triton Rocker (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of these issues take more than a few days to resolve, especially when many options are thrown into play at the same time. BW did the right thing in picking one issue out for resolution below. --Snowded 09:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

These problems will take a while to resolve. A standard move vote/debate takes 7 days. If there is a dispute here, I see no reason why it shouldn't take as long. Maybe a backlog of articles to examine can be created somewhere, and an admin (TFOWR?) can add them to open discussion as time allows? That would allow a control of the amount on here. As for the specific discussion above, one at a time sounds good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The debate on the infobox of Ireland has been extensively debated below, other issues have yet to get much feedback.

Are there any objections to the {{British Isles}} template being added to the United Kingdom page and a mention of the BI in the geography section. That would seem to be the least potentially problematic ones.

If there are no objects or more conversation about that, how long before we should consider adding it? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing any opposition to the above proposals for changes to the United Kingdom article, just the Ireland articles require more debate. So at what stage can the non opposed proposals above be included? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you open a new section and propose wording in each case. --Snowded 11:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the proposal above for the UK is about adding the British Isles template to it. Although an explanation in the geography section about the BI may be jutified too, but the above proposal was just about the template. There is no point creating a new section for each thing listed above, only those that people have concerns about and need debating in more detail are needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well my call would support a reference to the archipelago in the geography sections of Great Britain and Ireland if we can agree the words. I don't see the point on the articles about sovereign states. I'm not a fan of the BI template anyway, there are more than enough links --Snowded 12:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Id support a mention of it on the island articles in their geography sections, and not make changes to the ROI or UK geography sections, although on full articles about geography for the countries it should be mentioned too in the introduction, and there is a case for it to be in the introduction of the island articles, but at the very least its needed in the geography section. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would've liked it on both the geography sections in the articles and in the articles leads, but I guess that's reaching. Including them somewhere in the island articles it is definitely needed. Not including it would leave the articles lacking in information (information important enough that it has its own section in the infobox, even if that is not filled) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OK so lets agree wording for the two geography sections of the island articles and then post a notice on the articles concerned for comment. I can draft this evening if you want or you have a go --Snowded 13:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No rush, if you could propose the wording and post on there, it may be seen more as a reasonable compromise than coming from myself. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that it should not be in the lead of the sovereign state articles (ROI & UK), however if those sovereign state articles have geography sections it should be mentioned there (following this edit the ROI one is ok). As for the articles on islands, it should be in the lead and in any geography sections, likewise in the lead of any geography articles. Codf1977 (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Great Britain one is easy, add at the end of the first paragraph of Geographical Definition "and is a part of the British Isles Archipelago". Ireland is more difficult, especially with comments like that above. There is no need for it to be in the lede of any article, its a minor geographical issue. In Ireland I suggest adding at the end of the first paragraph "Along with the island of Great Britain and 1000s of other islands it is a part of the archipelago of the British Isles" with no pipelinking. On the Ireland article there needs to be a link to the controversy and possible a similar wording (alternative Atlantic Archipelago) or similar. --Snowded 20:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be in the introduction of the island articles and the geography of the island articles. When it comes to the two sovereign states it should be in the geography section of each. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to have it in the lede of any article, it really is not that notable. I am pretty sure you will not get consensus for that on Ireland, in fact attempting it would probably mean no changes at all. There is a case for inclusion in the geography section on the island articles, although it could be argued that it would be better on the subsidiary articles (Geography of Ireland for example) which go to a finer level of detail. I can see no case for the country articles. I would suggest not being over ambitious here it will reduce any chance you have of success and starts to look like a crusade (sic). --Snowded 21:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well inclusion in the geography section of the island article and the lead of the geography articles on the island seems like a good compromise that may be doable, i think its justified to be in the intro of the island article but it being mentioned in the geography section is better than nothing. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Might have not been clear with my last post, it should be in the lead for the island and geography articles not the state ones (see here]). Codf1977 (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with BW and Cod that it is an important inclusion, Snowded does make a point. Diving into the deep end would cause a huge amount of trouble. I suggest we focus on the island articles for now, and can move on to other stuff (ie state geography sections) after the island test has gone through. I don't think we'll get that much opposition in the Great Britain article, the Ireland article will be more tricky. Suggest moving it to the end of the introduction, but not the last sentence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to make this clear. the fact that the islands are part of an archipelago is not a major or critical aspect of their geography, and the name of that archipelago is verifiably controversial. I am prepared to make the case for its inclusion in the geography sections of the island articles. However I am not prepared to be part of an approach which says "lets get this in the bag and then get some more". --Snowded 09:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This whole procedure should look at what is verifiably correct, we should not do something (or conversely not do it) just because it is or is not controversial. Codf1977 (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability is not the only test. It also has to be notable. Given that the controversy is also verifiable the need to add it in on many uses raises questions about when it is appropriate to add it in and when it isn't. --Snowded 09:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

