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)

Structured discussion

Boilerplate text about "summarising arguments from above, based on policy and precedents, and backed with diffs and links" goes here. TFOWR 16:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping. I'll start closing these out as "no consensus" unless there's some movement here... TFOWR 11:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ping again. It's only been four days since the article talkpage was notified, so I'm no immediate rush to close this out, but the sections below are remarkably empty... TFOWR 10:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles" @ Atlases of...

Arguments against "British Isles" @ Atlases of...

List of lichen checklists

• Is anyone going to bother linking to this debate from the talkpage of the article? DuncanHill (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The discussion pre-dates {{BID}} but yes, someone should. I'll do it now. TFOWR 13:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Already done: Talk:List of lichen checklists#British Isle book contains references to IoM By Triton Rocker on 25 July. TFOWR 13:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
      • It's well hidden. Needs to be an explicit link so people can see what it is without having to click on it first. DuncanHill (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I'll add a {{BID}} template now. This discussion pre-dates the template by sometime. I'd like to say that we've improved since those dark days, but letting article editors know is still one area where editors here need to be reminded far too much. TFOWR 13:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Structured discussion

Boilerplate text about "summarising arguments from above, based on policy and precedents, and backed with diffs and links" goes here. TFOWR 16:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping! Only four days since the article talkpage was notified, but I'm not going to hang around for ever. HighKing, thanks for your arguments. Anyone else? TFOWR 10:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles" @ ...Lichen checklists

Arguments against "British Isles" @ ...Lichen checklists

• The reference uses "Great Britain and Ireland". Changing the reference is WP:OR and against WP:V. --HighKing (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland

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)

Structured discussion

Boilerplate text about "summarising arguments from above, based on policy and precedents, and backed with diffs and links" goes here. TFOWR 16:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added the template to the article, see if there are any responses. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping! BW, you promised us examples, where are they? ;-)

Blimey, what a curious list. I'm going to ask a couple of list-specialists for general advice: I'm finding the whole concept a little bizarre right now. TFOWR 10:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles" @ List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland

• It deals with flora on "Britain and Ireland", which I'm not sure is Great Britain and Ireland or the UK and Ireland. Either way, I find it hard to believe the plants would not cover the Isle of Man. Noting the wider geographical area would be much more appropriate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• There is a book with the title "List of Vascular Plants of The British Isles"
• Category the group is in is Category:Lists of the vascular plants of the British Isles, the article titles should reflect this too.
• There are not separate articles on Vascular plants of the Isle of Man, it would make sense for them to be covered in these lists rather than a separate article which could cause a lot of duplication. List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland 4 mentions the Isle of Man Cabbage which exists in Great Britain and around the Isle of Man.
• There are a large number of books that talk about Flora and the British Isles rather than just isolating Great Britain and Ireland. (Examples will follow). BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against "British Isles" @ List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland

• The article is largely unreferenced, and the sub-articles are also largely unreferenced. Probably a candidate for a clean-up or reorg - and failing that, an AFD
• As already stated, the global scientific community does not recognize "British Isles" as a "flora" geographic unit, but it does recognize the islands.
• As a side-note, the "category" is also wrong and should reflect the article title --HighKing (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

James Kay (British inventor)

Article states a British inventor who developed a successful wet spinning process for flax in 1824, helping industrialise linen spinning in the British Isles. The entire statement is unreferenced as regards helping to industrialise anything. I recommend the statement should be removed, but no harm in tagging first and seeing if something turns up? We can leave the tag for a week maybe before making a decision? --HighKing (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Structured discussion

Same as in other discussions, I'm hoping the discussion above can be edited down into arguments based on policy and precedent, backed by diffs and links, and that this section should be quick and easy. TFOWR 16:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to ask another admin to take a look at this. I'll likely do that later today (there's been plenty of time to make arguments, below) so if anyone has any last minute additions - do it soon. TFOWR 11:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles"

• This is a new article (virtually a stub) and so lacks sourcing. Various books exhibit the complexity of the early linen industry, Kay's impact on it and the many connections between Ireland and Lancashire. For example, . This one gives information about the spread of linen production throughout the islands following Kay's invention. More research and writing is obviously needed for the article but in the meantime, there is sufficient reason not to delete BI. In historical contexts like this one, BI is accurate and valid as a phrase representing mentions of Britain and Ireland. The alternative inference is that BI could never be used to mean historic Ireland and Britain, which must be false. It need not be replaced or deleted unless further sourcing becomes available proving otherwise, which seems unlikely. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• The linen houses of the Bann Valley: the story of their families By Kathleen Rankin "From Yorkshire power spinning of flax was taken up in the linen manufacturing districts of the east of Scotland where it soon became an important industry." So it did not just impact on Northern Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against "British Isles"

• a British inventor who developed a successful wet spinning process for flax in 1824, helping industrialise linen spinning in the British Isles. No references for to state he helped industrialise linen spinning in the British Isles. All of the references point to his invention used in conjunction with linen solely in Northern Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Reference by BW above is perfect example of OR. It shows how an editor will try to combine difference facts from publications in order to support an assertion not explicitly made within said publications. There are no references that support the statement that James Kay revolutionized the Linen industry in the British Isles. Period. --HighKing (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Augustus John

The article contains the follwing statement: He was, throughout his life, particularly interested in the Romani people (whom he referred to as "Gypsies"), and sought them out on his frequent travels around the United Kingdom and Europe. In this context UK is wrong and should be replaced with British Isles. Using UK alongside Europe mixes apples and pears, and use of UK is too specific, meaning we are saying that in his travels throughtout the islands John never visited anyhwere other that the UK. If he did, then UK is wrong, but BI, encompassing all areas of the islands, is likely to be more accurate. LevenBoy (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Before anyone asks the question, this confirms that he visited Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree BritishWatcher (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't comment earlier as I was going to ask that question Ghmyrtle! Good find, include that in the article somewhere. I agree with changing this to British Isles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• LevenBoy, can you template Talk:Augustus John to let editors there know about this discussion? Ta! TFOWR 09:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. LevenBoy (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Noted, thanks. TFOWR 12:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Some points:

• "In this context UK is wrong ..." - According to the source he visted Ireland in 1907. At that time all of Ireland was a part of the UK. Even today, it is entirely possible to be in both Ireland and the UK at the same time.
• "...we are saying that in his travels throughtout the islands John never visited anyhwere other that the UK..." - No. The article says he sought out Gypsies when he traveled elsewhere in Europe also (he was from the UK). Are the islands not entirely contained in Europe? What would make a visit to the independent 26 counties of Ireland after 1922 any more notable than a visit to France?
• "... and use of UK is too specific ..." - We don't like being specific now? Naming the country of origin of the artist specifically and elsewhere in general terms is hardly "too specific".

About the priciple of not mixing "apples and pears", that related to listing "British Isles" alongside states and countries as if it was one. It does not mean that we cannot say that a painter was from the UK and traveled elsewhere in Europe. --— RA (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the above points are intended as a criticism of the reasons given to make the change proposed. I actually don't think it would make a fig of a difference either way. However, I don't think it is the business of this Task Force to go "correcting" articles for no good reason. Where this Task Force does make changes, they should be the most minimal possible to correct possible sources of confusion. (I also think this Task Force should avoid adding or removing cotentious terms where it can.) Therefore, in respect of this article, I suggest it be changed to "... and sought them out on his frequent travels around the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe." --— RA (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Last time I looked the whole of the UK and Ireland were in Europe, so lets just keep it to that, delete United Kingdom--Snowded 17:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd second Snowded here. It could be changed to British Isles and mainland Europe, but that seems to be pointless. Just change it to Europe, full stop. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not! If he were from America or Borneo, possibly, but for someone from & living in the UK, especially at this date, to talk of "travels in Europe" clearly implies continental travel. Even now, if I'm living in London & go to Ipswich for the day, that is "travelling in Europe", but it is just misleading to describe it so. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if they went from London to Ipswich, it would be misleading, but the travels here extended beyond Ipswich to other areas of Europe outside his home country. He travelled around the UK, he travelled around France, he travelled around Europe. Use Europe. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for adding "British Isles" @ Augustus John

The article already uses Europe & AJ was on the island of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I do wonder if UK is confusing to some readers in pre-1922 contexts - many may associate UK with the modern geographical boundaries and be somewhat unaware of the Irish dimension. For that reason, I do favour BI in some of the older contexts where it is intended as a passing geographical reference rather than some political explanation. John seems to have travelled pretty widely around these islands, so that aspect seems to fit as well. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't say UK & Europe or BI & Europe James, UK and BI are both a part of Europe --Snowded 11:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In theory, yes, but people frequently do draw a distinction between the two, even though to purists one includes the other. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you in the "Fog in Channel, Europe cut off" group then? Its nothing to do with purism, its a straight forward error --Snowded 11:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really, it's just a way of speaking. BI is officially in the EU, if that's what you mean, it's geographically part of Europe and it's also distinct from Europe. If we're going to get rid of every place in Misplaced Pages where it says something like "throghout Italy and Europe" to take an analogy, we are in for a big job. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to search them out, but correcting them when they come up ... --Snowded 12:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is your objection then to any attempt to insert BI in a context where Europe is also mentioned? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Object is to either BI or UK being used with a "and Europe". Take the highest geographical area applicable --Snowded 15:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinions of course, but that can't possibly be a rule - how can you legislate to say people can't say "the UK and Europe"? Here are 1,880 examples of where they already do in en-WP , just to get us started - shall we go through them one at a time to see how they hold up? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Come on you know better than that. Several thousand people expect the rapture to come soon and the number of hits on the return of the green feather serpent god of the myans in 2012 is legion. We are building an encyclopedia here and we have some responsibility when the opportunity presents it self to get things right. --Snowded 17:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean "better than that" from your particular viewpoint - there's nothing wrong with "Britain and Europe", "UK and Europe", "France and Europe", etc - they are just useful turns of phrase. Unless you happen to have a strong need to justify exclusion of a certain phrase, perish the thought! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a strong preference for accurate language and avoiding tautology. I have a further strong feeling about phrases which seek to imply that somehow or other the UK or BI are not a part of Europe. You last sentence is uncalled for, there is a stronger case that people arguing for a tautology are seeking to impose a "certain phrase" --Snowded 17:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing "innacurate" about "Britain and Europe". It's a matter of opinion. Apparently you reject the notion that it is a matter of opinion, yet it remains one, regardless, not a matter of "accuracy". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it or is it not a tautology? "the saying of the same thing twice in different words" --Snowded 18:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It belongs to that class of things that sound superficially tautological but on close inspection are not, because they are not comparing like with like. Saying "France and Europe" is a compound statement - it is about France and Europe as a comparison, not about the unique identities, France and Europe, one of which belongs to the other. People who hold the view that Europe is superior to Britain, for example, those nationalists who favour that approach because it downgrades their membership of the UK and, they feel, enhances their potential as seperate nations "within Europe" would obviously argue against the existence of a "UK and Europe" and for a position that the UK was always subordinate to Europe. So it is politically loaded from top to bottom and personally, I find appeals to simplistic argument on this topic, pretty silly. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You are reading an awful amount of speculation about motivation into what is a simple (not simplistic) issue. Tautology is be avoided, that isn't silly its just plain good sense. --Snowded 18:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And you are determinedly avoiding a genuine debate - simply repeating that it's a tautology, when it isn't, advances nothing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

But that is my argument James, its a tautology and tautologies should be avoided. Not sure what else you want me to debate really. --Snowded 19:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In cases like nations, nothing is ever as simple as a logical tautology. A sentence containing the phrase "carrots and vegetables" is perhaps tautological, but a sentence containing the phrase "British Isles and Europe" need not be. That is because the phrase "British Isles" can contain many shaded meanings. It can be a concept, a literal physical entity, an identity, a set of values.... the list goes on. I really won't take more time on this, we will have to agree to disagree, but I am making it clear that I can't accept the idea that those phrases can't co-exist in Misplaced Pages - and at least several thousand other edits in WP agree with me on a single usage. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So why introduce a term in addition to Europe to complicate things? --Snowded 19:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To people in Britain, "Europe" does, I'm afraid, have two meanings. One is "the continent of which we are part", and the other is "the mainland of which we are not part". One may be more "correct" to us, but language doesn't always work like that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If there's objection to adding BI? shouldn't those objections be placed under the 'Arguments against...' section? GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

UK and Europe was once present on the UK article, I changed Europe to Mainland Europe, appears to be an ingrained problem. Anyway, GoodDay raises a point on process, this isn't an argument against adding it in a way, but to remove the option completely... slightly different? I guess the new system still has kinks.

