Template talk:British Isles/Archive 2

Title
The use of 'British Isles' is virtually unknown in the Republic, the State never uses it, etc; the problem is a political one, and if the use of the term remains it is due to in part to a historical leftover in 'maps of the empire' and part to the reluctance from some quarters to recognise the changed circumstance. The following comment ignores the restricted use of the term. I'm of the opinion that the accepted usage of the inhabitants of the island take precedence over that of old, whiskery anachronisms. Any statement along the lines of British Isles is a politically neutral, geographic term such as the Azores or Oceania is entirely mistaken - it always was used to reflect the situation when the island was (wholly) under British rule. Modern Atlases do not use the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.165.60 (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Like it or not these islands are called the British isles and using a parameter to hide it and show either a name that is not the WP:COMMONNAME and is possibly WP:OR shouldn't happen Gnevin (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The title of this template is shown differently on some pages. If you believe that those pages are in breach of original research or any other policy or guideline, you should bring it up on those pages. Please don't simply break the template from afar without gaining consensus on those talk pages first.
 * Bear in mind that this template has included this functionality since its inception in 2006. --RA (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am aware of how this template works . However removing the title parameter doesn't break the template it just removes some functionality . This is a template issue and should be discussed here and not the individual pages. Gnevin (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing functionality break that functionality. Discuss it first with the pages that use it and get consensus. --RA (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. Can Gnevin backs up claim of OR with actual evidence? Snappy (talk)
 * It's is not my job too prove there is no teapot in orbit around the sun rather it is the job of those claiming there is to prove it's excistance. Same here the common name is clear and I see no reason other than peoples pov to hide it Gnevin (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Any examples of what the problem is? --HighKing (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the Ireland / Republic of Ireland simply saying "Britain and Ireland" was a problem. If it is possible to remove the ability to alter the title of this template that appears in the text i agree with that. There is no need to hide "British Isles", in the British Isles template. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * British-Irish Council area uses British-Irish Council area linking to British Isles
 * British–Irish_relations uses British-Irish Council area linking to British Isles
 * Terminology_of_the_British_Isles uses The British Isles - or Great Britain, Ireland & the Isle of Man linking to British Isles
 * Irish_people uses Great Britain & Ireland linking to British Isles
 * Republic of Ireland uses Britain and Ireland linking to British Isles
 * Ireland uses Britain and Ireland linking to British Isles
 * List of islands of Ireland uses Great Britain, Ireland and the Isle of Man linking to British Isles
 * Yes there is a naming dispute but we should us the WP:COMMONNAME not some name made up or some work about name which seems to have no evidence of usage British_Isles_naming_dispute Gnevin (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * At WT:BISE I had earlier proposed an alternative: Wikipedia talk:BISE that seeks to avoid "surprises" caused by pipe-linking. Short version: use the parameter to pipe-link to a phrase that includes both the local variant (e.g. "Britain and Ireland") and a short explanation that includes the term "British Isles", for example "Britain and Ireland (also called "the British Isles")". TFOWR 09:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've notified the pages you've listed above of this discussion.
 * Here's the original discussion from 2006 that settled on piping the heading of this template for use on some of these articles.
 * WP:COMMONNAME refers to the title of articles. This is a case of pipe linking the heading of a template. (Many of the other templates on these pages also pipe link their headings in different ways.) WP:COMMONNAME does not apply. It does not prescribe usage for words, sub-headings, etc. used in articles. Individual articles are free to use whatever terminology is useful or practical for their particular topic. I cannot think of any policy or guidelines that would prohibit piping in this manner. The heading of the template doesn't need to be uniform across all articles because articles don't need to be uniform.
 * My 2 euro cent is that piping the heading of this template is a practical way to facilitate the information in this template to appear in an uncontroversial way on articles where the term British Isles is otherwise problematic (for whatever reason, the reasons are different depending on the article). For example, the British-Irish Council goes to lengths to avoid the term (and the question of avoiding the term was a notable element in the negotiations to set it up and continued reporting of it). Using the term in that article would be incongruous with the topic. "British Irish Council area" is a prosaic way of saying the same thing, as used for example by the BBC, the Jersey Government and the Welsh Assembly.
 * Removing the ability to pipe the heading of this template would probably sit well with those who have a limited perspective on these articles and a black-and-white view on how we should refer to these islands. In reality, these topics are nuanced and the question of what the call these islands is one that depends greatly on context. The ability to pipe link should remain to enable individual articles to decide what is best with respect to the topic that they discuss. A one-size-fits-all approach is narrow sighted.
 * The wider-picture approach, that enables individual article to use a heading most appropriate to them, has worked well with respect to this template since 2006. If it ain't broke, don't "fix". --RA (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems crazy to me that the British Isles template does not say British Isles anywhere in the template when the title is pipelinked with Britain and Ireland. Its an even more laughable situation because the term "Islands of the North Atlantic (IONA)" which almost no one knows or uses does get a mention. This issue does need to be addressed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Id be prepared to support "British Isles (traditionally)" or "British Isles (geographical location)" or "British Isles (Archipelago)", But British Isles should be mentioned in the title even if it is watered down with extra text. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * British Isles Archipelago would be an interesting renaming proposition, it might even remove some conflict. Otherwise Britain and Ireland is used as a synonym for British Isles in some cases so pipe linking then is legitimate.  None of the terms in this arena of confusing and highly symbolic nomenclature is ever used precisely anyway.  -- Snowded  TALK  10:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