When I made that comment I was not commenting on notability, but since you bring it up, I am assuming that there is no issue with the fact that the island of Ireland being part of the British Isles is indeed notable. Codf1977 (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality is also an issue. Censorship of the fact Ireland is part of the British Isles is clearly problematic. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's get this in the bag and then get more is a very malicious twist :( What I really meant was the Let's take this step by step. But very well, will not use that in any discussion on inclusion, and will drop it for now. So on that note I think that separate subsections should be created, one for inclusion in the article and one for inclusion in the lead. That will give a better gauge on consensus.

As for notability, whoever created the island infobox obviously thought it notable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact most island infoboxes bother to use that field also proves it is notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, BW, if only it were a 'fact'. Its an opinion. A POV. Not a fact. And therein lies the problem. Fmph (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I'm fairly sure it's a fact, the "British Isles" includes Ireland. Call it the north atlantic archipelago or whatever, it does. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

But you see it is this opposition that clearly draws into question the neutrality. You are opposing its inclusion because you consider the "British Isles" is just opinion, rather than a geographical location which is proven as fact. Such opposition seriously undermines the neutrality of the article. We are avoiding saying British Isles there because some people including some editors here reject the term. That can not be right. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There are very clear questions of neutrality BW. but you are making a mistake if you think its just one way. A sensible use of British Isles in a geographical context is OK, but that does not mean insertion in every case where it can be claimed as a fact. Many facts exist, some are notable, some are appropriate etc. etc. Its your call on this one, you can go for broke with mass insertions or agree something more balanced. --Snowded 10:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have said it being mentioned in the geography section of the ireland article is better than nothing. I think a fair compromise would be it in the infobox with a note, in the geography section with an explanation of the controversy and leave it out of the introduction all together (although i think its justified there and fits in). I do not see the problem with it being in the infobox in line with almost all other island articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You clearly lack consensus on Talk:Ireland for a change to the information box (and for the record your "all other island articles" argument has been challenged). Are you still pursuing this one?--Snowded 10:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It is ashame it got turned into a vote there which would obviously result in making it very difficult to get agreement and show a lack of consensus, instead of us being able to hold a rational debate there. I think it is accurate to say almost all other island infoboxes which are part of an archipelago say it in their infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Fact 2: When I use the term (which is very rarely) I do NOT include Ireland in what I'm referring, unless I am referencing your usage.

Fact 3: When you use the term Britain and Ireland, you probably don't include the Isle of Man or Channel Islands in what you are referring to.

Fact 4: When I use the term Britain and Ireland, I include the whole shooting match of what you refer to as the British Isles.

Those are the facts. The terms mean different things to different people.

Do I accept that on Misplaced Pages different usages are stipulated in different contexts? Yes I do.