Arguments against adding "British Isles" @ Augustus John

I'm convinced of the opposition to Europe and British Isles being used. Indeed, let's just use Europe, as the British Isles is within that continent. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it reads better --Snowded 17:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• In summary, adding "British Isles" is not supported in the context of the article. The text in the article is somewhat at fault and isn't accurate or clear in places. For example, strictly speaking, Romani people are a single ethnic group while "Gypsies" include other nomadic ethnic groups including Irish Travellers. It's probably more correct to say he was "particularly interested" in Gypsies (which is the term he used himself) even though many references state he was interested in "Romany" life and culture. That said, the predominant ethnic group in England was Romani. He even learned to speak Romani. In his travels to France, Italy, Ireland, etc, he also met and interacted with other ethnic nomadic groups such as Irish Travellers. It's not altogether accurate or correct to say that he "sought out" gypsies on his "frequent travels". This appears to be WP:OR. Is there a reference for this? In a sense, he saw himself *as* a gypsy. For a time, he lived like a gypsy, frequently traveling in a caravan up and down the roads of England, and travelling to France. Sure - he visited Ireland several times and he was a friend of Lady Gregory, but his "frequent travels" were around England, and northern France as these were annual during that period. On the whole, his obsession with Gypsy lore is downplayed significantly in this article, and for such an important artist, this aspect of the article is poor. --HighKing (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of which has virtually nothing to do with the subject in hand. I suggest "British Isles and mainland Europe" as a sensible alternative to the present text. LevenBoy (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing like a good point-by-point riposte. --HighKing (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point, the whole thing is unreferenced so it can be struck anyway, if there is a reference then we can take whatever that says. --Snowded 19:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that we are (I thought) discussing the simple issue of add/delete here, not the wider issue of all other modifications to an article that may or may not arise. Unless there's another scope creep coming in that we didn't agree to. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of Add/Delete, the current text is WP:OR and should be struck. As to what can be referenced, I've tried to produce a summary of what was intended or meant. Part of the problem I encountered is that the current text is so poor, it needs expansion. --HighKing (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That last argument (by HK) I may agree with. The reference for the suggested BI inclusion passage refers to "The Art of Augustus John" - a quick search for the word "Romani" in that book gives information about visits to Wales only. So there may be a good debating point there. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Keeping the reference to sources makes most sense --Snowded 19:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The BBC ref says that he "was deeply influenced by the Romany tradition, lifestyle and language; he spent time travelling with gypsy caravans in Wales, Dorset and Ireland." Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To some extent, "aggressive challenging of references" is a pretty good description of the Misplaced Pages editing process LB, so I wouldn't overdo that point. You were on firmer ground looking for refs to support inclusion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• To summarise, we have two relevant references in the article.

• (1) The reference to the intended target sentence for the "BI add", in the Provence section - this reference only mentions visits to Wales in connection with the "Romani" people that the artist was interested in painting.

• (2) A general reference higher up in the article to a BBC Wales article about the artist that does, as Ghyrmtle points out, reference visits to Ireland in connection with Romani people.

• Strictly speaking therefore, the inclusion in the proposed sentence falls, as the ref in that sentence does not support it. On the other hand, if we take the BBC article as a source for the page in general, then it succeeds.

• Therefore we need to decide if general pre-existing refs in a given article are valid for inclusion at any point in the article. If not, then it has to be an existing ref in exactly the sentence at question. Views? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that it's perfectly acceptable to find new refs to support a position. In fact, it's encouraged (so long as WEIGHT, RS, etc, is observed...) --HighKing (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well we could just reflect the BBC quote and say "Wales, Dorset and Ireland." Its accurate and informative and folloes the reference --Snowded 21:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The shortest and easiest way of saying that is "British Isles". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No Scotland, only one English county, no mention of IoM etc. etc. That is stretching things a bit. Source is informative as it shows the limit of his travel, and in general following the source is the best way on these disputes --Snowded 21:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Which just goes back to what geographically constitutes "British Isles". What are the limits for what is regarded as acceptable? Until that is clarified, we are clearly going to get - exactly - nowhere. I would rather all further deletes/adds be frozen until such time as that is agreed, since it's clear that no argument for inclusion on geographical grounds is acceptable under the current rather ill-defined conditions. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I'd say we need to include at least Ireland, GB, and one of the Crown Dependencies. Otherwise it would simply be "Britain and Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of the question. LevenBoy (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Shall we structure it in a new section? We can each say what we would find acceptable. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused again. This is the section for arguments against usage of British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a separate discussion. Probably a good idea to break it off from here and start a new section, although if the discussion is going to get filled with mindless comments with no substance, then we may have to move it elsewhere - maybe one of our Talk pages. --HighKing (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Best to move to AJ talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Conkers (Resolved)

Usual problem. Prior history of "The Troubles" vis-a-vis Ireland.

Comonsense applies as usual.

Yes, kids play conkers on the Isle of Man and Channel Islands and, no, they are not part of Britain or Ireland.

Move from "Britain and Ireland" to "British Isles". --Triton Rocker (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on decision please

Call for a recount please.

• The original text uses the word "traditionally", and it confers a specific meaning to the text - that conkers is a traditional game, originating in Britain and Ireland, and played in the colonies. Yet the abundant sources clearly show (overwhelmingly) that conkers is a British pastime, and no sources were found that contradicted this fact. The phrase that "Conkers is a traditional British childrens' game" should be used.
• TFOWR uses the logic of "Britain, Ireland, and..." is not as accurate or precise, since "conkers" is demonstrably also played elsewhere. to suggest that a phrase of It is played in the British Isles and some former British colonies..." That is equally inaccurate and imprecise. It's played in Europe, and all over the world, and not just former British colonies either. The recent World Conker Championships (used as a source to show that conkers are played in Ireland) stated that there were 320 participants from 17 countries such as England, USA, South Africa, Northern Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Scotland, Ukraine, Wales, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Australia, France and Philippines.

Please don't close this until TFOWR reaffirms or rethinks the decision. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

HighKing, arguments like this need to made in the original discussion, not shoe-horned in after close. A line has to be drawn under discussions - I draw that line when discussions have petered out. I don't expect new arguments to be made after close, which is what you're doing here. You made four comments in the "arguments against" section: none of them referred to the international nature of conkers. If you can't make your case in the original discussion, I do feel there needs to be some form of sanction to ensure that future discussions are better argued. Put simply: waiting until a discussion is closed and then presenting a new argument is disruptive. If you want this re-opened now, ask Black Kite or Cailil. I'll defer to their judgement. Alternatively I'm obviously willing to open a new discussion in the future - with new arguments, coherently stated, i.e. not descending into the mess of threaded arguments and counter-arguments displayed above. TFOWR 21:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a second. I believe that requesting a short explanation on your thinking and the resolution is well within the scope of what we're doing here, as is a *short* discussion that may point out potential flaws with a resolution. We need to be confident that decisions are good and should be defended and upheld. Nobody here is assuming that you're infallible, and sometimes (especially in a looonnggg discussion thread) you may have missed some relevant statements. If you want to insist that your resolution is binding and infallible, and you're never for changing even in the face of other facts .... well, I don't believe that is your intent.

Roll back up to earlier in the discussion where we exchanged views:

• • • "Traditionally" - just a thought, but isn't it "traditionally" that's the problem here? There seems to be concern that conkers hasn't been "traditionally" played in Ireland, and I'm fairly certain it won't "traditionally" have been played in most former colonies. Canada, maybe, but Australia is unlikely and New Zealand just doesn't have the history to support it ("Traditional games" in New Zealand being more a Māoritanga thing...) Just a thought, and don't read too much into this comment, but I'd prefer not to go too far down a side-road, only to realise later that the issue was much easier than we thought... TFOWR 09:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
      • In a word, Yes. The use of "traditionally" suggests the author wants to attribute the origins of the game, and the popularity of the game, with schoolchildren hailing from a specific area. Dropping "traditionally" would remove some objections for sure. Although I would be concerned that we're materially changing the authors intention, and that we're altering article simply to accommodate using "British Isles". --HighKing (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I also made the point to BW that what you're failing to do is show that Conkers is traditionally played in Ireland, and shares origins within Ireland.

Your suggested resolution of "Conkers or conker is a traditional childrens' game. It is played in the British Isles and some former British colonies..." changes the meaning of the sentence, and introduces a completely new fact.

It loses the fact that it's traditionally a British/English game, and introduced a completely new fact about the distribution of where it is played.

How could anyone have predicted that you'd decide to introduce a completely new fact? My request to clarify doesn't introduce any new arguments. I already made the point that conkers is a traditional British/English game, and I provided the references. And since we were never discussing the distribution area of where conkers is played, it is only now that any opportunity to list the countries has presented itself. Although in fairness, the list of countries that participated was only made known last weekend, after the discussion had petered out. --HighKing (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, my resolution is not binding. Nor it is infallible. I've even told you how to go about getting a second opinion: If you want this re-opened now, ask Black Kite or Cailil. I'll defer to their judgement. There was ample opportunity to discuss distribution during the original discussion. I closed based on the arguments made, not on what you might present after the close. I am gifted with many things, but foresight ain't one of them. As I noted on my talkpage (and keeping this discussion in one place would be appreciated, by the way) I intend to discuss how to deal with "new evidence" with Ncmvocalist, Black Kite and Cailil - clearly the primary goal has to be the accuracy of articles. However, I am very concerned at new arguments - distribution etc - being made to challenge a close. Make arguments during the discussion, not afterwards. I repeat: waiting until a discussion is closed and then presenting a new argument is disruptive. I do not accept that "it is only now that any opportunity to list the countries has presented itself". TFOWR 13:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• There was ample opportunity to discuss distribution during the original discussion. I agree. And it would have been *if* the point we were discussing was the distribution of where conkers are played. The focus was on the word "traditional". I explicitly made the point, many times, that nobody was arguing whether conkers were played in Ireland or not. That point was immaterial. The point was about whether they were played "traditionally" in Ireland.
• waiting until a discussion is closed and then presenting a new argument is disruptive. I agree normally that a close is a close. But in this case your suggested close has added a new point to the article - that of distribution.
• I do not accept that "it is only now that any opportunity to list the countries has presented itself". The conkers world championships were only held on the 10th, and the announcement about participation and winners was only made on the website after that. Today is only the 14th. But the point is, up till now, nobody was arguing about distribution. That's a new point that you've introduced only now.

