Talk:Terminology of the British Isles/Archive 1

message: From the archive:
I just moved the proposed text on my user page (User:DirkvdM/British Isles - Clarification of Terms) to this new article because it was collecting dust. For my motivation and the first reactions see the talk page there (User talk:DirkvdM/British Isles - Clarification of Terms).
DirkvdM 10:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved proposed text 

message: I wanted to include a link to here at the top of all the relevant articles (see the list in my talk page), but I won't do that for now. I have put it at the top of the Britain article to show what I mean and because that article is already mentioned for a merger. Here's the link-text:
:Those who are confused by the meaning of terms like England, (Great) Britain and United Kingdom are referred to British Isles - Clarification of Terms.
A variation of this could be used for the articles about Ireland, like this:
:Those who are confused by the meaning of terms like Ulster, (Republic of) Ireland, (Great) Britain and United Kingdom are referred to British Isles - Clarification of Terms. 
And maybe other variations for the articles relating to Scotland and Wales.
DirkvdM 10:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  I've rephrased your link at the Scotland page, because it seems rather patronising to suggest readers are confused (even though they certainly are!) and the link can be made more soberly.  If you agree, you might want to change the others too.  Why did you not link from British Isles  and United Kingdom?  I'd have thought they were the obvious ones. --Doric Loon 13:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What links here 

message: Someone moved this page from British Isles - Clarification of Terms to British Isles (dismabiguation). I thought of that title too, but it's not really a disambiguation page is it? Disambiguation pages can be rather wordy, but not as much as this. Also, the term refers to ambiguity, which means different meanings for the same word. Wikipedia:Disambiguation says this: Disambiguation [...] is the process of resolving ambiguity — meaning the conflicts that occur when articles about two or more different topics have the same "natural" title. This doesn't apply here. But then it goes on with ... disambiguations are types of turnpikes that lead to different meanings of a related word. Which does somehow apply here. But notice the singular in the last words a related word (which sounds odd by the way), not related words. Other quotes from that page: A disambiguation page contains no article content, only links to other Wikipedia pages. and Start each line with the link to the target page. However I did mean this one to apply: Don't wikilink any other words. 
So it's related to disambiguation but not the same. I've thought of other titles too, like British Isles - Terminology (can't remember the other ones now), but I decided British Isles - Clarification of Terms was the best choice. I'm open to suggestions though, because it feels a bit awkward. Anyone? DirkvdM 18:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the move, the baptismal title being quite odd by normal standards. My feeeing is that if it is not currently too like a typical dab page, it ought to become more so. That is, it should be tightened up; and anything interesting that is not naturally here should be moved out to somewhere more spacious. To sum up, disambiguating British Isles and other confusing terms seems an excellent idea, and something I can wholeheartedly approve of; while 'clarification' is not so clearly good (old business about a distinction without a difference can be invoked. Charles Matthews 16:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation page? Or any other alternative title? 

message: I wanted to draw attention by turning this into a real article, and that's certainly worked. Within two hours two people started editing it, which is what I hoped for. Now I have to take care not to see this too much as my baby that no-one may touch, but it is not a stub that is meant to invite a lot of work in the structure. It's especially the contents that may need tweaking. I've set this up according to a certain logic. Let me go through some edits, first those by Charles Matthews:
*Some humorous bits removed., That's fine (and was expected).
*Wikification of the first list by linking the words. I did not do that because the idea was not to drown the article in links (there are plenty already - this is also why I didn't link the years).  The first (next) paragraph links to the larger parts. Then come the constituent parts of those. Then sort of a continuation of that (a less orderly bit). Then Ireland. And then some other stuff (history and languages). And I wanted to use the links to highlight what the different sections are about. Combine that with just one link per item and the first 'equations' can't have those links. I know that breaks the rule of linking the first occurrence of a term, but in this case I think that's excusable. By the way, I notice you didn't link 'Britain', probably in anticipation of the removal of that article.
*So changed to Therefore in the third paragraph. Therefore suggests a 'logical' conclusion but it isn't. The paragraph starts with sort of a regurgitation of what was already stated, so So seems a better choice.
*The last bit about all this being part of Europe or not is also a cause for confusion, so I think it certainly deserves a mention. It's just a small bit and it's way at the end.
Sorry, Charles. Now for the edits by Owain. These are edits of the content, the type of edit I anticipated and I won't change them because I don't really know the details. However:
*Does the Prince of Wales have anything to do with Wales? I thought it was just a title. He doesn't have any hereditary or political connections with Wales, does he? By the way, when it's the next queen of England is it the princess of Wales?
*You removed two bits about the level of independence of Wales. But surely Northern Ireland has more independence and the fact that Scotland has its own parliament is worth mentioning. I strongly suggest putting these back unless you have good reasons.
I had a look at your userpage. So you're Welsh? Gee, I never would have guessed :) .
DirkvdM 19:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The original wording regarding the Prince of Wales that I removed was "(the prince of which is really just the king of the UK to be, who has nothing to with Wales)". Obviously someone who is the king of the UK to be has something to do with Wales! My edit regarding the 1539 'Act of Union' was to remove the redundant parts - the original stated "In 1536/1543 England and Wales united (though effectively Wales joined England". That is stating the same thing twice! "the name England is still often used to mean Wales" is was removed because it is a PoV. "and the laws are largely the same" is not relevant in an article describing the British Isles. Neither is the part about the devolved institutions - they are more relevant (and already covered) on the United Kingdom page. BTW, my user page doesn't really say anything! Owain 09:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I think I'll refer to what it says under the box: 'If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.' So, edits happen. I'm actually not usually thought of as a wikibutcher; the page needed and needs work. Charles Matthews 16:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I see - most of the wikification has just been reverted. No, I can't accept that that was the benefit of the article. Obviously one links to Great Britain here. I can't accept removing essential links. Charles Matthews 16:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: You like reverting, as is clear from your list of edits. You do however have to have better reasons than a weekend. Charles Matthews 09:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First edits 