Do you? Fmph (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are meanings and one can find references that in part or in whole support those uses, however it is verifiably a fact that Ireland is a part of the archipelago if the British Islands , as it is a fact that the term is controversial. However you can't argue from personal preference or from a more restricted set of sources --Snowded 10:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact is Ireland is part of the British Isles, that has always been the case. Misplaced Pages must reflect reliable sources, most of which state this as fact. So the Ireland article must not simply ignore this matter because some people do not like the term, it is totally unacceptable censorship and violates WP:NPOV. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not enough for it to be a fact, it has to be notable in context and if used the reference must be complete. Saying that a fact should not be included is not censorship per se. I can think of many geographical facts about Ireland which are not in the article. You are getting back to motivational issues rather than content again--Snowded 10:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, I disagree with the challenge to the fact that "Islands have archipelago's in their infoboxes". The only islands I can find without them are islands which don't have the island infobox, such as Tasmania and Hokkaido. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok so on notability. The creator of the island infobox included a field for archipelagos. Most islands that are part of an archipelago state it in their infobox. The Great Britain infobox has stated it for some time. I do not see how we can just fail to mention it. If it is justified to be included in a geography section, why not in the infobox where there is a field for it? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

We've had this out several times Chipmunk, where there is little ambiguity you find it, were its confused with political and other groups you don't. And that is just one argument by the way. Personally I would remove it from the British Isles article. As far as I can see that ship has sailed, there is no consensus on talk:Ireland to make a change. --Snowded 11:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep lets move on to the issue of the text in the article, although i have to say i am not very impressed with the reasons for excluding it from the infobox considering all the facts suggest it should be included. These are probably the most justified/needed places to include British Isles on wikipedia that we debate here. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

With all respect Snowded, we haven't. Your answers have, apologies, been unsatisfying at best. The only instance I remember of you providing an example of a political group is the Timor infobox, which does have an archipelago in its infobox. The claim that it not saying Malay archipelago is based on politics is a stretch. The current entry, Lesser Sunda Islands, is actually better, due to giving a more accurate location. I agree with leaving it to the side for now though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Timor in a lower level one that the Malay which is why it isn't problematic. The politics between Indonesia and East Timor and also Singapore is well documented so I am sorry I think its a good example. I am happy to accept to doesn't satisfy you, several arguments of many an editor don't satisfy me either but its something wel all have to live with --Snowded 11:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If inclusion within the article text is also blocked by a few editors then this whole matter will have to debated again. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If the editors can show good policy based reasons, and those reasons are are not based around "it is controversial" or "I/we dont like it" or just try to stonewall and the such then that's ok, but I have confidence in either of the two overseeing admins here being able to see through that so where that risk exists, I think it would be unlikely to be successful. Codf1977 (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You both really have to stop this assumption that because people disagree with you they are somehow or another breaking policy. I would also comment that raising a whole series of proposals to insert a controversial term on several articles where there is no clear cut case for insertion or removal is as much a mistake as listing 20 articles requiring its removal. --Snowded 11:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hangon, did you actual read what I said ? I was making no such assumption, my reply was basicly saying that I did not see an automatic link with re-opening the issue of the infobox if the inclusion within the article text did not happen. As for your assertion that these proposals have "no clear cut case for insertion" is simply not the case.Codf1977 (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry one colon too many, that was to BW --Snowded 12:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am basing my opinion on the reasons given for exclusion of British Isles from that infobox. I do consider avoiding to mention British Isles on an article because some do not like the term a violation of WP:NPOV. As for the list of proposals, it covers just 4 articles and is all related to the same sort of issue. It is nothing compared to the list of dozens of cases that are at the top of this page. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving towards a resolution