To me this looks like an unacceptable case of forum shopping: an attempt to change content on several articles without discussion on either the pages themselves or WP:BITERM. It appears disruptive to me to make such a proposal in an inappropriate forum and even argue for it with obviously bogus reasons such as a silly accusation of "original research". Switching between obviously equivalent formulations has never been regarded as original research. Our ability to do that is at the heart of our mission to build a free encyclopedia. Without it we would at most be able to build an encyclopedia full of copyright violations. WP:NOR is a tool against crackpots, not against rephrasing. Hans Adler 10:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Partially withdrawing this comment, see below. Hans Adler 11:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Forum shop is when you ask the same question to multiple talk pages if you don't get the anwser you like. This is clearly a template issue so this is the logical place to have the discussion. As for OR ,for me it has always been about making stuff up of the 50 + pages using this template only a small minoirity feel the need to avoid the common name  Gnevin (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gnevin actually did make a post at WP:BISE (which is where active discussions take place) linking to here, so its not like hes trying to avoid attention or anything. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also I only became aware of WP:BISE after an editor link me to it at WT:IE Gnevin (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry, then I am taking back much of what I said. But still, this isn't the right place for this content discussion. Hans Adler 11:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RA in that WP:COMMONNAME does not apply in this case, and agree with TFOWR when he says pipe linking should not lead to a surprise. As for "Britain and Ireland" as this template is about more than just Britain and Ireland I don't think it should ever be pipe linked in that way. Codf1977 (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "more than just Britain and Ireland" – I guess you are referring to Isle of Man? I don't think that's a particularly good argument. The British Isles are dominated by Great Britain and Ireland, and this distinction is a bit pedantic. Hans Adler 14:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Britain and Ireland" can mean "Great Britain and Ireland" or "The United Kingdom and Ireland", so without context it's sometimes tricky to ascertain its meaning. As for pedantics, I'm sure some editors here feel the whole idea of pipelinking the term British Isles is pedantic ;) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first point is certainly a good one. Since this template is about geography, it needs to be "Great Britain and Ireland", certainly not "Britain and Ireland". I missed that. Hans Adler 15:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if we are going to talk about what things "can mean", "British Isles" can mean "Isles that Belong to the UK" ;-) WRT "Britain and Ireland" specifically - although it appears to get peoples backs up (just as British Isles gets others') - it is a common idiom that refers to the exact same things as "British Isles".
 * The ins-and-outs of what terms are used though are IMHO better dealt with on individual talk pages. Is there general agreement that piping (whatever term is used) is broadly OK in principle? The British-Irish Council example ("British-Irish Council area") is a good example of where it is useful, for example. --RA (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignoring your main point for the moment: My point was that use of "Britain and Ireland" seems to have strong connotations of a political, rather than geographical, context, and would therefore exclude certain islands. Hans Adler 16:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * United Kingdom and Ireland are the political units. -- Snowded TALK  16:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Ireland" is ambiguous, so it's important not to use an ambiguous term for the other island as well. Hans Adler 16:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to read up on that in the various histories. Ireland is the official name of the state and I pipelinked it per convention where the meaning is unambiguous (as it is when linked with the UK as its countries).  If it is ambiguous then Republic of Ireland can be used.  Otherwise I am not sure what point you are making.  Britain and ireland is used frequently and cited, there is nothing wrong with its use.  -- Snowded  TALK  16:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Depends on who you ask and the time you ask them. Both terms are ethereal. For example, consensus here is that Great Britain refers to the island on Wikipedia. Fine. However, the Oxford English Dictionary puts it the the political emphasis on Great Britain and distinguishes Britain (an island) from Great Britain (a England, Scotland and Wales considered as a unit). While both are synonymous, "the longer form [Great Britain] is more usual for the political unit", it says. Great Britain, it says, is also a synonym for the United Kingdom. The 2-letter ISO code for the UK is thus GB rather than UK (and to hammer home the fact the 3-letter code is GBR).
 * "Ireland" is an equally ethereal concept. Like, Snowded says, "None of the terms in this arena of confusing and highly symbolic nomenclature is ever used precisely anyway." --RA (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)Great Britain and Ireland means the two major islands so its not really BI. However we do now see "Britain and Ireland" being used as an alternative to British Isles in Atlases for example (and yes they do include Isle of Man).  An Atlas was geographical last time I looked so you can't say "certainly not".  -- Snowded  TALK  16:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which atlas and when ? As far as I can see there are not references for this Gnevin (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the British Isles article and you will find them -- Snowded TALK  20:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Which atlas? It's been a while since I've looked at an atlas but I have a children's atlas from when I was four that gives the archipelago as "Britain and Ireland" :-) Certainly though there are maps a-plenty that use it (just walk into a petrol station and pick up an example). The National Geographic Atlas of the World apparently gives the archipelago as "Britain and Ireland" (although I haven't never seen it myself). Their wall maps verifiably do (example1, example 2) - and yes, they include the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and (explicitly, by showing it as an inset) Shetland. Reference 14 on British Isles (the Guardian Style Guide) supports this assertions: "The plate in the National Geographic Atlas of the World once titled British Isles now reads Britain and Ireland." --RA (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Example 2 also shows France. Its title being Britain and Ireland does not mean it is a title of the archipelago, even if there are maps / other sources covering the same areas. These are used instead of talking about the British Isles, rather than a second name for the British Isles. "Britain and Ireland is an archipelago in North west Europe still does not sound accurate to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What about: "Britain and Ireland are part of an archipelago known as the British Isles."Malke 2010 (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It shows common use of Britain and Ireland as an alternative to British Isles. The fact that part of Frances is there as well is a product of the general use of rectangles in an Atlas (as I suspect BW you know well).  As we have established many times before meaning is not precise on any terms here and the Atlas references are a geographical use.   It is perfectly legitimate to write Britain and Ireland and indeed at some stage in the future (but not now) the weight of references may justify a name change.  There are no absolutes here and we need more flexibility.  In several cases on other controversies that formulation would also reduce conflict and fully inform readers  -- Snowded  TALK  05:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for repeating the point I made earlier, but there does seem to be a perfectly workable compromise here that is largely getting ignored. Don't use "British Isles". Don't use "Britain and Ireland". Use both. I don't like the situation where a reader clicks on "Britain and Ireland" and ends up at something called British Isles" (and the reverse, should that ever apply). We're not necessarily writing for British or Irish editors - we're writing, too, for readers elsewhere, readers who naively think that "Britain and Ireland" might refer to two states (and not an archipelago consisting of several states). Readers, in other words, who are unfamiliar with the topic and who are reading an encyclopaedia page to learn more. Let's helps them, not hinder them. Telling them that "Britain and Ireland" and "British Isles" are broadly equivalent terms seems to me to be helping them. TFOWR 08:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with your last statement. Just to get radical, how about removing the redirect on Britain and Ireland to create a disambig page with says that and has links the the island and country articles as well as British Isles?-- Snowded  TALK  08:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * BW, that's a desperate argument. Of course the maps (both of them) show a part of France. The Channel Islands are a part of Britain and Ireland. They are shown in situ just off the French shore down at the bottom of the map. An otherwise unnecessarily long portion of the French shoreline is included to show them (just as Shetland is shown as an inset).
 * In any case, there are the prose references that explicitly state the two ("British Isles" and "Britain and Ireland") are alternative terms for the same thing and that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming the "preferred" term. (See some referenced at British Isles.) On that basis, I agree with Snowded in speculating that at some time in future the balance will tip to the point where a move from British Isles &rarr; Britain and Ireland will be justified. But not now.
 * To repeat myself though, the ins-and-outs of what terms are used though are IMHO better dealt with on individual talk pages. Is there general agreement that piping (whatever term is used) is broadly OK in principle? The British-Irish Council example ("British-Irish Council area") is a good example of where it is useful, for instance. --RA (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha! It was you to made the earlier request for views on piping. I've looked for policy on this, and can't find anything explicit either way. However, WP:EASTEREGG says to keep piped links as intuitive as possible. To my mind that suggests two good ways to use pipes, and a whole host of bad ways to use pipes. The good ways are:
 * - we're not overloading the reader with detail, if they want to know more about the specific archipelago they can click the link.
 * - the more pertinent example for this template. No "Easter egg" here - the reader is shown exactly what to expect when they follow the link, and learn something even if they don't follow the link.
 * Beyond that, no, I don't think piping is good - if it's used to "hide" "British Isles" I regard it as bad. And this holds true for the future, too: I'm sure you can all imagine a hypothetical future where "Britain and Ireland" has overtaken "British Isles" as the usual term, and yet we're still having this discussion, just in reverse.
 * Oh, and while I'm opining - the "atlas" example is very silly. (1) Does "Britain and Ireland" really mean "an alternative term for the British Isles", or does it mean "this atlas primarily looks at the UK and Ireland (state) (though it also has several smaller states for the well-seasoned traveller)". (2) Atlases have a fondness for rectangles: inclusion of France, say, follows from that. In other words: the arguments of both sides appear a little desperate. TFOWR 08:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes and no. Remember the Atlas titles have changed.  Ones that used to say British Isles now say Britain and Ireland and in one case (Folley from memory) in part as a result of political pressure.  It's clear evidence of equivalence-- Snowded  TALK  08:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Aha!" - ? Please check your tone.
 * I think you need to re-read WP:EASTEREGG. In the case of Britain and Ireland, we are simply bypassing a disambiguation page via a pipe link. (Britain and Ireland dabs to British Isles.) The two terms ("British Isles" and "Britain and Ireland") are equivalent. There is no more of a "surprise" than for a reader who thought "British Isles" referred to the UK and its dependencies (another common misconception). That British Isles and Britain and Ireland are equivalent terms is made clear in the introduction to the British Isles article.
 * The link to maps was in response to an editor who asked to see use of the term "Britain and Ireland" in an atlas. It doesn't suffice as a reference to say the two terms are equivalent. For that, I suggest you consult the references at British Isles that explicitly state the two terms are alternatives for each other. There are others, should you wish to request them. The number of references in that article supporting the assertion was trimmed because an editors thought the number previously used as "excessive".
