Talk:British Isles/Archive 13

message: </div>
Do not merge
Main arguments:
The current articles work as they are and serve different purposes; carrying out the merge could lead to edit warring
| style="padding:0em 0.5em 0em 0.5em;" |
|}
Waggers 13:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversation conclusion

message: Please do not use "Ibid" when creating footnotes.  As the article is edited new footnotes will be created between first mention of the source and Ibid, which will then appear to refer to the source listed in the new footnote. It is also possible the first mention of the source will be deleted or replaced by another source, orphaning the Ibid that follows.  Kablammo 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Ibid'' 

message: Two British lads are trying to sell their book on the weather- "The Wrong Kind of Snow"- on the Pat Kenny radio show this moment. They are referring to these islands as "British Isles and Ireland" throughout. Amazing how this very common definition of the British Isles is given so little space in this article. Anyway, you can listen to this treason by two loyal lieges here: http://www.rte.ie/radio1/todaywithpatkenny/ 86.42.68.161 11:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They use it in company with Britannica, the publishers of British Admiralty charts, the Oxford University Press and many other UK organisations, so they're hardly on their own (read the article).  Hughsheehy 21:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know how it rates on the "these islands" scale - but certainly more accurate than the pov-loaded term used in the Wiki article. (Sarah777 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so then why does this article still assert that there are 'two sovereign states located on the islands(sic)' when there are so many sources excluding Ireland from the definition of "British Isles"?  86.42.68.161 02:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "British Isles and Ireland" 

message: So, why hasn't this been done yet considering there are so many sources separating the "British Isles" from Ireland? 86.42.68.161 02:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should of course; but there was a vote on it during the summer; obviously we probably need another vote at year-end to see if the mounting new evidence against "The BIs" has convinced enough folk to see reason. But it's too soon just yet. Btw, if you are going to engage in the debate here an anonymous IP isn't exactly the "high moral ground" -:)(Sarah777 07:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that wasn't the proposal we voted on - I see what you mean....(Sarah777 07:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It hasn't been done because they're not the same thing.  British Isles includes Ireland, and there are more reliable sources indicating that than reliable sources claiming that Ireland isn't part of the British Isles. Waggers 09:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The geographical island group exists, and is different from "British Islands".  The problem is the name, which will change over time. Hughsheehy 09:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, so it's a case of counting the number of sources for one POV vs. the number of sources for another POV? This NPOV thing has been consigned to the dust bin, has it, Waggers? --sony-youthpléigh 10:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on British Islands is all well and good but does not cover the whole archipelago, which this article does. The problem is the lack of an agreed title, not the article's content. But then I think the article addresses that sufficiently (perhaps excessively).  Bazza 13:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the British Isles and Ireland don't actually form an archipelago. (Sarah777 19:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't believe this is still being discussed.  Wikipedia policy is clear that the most commonly used English language name should be used, and we've established time and again that the most commonly used English language name for the subject of this article is British Isles.  End of. Waggers 14:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... but that's not what you said, Waggers ... (Incidentally, my POV is that the two articles should not be merged at this time as "British Isles" is still more commonly/verifiably the name for the archipelago as a whole rather than just the area covered by "British Islands". That said, there would certainly be a better environment around here if alternative POVs - goodness, even NPOV! - were tollerated a la alternative names for the archapelago appearing in the intro. Yet, as we know that is not the case ... you can even reference a dictionary and some people still will come back with "I've never heard of it" and think they've made a valid argument!) --sony-youthpléigh 14:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument of the original poster was that the redirect should happen because "there are so many sources separating the "British Isles" from Ireland" -indicating that they consider the number of sources a valid indicator.  You're right, it isn't - but even if it were, their argument would still fail because of the point I made.  I didn't agree with them that the number of sources was important, I just corrected their assertion that the volume of sources that exclude Ireland from the British Isles is significant enough to warrant the suggested redirect. Waggers 14:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, not what you wrote, but not worth arguing over either - and I hardly believe you would mean what came across. --sony-youthpléigh 16:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a sec, requesting this article be re-directed, is going too far. What's next? Do we ban the term British Isles from Wikipedia? GoodDay 16:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's a proposal I'll certainly second it. (Sarah777 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a proposal. British Isles can't be banned. GoodDay 19:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect [[British Isles]] to [[British Islands]] 