This has now been "open" for a week, and (info box aside) we should be able to move this forward to wards a conclusion now on the above proposals, all of them are perfectly acceptable uses of the term being verifiability accurate.Codf1977 (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The UK and Geography of Ireland articles should certainly have the proposals implemented. More debate over the Ireland article is needed but it does seem like opposition is to the infobox, and a mention within the article itself is justified. There were a couple of negative responses on Republic of Ireland, so wed best debate that more too. But other proposals should be implemented. The incorrect pipelink on the British Isles template over on Ireland should be fixed, we all agreed below that GB+I should not pipelink to BI, thats what happens in that template at the moment, clearly British Isles is justified in the British Isles template. so that change is needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the BI template, as a "path of least resistance", short-term solution. TFOWR 07:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no support for removal of that template. Its incorrect piping should have been corrected. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to get all of Ireland sorted out first, i.e. do we mention "British Isles" in the article-proper? In the lead? In the infobox? In the external links templates? Suddenly sticking "British Isles" onto a contentious page is not my idea of fun, and I certainly don't plan to do it without clear consensus. TFOWR 08:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

So we remove a template that has been on that article for over 2 years. Great BritishWatcher (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We remove it until this issue is resolved. I had two options: insert a contentious phrase onto the article without clear consensus, or remove a contentious template. I opted for the least problematic option, while recognising that both options would be contentious.

There are other options. We could rename the template from "British Isles" to either of "Britain and Ireland" or "Atlantic Archipelago". I don't like either of these options: "Britain and Ireland" is a political compromise that various governments seem to favour, but I don't believe (a) it's accurate, or (b) we should be swayed by what governments do. "Atlantic Archipelago" is an academic compromise that seems to have gained little usage outside academia. TFOWR 08:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The template should not be renamed, it certainly can not be Britain and Ireland, which means a lot of the content would have to be removed because it includes the Isle of Man and Channel Islands, and it certainly can not be renamed Atlantic Archipelago, a name almost no one has ever heard of in the real world.

That template was created to cover the British Isles. I strongly oppose any attempt to alter it to appease some who may not like the term. It was not a contentious template, it had been on that article for over 2 years. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

With respect, BW, it clearly was a contentious template: you objected to the pipe-linking "British and Ireland". You can't have it both ways: it's either contentious or it's not. Now, can I get on with looking at the wider issue? An issue that may well result in the restoration of the template in your preferred form: i.e. without "Britain and Ireland". TFOWR 08:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

ok BritishWatcher (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is only contentious because some people object to what it veritably the correct English name for the group of islands, to try and avoid using the name for reasons that some don't like it is point of view pushing. The right approach is to use the correct name and if appropriate mention that some find it problematic, the vast majority of the residents of the islands that make up the archipelago don't have an issue with the name.Codf1977 (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Still little progress on these matter

Ok it has now been two weeks. Lets look at each issue that was raised and what changes, if any have been made.

• Republic of Ireland article geography section - British Isles now pipelinks from "The country belongs to a group of islands in northwestern Europe which include the islands ofGreat Britain and Ireland, and over six thousand smaller islands." The fact the article now states this highlights how the British Isles should clearly be mentioned in that section and the only thing stopping it being clearly stated is trying to avoid upsetting some editors.

• British Isles template on the Republic of Ireland and Ireland article. - The template is now on both Ireland and Republic of Ireland, however they incorrectly pipelink to Britain and Ireland. This is a completely incorrect method, it is also rather odd when the British Isles template mentions something like the " Islands of the North Atlantic (IONA)" yet fails to state anywhere British Isles.

• Ireland article, still fails to mention anywhere that it is part of the British Isles. We are failing to inform the reader notable information for what reason?

• Ireland infobox. Despite most infoboxes of islands that belong to an archipelago stating the name of that archipelago in the infobox, it has been blocked by a vote on the talkpage - Again this is blatant censorship of information. There is no just reason why this should not be included except for to avoid the wikipedia controversy over the British Isles.

• Geography of Ireland - Fails to mention Ireland is part of the British Isles - Again notable information is left off an article for some reason.

• United Kingdom - British Isles template is there, it manages to be there without an incorrect pipelink.