I'm not going to request a review. My intention was not to "present new evidence" or disrupt this page or undermine your decision making. It's your decision and if you're still happy with it, let's move on as a community. --HighKing (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

...and Aesculus, Aesculus hippocastanum (Resolved)

(I've removed Aesculus from the above section, as it's a separate issue: childhood game vs. tree. TFOWR 09:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC))

(And I added Aesculus hippocastanum at no extra charge! I'm wanting a decent Christmas bonus, however... TFOWR 10:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC))

List of British Isles rockpool life

Raised by IP editor here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well he needs a better excuse that the "politically motivated" title cry. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be primarily "fauna". TFOWR 09:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As it is unreferenced, I hardly see how an editor can claim it ignores ireland. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be primarily "fauna" ???? Except for the entire section entitled "Plants" :-)

The first order of business would suggest that we find a reference. My first quickie pass doesn't show anything obvious on the first few pages of Google Books. Did we not come across a book before dealing with the Sea Coasts of the British Isles or something like that?? --HighKing (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the species list it could as well be for North Western Europe - you find the same species in Brittany for example. It seems harmless, geographical and all that but it would be nice to see a reference to say there is something distinctive --Snowded 16:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Plants" consists of two sub-division: "algae" and "lichens". I'd imagine that would greatly simplify our examination compared to the "animals" section, which consists of seven sub-divisions. Fortunately we have a general rule for "animals", so we can focus on "plants" and whether they can be treated as we'd treat fauna. TFOWR 16:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What will you do if there are slime moulds? They are vegetables that become animals then revert  ;-) --Snowded 16:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes feel trapped in another dimension. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No change is needed. The article has had that title for years, the creator has responded to the IP claim the title is politically motivated. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. Perhaps not. T'would be nice to have a concrete reason based on precedent and/or policy/guidelines, no? --HighKing (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

When concrete reasons to change the status quo are presented, i will look into this matter in more detail. Some random IP claiming an articles title is politically motivated, is not a just reason to consider this an open case for us all to waste our time on. if it is justification it sets a terrible precedent that could flood BISE in an hour with dozens of cases.BritishWatcher (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's true and given that it's just a list page, it's particularly difficult. Many of the individual items in the list (to take this seriously, which perhaps one shouldn't) do mention both Ireland and Britain incidentally. Cancer pagurus for example. The list article does obtrude into flora but it is mainly fauna-related. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As requested, concrete reasons to examine usage on this article are that without references, it does not denote notability, and is WP:OR. --HighKing (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a category entitled "British Isles coastal fauna" although no article. I've come across a number of publications. This book A student's guide to the seashore covers the British Isles although doesn't outline why it's notable in any way, and covers more than just rock pools. There appears to be a number of other books that detail much the same topics, but none from the point of view of the British Isles. A Beginner's Guide to Ireland's Seashore by Helena Challinor, Susan Murphy Wickens, Jane Clark and Audrey Murphy, Handbook of the marine fauna of north-west Europe, The biology of rocky shores (worldwide), and Seashore of Britain and Europe. Perhaps this article could become the basis of an expanded (and referenced) list to include more than just Coastal fauna (and even flora). As it is, the main objection is that it is unsourced and thereby WP:OR. What if the article was moved to List of fauna of the British Isles and expanded to more than just rockpool life, and included a lot of the articles in the already existing category? --HighKing (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for changing from "British Isles" @ List of British Isles rockpool life

Until/unless we get a reference, this is WP:OR and arguably not notable. --HighKing (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for retaining "British Isles" @ List of British Isles rockpool life

There doesn't appear to be any discernible benefit with respect to the article or topic that would come about from a rename. --RA (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No specific valid reason for the change; list article, therefore difficult to build referencing cases; listed items include previously discussed fauna guideline parameters; listed articles include multiple mentions of localities across the archipelago. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Article title has been stable for 3 years since it was created.
• Article created by an uninvolved editor who has responded to the random IP's accusation of "political motivation" and "a British jingoistic claim over Ireland and the Irish" on the talkpage of the article.
• Article is in categories Category:British Isles coastal fauna Category:Ecology of the British Isles so having an article which covers the isles is not out of place.
• Article does cover some Fauna, something people have agreed is a valid area for use of British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This article deals with rockpool life, and there is no basis for the IP's claim that it is only for Great Britain. Snowded mentioned it would be the same for much of north-west Europe, so Ireland would be included there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Usual arguments. --LevenBoy (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Student

Just noticed this edit by an IP at Student. This is obviously someone making major changes to a stable article so that they can use the term BI. When it comes to education it's hard even using the term UK as Scottish, England/Wales and Northern Ireland all have different systems. I propose that this unexplained edit is reverted.

Revert. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It might not be deliberate - it looks to me like a novice user attempting to improve the article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the edits made by this editor, I believe it is someone who is very knowledgeable on Ireland/British issues, and knowledgable on Misplaced Pages policies and conventions. Their edits display a lot of wiki-editing knowledge. Their second edit summary mentions hat-notes for example, and they also "clean-up" numbers for text, and insert a reference. It is unlikely in the extreme that this editor is an innocent novice user. I also note the removal of the pipelinking of Republic of Ireland. Interestingly, that particular IP address also doesn't have a great reputation and is blacklisted on not one, but two, major spam prevention databases (check out senderbase for details). I'm going to revert "Student" immediately as per BRD. --HighKing (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert, and notify the IP about this discussion. WP:AGF, everyone. TFOWR 18:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

High King - reference this discussion in your edit summary when you revert. It'll keep the potential drama to a minimum. TFOWR 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly justified edit to me. The fact there are different education systems within the UK makes his edit all the more sensible. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing great to worry about IMHO (not least because the IP is based in Dublin). The only query I would raise about the edit is the slight mixing of United Kingdom and British Isles: "In the past, the term "student" was reserved for people studying at university level in the United Kingdom ... However, the American-English use of the word "student" to include pupils of all ages, even at elementary level, is now spreading to the British Isles."

Suggested rephrase: "In the past, the term "student" was reserved for people studying at university level in the United Kingdom and Ireland ... However, the American-English use of the word "student" to include pupils of all ages, even at elementary level, is now spreading to the British Isles." Suggest the heading be changed to "United Kingdom and Ireland" also.

There's no need to be suspicious of IP editors by default: IPs are human too. --RA (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

True - except this IP demonstrated a working knowledge of both Misplaced Pages and Irish/British articles. In previous articles, this editor removed the Republic of Ireland wikilinks - so I'm not suspicious by default, just by their behaviour. For this article, I initially reverted. I've since continued to edit and I've now split the UK and Ireland into separate sections - there's no justification for treating them under a single section - and I've created sections for the other European countries too. --HighKing (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the IP address does not track to Dublin. It is a Vodafone *Mobile* address. Could be anywhere. --HighKing (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, evidently it isn't a "novice" but I suppose though that an experienced editor preferring not to register and moving between his/her own PC and a mobile laptop would look like this. I just mean there may be no element of bad intention there. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that was the only edit by that IP so far that affected British Isles, this seems to not be a case of socking or trivial IP noviceness. Should it not therefore be a structured discussion rather than a reflex revert TFOWR? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the usual procedure is revert and discuss? Regardless, it's been reverted now (though the edit summary could have been improved, High King...) But structured discussion? Yes. I'll start one now.

Are you looking at the right edit summaries? My first edit summary was "revert to use countries as per original article, fix to use pipelinking where appropriate, and generally tidied up some pieces". The second edit summary was "Reorganized by country, added tags for countries under Europe, split UK and Ireland into separate sections.". Both edit summaries describe the actions taken, and looking through the history of most people's edit summaries, I believe I'd be in line for a prize for consecutive descriptive edit summaries. --HighKing (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I am. I was hoping for a link to this discussion. Something like "Per discussion at {{subst:dtag|nowiki|WT:BISE#Student}}". Sorry if that wasn't clear. TFOWR 11:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles" at Student

• Usual argument, we cannot exclude IoM and CI. The comments apply to NI at least probably RoI too. We cannot use "UK and Ireland". --LevenBoy (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against "British Isles" at Student

• The article was changed by an IP editor that appears to have knowledge of this topic, and other contentious topics such as wikilinking Republic of Ireland -> Ireland. Appears mischievous at best.
• No basis or reasons given for changing to use British Isles.
• Article originally grouped UK and Ireland together - no basis for that either --HighKing (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue of what the IP did is largely irrelevant, but it is correct that this article is best divided by country and the practises and culture surrounding the word "student" do vary a little both inside different parts of the UK and also between the UK and Ireland. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• As I said in the opening it's hard to even use the term UK due to the many different education systems and traditions and therefore BI would be even more ridiculous. Bjmullan (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Quarth

The article currently states Quarth was released on the Konami Net i-mode service as Block Quarth, with an updated Block Quarth DX in 2001—this was released in 2005 on O2's i-mode services in the British Isles minus the "DX" suffix.. O2 does not have a "British Isles" service, instead it has a UK service and and Ireland service. Also the Channel Islands don't have an O2 service. --HighKing (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Use United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland, in this instance. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree Codf1977 (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. Bjmullan (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom and Ireland per MOS. --RA (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Do ya mean ? GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Usual and typical proposal. Fails due to O2's IoM and CI services. We need to establish what are "good faith" proposals and silly "bad faith" or time wasting proposals. Confusion over the Irelands leading to an overly wordy alternative. BI fits the bill. --LevenBoy (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

When you make that argument below, can you link to O2's IoM and CI services? That seems to be an easy way to disprove HighKing's argument. Ta! TFOWR 11:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

O2 don't offer any services on the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. (Though for a while Manx Telecom was wholly owned by O2.) --RA (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And just to clarify my request, we'd need O2's i-mode service, not merely O2. TFOWR 11:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh ... no O2, no O2 i-mode.

O2 offer services in the UK, Ireland and Germany. Here's the press release around the release of O2's i-mode services. It mentions release dates in the UK, Ireland and Germany markets. The markets in which O2 offers services. Further down it mentions how O2 (at that time) owned Manx Telecom. It does not mention anything about a roll-out of i-mode services on the Isle of Man. Why? Because that's Manx Telecom, not O2. Whether Manx Telecom ever offered an i-mode service, I don't know. --RA (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that something as clear-cut as this needs to go to the arguments for/against - but - it does perhaps highlight an important guideline. If a company operates at a corporate level in different countries, due to different legal jurisdictions, then I believe articles should properly reflect this. It's the balancing argument for using British Isles in geographic contexts where no legal or country jurisdictions apply. --HighKing (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for keeping "British Isles" at Quarth

Arguments against keeping "British Isles" at Quarth

• O2 does not have a "British Isles" service
• O2 does not operate an i-mode service on the IoM or CI
• O2 operates at a country level, therefore countries should be used. --HighKing (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Polls

Britain and Ireland is an invalid equivalent for British Isles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Some sources do use "Britain and Ireland" as an alternative to "British Isles". Some sources use it to mean "Great Britain and (the island of) Ireland". I'm not prepared to rule out the former just because there may be some confusion between the two uses. Disagree? WP:ANI is that-a-way. TFOWR 17:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Did we did pick up and finish the discussion Snowded raise above on the 24th of Sept regarding "Britain and Ireland being an invalid equivalent for British Isles"? Excuse me if I missed it due to my "holiday". If so, can anyone point out where and when it happened?

I think this hits the nail on the head and we have to address it for once and for all.

Britain and Ireland is not a valid equivalent for British Isles for all the reasons we keep having to repeat Britain and Ireland - or UK and I or UK and RoI etc.

