Talk:Channel Islands

Oppose move (2008)
Article moved to misleading title without discussion. The Channel Islands are not part of the UK and do not "belong" to the UK as made clear in the article. Article should be moved back pending discussion. Man vyi (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed - move reverted. Tivedshambo (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Another proposed guideline for "the British Isles"
I have numerous concerns about the current proposal for a guideline for the use of the term British Isles and have written another proposal. My main concerns were that the proposal as it is written here did not walk the line of WP:NPOV, did not have an adequate grounding in current consensus and practice, and did not offer any concrete guidelines per se that an editor could follow or easily understand (in the broadest sense of the term).

My proposed guidelines are here. --sony-youth pléigh 20:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Channel Islands vs.Category:Archipelagoes
Category:Channel Islands is itself a category within Category:Archipelagoes. — Robert Greer (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Channel Islands needs to be disambiguated
The small islands off the coast of Los Angeles are also known as the Channel Islands. A disambiguation page for "Channel Islands" is thus needed. — User:pefty (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2008 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.203.177 (talk)

RFC on whether the Channel Islands are a part of the British Isles
An RFC has been opened inviting comments on whether the Channel Islands should be treated as part of the British Isles on Wikipedia. All views are welcome here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 22 October 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 17:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Channel Islands → British Channel Islands – or "Channel Islands (UK)" or "Channel Islands (British)" "Channel Islands (English Channel)", "Channel Islands (Europe)"&dagger; or (I hope not) "Channel Islands (Crown dependency)""Channel Islands" should be a dab page since I don't believe it is universally understood to refer to the subject. In the U.S. (and I suspect elsewhere outside the U.K./Ireland/France), we know about Guernsey and Jersey, but not commonly the name "(British) Channel Islands". In California, our "Channel Islands" are well known. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 03:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * &dagger;(edited to strikeout/gray offensive/inaccurate choices, add suggested options in green) —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 20:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (pinging, who reverted the previous (undiscussed) move.) —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 05:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely you don't expect me to remember what I did over ten yuears ago? However my reasons still stand - the Channel Islands are neither part of Great Britain nor the United Kingdom, therefore any renaming should reflect this. I'm neutral about whether this should remain the primary topic of if a DAB page is required. (edit at 09:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC) - no longer neutral - see below) O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 07:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Would Channel Islands (Europe) be acceptable? Richard 08:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I pinged you as a possibly interested party, based on your reversion of the previous rename. The original renamer does not appear active. I brought it here for discussion and suggested alternatives based on your original concerns. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 01:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Google hits and |Channel_Islands_(California) page views show that the British islands are the primary topic. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY I find the page view data makes it incontrovertible which is the main article. [COI declaration: I'm a Channel Islander] Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per common name and primary topic עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments – Google (FWIW) search priority appears to depend on where you are. Even using google.co.uk (against interest) to search for "channel islands", for me (in SoCal), the first page of hits are all about our (California) Channel Islands, except for the wiki article shown on the right side and the hit for the current Wiki article (the Channel Islands (California) article appears right after it).
 * As far as number of hits (again FWIW), searching (again on google.co.uk) "channel islands" "california" yields 12.3 million hits (supposedly); searching "channel islands" "guernsey" yields 27.8 million hits – a 69:31 split.
 * The |Channel_Islands_(California) page views comparison shows no worse than an 80:20 split for various periods. We also don't know how many of those were people that went to "Channel Islands" and were surprised (like I was) to not get the page they expected.
 * None of these stats seem to qualify as overwhelming enough to make either page the primary target. I can understand doing so for 100:1 or even 10:1, but these stats aren't even close to those ratios.
 * P.S.: "What links here" seems to include articles (e.g. Antarctic that transclude a navbox (like Regions of Europe) that have an inlink to the article in question. Setting namespace to Articles and "Hide transclusions" doesn't seem to help. Is there a way to list/count inlinks effectively (i.e. only links directly from another page, before resolving any transclusions)? —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 00:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * most people have never even heard of channel islands California the first time I've ever heard of them was reading this RM עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , what evidence do you have that "most people have never even heard of channel islands California"? The ones in California are what comes to my mind when I hear Channel Islands.  ~ GB fan 23:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * if you live on the west coast that may be true עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I don't live on the west coast. I will ask again, what evidence do you have that "most people have never even heard of channel islands California"? ~ GB fan 20:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per comments above and WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 09:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. By far the best known Channel Islands in the world. Semi-autonomous states. Significant role in WWII. Population about forty times larger than the California islands. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose and next editor SNOW close please In ictu oculi (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note – I've briefly requested further input at Talk:Channel Islands (California) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography to gain a wider audience. —&#91;   Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 17:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the various reasons given above by others. The term "Channel Islands" in English overwhelmingly refers to these ones.  As long as a line mentioning the other (lesser-used) meanings of the term continues to be prominent at the top of the page, we should be OK.  Ross Finlayson (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. I'm not convinced that it's overwhelmingly more likely to search for, or link, these islands (especially under the name "Channel Islands") than the California ones.  --Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment these channel islands are located in the English Channel, so... English Channel Islands or Channel Islands (English Channel) ? -- 65.94.42.18 (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * English Channel Islands would suggest that the islands are English – which they are not. Richard 11:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It would suggest the islands are in the English Channel -- which they are. -- And they're holdings of the English Crown since the Conquest, thus before the Act of Union. -- 65.94.42.18 (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest warning for forum shopping.  Jeni  ( talk ) 10:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment –  I took due note of WP:CANVAS, notifying parties with a legitimate interest (i.e. the other article and Wikiproject Geography (which should be neutral with regard to location bias)), and I mentioned that I did so above. Note that I carefully avoided Wikiproject California to avoid bringing more bias to the discussion. I don't see any point in bringing a bunch of Californians in to say they know our Channel Islands better and people in the UK, France, and Ireland to say they know the ones in the English Channel better – I already stipulated that. I've really tried to be balanced here, and have tried to respond reasonably to the concerns raised. —&#91;   Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 10:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Channel Islands has yet to be notified of this proposed move. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't know it existed. Six people have bothered to list themselves as members, only two of which are active. The project page has less than 30 watchers and 42 page views in the last 30 days. It has 30 edits (20 of them, and the only significant contribution in almost all of its life). Its talk page has 7 sections and 14 edits (half by that same active user), in its less than five-year lifetime. I would not object to notifying them, though. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 21:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * &#91;edit&#93; but let's also notify the other WikiProjects listed at both articles if people feel that will help to achieve consensus. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 23:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – On the subject of Wikiprojects, the subject article is rated start-class and top- or low-importance (or unrated importance) to the five Wikiprojects that are interested in it, four of which (other than WikiProject France) are similarly relatively inactive. The Channel Islands (California) article is rated C-class and of high importance to the relatively more active WikiProject California. —&#91;   Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 22:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Looking more carefully at the page-view stats for the last year:
 * Again, I believe that these percentages are significant enough to demonstrate the significant number of readers that are surprised to find the subject page at its current title. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 22:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your use of the term 'UK' here points to a misunderstanding of the history and political status of the Channel Islands. They are not part of the UK. The idea of renaming the article is fraught with difficulties - for instance, the Islands are in the English Channel, but are not English. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand completely. By "UK" I mean to indicate proximity (briefly), nothing else. I believe I've made that clear. "(Europe)" or "(English Channel)" or "(Crown dependency)" if necessary all seem reasonable and accurate as a suffix. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 20:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've edited the table header to address the concern, however. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 20:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose on the grounds that it would be really really stupid to change, and I have never heard of the cali channel islands. -Roxy, in the middle . wooF 10:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Several people seem to be making the argument mentioned here. —&#91;   Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 20:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ... indeed, including yourself in your original post, but what is your point here? I of course would suggest that more people haven't heard of the cali Channel Islands that people who haven't heard of the real Channel Isles, except that I lose track of the double negatives. Of course, the Cali Isles should actually be called the "Not In A Real Channel Islands" anyway. -Roxy, in the middle . wooF 01:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The number of people (out of 7 billion in the world) that haven't heard of either likely far overshadows any other statistic. As far as the rest, I don't understand your use of "real". They are certainly "real", and in the Santa Barbara Channel. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 02:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per User:Necrothesp.  Schwede 66  22:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:Necrothesp.- gadfium 23:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Channel Islands are in the English Channel
I have restored the article to which includes in the lead section that the Channel Islands are "in the English Channel". . It surprises me that this could be in any way contentious, but has repeatedly removed this statement. His rationale is "When you look at a map, it's difficult to understand how this island group could be described as being located in the English Channel. It seems confusing to describe their location in such a way." That may be his opinion, but Wikipedia deals in facts, and the Channel Islands are geographically in the English Channel. So for that matter is Chausey - the French Channel Island, even nearer to Normandy - or the Roches-Douvres Light.