What are we going to do about the above outstanding issues. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Islands: Great Britain, Ireland, other islands

Ireland's infobox

To avoid confusion which seems to have happened above at one stage, the proposal about infoboxes only appeared to apply to the infoboxes on the island, not the infobox of the countries. I support the infobox of the island of Ireland saying British Isles but agree it is not needed on the country infoboxes. Will lay out some of the points below in a moment, want to try and avoid Edit conflicts. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Lets add in the option to delete it from the Great Britain Information Box, its not a part of the standard templates in comparable articles --Snowded 19:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is, we are talking about island articles, i linked several above relating to islands of Indonesia and Codf1977 mentioned one. I see no reason why British Isles should be removed from Great Britains island template, its one of the most justifiable inclusions of the term British Isles on wikipedia. If it is justified there, clearly its justified on the island of Irelands infobox. But im happy to debate both. Shortly i will list some reasons for inclusion, if you could do the same for exclusion/removal it would be helpful to get all the basic points on each side thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The reasons why British Isles should be removed from the Great Britain template is that the term British Isles does not enjoy consensus; the term is deprecated by the governments of both countries; it is an obsolete term which once had meaning but is now incorrect as Ireland is clearly not British in any sense; the term causes widespread offense; and quite simply, it is not important to strain after a collective name for a group of islands when they can so easily be described as Britain and Ireland, like Australia and New Zealand. It is simply not a necessity to name the archipelago, especially in the face of so much historical baggage, and it is a weasal argument to maintain that British Isles is "only" a geographical term, not a political one. If that were so, by what logic would the geographical entity be called "British"? It is just as arbitrary as calling them the Irish Isles. --O'Dea (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What is your definition of comparable articles? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made the points above BW in respect of Indonesia as opposed to islands in Indonesia. My point is that there are two questions - is an archipelago section appropriate to an information box and if it is when should it be applied. --Snowded 19:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not in the infobox on the article about the country Indonesia, but on 3 of its 5 main islands it is. Clearly inclusion of archipelago information is justified on the island infoboxes, thats why there is a section for it. I totally agree there is absolutely no reason for BI to be on a country infobox and i wouldnt support that. But it seems reasonable for the islands. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If you checkout the template page you will see its an option its not mandatory. As far as i can see It is in partial use for islands within a country but not for countries within an archipelago. So there is no clear case in precedent for its inclusion in either article. Given the confusion over Ireland and Great Britain with their respective countries I think this is an unnecessary addition. I'd suggest you take the discussion over to the template talk page and see if some general rule or principle can be worked out. If it is going to be a standard part of the template then there are multiple changes to be made on many articles and I really doubt the utility. --Snowded 19:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It may not be mandatory but i do not see a reason for its exclusion, there would be hardly anything in most articles or infoboxes if it was restricted to the mandatory stuff. I am not after a general rule for wikipedia wide use of the term, it seems reasonable to use it where it applies and from the pages i have looked through so far it seems mostly to include rather than exclude. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This list may be helpful List of archipelago, i am going to go through some of these and check for uses on their islands. The first in the list i have done a quick check of. Every single island on the table (unless i missed one) in this list Canadian Arctic Archipelago states its archipelago in the infobox of the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I went through the list of major archipelagos and looked especially at those containing (as opposed to being contained by) countries before I made the comment above. --Snowded 19:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

How many examples of those are there? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