Do we have a clear agreement on this? Let's keep this simple in the first place. --LevenBoy (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Its already referenced in the British Isles article LevenBoy --Snowded 03:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

We all know what it is. It may be referenced in the topic, or not but I am talking about what our position. You raised the issue.

We have a problem where individuals are attempting to insert Britain and Ireland as an equivalent for British Isles. Sometimes this even on the basis of a references that clearly refers to the British Isles as Britain and Ireland. How do we address this? --LevenBoy (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Case by case, but if the references say Britain and Ireland then its pretty clear --Snowded 04:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I think Snowded's last point is right here. We can't create a general rule for this, because it will depend on a number of factors in each case, including sourcing and context. I think all we can safely say is that sometimes it is a valid equivalent and other times it is not. This is why the argument often goes to geographical extent and is not simple, hence at some point we need to agree acceptable "spreads" of geographical mentions in some cases. This is not to say that there aren't a whole bunch of cases where BI is fully correct and the argument that it should be replaced with B&I fallacious; it's just that it can't be a "rule". So sorry but the basis of the alternatives presented below is not one founded in practical reality. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Isle of Man & Channel Islands considered to be included in the term Britain and Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. We all know that Isle of Man & Channel Islands part of Britain or Ireland. That would be a good second question though.

There is no proposal of a rule here. It is just a simple yes or no poll. HighKing, you are free to discuss or vote as you wish but please do not move other editors opinions or changing the poll after votes have been made.

Technically speaking, is "Britain and Ireland" is a valid equivalent for "British Isles"? --LevenBoy (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Another question could be is the Channel Islands a part of the British Isles? From a geographic point of view they are not. But then the term BI is not a purely geographic term but a political term used to describe the bounds of the UK government. Bjmullan (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Many months ago, there was a RfC on whether the CI were a part of the 'British Isles', but (if memory serves me right) it came to no conclusion. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, the moves of votes here are getting silly. Codf1977 is taking a similar position to mine, namely that its not a blanket equivalent but it is valid in some contexts; and King supported that. Wherever it sits neither Codf1977 or HighKing are supporting LevinBoys proposal. I'm not even voting as this is an absurd discussion. There is referenced material from RS in the main article which state that B&I is used as an equivalent. You can't outvote a reliable source and I'm not legitimising this particular bit of nonsense by taking part in it. And just to deal with a couple of issues

• Great Britain and Ireland excludes the Isle of Man but Britain and Ireland in common use doesn't
• If we make specific reference to the Archipelago of X, the in current usage X = "British Isles" although that might change over time

--Snowded 05:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how you define "equivalent" then. Can "Britain and Ireland" include exactly the same area as the British Isles? I have yet to see a single reliable source that says that is the case. The sources shown at presently simply mean instead of talking about the British Isles which some people think is controversial, some simply say Britain and Ireland. Its very different. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

One gets a feeling of counting the number of angels on the head of a pin here. There are sources that say B&I is increasingly used in preference to BI, we have actual examples of use in the Atlas name changes. So where people used to use the phrase BI they now use B&I for the same subject matter. Language evolves over time BW, mixing metaphors after counting the angels you have continued on to clutch at staws --Snowded 10:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because a rectangle of the world covered by an atlas is labelled something doesn't necessarily mean that some certain body in the rectangle is called that, although this is often the case. I'm not sure that these atlases are saying "this group of islands is called Britain and Ireland", I would think they were saying "this is the countries of Britain and Ireland". Just as they have a map for, say, "Germany", so they have for "Britain and Ireland". This would be political and not geographical. This whole discussion proves that the term is a case-by-case basis if you ask me. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've argued above its case by case so agree with you there. In your example however we are talking about Atlas publications that used to be titled "British Isles" and have changed to "Britain and Ireland" without changing content. So when looking for a collective name for the UK and Ireland along with the Isle of Mann etc. they have chose to use a different one.--Snowded 11:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

They may just be ignoring the Isle of Mann etc., I'm sure the exact political situation doesn't bother most people. Anyway, it's irrelevant, I think we should probably close all these polls, sapping time away from other things. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

They didn't but you are right all of these recent polls should be closed; off topic and time wasting --Snowded 11:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

These polls cut to the very nub of the debate. We will come to the question of references in a short while. Stop changing the poll after it has been set.

I am not asking question of "whether they are used or not".

I am asking the questions of whether techinically, legally, geographically these terms are equivalent and interchangeable.

That is to say, beyond the point of opinion.

The honest truth is, we all know they are not. There are no territorial disputes between the various nations or states. We are discussing a very stable legal defined geographic area. But it is only fair to poll individuals about their beliefs first. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No, "Britain and Ireland" is not a valid equivalent for "British Isles"

• Agreed, as per common knowledge and endless references. --LevenBoy (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Which references state that Britain and Ireland and British Isles are not equivalent terms? There are many cited elsewhere that equate the two. --RA (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agree - We shouldn't be using Britain and Ireland in place of British Isles on Misplaced Pages. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Surely thats not the question that was asked? Or was it ? Are we just talking about Misplaced Pages? Or in general conversational and editorial terms? I assumed it was a general question to try and hone a WP guideline in this area. I'm getting confused now. Fmph (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume it concerns just Misplaced Pages. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

In that case this seems to be a circular discussion. If we are just talking about Misplaced Pages, then it is only a valid equivalent if the MOS says it is. Outside of Misplaced Pages (and its only outside of WP that counts as references to 'prove' the case) is a different case. Fmph (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agree - "Britain and Ireland" excludes the Isle of Man which isn't a part of the UK. "British Isles" is the most well-known and commonly used name for the islands regardless of peoples political motivations. Mabuska 14:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree - Britain and Ireland is simply a completely alternative term to avoid talking about an archipelago in north west europe known as the British Isles. No reliable sources clearly stating "Britain and Ireland" is an archipelago in north west Europe have been provided. (as i have said on a couple of occasions, the wording at British Isles and British Isles naming dispute does not clearly explain the situation. People could easily read it as saying its an alternative name for the archipelago known as the British Isles, something that is not the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree - for the many reasons given above. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed - It is clearly not a blanket equivalent for British Isles, however in some cases it's use can be appropriate. Codf1977 (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Codf1977. In most cases it's not equivalent, but in some cases it's use is appropriate. --HighKing (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "Britain and Ireland" is a valid equivalent for "British Isles"

• Agreed, as per common knowledge and endless references. Fmph (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. The meanings of terms change over time. "Britain and Ireland" is a fuzzy term, that is used, in practice in the real world, to mean either the UK and Ireland (the state), or the islands of GB, Ireland, and the smaller ones around their shores, or both meanings simultaneously. Yes, WP should explore and tease out the technical differences between the terms, but it should also recognise that, in reality, most people do not necessarily use terminology with the same forensic accuracy employed by editors on this page, and not criticise or "teach" others to be "correct". The very fuzziness of the term encourages its wide use - it allows people to use the term without thinking about precisely which of several very slightly different things they mean. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. "Britain and Ireland" is often used in place of "British Isles". Daicaregos (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. Not only is it equivalent but it is preferred by many as a more NPOV term. Bjmullan (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree per RS. Britain and Ireland is cited as "becoming preferred usage" (Davies:2000) or "is the more favoured expression" (Hazlett:2003) to British Isles for example. As with all terms in this arena (including British Isles), editors should consider what it most appropriate to the topic and to the context. Language in this arena is highly charged and use or non-use of any turns of phrase (even seemingly innocuous ones such as this) should be considered carefully. --RA (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Codf1977. In most cases it's not equivalent, but in some cases it's use is appropriate.

Are the Isle of Man & Channel Islands a part of the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland? (Resolved)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is very silly. The Isle of Man is a self-governing British Crown Dependency. It is neither part of the United Kingdom nor the Republic of Ireland. Likewise, the Channel Islands are an archipelago of British Crown Dependencies, none of which are part of either the United Kingdom or the Republic or Ireland. These aren't things we can change via a silly poll - they're commonly known facts which could have been easily ascertained simply by reading the relevant articles and the associated references. This poll has nothing to do with a specific example of usage of the term "British Isles", and I'm closing it. TFOWR 11:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Following GoodDay above, another simple poll.

Are the Isle of Man (islands) & the Channel Islands part of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland? (If yes, please state part of which nation). --LevenBoy (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Are the Isle of Man & Channel Islands a part of the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland? (Clarification)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It's gone to WP:AN. TFOWR 17:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, TFOWR, allow me to go through this slowly and logically without disruption. These are important leading questions.

Just to clarifying then, do we all agree that Isle of Man & Channel Islands a part of the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland then?

The correct answer is "no, Isle of Man & Channel Islands a part of the United Kingdom nor Republic of Ireland". I just want to make sure we are all singing from the same hymn book.

TFOWR, I would prefer to ask you to open the poll again and allow it to complete with all regular commentators contributing. There is no good reason to close it early.

It is not "beyond the scope of this page to decided this". It has already been legal decided a long time ago by the governments involved. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to re-open the poll. It is completely beyond the scope of this page to decide this, for precisely the reason you yourself cite: the status of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are legal issues, decided by the respective governments - not by a bunch of anonymous editors on a website. What possible benefit would derive from having this poll? (Hint: none). TFOWR 14:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. May I re-open the poll then without being threatened with a blocking or banning?

There is no question of "whether it is within or without the scope of this page to decide".

The matter has already been decided by the governments involved.

What I am polling is contributors' knowledge of those decisions and acceptance of it. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I take the view that re-opening it would be disruptive. Polling contributors' knowledge is off-topic. Contributors' knowledge of constitutional law is of no relevance here - what matters is contributors' knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy and precedent. TFOWR 14:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but no. I have 3 very simple questions. How on earth can you say knowledge of constitutional matters are of no relevance when we are discussing and deciding matters of nation and statehood? If contributors do not know, then I will provide them with those details. Where individuals genuinely do not know, surely they need to start with that understanding, don't they?

Does Misplaced Pages really work on the basis of precedents? I think you are wrong there. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Howabout transferring those questions to your own talkpage & invite folks there to participate. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no question that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. All your poll serves to do is to examine contributors' knowledge. As GoodDay says, you can do that on your own talk page. Not here. This page certainly does work on policy and precedent: not on votes, polls, opinions or any other cruft. TFOWR 15:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It is called consensus building, TFOWR, which is Misplaced Pages precedent.

I would rather TFOWR just answered the question or, even better, allowed each and every individual to answer the question. Just to clarifying then, do we all agree that Isle of Man & Channel Islands are not part of either the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland then? --LevenBoy (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

They're not a part of the UK or the RoI. Howabout having this questions at your talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus never overrides policy, and consensus never overrides reality. A consensus that "the sky is red" will never be an acceptable reason to change the article Sky to describe a state that is unrelated to reality. TFOWR 15:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Good. I agree. Reality does override consensus and policy.

I have three simple questions to be discussed here with everyone in order to gain the mandate of all users.

At present, TFOWER you are blocking that consensus being agreed and made by your actions and creating more disruption than if we just ran the poll. I actually think you are acting beyond your authority.

We are agreeing what reality is. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Would it be alright to move these questions to BISE's main page? GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if it keeps the disruption on this page down. I still think LevenBoy's talkpage would be the best bet, but LevenBoy seems determined to have this poll somewhere visible. So long as the disruption here stops, I don't really care. TFOWR 15:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to "poll reality", you can do it on your talkpage. If you want to check whether I'm acting beyond my authority, you can do it at WP:ANI. The poll is off-topic here because it serves no purpose - we all already know what the constituional status is of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and it will not, in any event, be decided here. TFOWR 15:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will. You are twisting my words to insult and provoke me TROWR. I never said I wanted to "poll reality". I am polling what other users' positions are on the most pertinent questions relating to the British Isles naming dispute and you are disrupting it. The poll had support and you are causing more disruption by closing it early than if it was allowed to run. --LevenBoy (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

With it transfered to the mainpage, I reckon it'll be alright to 're-open' the closure-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take responsibility for pushing TFOWR in the direction of a closure, as I suggested it one his talk page. I'd rather this be moved to LevenBoy's talk page, if it is opened somewhere else.

