Wikipedia talk:British Isles/Archive 1

Views
A little OTT as it stands, I think, but welcome (I had been afraid to propose one myself). If it were me, I would just:


 * Acknowledge that an issue exists
 * Recommend avoid the term on Ireland-related articles (where frankly it's likely to be edited out anyway)
 * Never use where it could be confused with politics
 * Use where appropriate elsewhere

Guidelines that are most likely to succeed are those that are simple to follow and reflect an already-existing consensus. I think the above is how the land already lies.

I also disagree with many of the statements in the current proposal, which - since I agree with it's sentiment - may be a good reason to keep it short and sweet. If it is too wordy then we will only end up arguing over it all over again.

Finally, surely better neologisms that "Northwest Archipelago" or the "Brittanic Archipelago" could be though of!? --sony-youth pléigh 20:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If a person from the Irish Republic is going to object to "Great Britain and Ireland", is he/she not surely going to worry about "United Kingdom and Ireland" in a similar way? Can't it be kept apart outright? In which sense does either term have any meaning these days, unless it is in a historical context? Surely, if there are any references to be made to both countries simultaneously, can't it just be said to refer to "both the United Kingdom and Ireland" (without quotes)? Something along those line should work shouldn't it? Dieter Simon (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that there are Irish folks who object sufficiently to want to change the use in many articles which don't deal with Ireland at all. Such changes have led to controversy.  By having a guideline about use, and changes, the controversy might be avoided.  See, for example, Talk:British Isles and Talk:Episcopal Church in the United States of America.  Tb (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. In most cases it's redundant but has been taken up as cause célèbre by some editors. (BTW I don't think anyone has issue with the phrase "Great Britain and Ireland", only "British Isles".) --sony-youth pléigh 10:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Inclined to agree with Sony's initial statement, that it should probably be avoided on articles that are primarily about Ireland. However, in all cases my preference would be to follow the sources, if need by finding sources for any response or reaction to the particular use term in the cited context. . .. dave souza, talk 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any alternative to a detailed analysis. It is only OTT when it provides more food for the barrack-room lawyers than it illuminates. --Red King (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's precisely that it does. The greatest issue I have with the "detailed analysis" approach is that it attempts to present the "correct" way of using the term listing supposed "problems". I've marked some of the problems in the proposal as it stands. For example, it tells us that "Great Britain and Ireland" is used (in the real world) but that the elders of Wikipedia know better and that "this excludes the many other islands in the archipelago". That's preposterous! Where the source to say that this turn of phrase is wrong? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not alt.english-usage. --sony-youth pléigh 16:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it says anything about the "elders of Wikipedia." It cautions people that what is perfectly fine in their area, or their experience, may not be in an international context.  As for the other, "Great Britain and Ireland" either refers to two islands or many more than two islands.  Readers are very likely to think it refers to two.  And, if it does not refer to two, if it refers to many more, then what is the correct phrase if one really only means those two islands?  Either:
 * "Great Britain and Ireland" always refers to two islands, or
 * "Great Britain and Ireland" always refers to many more than two islands, or
 * "Great Britain and Ireland" is ambiguous.
 * Whichever you choose, there are likely to be problems, and care should be taken. Still, if there is an improvement you would like to suggest, can you do so?  Tb (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For instance, there are many many islands belonging to Canada, as there are many many islands belonging to the United States of America, and I do not see any problem on Wikipedia regarding same. Surely the name USA includes all of its islands, as does the name Canada includes all of its islands too. So we do not say Canada and its Islands, because there is no need to. The same applies to the USA, and so it does to many other countries. Inclusion of offshore islands is taken as a "given", surely. -78.19.126.2 (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I get the analogy here. "Canada" and "United States" are the names of countries; "Great Britain" is not the name of a country, it's the name of an island. Tb (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Before