 * WTR the substantive issue of piping on this template, see my post of 09:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC). --RA (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the "aha" was a "I've finally remembered who it was I wanted to reply to earlier", not anything else (I'm struggling, to be honest, to think what the something else might be but it's early for me and coffee isn't working).
 * I get what's happening with the DAB page - my point is that it is not obvious that "Britain and Ireland" and "British Isles" are equivalent to non-British/Irish editors. I don't need to consult anything - I know that already. But we're not writing for me - we're writing for readers who know very little about the topic. Again: what is wrong with stating both usages? Your post of 09:31 13 Sept doesn't seem to address that, simply that piping is useful. I agree that piping has it's uses. I agree that the heading of the template doesn't need to be uniform. My concern is to avoid surprises, easter eggs. Your earlier point, and your point above, don't appear to address that. Remember that we're not primarily writing for readers with British or Irish sensibilities: we're writing for readers with limited knowledge of the topic. TFOWR 09:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What surprise? Your premise appears to be that "Britain and Ireland" is an obscure term, unknown to many. Yet, references say that it is not only a term that means the same thing but is "increasingly preferred" over the other.
 * In response to an editor's request, I posted links to maps (from a internationally renowned publisher based in the USA) that use the term. Do you seriously think readers of the National Geographic stand aghast before their wall maps of "Britain and Ireland" and scratch their heads? (Incidentally, the 1974 edition of the same maps were entitled, "British Isles".)
 * Now, I'm not going to say that one term is more exact or more correct than the other (neither are "correct" for a variety of reasons) but there is certainly no "surprise". A reader clicks on "Britain and Ireland" and is taken to the article on that subject, with "Britain and Ireland" bolded in the lede. There is no Easter Egg.
 * TBH, the template has worked this way since 2006 and no reader has ever raised a concern over the matter.
 * Ain't broke. Don't fix. --RA (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * National Geographic also added "East Sea" to their publications right before they opened a branch in South Korea... Just saying ;) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't put words in my mouth. I have never said that "Britain and Ireland" is an obscure term. My point is that readers who are not familiar with Britain, Ireland, etc should not have to scratch their heads when they click on "Britain and Ireland" and end up at "British Isles". Yes, the lead - eventually - mentions "Britain and Ireland" - at the end of four lengthy paragraphs. Again: we are writing not just for British and Irish editors, but for editors who know very little about Britain and Ireland. To them, both the terms - B&I and BI - are unknowns. Again: we are not writing exclusively for readers who know about the topics.
 * I've already stated my opinion on the atlas arguments. No, I don't believe NG readers scratch their heads. But a map showing Great Britain and Ireland (and several far smaller islands), is very different to a template listing many different things.
 * You are incorrect that no reader has ever expressed a concern over the matter. If that were the case we wouldn't be here, and I wouldn't have pissed off BW by removing the template in its entirety at Ireland ;-) But that's by-the-by - we know nothing of the number of readers who said nothing, but left confused. Our job is to improve the project, not settle for something that is kind-of-OK, kind-of-contentious, could-be-better.
 * Again: what is the problem with including both terms? That's a robust solution, both in the short-term (satisfying both sides' needs) and in the long-term (adapting to a world in which "Britain and Ireland" has wider adoption than "British Isles"). <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 11:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not accept that Britain and Ireland is an archipelago in north west europe. Just because "Britain and Ireland" is used instead of talking about the British Isles archipelago, does not mean it is the same thing. To me Britain + Ireland means either the two islands or the two countries. The Isle of Man and Channel islands are not part of any of those. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please alow me to deploy the clue-hammer on all your heads
The template is called British Isles, because it contains all the articles related to the article named British Isles. If nobody here is proposing to change those two basic facts, or indeed the basic purpose of navigation templates, then the piping is clearly not justified. No amount of tedious BI dispute rehashing here will change this. For navigation templates, using code to presenting a different world view to readers based simply on what article they happen to be reading at the time, is not how you adhere to the NPOV. Infact, it is manifestly a POV violation, as it is a form of bias through intentional internal inconsistency. It was not the community accepted solution for the high profile NPOV disputes like Gdansk or Derry, and it is not the solution here. If you don't believe me, then go and ask User:Jimbo and he will set you straight. Frankly, if you can't get Jimbo to back you up on a core interpretation of NPOV like this, well, you have no case at all as far as any right minded Wikipedian will be concerned. MickMacNee (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with your view. It's called the British Isles, and pipelinking from other terms leading to "British Isles" may confuse (I'm less convinced about the argument of "surprised").  But - and here's something that editors may not have considered - local consensus on individual articles may result in the template being removed from articles (and I'm thinking Ireland-heavy articles here).  I'm sure this will set off another round of debates i.e. "censorship" and NPOV, but you may all just be poking a hornets nest with a large honey-stick...  --HighKing (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dammit, don't make me agree with both of you ;-) My view (above) is that "British Isles" should be used, but that the param can be used to provide additional terms. I can't see why that shouldn't keep "both sides" happy. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 10:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hans' suggestions
I don't agree with MickMacNee, and I don't appreciate huge, bold hammers on my head, at least when they are broken.