Everyone here agrees that Crown dependencies are not part of the UK or Ireland. EVERYONE. If anyone ever argues otherwise, I'm sure they'd be shut down by other editors very fast. The poll serves no great purpose. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This was an attempt to derail the discussion above. It was incredibly WP:POINTy, and I've warned the editor responsbile. TFOWR 16:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Tad harsh reaction if you ask me, I can see it as a perfectly goodfaith non-pointy change, an editor combining two polls he set up under a greater heading. Still, your edit summary was nice. Anyway, combined or not, shift it please. Somewhere, anywhere, not on the specific example page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The combining of the polls was fine (though I'd prefer it if people didn't refactor discussions once people have contributed to them): it was the martyr-tastic "Forbidden" heading change. If LevenBoy wants to complain about being forbidden to dick around, they can do it at ANI where folk have an even lower tolerance for disruption and WP:POINTy nonsense. TFOWR 16:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep the Polls together for just now as they are linked to from ANI. The problem is, there are too many discussion places. We should have just one. Everyone who cares about these issues from whatever point of view is here, so let's address the matter peacefully here.

I am sorry but the Poll was not "resolved" it was unilaterally closed.--LevenBoy (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)--LevenBoy (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. A snow close, with everyone agreeing with the bleeding obvious. It's best if discussion on this pointless poll continue at ANI. TFOWR 17:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What do we do when a reference contradicts technical facts?

3rd quick poll, please bear with me on this because there are editors from outside of the British Isles that will not appreciate the subtle technicalities of this discussion. Bear in mind that most of the rest of the world thinks England is Britain and has not a clue where the Isles of Man are, or why it is such a big issue.

• We are all, basically, in agreement that, legally or technically, "Britain and Ireland" is not actually equivalent to "British Isles".
• TFOWR has unilaterally decided that we all agree that neither the Isle of Man & Channel Islands are parts of either the United Kingdom or Republic of Ireland. I disagree with the way in which he did so but I agree with his conclusion. It just would have been better to get everyone's mandate on it. This is all really to address an issue Snowded raised sometime ago on the page above.

What do we do when a given reference contradicts what we know to be technical accurate, e.g. a reference calling the British Isles "Britain and Ireland" to the exclusion of the IoM and/or CI?

We are all, basically, in agreement that, legally or technically, "Britain and Ireland" is not actually equivalent to "British Isles" We are? It looks to me like the two "sides" are about evenly matched in terms of numbers. I've not looked at the arguments, however.

There was, I thought, a third option in the B&I/BI poll saying "sometimes" equivalent. To my mind that highlighted why this was one area where a blanket ruling would be impossible - sources use terms in varying ways. We do what we always do: we cite the source, and explain/clarify any discrepancy. None of this should be new to us - this isn't an issue that's arisen out of the blue, an issue that the community hasn't thought of previously or encountered before. TFOWR 18:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

@LB, can we see an example of an issue? --HighKing (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry TFOWR but I must remind you politely, you don't speak for anyone else but yourself. Please allow others to speak for themselves because everyone has their own specific point of view.

You have already derailed one poll causing a massive disruption where you clearly could and should have "assumed good faith". There is an open channel of communication between us, please ask first. Essentially you are only an equal here, despite your administrator tools. You do not act on others behalf.

@HighKing, e.g. one thing that has come up is Fmph's comment at 14:37, 8 October 2010 saying, "Britain and Ireland is a valid equivalent for British Isles". If that can be true, it contradicts the 2nd Poll which everyone agreed the Isle of Man and Channel Islands are not in UK nor Ireland.

Sorry, I don't see a contradiction. One poll asked if it is a valid equivalent. Another poll asked if the Crown Dependencies were a part of the UK or Ireland. Both polls are answered. Yes, they are used as valid equivalents. But No, they are not part of UK or Ireland. This perceived contradiction should help you understand why some Irish people find it equally contradictory to find Ireland as part of the "British" Isles. --HighKing (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In such a case, I would like to ask him to explain directly how and where the Isle of Man and Channel Islands exactly fit in then. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologise. But to pick up on your plaintive "allow others to speak for themselves because everyone has their own specific point of view." I'll gladly do so - what I'm not prepared to do it allow off-topic discussions and/or polls. Take it to ANI if you disagree with that stance. In this case, seeing as you have taken it to ANI, simply accept the result. TFOWR 14:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec. IoM and/or CI are not a part of the UK or RoI. However IoM & CI are generally grouped with the islands called Ireland & Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct. One name for such a grouping is "British Isles". Another name is "Britain and Ireland". "Britain and Ireland" isn't always equivalent: sometimes it just means " Britain and Ireland". Hence the value in the "Britain and Ireland" poll. And, indeed, in considering each case on its merits. There's no such value in considering whether the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom etc etc, unless one wanted to attempt to make a WP:POINT. TFOWR 15:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This is where you have to be very careful TFOWR because on one hand you are playing the part of an impartial judge and jury (chairman) but here you are expressing a personal opinion which is technically wrong. "Britain and Ireland" is not a name. I think you should play either one role or the other.

To state the obvious, "Britain and Ireland" are two clearly defined names and exclusive of the CI, as we have agreed. No one would or could argue the CIs are in Britain or Ireland. Personally, I would not argue that the IoM is in Britain either. Last time I looked, it was off Britain. Britain and British Islands are not synonymous. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Be sure not to mix up UK & RoI with GB & I. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing "Britain and Ireland" with "Britain" and "Ireland". The former is a term that is sometimes used as an equivalent to "British Isles" - that's not (I believe?) disputed. What's disputed is when it's appropriate to use it as an alternative to "British Isles". The latter is the name of two islands. I don't believe I am expressing a personal opinion - I'm simply explaining to you what the issue at hand is. If you want my personal opinion - it's that "Britain and Ireland" is less than ideal, precisely because of the ambiguity you've fallen into. But that's just my personal opinion which, as you say, is something I seek to avoid. What matters is the well-reasoned arguments of other participants. TFOWR 16:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal and geographically, there is no confusion. I suggest the only way to avoid conflict is to stick to what is clearly defined. You have just clarified that for us. IoM and CI are in neither and so, logically, Britain and Ireland cannot mean British Isles.

"Britain and Ireland" means "Britain" and "Ireland". The problem that we have is, that in an area of dispute, individuals are using a mixed quality and age of references. This is why I want to poll whether we "Follow what we know to be technically accurate or the literal words of the references". It is impossible for us to mystically divine what each and every author meant when they wrote "Britain and Ireland". They may have just be slack, chauvanist, colloquial or plain wrong, that is why I am asking, do we go along with what is erroneous or adopt a policy of technical accuracy. Do we accept what is clearly defined as a priority.

If we are honest, the cause of the confusion in this whole dispute is the Irish editors confusing a 2,000 year old term taken from the native Celtic-language name (Brettanic Isles from which we get British Isles), with the crimes of the United Kingdom. --LevenBoy (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy, if you're unable to accept that some sources do use "Britain and Ireland" as an alternative to "British Isles", there's not much I can do to help you. We consider each source on its merits - some clearly do use "Britain and Ireland" as an alternative to "British Isles", while others are less precise in their use. I'm not going to make a blanket ruling saying that we run away from the challenge and only consider sources that use "British Isles" because it's "easier". Dealing with challenges is part and parcel of editing - not just here at WT:BISE but in general.

And if you make a crack at other editors again, I will start remembering your civility parole. TFOWR 17:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There was no "crack at other editors" above, so please wind down your threats and remove it. I mean the authors of the original references which individuals are chosing to quoting. --LevenBoy (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

...the cause of the confusion in this whole dispute is the Irish editors confusing... You have been told time and time again to comment on contributions, not contributors. TFOWR 18:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and we are dealing with that matter over at ANI. It is impossible to discuss the matter with discussion the matter and so please do not conflate to separate issues by dragging partial and prejudicial statements, out of context, and back here where it will obvious cause disruption.

My full comment was, ... If we are honest here, the historical problem that has caused the naming dispute is Engligh chauvanism over the Irish. I accept that. If we are honest, the Misplaced Pages naming dispute was about primarily Irish editors trying attempting to replace every incident of British Isles with "Britain and Ireland". I understand the Irish's feelings. The problem is, we cannot resolve Engligh chauvanism over the Irish with British and Irish chauvanism over the Manx (Isle of Man) or Channel Islanders .... --LevenBoy (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No, your comment was If we are honest, the cause of the confusion in this whole dispute is the Irish editors confusing a 2,000 year old term taken from the native Celtic-language name (Brettanic Isles from which we get British Isles), with the crimes of the United Kingdom. You seem to be confusing your comment at WP:AN with your comment here. I'm quoting the latter. You raised an issue here, I addressed it here. TFOWR 18:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I utterly reject @LevenBoy's assertion that ... the Misplaced Pages naming dispute was about primarily Irish editors trying attempting to replace every incident of British Isles with "Britain and Ireland"..... There is no evidence for that. Remove the word every and replace it with many/some/plenty/most or any other of a multitude of quantifiers and you might be starting to get close. Anyone who believes that it might be possible to replace every instance is living on cloud cuckoo land. The defining characteristic of this dispute is actually the offence taken by many on the other side on any such replacements, referenced, valid or not! Fmph (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the techincal error and use the words of the reference

Follow what we know to be technically accurate

• Agree. Technical accurate, or reality as TFOWR calls it above, has priority above opinion or consensus. --LevenBoy (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Other possible alternatives

Follow the MOS or the consensus. This is what usually happens whenever there is a confusion of terminology. The reason I know that is because we've been doing it here for many moths now. Fmph (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem, there is no MOS yet. TFOWR has thankfully made it clear that reality takes priority over policy and consensus. We are dealing with areas which have clearly establish legal existences and definitions. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind above all: United Kingdom does not equal Great Britain & Republic of Ireland does not equal Ireland (the island). GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There may be no MOS (actually there are plenty of them - there just isn't one yet to deal with BI vs B&I - your question was phrased generically about WP, not specificaly about BI), but there is always consensus, which is what most of us have been working towards on this page for a long time. Fmph (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If I may offer a drive-by opinion, is this usage in a direct quotation or a paraphrase? If it's a direct quotation, it should be quoted exactly as the writer presented, warts & all. If it's in a paraphrase, then the wording needs to be considered. -- llywrch (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Coming late to this after a days travel I have got to ask why LevenBoy is raising the same issues again and again. We have citations which establish B&I is used as an alternative to BI; we have clear citations that the etymology of the term BI starts with Dee. This is 101 Misplaced Pages stuff; references from reliable sources. --Snowded 21:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories

What is the current state of play regarding adding British Isles related categories? --LevenBoy (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No comments? What is the bottomline? Is adding categories equivalent to adding terminology to topics, or not? --LevenBoy (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --HighKing (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion. Show me where that is stated. I think categories are a different case because with categories you can have numerous overlapping categories without any conflicting "either/or" situations. "Both" situation are possible. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Talk:United Kingdom templated. Wikiproject talks templated: Misplaced Pages talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK geography