I go out, more referring to "Britain and Ireland". Bears more on my point above, as different contexts require different wordings. An example here, Migration Period art, has "British Isles" in its opening paragraph. The term wasn't even invented in the time period in question. Also the article pertains to Ireland and Britain, I see little need for the use of the term in that instance, and it could be ambiguous as to whether the term includes Ireland or not. -78.19.126.2 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Tb, are you really asking what "Great Britain" refers to as if it refers to one single thing as a matter of certainty? It can be an island, the union of the two kingdom on that island, even the union of three kingdoms (à la the belligerent widely described as participating in the Great War). If you consult the OED, the will tell you that properly it is not the name of the island, only the name of the union on that island, but that use as a synonom with the United Kingdom is perfectly correct. If you drop the "Great" and go with "Britain" alone you will find yourself in that fuzziest of fuzzy zones.
 * I agree that "care should be taken", but I don't think that anything can be gained from dictating to people what's wrong and right when it comes to resolving a matter that is already the subject of dispute. --sony-youth pléigh 20:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's like you didn't read what I wrote. You are saying, I think, that "Great Britain and Ireland" is ambiguous.  That seems right to me.  This is also an excellent reason not to use it as a universal substitute for "British Isles"--it is imprecise.  Better to avoid imprecise terms and simply use correct ones.  And that is in fact the point.  (I notice that nearly all--not all, but nearly all--the objections are noting things which are, in fact, already noted!)  Tb (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, it would be better if you could provide references when asked to do so rather than just |removing requests for them. Even Citing sources cites sources. --sony-youth pléigh 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to adding references to the proposal; of course that's a good thing. It's "reference needed" tags that aren't helpful in themselves.  Those tags are there principally for the benefit of readers of the encyclopedia who should be alerted that something which might need a source lacks one.  Of course this proposal is not complete without references where they are needed; but reference-needed tags aren't particularly helpful.  Tb (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "I notice that nearly all--not all, but nearly all--the objections are noting things which are, in fact, already noted!" Then I suggest there is something askew with how it is written. If so many people are objecting to it through misunderstandings of it, how is it supposed to be understood by readers/editors in future? My inclusion of citation tags was cheeky, but was intended to draw your attention to some of the issues. If the statements made in the proposal are so straight forward then try adding a references for them. I suggest that you will not be able to because they are not as straight forward as you think and that is one of the reasons why there have been so many objections over 'things that have been noted already' etc.. --sony-youth pléigh 06:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that there have been a couple of "this is bad, I object, because such-and-such is true", and yet, the proposal already says such-and-such. For example, "'British Isles' is a perfectly good term, why not use it when it's right, I object", and yet, the proposal says to use it when it's right.  Tb (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Misunderstanding is a recurring theme in this dispute, but if people are making such fundamental errors in understanding your proposal then take it as a sign that it needs to be rewritten in clearer language. Speaking for myself, I don't really know what you are proposing. --sony-youth pléigh 19:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Or, perhaps, they object for reasons which have nothing to do with the proposal at all. Tb (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am amazed that I have not seen the sinple term British and Irish Isles suggested as this is clearly neutral, covers all bases (only pedants would eclude the Channel Islands) and IMO is unambiguous isn't a clumsy neologism. We have an ecisting precendent of sorts in the joint rugby touring team, once called the British Lions and now called The British and Irish Lions Dainamo (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OOPs I,ve just scrolled down and noticed it had been suggested! Dainamo (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Irish sea
I am really on the verge of writing a document on the offensiveness of the term "Irish Sea", which is offensive to costal dwellers of the west coast of England and Wales, and to the Manx population. It really should be referred to as the Northwest Atlantic Interinsular Trough in all Wikipedia articles.

