Category talk:British Islands

May 2012
This should not be in, or its scope otherwise changed; otherwise it forms a loop, since it includes , which includes. This should probably be a geographic category (mirroring British Isles), then you can create a separate 'politics' category below - but then that starts to overlap with crown dependencies. This cat needs more thought... --KarlB (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, in fairness, you added the cat that's causing the "problem". I don't really see why you removed the category from United Kingdom, Jersey, the Isle of Mann or Guernsey and replaced them with sub cats at all. They are the British Islands. -- RA (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I added the cats, and I fixed the loop. In any case, the purpose was to match how this is done at ; as a geographic super-container, it normally contains the categories; there isn't a need thus to replicate the country articles, since the categories already contain that. In any case, I think a new sub-cat should probably be created for politics; then have

British Isles |       | British Islands   Politics in the British Isles |                      |     Politics in the British Islands

But there is still the problem of ; Thus I think actually should be deleted, the politics cat created to capture those articles you want to capture there, and use  in place of  which isn't needed any more (since  is just  + UK. Another option:           British Isles          |             | Crown dependencies   Politics in the British Isles        |                       |     Politics in the British Islands           |                       |                                   |      Politics of the UK        Politics of the Channel Islands   Politics of the Isle of Man But politics in the British Islands would include UK politics, not be part of UK politics - if that makes sense - because it is a geographic super-container. Just as politics in the British Isles or Politics in Europe includes politics of Ireland, not the other way around. But it's still going to be quite duplicative; since British Isles = British Islands + Ireland... --KarlB (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Karl, you introduced the current "problem" by removing entries and adding categories that are causing the current so-called "problem".
 * There is no need for this category to "mirror" Category:British Isles. The British Islands is an entirely political concept. If you have an issue with it raise it for discussion. In the mean time, I'm going to restore the original contents and fix the "problem" you introduced.
 * And, yes, the British Islands are a sub cat of UK politics (and potentially of the politics of Crown Dependencies). It is the parliament of the UK that has jurisdiction over all of the British Islands. -- RA (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't be snippy about the "problem". Once I added the cats, I fixed the problem - you re-introduced it. Its just we have different perspectives on how this cat should be structured - to be similar to, or to be different. In any case, there is another problem with this cat - it is the name - it is not obvious that this is a place to put political articles. Why not just rename it as , I don't think you want it to start containing fauna/flora, or culture, or music festivals, etc. --KarlB (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding anything about flora and fauna would be like adding those items to Category:NATO. Its an entirely political/legal concept. -- RA (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're right in theory; however, clarity never hurts. also, you have to read carefully, and several times, to understand that british island is only a political term, and to differentiate it from british isles. Remember the long debates we have a CfD over clarity in category names - in this case I'm not sure why adding 'politics' or some other modifier would hurt (most people, adding things to categories, might be using hotcat - and British Isles and British Islands will appear next to one another, so if we don't want it as a generic geographic container (which some might misconstrue) don't you think renaming might help? There's another problem - Guernsey refers to both the island and the bailiwick, but what we want here is the bailiwick (to add to the confusion, there are separate categories for or ; thus I think the best fix is probably to add the redirect Bailiwick of Guernsey, and then remove the others - even though this is a little odd, the result might be more accurate, when looking at the category. I don't think a similar problem obtains for Isle of Man. Otherwise, someone looking at the category contents might think that Sark is not part of the British Islands (and may be tempted to add it here) - which thus brings us back to the idea I had of adding the categories instead... --KarlB (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

archipelago
At the top of the article, we have: "For the archipelago in which these states are located, see Category:British Isles."

This is not making sense to me, because the Channel Islands is archipelago which is separate from the UK.Danrok (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose a more strictly correct way would be "...for the archipelago in which all of these states are located..." Although I know both ways are clunky. Basically what I'm trying to say is, "This is category about the political/legal entity 'British Islands', look here for the archipelago called the "British Isles'" (because the two have similar names). -- RA (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)