The second use is every bit as correct as the first. And internal inconsistency of Wikipedia does not violate POV when it is done for a reason. With that argument every single article on English and Irish geography would violate POV because unlike most of the site they are not written in American English. Come to think of it, WP:TIES seems to apply here:
 * An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation.

It's obvious that the article on Ireland needs to use Irish English, with compromises in case of any differences between the two parts. And in my opinion that includes preferences for certain choices of words. (Otherwise, at articles using British English the Americans could push through typical American formulations that exist in British English but are uncommon.)

That's not to say that the template shouldn't be used without the pipe. I am not sure what is correct here because I haven't made enough research in Irish sources. But this is a content question and can't be decided by removing a template feature that is in active use. The places to discuss this are the talk pages of the articles in question and WP:BISLES. Hans Adler 10:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm broadly happy with that second version. My concern is "Britain and Ireland" - a version which is clear to Irish readers, but far less clear to readers outside Ireland - does it mean "United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland"? Does it mean "Great Britain and Ireland"? Your second version, Hans, makes clear that the template is about more than just two islands. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 10:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The hornet's nest is the genuine concern. (I allude to it above @09:31 13/09/2010.) The original reason for the pipe linking (here's the link again) was to facilitate the template on pages where it was not welcome in a way that minimised controversy. That's worked since 2006.
 * Now, consensus can change. But, we are all in agreement that these are (at least broadly speaking) synonymous terms. So why go poking at this sore? Is the "win" really that great just to have one turn-of-phrase replace another? It is really worth opening this hornets nest when the status quo has worked nicely since the template's inception? Is the benefit of having it say "British Isles" over "Britain and Ireland" (no-one seems to be complaining about the other variants) really that substantial? --RA (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * [after edit conflict] Han's second suggestion is very good. It achieves the same end and is clear to those "unfamiliar". I think the ho-ha over "Britain and Ireland" is unfounded (or at least over-stated) but a prosaic solution is a good idea.
 * I assume that we will keep "British-Irish Council area" for the institutional articles (through similar reasoning). --RA (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I'm more than happy to see anybody try and convince Jimbo of the validity of any these arguments put forward against the hammer, i.e. that local consensus on articles can over-ride site wide consensus on what nav templates are for (who ever heard of a navigation template ever being removed from an article it actually included? I certainly never have), or that use of the most prevalent spellings of English is a violation of NPOV (seriously?), or that we can ignore the non-negotiable policy (Jimbo's view) of NPOV because the issue has been wrong for so long and it's not worth the drama correcting it. I would infact pay to see any of those put forward on his talk page. And if nobody is proposing to rename the BI article to Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands (and the UK has a great number of related islands that are in no way part of the BI), that has all the hallmarks of a non starter aswell, as it is easily more confusing than even the innaccurate B&I, which no, is not widely accepted as being broadly equivalent at all. MickMacNee (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Can anyone detect a logical argument in the above comment? Even here at Wikipedia I am used to somewhat higher standards of debate. Hans Adler 22:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What's not to understand in that post? I think it's logic is crystal clear. MickMacNee (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic Hans and when people start to invoke the name of Jimbo I start to worry.  Alternate names can be pipelinked by Wikipedia policy (one could argue this is what is happening to Ireland.  "Britain and Ireland" is established by citation and practice as an alternative name, so no issues.  Mick's argument is based on the premise that he doesn't agree with said citation  -- Snowded  TALK  05:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should extend Godwin's law to include Jimbo? --HighKing (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It is simply unacceptable to have a British Isles template that intentionally forgets to mention the British Isles anywhere in it. I can not support such an attempt to hide the term British Isles to appease the anti British Isles brigade. We have this stupid "· Islands of the North Atlantic (IONA)" mentioned in it still which is not commonly used, but NO British Isles? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BW, I fully accept that this is your political position. Unfortunately (or fortunately) depending on one POV,  there is citation support for "Britain and Ireland" as an emerging alternative to British Isles.  It is not enough to justify renaming the article, but it does make it legitimate to pipelink in some contexts.  I don't like IONA much either, but it is in a source so deserves a mention.  Please lay off the "appeasement" comments and address the evidence.  You are jumping back to commenting on editors not content again, and worse making sweeping and general accusations-- Snowded  TALK  09:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Britain and Ireland" is an alternative term to use instead of talking about the archipelago in North west europe known as the British Isles. This template is about the archipelago. Piping Britain and Ireland here is totally wrong. Until i see reliable sources actually stating Britain and Ireland is an archipelago in North West Europe, i cant change my view on this term. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just think of it as a description that avoids the term. That's why I proposed adding "related islands" – to make it clear that it's a description, and to make the description slightly more precise. Descriptions in natural language are almost never 100% precise, and they don't have to be. On my search for literature about the naming problem I have found enough scholarly articles which are using the new term North-East Atlantic archipelago that we would probably be justified to use that term. But I don't think it's better. Hans Adler 10:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose a compromise may be if its technically possible.. put British Isles next to the IONA thing on the articles where we have to use this watered down title for the template (if its something like Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands, i dont support just GB+I or B+I). My primary concern on this issue is not what the title of the template is on those articles, but that at present British Isles completely fails to be mentioned whilst an unknown IONA gets stated. Although such a compromise should not be seen as support for renaming this template, British Isles is clearly the common name for the archipelago and this template is about it. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any new arguments or points made - just a rehashing of older ones. I also believe if we tested consensus, there's no consensus to change. So.....moving on. --HighKing (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "British Isles" is the common name in English in general but contentious in Ireland. The scholarly literature appears to be increasingly using the term "Atlantic Archipelago". Also, there is a lot of wasted space in the template on all but the tiniest screens. It appears to me that all the concerns that have been mentioned so far could be accommodated by using the following consistently, on all articles, with no pipes.