Well, I'm sure this is an interesting article to be brought here. I bring it up because I noticed in geography "It includes Lough Neagh, at 388 square kilometres (150 sq mi), the largest body of water in the UK and Ireland." The source calls it the largest body of water in "Britain and Ireland". I don't think saying it is the largest body of water in the UK and Ireland is correct, as in an article about the UK saying it is the largest in the United Kingdom and somewhere else is pointless. Using British Isles puts it in a better, and I think more relevant context. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If you approach this geographically, LN is the largest body of water on the island of Ireland. If you approach this politically, LN is the largest body of water in the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but notability is conveyed through area. The article on Nepal, for example, states that mount everest is one of the highest peaks in the world. Tanzania calls Kilimanjaro Africa's highest peak. There is no need to shrink it just down to Ireland. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Saying that Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the UK and Ireland is actually correct, if you are referring to the two countries, sharing as they do the same group of islands. It's also more all-encompassing than using Great Britain and Ireland, because those are only the two largest in a large number of islands within that group. I do rather think that the former is a better description. -- role 15:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it does seem to me a case of mixing countries and islands here - just change it to "...body of water in the British Isles" using Oxford dictionary of Celtic mythology By James MacKillop as a ref. Codf1977 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for using "British Isles" in respect of Lough Neagh at United Kingdom

• Removes a case of mixing Countries and islands, simpler, all encompassing and above all is supported by a source Codf1977 (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• "largest body of water in the British Isles" reads better than the current "largest body of water in the UK and Ireland"
• Larger geographical area provides greater notability, the lake should be described for what it's notable for. Just as Kilimanjaro is decribed as Africa's largest mountain in the Tanzania article, so the lough should be regarded as the largest lake in the British Isles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• It is British Isles because it is a geographical matter not a political matter. Lough Neagh exists in Ireland (island) and Britain (the political state). Using BI resolves all the likely problems arising if you use Ireland. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• The Lough Neagh already states it's the biggest lake in the British Isles. We should maintain consistency. LemonMonday Talk 16:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against using "British Isles" in respect of Lough Neagh at United Kingdom

• Lough Neagh is the largest body of water in the United Kingdom. Factual and succinct, and as the article is about the United Kingdom, anything else is superfluous. Daicaregos (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't agree, if, for the sake of argument Lough Neagh was the largest body of water in Europe no one would have an issue with the article reading "Lough Neagh was the largest body of water in Europe" Codf1977 (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• No discernible benefit to the article. It would merely replace one set of terms with another. Either turn of phrase is correct. However, tokenistic changing of terms in this charged arena is inadvisable. Unless there is an error, leave well enough alone. There are no erroneous or problematic use of term. Lough Neagh is the largest body of water in the UK, in Ireland, and in "the UK and Ireland" (a synonymous turn of phrase to British Isles). Example usage: "Lough Rd leads west from the town centre to Antrim Lough Shore Park, where the vast size of Lough Neagh – the largest lake in the UK and Ireland (see also p621 ) – is apparent." (Lonely Planet guide to Ireland.) --RA (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There is benefit as it scans better, "the UK and Ireland" is not the same as "British Isles" and as the British Isles is a large entity than the combination of the UK and ROI, it stands to reason it is more notable. Codf1977 (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not the same as "larger". Bear in mind too that the article is about the United Kingdom. Also, "scans" is a matter of preference, about which one's objectivity can be influenced by many factors (including a preference for certain terms regardless of how they "scan").

Unless there is a problem with use of terminology then the proposal here is simply to exchange one set of terms with another. There are no problems that I can see with the use of terminology in the sentence. --RA (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It scans better?? Eh ... No.  :-) --HighKing (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• As that article is about the UK (thus political), we can say ..largest body of water within the UK. Now, if LN were mentioned at Great Britain and/or Ireland? I'd have no probs with mentioning British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Article is about the UK, and its the largest body of water in the UK. The Loch Neagh article is the geographical one where the largest unit argument comes into play --Snowded 21:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Since the subject matter is the UK, then we should stick with stating facts about the UK. A nice infobox would be great with "Highest Mountain", "Longest River", etc, all detailed. --HighKing (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Has that been done before? If you can point me to a page with that sort of infobox on it, I'd appreciate it. Be useful I reckon, irrespective of this debate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm....I thought it had but I can't find an article that uses an infobox like that....if I come across one I'll let you know. --HighKing (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

But the subject matter is also body of water in Ireland. Anything non-political should stick with geographical references. --LevenBoy (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for using "Britain and Ireland" in respect of Lough Neagh at United Kingdom

• As per source. " ... in the UK and Ireland ..." sounds tortuous. If we stick with UK&I it should change to " ... in both the UK and Ireland ..." Fmph (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Even your alternate wording is still tortuous, and as we have this source we can get around that by just using British Isles. Codf1977 (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"Source hunting" does not benefit decisions making around this topic, regardless of whether it is to remove British Isles or to add it. It misses the point of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and has a ring of gaming and battling to it.

In many cases, such as this one, sources use a multitude of terms (including, in this case, saying that Lough Neagh is the largest body of water in "the UK and Ireland"; see above). In other cases, no source we find may say British Isles (or another turn of phrase). That doesn't matter. The point is that the statement made is supported by references. It doesn't matter whether or not the same words are used that statement as are a used in the reference. --RA (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's about the UK so keep it the UK. Bjmullan (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

States of Alderney

The States of Alderney appear to lack any mention of the British Isles in the content and template boxes. The template boxes look as though they need some attention. It would not seem to be controversial to include mention somewhere. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Since they're a part of the Channel Islands, I've no probs with mentioning British Isles within the article. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Alderney a bailiwick of Guernsey (and hence covered implicitly)? I don't know - I'm basing this on decades' old memories of Summer holidays... TFOWR 15:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, answering a completely different question (adding Alderney to the BI template). Looking at States of Alderney, my first thought is that the article is focussed on the government of Alderney, and BI would be better suited to the Alderney article, if it's not already covered (I've not looked yet). TFOWR 15:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, the same question applies to both. It has its own government and president. It is part of the CIs and BIs, and non-controversial. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What change are you proposing to make, and to which article? TFOWR 16:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

See above to my question on categories. Personally, I do not see anywhere that says there are any sanctions being placed on introducing categories to any topic, as long as they are relative and individuals do not start edit warring over them. They are merely non-exclusive sorting devices. --LevenBoy (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see what change you're proposing be made, and to which article. Alderney or States of Alderney, or both? I gather the change has something to do with categories, however: what category are you proposing be added/removed? TFOWR 18:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to know what is being proposed here or what problem exists in the article. Is it simply the absence of the phrase British Isles from the text of the article that is a problem? --RA (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• No notification as yet on article talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

  At this point we don't know what, if anything, LevenBoy is proposing be changed - or even if it affects States of Alderney or Alderney instead. When/if we know what's proposed, and whether it's worth having a discussion, I'll get LevenBoy to template the talk pages then. TFOWR 15:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly impossible then that editors with the article on their watchlist could help find out what LevenBoy is proposing, or have anything worthwhile to say on if a discussion should take place is it? Or do you want to come up with a solution then push it through there by claiming consensus here? DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Without any proposal here there will be no solution or claim of consensus here. Editors with the article on their watchlist can edit it as normal - it's not an issue for this page. TFOWR 15:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

North Channel (Great Britain and Ireland)

This one was renamed from North Channel (British Isles) a while ago without adequate discussion (maybe no discussion). The article is purely geographic and British Isles describes the setting of the channel. The fact that the channel runs between Northern Ireland and Scotland, or the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, should be clarified in the text. I recommend renaming this article accordingly. LemonMonday Talk 16:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold the phone. Somebody appears to have deleted our article on the Irish Channel naming dispute. MickMacNee (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes Mick hold the phone. The Channel Islands have drifted north from the French coast are are causing delays for the Stena Line ferries between Belfast and Stranraer. I would certainly object to using BI because the North Channel only effect two main islands. But why not rename the article "North Channel" and create a disambiguation page to the only other English article which is North Channel (Ontario)? Bjmullan (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Channel Islands are irrelevant here, and your mocking remarks could be construed as a breach of civility (I imagine). They also add nothing to the debate so I guess they will be ignored. LemonMonday Talk 18:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee, Bjmullan those comments aren't helpful. TFOWR 20:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• FYI: There's previously been a straw poll on the article's talk page. Consensus can change, etc etc. TFOWR 20:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree TROWR & sorry. But the second part of my post is serious and was used to defuse a contentious topic not long ago that I was involved at Shane Duffy. Worth thinking about. Bjmullan (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Disclosure: Bardcom is my old username. Hmmm ... looking back, I was a little bollix at times. Belated apologies :-) --HighKing (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

North Channel. I'm for Bjmullan's proposal to just name it North Channel. On the other hand, it appears to my uneducated mind that it's simply between Scotland and Northern Ireland, so following the Ontario naming we could just call it North Channel (United Kingdom) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for reverting to "British Isles" at North Channel (Great Britain and Ireland)

• This is about a maritime subject. At present, we have not established a consensus for describing inshore waters that are shared between countries of the BI and for this reason I propose it be changed to BI, particularly as the channel does include some additional small islands. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• If we need to disambiguate we should at least do it accurately. As the channel passes other islands other than Great Britain and Ireland, British Isles is more accurate. As it is a geographical subject matter there is nothing wrong with using BI either. Quantpole (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• The North Channel is in the British Isles. It separates the island of Great Britain and the island of Ireland, it is not "in" Great Britain and Ireland which the present title misleadingly suggests. Surely we should state where the North Channel is, not what borders it? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for retaining "Great Britain and Ireland" at North Channel (Great Britain and Ireland)

• If the Isle of Man had been within the North Channel? I'd have argued for reversion. But, since it's not? let's go with GB & I. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• It is normal to describe a channel or strait in terms of the bodies of water it joins, and/or the bodies of land it separates. For example the English Channel separates Great Britain from northern France. Similarly the Pentland Firth separates the Orkney Islands from Caithness in the north of Scotland, Cook Strait is the strait between the North and South Islands of New Zealand, Bass Strait is a sea strait separating Tasmania from the south of the Australian mainland, specifically the state of Victoria, and the Strait of Gibraltar separates Spain in Europe from Morocco in Africa, etc. Keeping in line with similar articles would indicate using either Scotland and Northern Ireland, or nothing wrong with simply keeping Great Britain and Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• No discernible benefit to the article. Change would simply exchange of one set of terms for another. No terms are used in error or in a problematic manner. If the straw poll on the talk page resulted in a decision to place the article at the current location it is not the business of this task force to reverse that decision. --RA (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agrochola nitida