message: The original intro was nice and simple. For a very good reason. This article is meant to explain what's what to people who are confused. People might want to really dig into it, but the foremost purpose is to take away the confusion and the way the intro looks now is still very confusing. If the simple intro is too wrong, that's another matter, but I did put the disclaimer underneath for just that purpose. I'm getting ready for bed now. Tomorrow I'll see if I can merge the additions there into the body text. DirkvdM 19:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, if someone is just confused about the difference between Britain and the UK or between Britain and Brittany, they will soon find the answer.  What REALLY is confusing, even for people who know the issues well, is the large number of Wiki articles which partially overlap.  The most important thing this article can do is to make sense of them.  --Doric Loon 06:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After a good night's sleep I saw the light; I'll just leave the new 'intro' as it is and put the old intro back above it, thus creating three stages. The 'new intro' is largely about historical issues. I wonder if that could be turned into a nice timeline-diagram such as in the EU article. DirkvdM 06:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Intro 

message: The article refers to this name applying from 1937 onwards. Is this strictly correct? I was under the impression that the country's name changed in 1937 to 'Ireland' (or 'Éire') and then again in 1949 to the 'Republic of Ireland'. Nigel Campbell 22:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, the term "Republic of Ireland" dates from 1949 Republic of Ireland Act. But "Republic of Ireland" isn't a name, legally it's a "description". "Ireland" continues to be the only official name of the RoI, according to the 1937 constitution. Demiurge 22:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the moment, the article reads thus:
   'Ireland or Éire refers to the island of Ireland, or to any of the following: 
   Historically: 
   The Kingdom of Ireland = Ireland, 1541-1801. 
   The Irish Republic = unilaterally declared 32-county republic encompassing the entire island, 1919-22. 
   Southern Ireland = proposed Home Rule state under the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Never came into existence, being      
   superseded by: 
   The Irish Free State = Ireland excepting Northern Ireland, 1922-37. 
   The Republic of Ireland = Ireland excepting Northern Ireland, 1949-present'
It leaves out the situation between 1937 and 1949; what was this, and could someone rectify it? Robdurbar 21:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic of Ireland 

message: "The United Kingdom is a country. Its four component parts, whilst being legally responsible to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, are sometimes considered to be of different status."
The 4 "components" aren't responsible to parliament, neither are their inhabitants responsible to parliament. Parliament is responsible to the inhabitants of the country. The 4 component nations(I'll use this term for simplicity) are under the power of the Government (operating through, scrutinized & restrained by parliament) but I don't think 'responsible to' is the right term for referring to Gov either. I'd suggest something along the lines of ""The United Kingdom is a country. Its four component parts, whilst having equal rights to elect Members of Parliament on the same terms are sometimes considered to be of different status. This may be supported by the existence of devolved assemblies with different levels of powers in Scotland and Wales."
I won't change it yet but let me know if anyone has any objections AllanHainey 15:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 4 nations & parliament