As the English Channel article states, the International Hydrographic Organization defines the Channel as the sea east of a line joining Île Vierge and Land's End through to where the Channel joins the North Sea off Calais. This includes the waters a[d]joining the Brittany and Normandy coast.

If any reader remains to be convinced, here are a selection of references to support the statement:



Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 14:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup. Maybe Noel Darlow thought "English Channel" meant "Dover Strait" or something? — Llywelyn II   20:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The Chausey Islands
The second paragraph contains this sentence: "In official Jersey Standard French, the islands are called 'Îles de la Manche', while in France, the term 'Îles Anglo-normandes' (Anglo-Norman Isles) is used to refer to the British 'Channel Islands' in contrast to other islands in the Channel." I have modified the sentence to "In official Jersey Standard French, the Channel Islands ... ", to clarify that the comment doesn't refer to the Chausey Islands; however, I believe the sentence is misplaced, as the sub-heading is "The Chausey Islands". The sentence should, I suggest, be relocated to the sub-section Names. Anyone care to comment? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Part of Commonwealth of Nations or not?
In the lead it claims the Islands are NOT part of the Commonwealth? However U.K. legislation (File:AnnexB_Members_of_the_Commonwealth.pdf) British Nationality Act (1981 c 61) Annex B" states: "United Kingdom Dependent Territories Crown Dependencies: Say otherwise. Is there a source for the current claim that they aren't a part? CaribDigita (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Channel Islands
 * Isle of Man"
 * Not sure what you're on about. Look at the sources you just provided. See that big empty area where all the other entries have dates? That's what the article currently agrees with. They're (Crown) dependencies of, er, overseen by a country (the UK) that is a Commonwealth member. They themselves are not Commonwealth members or fully and formally incorporated territory of a Commonwealth member.


 * As an aside, are there any benefits to being "part of the Commonwealth" that makes this distinction important? Discounts at Tescos or Nandos or sth? — Llywelyn II   20:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but no
Currently, the article reads
 * Historically, they are the remnants of the Duchy of Normandy.

which is kinda sorta accurate in a way that's fine for a lead overview. Hell, the Channelleers even toast their "Duke" thinking they're talking about Normandy to this day. However, at some point in the body of the article, there should be a brief acknowledgement that the 1259 Treaty of Paris formally reorganized them as part of the Duchy of Aquitaine instead when HenryIII finally acknowledged that Normandy was gone for the foreseeable future. (If the exact point afterwards that the islands got severed from Aquitaine and became entirely free-floating not-quite-English-or-British dependencies could be pinpointed, that would be worth mentioning too. More likely, it was just a series of vague not-quite-statements that shifted the situation over time.) — Llywelyn II   19:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)