The article states "It is found in most of Europe, except Great Britain, Ireland and the Iberian Peninsula." Use of "Great Britain, Ireland" is a clear euphemism here for British Isles and the terminology should be replaced to the more accurate British Isles - are we saying it's found in the IoM? At present we could be, so using British Isles should help to clarify it. LemonMonday Talk 16:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any references, either for "British Isles" or for either of the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands? TFOWR 16:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I can accept usage of 'British Isles' as Iberian Peninsula is being used. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Did some various Boolean searches with Agrochola nitida and Isle of Man, Channel Islands, no clarifying hits. This suggests to me that it isn't found on them, as if they were they'd probably be listed somewhere. The map here backs up the not Great Britain/Ireland, and also apparently Isle of Man. No call on the Channel Islands though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If only we were certain whether the Channel Islands were in the British Isles or not! Fmph (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The States of Guernsey, Jersey and Alderney seem fairly certain, and that's good enough for me - I'm working on the basis that the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles. TFOWR 13:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Thats good to know. I personally think that the map here may not be the most reliable source as although it includes Sicily IN the range, it excludes Corsica and Sardinia. It also includes Gotland, but excludes Latvia, Estonia etc. Not sure its hugely definitive. Fmph (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it in Corsica, Sardina, or the Baltics? I'm personally interested in how it made it to Finland. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have the usual difficulty with assessing sources from stubs on this one. I'm not clear how authoritative the Polish lepidoptera website cited is, but probably we don't know enough to make a snap judgement and should therefore leave the status quo, as the article requires more expert oversight/revision. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Would this fall under the Fauna guideline? I'm wondering, as in this situation we are arguing for the negative, that is that it is not found in the archipelago-north-of-france. Proving a negative is always difficult, and the current wording of the guideline seems to say to accept the largest geographical area, although I think it was not worded for situations of the negative, as opposed to finding the animal in the archipelago. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles" at Agrochola nitida

• The article uses Iberian Peninsula, thereofore no probs with using 'British Isles', too. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• From the current state of things, I'd have to say BI would be better, as it would qualify the other islands in the area besides the main two. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Very suitable case where the Fauna Guideline should be applied. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• It is not "original research" to say British Isles in such circumstances. I thought that principle had been accepted long ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against "British Isles" at Agrochola nitida

• No discernible benefit to the article. A change would simply exchange of one set of terms for another of the same (or essentially the same) meaning. No terms are used in error or in a manner that is problematic. --RA (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Going back to the references and sources - none use "British Isles", therefore WP:OR --HighKing (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Livery yard

At present the article states "A livery yard or livery stable (Great Britain, Ireland), or boarding stable (Australia, North America)". Again, Great Britain and Ireland appears to be used as a euphemism for British Isles. British Isles would be more accurate and would be in keeping with the geographic regions used in the same statement - Australia and North America. Again, if we don't use British Isles here we are being ambiguous. LemonMonday Talk 16:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any references, either for "British Isles" or for either of the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands? TFOWR 16:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like something that should be done by countries, not be geographic regions. That, or English dialects. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't care if you say "British Isles" over some other terminology. Just so you know, WPEQ doesn't have a dog in this fight. Just feel free to fix it when you guys decide. Montanabw 19:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be tempted here to have British Isles for livery and then Australasia, North America) for boarding stable - if that doesn't work then it should be countries. Per prior discussion, don't mix geographical names with country names use one or other consistently --Snowded 21:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Since it's essentially part of the American and British English differences, I'd prefer to refer to the differences with relation to dialects which is far better and more accurate. --HighKing (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

*Cough* Australia ;-) TFOWR 22:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

*nudge* Australian English ;-) --HighKing (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In agreement with Snowded. Use all countries or all geographic names. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wholly agree that since it is dialects of English that are being referred to that it is better to give dialects than geographic entities (or states) i.e. "A livery yard or livery stable (British and Hiberno English), or boarding stable (Australian and American English) is...". --RA (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, horse terms are all over the place; in many cases, Australia uses UK terms for various things equine ("head collar" instead of USA "halter" being a classic example), yet other times Au appears to use US forms, as here. (Yet other times Au has its own unique words, and sometimes Ireland uses different terms from the UK). So, from my totally outside (and American) point of view, this one seems to be more location-related. Montanabw 03:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That backs up the dialect argument, and shows why the various strains of English are recognized as separate. --HighKing (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Australian English follows this weird policy of using British English and randomly taking in words and terms from American English, no doubt due to mass media effects. Dialects seem more accurate anyway, a Brit in Australia might call it a livery stable, and get stared at weirdly. Vice versa. Thus dialects are more appropriate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No objections to changing it to talk about dialects. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles" at Livery yard

• This source shows there is a Livery Yard in the Isle of Man. There for we can not just say Great Britain and Ireland.
• North America is not a country or island but stated in the first sentence, there for there is no reason why we must say Great Britain/Ireland or United Kingdom and Ireland. Geographical locations such as the British Isles are perfectly acceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against "British Isles" at Livery yard

• No discernible benefit to article, simply an exchange of one set of terms for another. No terms are used erroneously or in a manner that is problematic. (Though there are other better ways of saying it, such as the suggestion to replace geographic places with dialects of English.)
  Also the arguments put forward are ill-concieved (i.e. that British Isles "would be in keeping with the geographic regions used in the same statement"). The geographic terms currently used are three islands (Great Britain, Ireland and Australia) and a continent (North America). Exchaning two of these islands for British Isles would further mix the geographic units mentioned, leading to an island, an archipelago and a continent being mixed in one sentence. That is not necessarily a problem - it doesn't mix states and geographic area (though arguable Australia is both) - but it highlights how the argument is ill-concieved.
  I notice this user has few contributions outside of this area. --RA (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• As per RA, no discernible benefit. A change towards linguistic differences might help, but without references one way or t'other isn't this a waste of everyone's time. I thought that this was a place for genuinely problematic instances where the references needed consensual interpretation? Or should we all just go out and create our own lists of ever-so-slightly dodgy POV usages and bring him back here for a row? Fmph (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• This is about dialects, not geographic areas per se. I believe a blanket ruling should be possible to cover articles that use (in X, this term is used and in Y, another) phrases. --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• I think the article's current text is a bit confusing anyway (it sounds a bit as if the first Livery term might belong to Britain and the second Livery term to Ireland) but the real problem is that switching to BI would mix regions and countries, so I'm for not using BI as the replacement, but mods are probably still needed in the current form. If it was reworded as something like "BI and then other parts of the Anglosphere" that might change things, but I can see why local editors would have wanted to name "horsey" countries like Oz, the US, Ireland, etc. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Kurt Jackson

One off my own watchlist - Kurt Jackson - an unsigned user made this change , replacing British Isles with Britain. Not sure if it merits a discussion here - this seems to be the only edit that IP has made. Jackson is an artist whose published work includes paintings in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. If people think this one needs discussion I will open the correct threads below. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

...and, if required, do the necessary here and here. ;-) TFOWR 18:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"...the British Isles and abroad" is problematic because abroad refers to foreign countries (the British Isles is not a country). If the Republic of Ireland figures substantially in this artists work then British Isles may be deserved but as it stands the IP's edit fixes an error. I suggest nothing be done about the fix to "fix" it the other way since it was fixed organically by the IP.

That however is not the only problem with the sentence. The artist, we are told, draws inspiration from "the Cornish landscape around Penwith and elsewhere in the British Isles and abroad." Surely "Cornish landscape" can only be found in Cornwall? But that is beyond the scope of this project.

--RA (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Has he made paintings of Isle of Man or Channel Islands? GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

He's done work on the Greenpeace ship Esperanza featuring dolphins and whales around the coasts of Britain; the works don't say more specifically where they are, just "off the coast of Britain", "off the coast of Ireland", etc. He also published a collection from the Scilly Isles. Plus the usual reminder that we've not established that the IofM / CI are essential pre-requisites for use of BI. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Either the IoM or CI shall have to be considered as essential pre-requisites for BI usage, as part of the argument the Britain and Ireland isn't equivalent to British Isles. If Jackson was around either of those too? the BI usage is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

We are leaving the subject a little, but please indicate where consensus was reached on this last assertion of yours please. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the community agrees with me. I'm merely stating my reasoning for why I'd argue for or against. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK, you were stating your opinion, that's OK. From your phrasing I assumed you were attempting to restate a policy. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No probs. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting random change that IP made lol. British Isles is appropriate there. British Isles and overseas rather than abroad perhaps may be less problematic? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Has he made any paintings on the island of Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing any notification on the article talk page - see the history. Is there any possibility of this task force behaving itself? DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

  See this discussion here. I haven't yet checked with the editor who created the templates which one to use - they redeveloped the templates to provide a clearer indication to editors once discussions have closed. I meant to do it this morning but I've been away from my PC until recently and it had slipped my mind as I haven't looked at my talkpage. TFOWR 15:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do apologise DuncanHill, I've been trying to figure out how to do it, but it's done now and an example posted as well at TFOWR's talk page. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for "British Isles" at Kurt Jackson

• This source says "
• The works range from large-scale oils and acrylics to small-scale etchings and sculpture. All of them are based on projects inspired by rivers including the Thames, Avon, Dart, the Liffey in Ireland and our very own River Tamar." So saying the British Isles makes sense as it is not just Britain he got his inspiration from.
• The concern seems to be more about use of "abroad" rather than British Isles itself. Do we have specific sources stating that he has got inspiration from around the world/abroad? So far the source ive looked at simply mentions areas within the British Isles. So the sentence should probably be changed to say "He paints in mixed media, drawing inspiration from the Cornish landscape around Penwith and elsewhere in the British Isles" saying he gets inspiration from Cornwall, Britain and abroad is really quite pointless to be honest. Its basically saying he has inspiration from around the world, which does not seem notable. (perhaps adding "mostly from the....") Just so there is the rest of the world inspiration is not specifically denied BritishWatcher (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• In response to a point below. Being "inspired by rivers" in different parts of Great Britain and Ireland as a source shows means the guy has been "drawing inspiration from elsewhere in the British Isles" Clearly Cornwall needs a specific mention, but sources suggest it is appropriate to talk about outside Cornwall too. It is NOT original research to state "elsewhere in the British Isles". In such a case. We surely can not be required to find a specific source specifically stating "British Isles" for every single use of it on wikipedia.. its totally unreasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against "British Isles" at Kurt Jackson

• "British Isles" is unreferenced, therefore WP:OR.
• His website uses the phrase Whether working in Cornwall, up country or abroad - which may be where this article got the inspiration for using their version.
• These references explicitly mention Kurt's inspiration

• mainly inspired by the Cornish landscape
• All of them are based on projects inspired by rivers including the Thames, Avon, Dart, the Liffey in Ireland and our very own River Tamar.
• who is based in and inspired by Cornwall

• The fact that he has painted the Liffey in Ireland does not mean that he is "inspired" by scenes in the British Isles. Most references explicitly state he is inspired by his Dad and his stories, and the Cornish landscape. He has also travelled extensively throughout the world including the Amazon Rainforest and the Arctic Circle so it's not a case that he is only inspired by where he travels. He has also painted rivers in France and exhibited them in London. --HighKing (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestions to change the sentence should be referenced also, and not simply made up. Is there a reference for any location providing inspiration other than Cornwall? Obviously, inspired by Rivers is not the same as inspired by British Isles.... --HighKing (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• As per RA above, "...the British Isles and abroad" is problematic because abroad refers to foreign countries and (the British Isles is not a country). If the Republic of Ireland figures substantially in this artists work then British Isles may be deserved but as it stands the IP's edit fixes an error. I suggest nothing be done about the fix to "fix" it the other way since it was fixed organically by the IP. --HighKing (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Banded Demoiselle

Just thought that I would let people know that I made a change to Banded Demoiselle which changed BI to GB as per the reference that was put in by another editor. The reference was titled Field Guide to the Dragonflies and Damselflies of Great Britain and Ireland and BI + I just didn't make sense. Open and shut case I think but this is BISE :-) Bjmullan (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What's with all the insects lately? I've just realised we have a Fauna guideline for this sort of stuff.