None that I could see where a country is involved. It seems to be used for clusters if islands, in which the archipelago is probably the most important aspect. --Snowded 19:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe the other articles should be addressed then? I personally feel that an article about an island should include the group of islands it is located in. Ireland is part of the British Islands, I think that is relevant enough for the infobox. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think on Ireland and Great Britain its reasonable in the geography sections to say they are a part of the British Isles archipelago (but not on the country articles). I really don't see the point on the information box unless it is generally applied to comparable situations. --Snowded 15:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here wants it on the country articles infoboxes! Just imagine the reaction! And I agree with comparable situations. I will put it on my list of things to do to add the archipelago to any island's infobox I find without it. Standard change on wikipedia all the time, just look at Talk:List of sovereign states where the actual list seems ready to change. That's the great thing about an electronic encyclopedia! Anyway, I think that British Isles should be added to the geography infoboxes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The it offends people is never a good reason to exclude it. But, there ya go. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about offense GoodDay? Chipmunk, you can do a simply experiment go and make the changes to everything listed in the Malay Archipelago and see what happens. If it stands there for a week then I'll happily agree and you can pick up the other ones later. --Snowded 15:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll actually try that, both out of interest in this discussion and because it sounds like a good idea for the articles separately. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought chip said that, with his "imagine the reaction". GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about confusion, I'm not out to censor wikipedia so as not to offend people. As for what you suggested Snowded, I've hit a snag. Timor, Luzon, Mindanao, Sulawesi, Sumatra, Borneo, and Java all list more specific archipelagos than the Malay archipelago. Is that more appropriate in the infobox? Of course, I don't think this problem exists with the Ireland case, as I think the British Isles is the most specific term there. Also, I've found an article, Maritime Southeast Asia, which is just a stub, and I think is a WP:FORK from Malay archipelago. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me in most island infoboxes they do list the archipelago. I do not see why the island infobox of Ireland should not include British Isles. I do agree there is no need for it in the country one and im not sure if its possible with the country template anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Partly you are finding the issue with the archipelago word when it comes to larger groups and starts to overlap with countries. Its OK for small groups is islands in cohesive groups but becomes more problematic when you get to larger entities and those that overlap with country groups and have a history. You might find a problem associating East Timor with Indonesia for example (some of the same issues of associating Ireland with England) --Snowded 15:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"some" is the operative word there --Snowded 15:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

These are about geographical articles on the island though. The political state of the island should be irrelevant. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but whatever there is no clear precedent and I do think that having been through the examples the label works for cohesive groups (as Chipmunk has discovered). So its better to use Hebrides, Orkneys etc, within the UK. No controversy there. Using "British Isles archipelago" in the two geography articles is enough of a change as the narrative there sets a better context. --Snowded 16:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"Some" does provide an interesting operative word. Mayhaps we should set the precedent? I see no reason why we shouldn't, besides seemed offense. The archipelago is useful information about an island. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact most other islands that are part of an archipelago state it in their infobox to me seems the precedent. Sure it is slightly different in this case because of the political makeup of the two islands, but it does not change the fact both of these islands are part of the British Isles. There does appear to be no clear reason not to mention this fact at the moment. I would also say the fact it has been on the GB infobox for several years helps set the precedent about its use. It fits well. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have re-read the last part of this section now three times, and I can't see what the problem is with adding it, is it some way wrong ? Codf1977 (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)There is always more of a problem with information boxes compared with text in sections whenever there is ambiguity or controversy. Information boxes tend to label of categorise while in a section proper explanations can be given. I don;t think it is any real surprise that archipelago is used in the cases I have indicated but not when it gets more complex. I suggest settling for text in the article space for the moment, and raising the archipelago issue on one of the geography discussion pages. --Snowded 16:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree we need to include some text about the British Isles on the Ireland article, where of course we can state there is controversy about it, but that is no reason not to include it in the infobox. As i compromise i would be prepared to support its inclusion in the infobox with one of those note things attached linking to a sentence about it in the infobox notes section where we explain it too. But i cant see any reason to avoid mentioning it. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No probs, inclusion is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Neither is there any particular reason to included it and my reading of the precedents is against it for reasons stated. Its not the be all and end all of the universe however, if I am in a minority of one I'll happily concede but its time to leave it for other editors to contribute. Would you confirm that you (BW) are no longer advocating the inclusion on the country articles per the list above. --Snowded 16:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like we've got consensus here. Can we go for mentioning the fact that Ireland is part of the British Isles, at least somewhere in the article, ideally up front in the first para. LemonMonday Talk 16:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say so. The fact that Ireland is included in British Isles, is why there's much squabbles over the term. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Not yet, you need other editors to have a say first and none of this is anything to do with a change to lede, that has not been discussed yet. --Snowded 16:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I reckon Snowy has a point, there's no need to rush this through as we've got time. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree there, there is no rush. It is far better to take our time and get a stable agreement than rush ahead and find in 10 minutes time something being reverted and all sorts of accusations start flying. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have never supported its inclusion in the infobox of the country articles, i dont know if there is a relevant section for it on country infoboxes and even if there was i do not think it is needed as that is for political stuff about the state. I think a mention of the British Isles in the geography section of Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom would be justified. The other thing was inclusion of the BI template on the ROI and UK articles. The template is currently on the Ireland article, although it has been incorrectly named and currently pipelinks with "Great Britain and Ireland" to the British Isles article. that needs changing too BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for confirming that, probably best to open up another section on the template --Snowded 17:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh what a tight rope we venture onto. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! So now - where to put it. I say in the first para. What say you, GD? LemonMonday Talk 17:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing the Infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• ... Comment on another editor snipped. About to warn editor who posted it. TFOWR 19:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Patience LM, patience. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, you are an effing nuisance!. When I left off editing in Oct last, for a state holiday, you were edit conflicting me, and you're still at it! LemonMonday Talk 17:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