message: This talk page is huge.  Would anybody object if I set a bot the task of archiving old discussions automatically?  If not, what timescale should we set - would fortnightly be too short a time? Waggers 22:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, an archiving bot is needed. GoodDay 22:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. A four week inactivity level should be a good balance as some conversations get restarted after a few weeks. Ben W Bell talk 22:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've set it up for 4 weeks.  Obviously we can change it later if necessary. Waggers 10:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Anyone who may be wondering how representative the views of Irish Wikipedians (non-British) are on this topic of the offensive name check out Geograph British Isles, look at the coverage map and wonder why? Hint: it isn't 'cos we Irish don't have digital cameras or the Internet:)(Sarah777 (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, that's probably more to do with the fact Ireland is approx 1/2 the size of Great Britain but only has around 10% of the population and is a lot less densely populated. Trust me, the less densely populated thing is a good thing. Ben W Bell talk 23:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly Ben; look at the even less densely populated Scotland and Wales (And NI)! It's because the term "British Isles" is taken by most Irish people not to include Ireland - I'm sure in time the hundreds of thousands of Brits over here will fill up most of the boxes - but this is a startling illustration of the Irish attitude to being called part of the "British Isles". (Sarah777 (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or maybe the site just hasn't been promoted in the media in Ireland, and as a result people don't know about it. There's usually a simple non political reason behind these things, not everything in life is political (despite what the adverts said before the last election in the UK). Ben W Bell talk 12:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope; this time you are wrong Ben - the reaction here perfectly reflects the views of 80%+ of those living in the RoI (and I live here!). Occam wins this time! (Sarah777 (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, and there's a lovely photo of The Royal Canal at Drumcondra Road Lower, Dublin, Ireland, to pick one of many at random. Of course, like parts of Scotland there are all these miles of peat bogs with naething worth photieing. However, I'll grant you that Boycott is an Irish word ;) .... dave souza, talk 23:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Dave, I even added about 10 new squares locally myself till I copped the name; but no amount of references to population densities, bogs or anything else can explain the starkness of the contrast between the relatively densely populated rural Southern Ireland v. NI or the relatively densely populated areas of most of rural Ireland v the barren wastes of Scotland and Wales. This is a Slam Dunk guys! (Sarah777 (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, as far as I can see, it doesn't include the Channel Islands.  Hughsheehy (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted - maybe they are on the French Geograph? (Sarah777 (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe. What's interesting is that the site is sponsored by the UK Ordinance Survey.  Hughsheehy (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  More precisely GB Ordnance Survey, rather than Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland or Ordnance Survey Ireland. --Rumping (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political naming 

message: I'm a bit surprised and disappointed to see the general sanctions template at the top of this talk page. When was the last time there was an edit war on the page, April? All the big disputes of the past were handled pretty much w/o admin intervention. There has been quite a bit of heated discussion on a few issues, but a number of editors put some effort into reaching a compromise. These "general sanctions" seem unneeded, and a little insulting.—eric 19:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fear not - the article isn't under general sanctions (if it was, it would be listed at WP:SANCTION).  I've removed the template. Waggers (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually sanctions were applied to this article on January 25, under the Great Irish famine sanctions. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A sanction perhaps, general sanctions (in the Wikipedia sense) no.  In this case, a single user was banned from editing this article (and its talk pages and subpages).  Wikipedia:General sanctions apply to the article, not to any specific editors. Waggers (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sorry i guess, i wasn't up to speed with everything that's been going on lately!—eric 09:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't apologise, the template shouldn't have been added to this page and you were right to question it - I for one wouldn't have noticed it until much later if it wasn't for your raising it.  You did a good thing :)  Waggers (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The good news Waggers is that I've just realised the block you engineered is long since expired. I think your wilder statements will no longer go unchallenged. Sarah777 (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I "engineered" nothing and I don't know what "wild" statements you're talking about - but I think we can categorically agree that there's no need for the  template on this page. Waggers (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On that we can indeed agree. Sarah777 (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Sanctions?