 * Let me completely open: I am proposing this not so much because I think it has a chance of being adopted, but to give everybody the chance to think about what they really want, and why, and to maybe realise that the "other" side has equally valid concerns. Nevertheless, let's have a serious discussion about this proposal. After all, if nobody disagrees with it there will be a consensus for it. Hans Adler 10:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, though I'd want to see more evidence of NEAA usage. As I've stated above, I have absolutely no problem with using the template's parameter to expand on "British Isles" (or whatever the template is called), i.e. by providing alternative terms. If we could get consensus to use the same template header across all usages that would be great. I'd settle for less, however...! <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 11:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for changing my post after you replied. I had misremembered the sources and have now dropped the "North-East". Hans Adler 11:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The term was coined around 1986, so obviously it doesn't appear in older references. It seems to have taken about 10 year for it to become relatively widespread. It's mentioned on a BBC journalist's blog here. Some recent book titles: Other sources also use the term, but not in the title. This source extensively motivates and on p. 78 defines it precisely (as including the Channel Islands but not the Faroes). This book has a map of the "Atlantic Archipelago". This source, says that in Britain and Ireland the term is increasingly used by historians, but opts for "British archipelago" instead to be understood by Americans.
 * The Atlantic Archipelago: Political History of the British Isles (1986)
 * The British Problem, C1534-1707: State Formation in the Atlantic Archipelago (1996)
 * Across the Margins: Cultural Identity and Change in the Atlantic Archipelago (2002)
 * Archipelagic Identities: Literature and Identity in the Atlantic Archipelago, 1550-1800 (2004)
 * Shakespeare,Spenser and the Contours of Britain: Reshaping the Atlantic Archipelago (2004)

Just search for the term with Google Books. There are lots of hits, and only a tiny minority is related to Atlantis, Iceland, Svalbard or the Azores. Hans Adler 11:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "British archipelago" is a new one to me. I assume its a step backwards in terms of the Irish issue. I also think that Hans suggestion seems like a workable idea. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, "British archipelago" made me laugh. It sounds as if the author wanted to be cool like the others and use the new term, but didn't understand its purpose. Hans Adler 12:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So is the suggestion to put "British Isles / Atlantic Archipelago" on the pages that use the template which currently says Great Britain and Ireland? or is it to change this template title to say British Isles / Atlantic Archipelago so it appears on ALL places this template is used?
 * If its just to say it on the template on articles like Ireland i will accept this compromise. If this suggestion is to change the title so all uses of this say "British Isles / Atlantic Archipelago" i strongly oppose. AA has no where near the recognition British Isles has, British Isles is the common name. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The proposal is explicitly to use the construction on all pages that use the template. I am trying to find out how serious the argument is that pipes must not be used and the heading has to be the same everywhere. It sounds like an attempt to shove terminology into articles where it is politically incorrect, and my proposal is an attempt to find out whether the same editors who have so far been insisting on consistency still value it when it means that the PC neologism appears on "their" articles. Hans Adler 13:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the current proposal to change the heading of the template on all pages? I don't think that's either necessary nor desirable. There are only a handful of topics that this template is included on where the term British Isles is problematic. For the the vast majority it is just fine.
 * Also, adding slashed titles (to any or all pages) makes a bigger deal out of the "dispute" that needs to be. The "dispute" doesn't need to be voiced at the top of every or any instance of this template, which adding slashed titles does. (An exception being the current Terminology of the British Isles page, where a dual heading is appropriate to the topic - and a good example of creative use of this function in the template.)
 * Finally, what are the arguments that have been given against "Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands" on the Ireland-related topics? It seems very appropriate to List of islands of Ireland and to the article on the island of Ireland. The article on the Republic of Ireland, arguably not. (Again, I presume the "political" articles are fine as "British-Irish Council area", and that could be usable on Republic of Ireland.) Is it simply that it is "intolerable" not to mention "British Isles" in instances of this template? It is not intolerable. Neither is it appropriate in all cases. It is never necessary to use this term and the choice of words we use on any article should be judged with respect to what is appropriate to the topic of that article, not for any other reason. --&mdash; RA (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am prepared to support "Great Britain, Ireland and related Islands" as the title for Ireland related articles that use it on the condition British Isles appears separate in the list next to IONA. My concern is that at the moment the British Isles template makes no mention of the British Isles anywhere in the template if the title gets piped, this is problematic when we include a name like IONA. And on the condition this is simply a compromise for those few articles that demand piping the title, this should not result in this templates title being changed or it being done on articles which have no problem with it like Great Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly open to ideas like this. And, yes, I think everyone is agreed that the articles where British Isles is problematic is very limited. What you suggest would be useful on all aritlces. It could link to Britain (name) or a new article on British Isles (name), or a subsection of "Britain (name)".
 * Maybe a step too far, but a new "terminology" section in the article could also link to articles such as Éire and Names of the Irish state. --&mdash; RA (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone explain to me why a template about The British Isles should not have those words, and only those words, as the heading? LevenBoy (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No clue. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that it can't have escaped your notice that no longer all of the British Isles are British isles, I doubt that you are serious. Hans Adler 13:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm im not suggesting any new article. All i mean is, at present we have British Isles in the title bar of the template. On specific cases like Ireland, putting "Great Britain, Ireland and related islands" id be prepared to accept, on the condition that British Isles is added to this line "Terminology · Naming dispute · Islands of the North Atlantic (IONA)"
 * So it would look like...
 * "Great Britain, Ireland and related islands"
 * "British Isles · Terminology · naming dispute · Islands of the North Atlantic"
 * like that, but ONLY on Ireland articles where there is concern about using British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Concern? Who's concerned? Oh yes, a very samll band of Irish editors. Are the people across the world who view the template concerned? Maybe 0.000001% of them are. Is there a POV issue here or something? LevenBoy (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * True, its only concers or bothers a tiny number of people. But id certain rather GB+Ireland+related islands as the title with British Isles in the second line as shown above, than the current method which just has Britain and Ireland linking to the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not just the Irish editors. There has been a real dispute about this among real politicians, and scholars are beginning to change their terminology because of it, to be PC. The Ireland articles of course have a large percentage of Irish readers. Hans Adler 13:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to do with being 'PC' - the term reflected a political reality which no longer exists - the 'British' bit was only ever used to denote Britain as it is undertood in the term 'Great Britain'; formerly the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and, as it was used in the term 'British Isles' denoted ownership - without disputing the obvious fact that there is little ethnic difference between the historical populations of the two islands, 'Briton' or any other term deriving from the same root was never used of the people, culture or geographic region of Ireland: except to denote the popular understanding of the islands as the area under British rule; a use which still persists in some quarters both in Great Britain and Internationally. The term is totally redundant. I'm sure there are several terms used of other areas around the globe that reflect defunct political situations. But you can't use them in describing the here and now. I think you'll find that in this instance, the 'Irish Mafia,' as they were described elsewhere on wikipedia, are more au fait with the situation than angsty imperialist throwbacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.165.60 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 28 September 2010