lol the number of edit conflicts on this page is rather annoying at the moment yes. This section is meant to be just about the infobox on the Ireland article. I agree that the introduction of the Great Britain and Ireland articles should mention the British Isles, and the proposed location for it in the second sentence of the Ireland article makes sense. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we have consensus BW? LemonMonday Talk 22:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should wait a little longer for the Ireland infobox issue, but if there are no more objections to it over the next 24 hours i do not see why that one can not be included. Then we should consider some of the other less potentially controversial changes. The proposals for the UK/GB should be ok, ive yet to see objections anywhere to that. But is always best to wait for the nod from the admins before any change is made. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Woah! 24 hours? You guys have been discussing this stuff here for I don't know how many months or years, and you propose to give the rest of the Wiki world 24 hours notice? And in the middle of summer too? I've kept out of this British Isles discussion because, frankly, it bores me rigid, but you know darn well that if you start adding that contentious term to Irish articles you are going to raise hackles! If you want to edit Ireland, you should start a proper discussion at Talk:Ireland - not just a polite "you might be interested in this" note. The famous Ireland naming poll last year went on for 42 days (against my advice, let it be said). I think any edits to the Ireland article should allow a minimum of 21 days for discussion on the article talk page. Scolaire (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

21 days to include something in the infobox that should have been there from day 1? No one has yet provided a reason why it does not belong in the infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

They have BW, you just have a different point of view. There is no requirement for its inclusion in the information box and it is not used in many cases. So far a lot of editors have not engaged with this one and you need to allow time for that. --Snowded 03:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As much as I hate sitting around, I think a day more is too much. Maybe leave it for a week since first opening, with a more detailed edit summary proposal on the talk page? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well i am fine if its a week, but 21 days to make a minor change to an infobox is way too long. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not compulsory to state the archipelago. That seems to be the only argument if it is one and if we followed such a rule across wikipedia content would be almost non existent. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is this "we"? Can you show me where this task force was elected or appointed to "make rules across Misplaced Pages"? Misplaced Pages has got on just fine for ten years without "British Isles" in the "Ireland" infobox; it is not in danger of imminent collapse if you don't implement your little scheme immediately. Now, I see a couple of people quibbling about one day or seven days instead of 21, but still nobody has initiated a proper discussion on Talk:Ireland. I am not going to do it for you. It is up to those who want to make changes to an article to properly establish a consensus on the article talk page first. That's where you will learn if there are arguments against it or not. Scolaire (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