Anyway, on the subject, I personally would go with British Isles here, although I agree BI + I doesn't make any sense, and fair enough for fixing that in some way or another. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it genuinely will get silly if we start attempting to go through every lepidoptera article (and let's not even think beetle!) - we need a guideline and then stick to it. TFOWR, is it your view that we finalised this as a consensus guideline? Sorry if I'm being ignorant, just a little hazy now in the morass about precisely where we got to with this. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Aye - there's consensus for it. It was discussed here, posted above, and we've been discussing it indirectly since then (e.g. "we have a ruling for fauna, but not for flora") without objections. TFOWR 09:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This one should be British Isles rather than Great Britain and Ireland, although clearly the original text was wrong so did need changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I edited it. What's your opinion on the other fauna conversation above TFOWR? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's just Agrochola nitida? I hadn't make the connection - damn Latin names. Aye, "British Isles" is fine in principle. The ruling shouldn't be used as an excuse to wedge in "British Isles" inappropriately - if a particular fauna is distributed throughout, say, Western Europe the article should say that - not "the British Isles and the rest of Western Europe" - but I think that's obvious. Also obvious is: stick to references. If the references say "Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, Channel Islands" it's fine to say "British Isles". If the refs say "England and the Channel Islands" we should say "England and the Channel Islands". But again, that's probably obvious. TFOWR 10:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Article talk page notification anyone? DuncanHill (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

  At this point we don't know whether it's worth discussing this - the article currently says "British Isles", our guideline for "fauna" says use "British Isles", it seems that there's no issue here. If that turns out not to be the case we will, of course, template the talkpage. TFOWR 15:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've no issue with using "British Isles" in this context (geographic distribution, found all over the British Isles, etc). But I'd question why it's being mentioned in this article since it's actually found all over Europe. Not sure what's notable about British Isles in the context of distribution. --HighKing (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

True. The article currently mentions only the British Isles and some areas of Russia. I believe an editor probably just added it because they found it in the field guide it is sourced too. I reckon that the current section is useful in what it tries to do, that is more precisely defining the area it is found in. The whole section just suffers from a distinct lack of information. I'll shorten it to "not found in the north of the British Isles" I guess, removing some of the undue weight given to them currently. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The source talks about both the Banded Demoiselle and the Banded Demoiselle together and simply states that it they're "apparently intolerant of extreme cold, since neither occurs in the Highlands of Scotland. The Banded Demoisellee occurs througout England, Wales and Ireland". I've leave it as is TBH, and let the content experts decide on what's notable or not. But it is found in Scotland (southern parts at least), so British Isles still seems perfectly fine. I'm also curious as to how this fly is found in Norway and Sweden and Northern Russia if it's so intolerant of extreme cold....another one for the content experts I'd say. --HighKing (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

HK didn't you know that Scotland is the coldest place in Europe! :-) Bjmullan (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

British Isles terminology task force

I see an editor has nominated this taskforce for deletion. That would be a removal of the British Isles from wikipedia, so its a specific example that may need attention of this page. Im tempted to vote Delete, id have much more time for other things. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you back that up with WP:RS? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

lol no =( BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do some opposers of the Taskforce, believe there's a small group controlling the BI stuff? If a small group is controling anything, it's because of some of the opposers lack of participation. It's like whining, "Why is that small group putting out the house fires, when we don't want the houses to burn down?". GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, on the surface of it, a truly pathetic attitude. However, it appears that as usual those shouting "POV-pushers" the loudest are themselves rather fond of a certain POV, which they refer to as NPOV. Ho hum. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You can think whatever made up bollocks you like. Nobody has ever sanctioned me for POV pushing, and nobody has ever so much as placed an NPOV tag on anything I've ever written, not one that has withstood external review anyway. If you want to take any statement I've ever made in here with regard to interpretation of WP:NPOV, and ask it to be reviewed by people outside as clueful or clueless, you go right ahead, be my guest. It's an offer that nobody has ever taken up funnily enough. This task force on the other hand, well, what has it actually done exactly? In the rare examples of actual resolution, it has managed to make a few edits to articles it more often than not knows nothing about, based on 3-2 or 4-3 decisions. That's about it. That is not even a level of participation that would pass the bar of statistical anomaly in most other serious DR venues on the pedia, that set out to seek consensus on wide ranging issue like this, affecting thousands of articles and with massive scope for abuse. The chances of an actual Guideline ever coming out of here are non-existent. And GoodDay, the reason nobody participates here is obvious, any experienced Wikipedian who looks at this venue, takes one look at the unchecked WP:TE going on, takes one look at what passes for cluefull statements on things like writing from the NPOV, takes one look at the obvious and palpable gamery and manouvering and out and out double-standards depending on if the decision is 'for' or 'against' BI, and no doubt rapidly comes to the conclusion that their interpretations and advice wrt policy as an actual neutral editor, would be better expended elsewhere. You cannot criticise anybody for not voluntarily wading into this venue, and you cannot ignore the fact that it is this very place and the people in it that are to blame for that. Plenty of other venues on the pedia have zero problem attracting outside input. Infact, come to think of it, who can even name another venue in project space that even resembles this place? I certainly can't, and I, unlike a few notables in here, roam the pedia far and wide on various topics. 'Unique' solutions and practices certainly are a feature of this arena of dispute, and that's not a Good Thing, unless one is so incredibly naive, nay arrogant, to think this is the only example of such a dispute on the pedia, and the tiny few people in here are genuinely the only ones capable of offering up new ground-breaking techniques in DR. MickMacNee (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's many out in 'pedia land who feel that way, then by all means seek a community-wide opinon on the Taskforce & this pages existance. If the community wants it pushed into oblivion? then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This rubbish doesn't need pushing to oblivion it is already there. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wowsers, get a community wide review of it. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

republican objectors. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wowsersa? We don't need a community discussion , I have trod in some shit, ow, ask the community for its opinion..? Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is ironic really, the POV accusation is always against a republic POV by Unionists/British Nationalists but the majority of proposals over the last few months have been for the insertion of BI. Its also noticeable that the sanctions and civility patrols are against a small minority of the same group of editors. --Snowded 05:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's also become crystal-clear to me over the last year. I think most editors who engage with the subject properly and in a civil way find that it isn't realistic to maintain a rigid attitude to it - those who do effectively keep themselves out of contributing and will continue to do so, given the way admins have now gotten on top of that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's called pushback Snowded, it tends to happen on Misplaced Pages in reaction to POV campaigns which stretch back years. You can keep spreading this theory all you want, nobody who has a clue about Misplaced Pages disputes and policy in general, or who has an ounce of a brain or a memory that operates further back than a few months with regard to this issue, is buying what you are trying to shovel here. MickMacNee (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep dealing with cases as they come up Mick, shoveling stuff is your modus operandi not mine --Snowded 16:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The comment was for the benefit of everybody else who might be stupid enough to buy this drip feed of yours. Your inability to register any opinion not coming out of your own head, or defend any of them in any Wiki-meaningful way, can be taken as read with me by now, you don't need to give the same sort of tiresome non-response response every time, although it does as ever continue to shine the light on your other tedious claims wrt to who around here is/isn't an incivil editor, in the true sense of that particular policy. MickMacNee (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You know there is a sort of charm to your contributions Mick (Oh dear that will be another non-response) but I'll keep the case by case drip feed up, its the best way to deal with issues.--Snowded 17:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The 'drip feed' does not refer to your case input, but I think you already knew that. MickMacNee (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

British Sky Broadcasting

A recent change was made by user Shadow Resurrection to introduce the term BI. This includes in the sentence "It is the largest premium broadcaster in the British Isles" with a reference which makes no mention of BI. I have reverted the change with an edit note. Bjmullan (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No reference, no application. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone look for any citations? BJ Mullen changed it without adding a citation, they are easy to find if you really want to. I thought the idea here was to bring things here and discuss and then change not change and then bring here for rubber stamping. Off2riorob (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a large commercial satellite network, available principally to viewers in the British Isles but capable of reception anywhere within the European ASTRA satellite system footprint.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=britishskyb|title=BSB. International Satellite Broadcasting\publisher=Museum TV.|accessdate=October 21, 2010}}</ref>

In my opinion, Mullan's edit to the BSkyB topic is a provocative and bad faith edit. I have experienced a number of similarly provocative and bad faith edits from him.

It takes no degree of intelligence or integrity to surmise that a Satellite company serving the British Isles, or from the East of England to the West of Ireland, would also reach the Isle of Man and/or Channel Island. It also takes no effort to find references for one or both of the other group of islands (e.g. "'Isle of Man on Air'"). So what is going on here?

While we are looking at this area, we need to include Sky (UK & Ireland), and perhaps other similar topics. In the Sky topic, it says, "which has since come to broadcast exclusively to the United Kingdom and Ireland." This is also wrong. It should read BI, "marketed within the BI" would be probably better because satellite signals spill over borders.

Satellite broadcasting may well be another area suitable for a commonsense blanket ruling. --Triton Rocker (talk)

Storm Warning (novel)

Text states but after being severely battered by a storm, is wrecked off the coast of the British Isles. The British Isles doesn't have a coast. (Plot Spoiler!) In the book, the ship crashed in the Hebrides off the coast of Scotland. --HighKing (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Next time, hide your spoiler! My eyes just travelled, I didn't have time to stop them! Crashed in the Hebrides sounds good, although I've never read the book myself. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My spoiler warning was a little tongue in cheek and not serious, especially seeing as how the Misplaced Pages article states they crashed  :-). But, how would I have hidden the spoiler, just in case it happens in the future? --HighKing (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What does it say in the book? Is there any citations supporting User Highking statement? Off2riorob (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

They actual struck the Washington Reef three miles northwest of Fhada in the Outer Hebrides. See here. Bjmullan (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That snippet is unclear as to the mention of British Isles. Off2riorob (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree Off2riorob but I searched the book for the term "British Isles" without any success. If you do a google search for "storm warning Jack Higgins "British Isles"" you get 1 result which has nothing to do with the book if however you search for "storm warning Jack Higgins Hebrides" you get 2 pages of hits mainly relating to the book. Bjmullan (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Not just yet, is there any objections to changing it if the book does use the hebrides? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The coast of the Hebrides in part of the British Isles isn't it? So apart from just removing the expression it is actually correct isn't it? I also have read some discussion recently that the google search like that is not t be explicitly trusted and that it is filtered to show different pages and comments to different locations. It is actually correct isn't it? This is reflective of my issue and others issue with this page in general, mostly it is frequented by people that are searching through a list and the emphasis appears to be the removal of the expression as in this case and the one above, in both cases the British Isles can be also correct but the energy is to remove. I easily found a cite for the section above and that piece of coast can also be described as a location in the BI. The last report I read said to never use those google book snippets as reliable sources and was at ANI in the last week. Off2riorob (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

here it is - a bit of a side issue but related to google book searchs, Uncle G says it clearly towards the end. I don't think this change is a problem , it did say the exact place which is preferable to vague locations. Any way carry on, mostly ignore me, just a little comment, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That hyperlink isn't doing a good job, but I remember what he said. Went along the lines of google books are different for people in different areas, so quote the page number. Is that what you mean?

And I agree, "coast of the British Isles" would be wrong, but so would "coast of the Hebrides". Perhaps copyediting it to "in the British Isles" would be a good change for now, after which British Isles can just be replaced by the Hebrides.

I think "wrecked off the coast of Scotland" is the better change, short-term or long-term. It's easy to be precise with something like a crash or a ship-wreck. --HighKing (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be much more concerned about the use of the phrase "... that has foundered off the coast of the Jersey islands." It shows that whoever wrote this piece doesn't have a fantastic command on the English language. Fmph (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• - is this better - yes, like me sometimes Fmph. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. I think Elen of Roads closed that off beautifully. But I agree, that looks like something I write when I haven't had much sleep. Then again, it is a stub. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)