In my opinion Islands of the North Atlantic shouldn't even exist as a stand-alone article, much less be linked from this template. In fact, I am planning to start a merge discussion on that. Would removing it from the template and not adding British Isles also work as a compromise? The heading would read "British Isles / Atlantic Archipelago", and the following line would read "Terminology · Naming dispute". Hans Adler 13:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Atlantic Archipelago! Where has that come from? Just more stupidity in an attempt to appease the small but voiciferous number of objectors. And as for there has been a real dispute about this .. no there hasn't. The only dispute about this is at Wikipedia. Some people don't use the term but, as many editors have noted before, the whole idea of a dispute has been manufactured here at Wikpedia. LevenBoy (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Id be prepared to support that on the Ireland articles, but it should continue to just say British Isles on all other articles where there is no problem at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Islands of North Atlantic should be merged into British Isles terminology, then clearly there would be no need to list it. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As the Irish government officially objects to the term, and the irish blogosphere also hates it, I doubt a dispute was created in wikipedia. North Atlantic should definitely be merged, though whether the redirect should go to British Isles or British Isles terminology is debatable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The title of this Template (British Isles) is acceptable. Just like the title of the article British Isles is acceptable. The title is (atleast) historical, therefore stick with it. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOLD suggestion
I boldly edited the template to demonstrate a combined approach. What the edit does is alter the "Terminology" subheading to give links to relevant terminology-related articles. Ordinarily the link to the naming dispute shows up as "Naming dispute". However, if the template is pipe-linked then that link will show up as "British Isles" (see for examples on Ireland). The intention with these links is that they link to pages that explain the complex terminology of this region. In this way, the word "British Isles" will always appear in the template.

Following from the discussion above, it seems there is at least agreement in principle that pipe-linking (as has always been the case with this template) is OK on a limited number of articles. However, the terms used are a problem (particularly 'Britain and Ireland'). I suggest we are close to agreement on appropriate alternatives to the current situation and the following prosaic descriptions seems sensible to me:


 * 1) British-Irish Council area (currently in use)
 * 2) Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands (suggested by Hans)
 * 3) British Isles &mdash; or Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands (a variant on one currently in use)

I don't think any of these are suitable for each and every article (and Number 3 would ordinarily be overkill IMO). Rather, I think each is particularly suited to a specific context. Number 1 would be suited to politics, Number 2 to geography/islands and Number 3 to terminology.

I don't suggest we add any more pages right now (if ever) to the set that are already piped therefore I suggest the following:


 * British-Irish Council, British–Irish relations and Republic of Ireland use Number 1.
 * Ireland and List of islands of Ireland use Number 2.
 * Terminology of the British Isles use Number 3.

Irish people, I'm not really sure of. So, I suggest Number 2.