BW this is not the most important issue but please don't misstate the position. It is an option, and its not an option taken in comparable positions in part (I speculate) because of the various problems where geographical terms get associated with political issues. --Snowded 08:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel that comparable positions here are really lacking. The other islands all list the smallest scale archipelago they are in. The Ireland infobox should too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How is the island of Ireland's geographical membership of the the British Isles a political issues ? surely this is a straight question of geography it should not take a week to agree that. If we want to have any hope of comeing up with standard guidelines then this sort of question would be covered by them if it takes us a week to agree this then we have no hope. Codf1977 (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a very straight forward issue to add it into the geography pages of the two country articles as the context is very clear. As to the political issue, you may think there should not be, but there is. If you check the lede of the main article you will see the references to that. So saying Ireland is a part of the British Isles can be seen as saying that East Timor is part of the island of Indonesia. Its factually correct, but politically contentious. My view is that simple statements without contextual explanation cause problems, so put it in the geography section, but its not necessary in the information box. --Snowded 09:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you be more ok with it being in the infobox if we included a and mention use of the term is controversial in the infobox notes? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be less concerned but I still think its unnecessary if it's present in the geography section for the reasons stated --Snowded 14:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I do agree, i was wrong to say just 24 hours as it should be given longer but this does seem like one of the most obvious examples of where British Isles should clearly be used we have ever come across on this page. It not being mentioned at all on the second largest island of the British Isles is clearly problematic, and needs addressing, its like forgetting to mention its in Europe. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The pipelink needs addressing too, seems blatant POV to link "Great Britain and Ireland" to "British Isles", but that's a discussion for another time. Do we host this conversation on that talk page or bring it here? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well ive posted the 3 issues on there so we can see if any respond there now, id rather the debate take place here but a lot respond there we can carry on debating on that page instead. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

At the very least that pipelink needs fixing yes, i have said many times in the past i oppose any pipelinking when dealing with the BI, id rather the British Isles was not linked at all than piped from Great Britain and Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Some other islands:

Islands not listing archipelago are Sakhalin and Hokkaido. Sakhalin does not list it because the article does not mention the archipelago it is in, and for good reason I think, as I have actually searched and found absolutely nothing on this topic. I can't find anywhere what it is in. Hokkaido on the other hand links to the region of Japan, instead of the island.

Situations like this do not make a case for not including the British Isles in the infobox. If you could provide others Snowded, in order for a comparable situation to be established, that would be good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Take the Malay one as a starter. --Snowded 14:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd quite like some input from WikiProject Geography, as we're using terms like archipelago that may have a precise definition that we're not aware of. (I'm a geographical numpty: I understand the lay definition of "archipelago" but the article mentions the UK as an example of a country that is mainly an archipelago. It may be that archipelago needs to be amended... I don't know. Regardless, I'd like some expert input here). TFOWR 10:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem with getting input on this, although when we seek advice on these matters from experts of certain areas we should keep it on their WP page, so they do not have to come to this minefield, makes it easy to focus on the factual issues. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My concern with that approach is: (a) everyone will pile over there, and (b) I don't believe someone is going to arrive here with an opinion and have it magically changed by reading lay-editors' opinions here. I'm thinking the best approach would be to create a sub-section with the name of the WikiProject/talkpage, or whatever. TFOWR 13:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How about if one of you admins (or a neutral editor) raises the issue on the WP talkpage and the rest of us avoid making comments and joining in the debate. If there is specific issues/facts that need to be given to the those on the WP or we want clarification we can mention it here and it can get passed onto the page at some points. A subpage/section where we go to discuss the issue with the WP is a good alternative, but that way would still mean several of us cant help ourselves but to respond. Its very hard to avoid the urge lol . BritishWatcher (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. Jamesinderbyshire mentioned a template-style approach, I'll ping 'em and see if they had any more thoughts. Anyway, I'll post at WikiProject Geography shortly. I'll have a think about subpages - it might be a good way round it: we could transclude the subpage here, maybe... anyway, I'll have a think about it. TFOWR 14:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Discussion has moved to the talk page of Ireland --Snowded 07:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Close

As discussed above - I propose this section is closed with the following :

The use of British Isles in the Archipelago tag of the infobox's of both island articals is a valid use of the term, however it should not be inserted into the infobox without consensus on the talk page of the relative article.