message: I originally meant this article to just have links to the geographical and political entities, to give a 'coloured overview' of which there are. For example, I haven't linked any of the years (as one is normally supposed to) and no-one has changed that yet. I'm not sure if we should stick to this, so I'm asking for comments on this. So far several different types of links have been added. For example to interregnum in the history section. This is a period and makes enough sense. The link to the Act of Union likewise (especially since (I believe) it was one of the major historical events that defined the present situation). But a link to King James VI goes a bit too far. And the links to the nationalists and unionists certainly do (following my original ideas). And the Anglosphere may be seen as something geographic, but it's not about this region, so that's out of place too. Any thoughts?
Also, I originally didn't put any links in the top, leaving them for the text below, as sort of a guide to what's discussed where (that guide isn't needed in the top). Not a big issue, though. DirkvdM 19:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, the more links you have, the more you are helping readers.  I think it is not bad, though, that in this article they start under the titles box.  The top third of this article is now very useful.  It provides an orientation which was lacking.  The discursive part further down still needs work, though. --Doric Loon 09:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: I included in the article that Uladh is a Celtic name for Northern Ireland, and 195.92.168.169 removed that, sying it is not true. Now, like everything else, I got this from some other Wikipedia article, so this mistake (if it is one) is also elsewhere (just can't remember where). However, Googling the term gives 20.000 hits so the term does mean dsomething and it does seem to have to do with Northern Ireland. What is it then?DirkvdM 19:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uladh is the Irish language term for Ulster but, as you know, Ulster is not Northern Ireland 195.92.168.176 21:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Hello again Dirk, I think the term you are looking for is Tuaisceart Éireann but be aware that this is a manufactured term for use in official contexts (multi-lingual signs, etc) that has appeared only in the last few years as official attitudes in 'the north' have softened. The term used by Irish speakers is (unsurprisingly) An Tuaisceart meaning the north 195.92.168.173 22:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I have only ever seen it used once, on a multi-lingual sign attached to a government building within the last year. The conflict in Northern Ireland is about national identities. On the one hand, up until now the authorities have frowned upon expressions of Irishness. On the other hand, those who know Irish are not the sort of people who would use the term Northern Ireland. So the term Tuaisceart Éireann lacks authenticity and seems to me to be little more than a belated attempt to create an Irish identity for Northern Ireland. A long answer but that's the way the place is 195.92.168.173 14:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Uladh? 

message: The content of this section is fairly weak, with most of it either irrelevant, flippant or repeated. I suggest that this section could easily be deleted without the article losing anyhting. Thoughts? Robdurbar 10:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is more or less a remnant of the original setup of the article. In sofar as the information is repeated elsewhere, that repetition could also be deleted there. The existence of this section is needed to emphasize that the distinctions can be geographical or political. That's rather important. I'd sooner expand this section (though I wouldn't know with what :) ) than remove it. DirkvdM 10:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The terminology really comes in two sets - geographical and political, I've relocated some stuff from the political section because it really dealt with geography. Bandraoi 12:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, read much better now Robdurbar 16:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Geographical Distinctions

message: Is Northern Ireland used for the North of the Republic?
What is the usual name for the North of the Republic?
--Error 00:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  The most northerly counties would usually be called the "border counties". --Ryano 08:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: North of the Republic

message: The article says that the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles. This is not correct. The British Isles is a geographical term for the archipelago which includes Great Britain, Ireland, Wight, Man, the Hebrides, the Orkneys and (at a stretch) the Shetlands and Rockall. The Channell Islands are just off the coast of France and are not geographically part of the British Isles. This is why the term "British Islands" has been coined to encompass the UK and those entities which are linked to the British Crown but not part of the UK (Man, Guernsey and Jersey). Adam 03:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Channel Islands

message: According to the Isle of Man Government web pages, the Isle of Man is an "internally self-governing dependent territory of the British Crown. It is not part of the United Kingdom but is a member of the British Commonwealth."
64.180.30.77 08:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isle of Man 

message: Surely this translates simply as 'Britain', rather than 'Little Britain'? Robdurbar 08:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I had just changed that. Bretagne doesn't mean 'Little Britain' (afaik), but it was called that by the British settlers in the early middle ages. Or it might be that those British used a term meaning 'Little Britain' which the French then adopted and which then changed to 'Bretagne' over time. I wouldn't be surprised. After all we're talking 1500 years ago and words can change a lot over such a long time. Come to think of it it's quite surprising that the words 'Britain' and 'Bretagne' are still so much alike. DirkvdM 06:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bretagne