&mdash; RA (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm i strongly oppose "British Isles" only appearing when it links to the article on the naming dispute. I dont agree with the changes that have been made. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "(Britain and Éire" do not belong in that row. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Id support something like the template below on the pages like Ireland where some editors object to British Isles (and only on those pages). Then only those who click show on the template would see British Isles mentioned in the second row, along with the terminology/naming dispute clearly being about the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I object to this. The template title should state "British Isles" and that's all, although I agree with get riod of IONA. LevenBoy (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be titled British Isles on all articles, however id rather a compromise to change Britain + Ireland to Great Britain, Ireland and related islands" and clearly mention British Isles in the second row.. than it not be mentioned at all like at present. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, it's a step in the right direction. LevenBoy (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm an idiot, so can someone explain how this exactly works? Does it mean that the title Great Britain, Ireland, and surrounding islands will be piped to British Isles, whereas the British Isles in the box will direct to the naming dispute? I'm not sure that makes sense to me, but I do like the idea in principle Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's the proposal, but i cant support that. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure now exactly what's being proposed. One thing's for sure, this construction; British Isles is totally unacceptable. LevenBoy (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm not thrilled by . I'd suggest piping it to "naming dispute" is far, far better (i.e.  ). "British Isles" is somewhat redundant in as much as we're talking about a naming dispute that affects the area covered by the template, so I can see why piping would be useful, but piping it to "British Isles" is... unclear at best. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 12:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My suggestion above, with no link in the title just saying Great Britain, Ireland and related islands" would avoid any confusing or misleading pipelinks. Then we just need to say British Isles in the second row, and it will be clear the articles on terminology/naming dispute is related to the British Isles. At present that is not clear. Its a compromise that addresses some of the problems, unless the problem or intention is simply not wanting "British Isles" displayed anywhere in the template, which is presently the case on articles that pipelink with GB+I. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, my thinking was that that is an article that discusses the term "British Isles" as a term (or comes close to it). I'm reverting since it is clear that this isn't going to fly.
 * Am I right in thinking that where we are now is simply at a stage where we want to brainstorm ideas about where we can fit the word "British Isles" into the template (if it doesn't appear in the title)? TBH my first thoughts about that is that it is wanton insertion of a term for no good reason except to simply have it in there; but before others talk about what it "intollerable" or "unacceptable", please consider that my suggestion above was in the spirit of trying to work out how that desire on the part of others can be realised. &mdash; RA (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * [after edit conflict] BW, when I revert my suggestion form this morning, I'll put in yours. &mdash; RA (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done another edit along the lines of BW's suggestion. If the title is not set to something else then the template appears as normal. If the title is set to something else then the title of the template is not pipe linked and British Isles is added to the first row.
 * I've added the following in parenthesis after the terminology link: Britain ·Éire ·Ireland . I think they are the most frequent "difficult" terminology (although "England" could also be added). The link to the Names of the Irish state article should remain as it is a notable "weird" one (as we well know). --&mdash; RA (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it works as they are in the terminology bracket. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, i think that second line should be about the group of islands, not terminology in general about the name of Britain etc. British Isles, BI Naming dispute, BI terminology, and possible IONA if it is going to remain an article although id merge it into the BI terminology page or naming page. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

[British Isles naming dispute|Naming dispute], is acceptable as a pipe-link. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

28th September

 * The following comments were preceeded by this edit. --RA (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"The following phrases were agreed for use as pipe-linked text in different circumstances: British-Irish Council area (political articles) Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands(geographic/general articles) British Isles—or Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands (terminology articles)"

I must of missed all of that! BritishWatcher (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "BOLD suggestion" above. I assumed silence was consensus. Maybe I could have made it clearer in the summary that this concerned a very limited set of articles. --RA (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But since that suggestion, wed also discussed the second line. As i said before i am prepared to support "Great Britain, Ireland and related islands" as the title of the infobox on certain articles (Ireland related). But it would need in the second line to include British Isles first in the second row, coming before naming dispute and terminology. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what happens. If the template is pipe-linked in any way, British Isles appears in the second row before the other links. If the template is not pipe-linked The British Isles appears as the heading (and there is no need for duplication on the second row). Compare Great Britain and Ireland for example uses. --RA (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, i am fine with that yes sorry, thats not how i read the consensus box lol. Thats all ok, provided the title is only changed on specific articles where there is an issue (Ireland specific articles). BritishWatcher (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No bother :-) --RA (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This 'solution' is a complete abortion, a totally incomprehensible mess. It is of no use to any ordinary reader, who is, thanks to the whole point behind the nav templates system, totaly familiar to the normal way that these things are presented ans d related across 99% of pages. And it is of no use to any normal non-Irish dispute interested editors either, who are understandably also similarly familiar with the nav-template norms and standards that are used on every single other page and topic on the pedia, but who are going to have no idea wtf has gone on here to achieve this 'solution', which is the flawed product of the same few faces and the same usual wrongheaded ideas about NPOV. This mess is not how you present the neutral point of view in any way, shape or form. But I see in my absence, nobody had the confidence of their own abilities to have their interpretation of the policy in this particular situation actualy checked by the one person who knows. It would have been better to delete the whole thing tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have just become aware of this discussion and I can't see any point in the existence of a template that contains Ireland, Guernsey, and Cornish. We don't have templates yoking Switzerland and Denmark together. It's bizarre. --O&#39;Dea (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah we do: Template:Countries of Europe -- Joowwww  (talk)  12:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hibernia etc
I am sorry, it is really not clear where this section is going adding Etymologies for Albion, Hibernia etc. Are we going for a complete list of historical kingdoms, all and any previous names, myth and legend or what? Why not Mercia and Wessex or Pretannia, why exclude Wales and Cornwall etc. It could be one but it could become huge.

I intended just a simple list of the geographic terms relating to the disputes. As a compromise for the meanwhile, I just removed it. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The section is on terminology of the region. Why remove articles on etymologies of major terms used (Britain, Ireland, etc.)? Your original edit included some of these. They had also been on the template before then. I added three more: (a) two classical terms for the major islands: Albion, Hibernia and (b) Scotland. --RA (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)