Any takers? Cnbrb (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup! Irish Sea is a very offensive term to some people. If you need any help with the document, leave a message here. Thanks. -78.19.177.225 (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is not about other issues; please talk about them elsewhere. Tb (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for them, they can't take the "issue" elsewhere because it isn't an issue elsewhere. Nuclare (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Support
I think the proposal makes good sense. No point in using potentially offensive and divisive terminology if it can equally well be avoided; but this term is not so offensive and divisive that it needs to be banned outright. Just one thing I don't get though - how are the Channel Islands supposed to be part of the British Isles? Since it's supposed to be a physical rather than a political term, and looking at the map they don't appear to be part of the same archipelago.--Kotniski (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's last bit is a whole other bit of complicated which I think this proposal best stays away from, since it isn't an issue crying out for resolution, at least, it isn't one that leads to conflict. Tb (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that in the main, the proposals are very worthy, although I would suggest to steer clear of nailing all usages down, as if creating a "ten commandments" for the usage of the term. As per Sony-youth, it should be avoided in articles pertaining to Ireland, as it should be avoided in situations where it can create any ambiguous meaning. The term should not be used as a substitute for "Britain and Ireland", when very often a reader could get confused and think that the meaning of the term is "islands belonging to Britain". It is a very confusing term, as even some of the more ardent pro-term editors will squabble over whether the Channel Islands are included or not. Then there is the problem of the Faeroe Islands, which are in fact in the same Atlantic group, but are excluded from the archipelago for purely political reasons that are obviously not geographic. There is no doubt that the term has a very strong connotation with things British, and it certainly was a political term a hundred years ago, and there is no denying that. My conclusion is, "use only where necessary". -78.19.126.2 (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
Oppose - British Isles is a commonly used and accepted term throughout the English speaking world - to clarify it is used by the British government, the Irish Government (http://www.google.com/cse?cref=http://search.gov.ie/cse/en.xml&encoding=latin1&q=%22British+Isles%22&Submit=GO%21), the US government, the London Times, the Irish Times, the New York Times, the BBC, the UN, the EU, NATO and a list that would stretch on and on. No other equivalent term (if one exists) is used to anything like the same extent and whilst it is unfortunate that some consider it offensive using an obscure or inaccurate term in its place or avoiding using the term where it could be useful would to the detriment of the encyclopaedia. Guest9999 (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the question is to be precise about exactly where it is useful. Nothing about this proposal suggests that it should not be used when it is needed.  Perhaps there are cases where you think it should be used which this proposal should identify?  Tb (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly I just disagree with the main postualtes of the proposal I do not think that for the vast majority of people "The use of the term "British Isles" is contentious" as shown by its use by pretty much every singly English speaking organisation in the World and I do not think " Often there are better equivalents which could be used instead" - when it is appropriate to use the term I do not see any better alternative. If the term is not accurate is should not be used but that is obvious and should not require a guideline - if people want help using the terminology accurately we have an article on the subject that should suffice. The proposal goes against current policy, Wikipedia is not censored and may "contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive" - we have a disclaimer. Guest9999 (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - the British Isles are the British Isles – no-one can alter that. Yes there are a few but voluble editors here in WP that want to get rid of the term but this can't be imposed on an encyclopedia that wants to be looked upon as an accurate educational aid. At the day's end it is verifyable sources that dictate what should and should not be included in WP and that is what dictates its use – not the objections of a few. Bill Reid | Talk 07:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Yawn.
 * "'The use of the term "British Isles" is contentious' as shown by its use by pretty much every singly English speaking organisation in the World and I do not think." The use of the term British Isles is contentious as shown by published sources on the matter.
 * "Wikipedia is not censored." Correct ... one-way-or-the-other. Wikipedia has manuals for writing style. If published sources recommend that the term British Isles is inappropriate when referring specifically to Ireland-related or political topics then we should respect that rather than pushing our views on the matter.
 * "At the day's end it is verifyable sources that dictate what should and should not be included in WP and that is what dictates its use – not the objections of a few." Quite right. These cranks that insist on the use of the term British Isles regardless of the evidence of published sources should not be allowed to run rough shod over the basic aims of this project. The published body of work on the matter explain that the term is inappropriate for political and specifically Ireland-related topics, we should respect that and not judge the matter through knee-jerk reactions. --sony-youth pléigh 09:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Late night Sony? Fair enough, give us your published NPOV sources so we can have a look at them. As far as I'm concerned the British Isles is a legitimate term and should be used when it is appropriate.  E.g I would say that Angling in the British Isles or Rivers in the British Isles are ok. Bill Reid | Talk 10:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Under the Footnotes section on the "British Isles" page there are lots of references to sources documenting the disputed nature of the term. Nuclare (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of a major English speaking organisation that does not use the term? Guest9999 (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, National Geographic is just one of many. -78.19.54.72 (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Afraid they do. One Night In Hackney  303  21:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * National Geographic did in the past, and some of the older references remain. There is a new recommendation there now. Maybe you should read this --78.19.239.187 (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is from the (Irish) Tribune article (appears to be down, try the Google cache. That said that they were rolling it out on their online services. We wait to see, but while the site your searched was the main National Geographic site, they own and operate many more. See the reference to "British and Irish Isles" (and accompanying video) on this National Geographic operated website. --sony-youth pléigh 21:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I only note controversy here at Wikipedia. Institutions such as the Irish Government simply have a preference in the matter and I don't think they find the term objectionable. The term is widely used and understood, as noted above, so it should be the standard term here when describing the geographic entity. There is much in common between the landscape, peoples and history of the two major islands and "British Isles" is useful in bringing this together, where needed. Also, I don't think comments such as "Oh dear, Yawn" are at all helpful. Silas Stoat (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What you say seems to echo what the proposal says, so I have trouble understanding the basis for objection. Tb (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "I only note controversy here at Wikipedia." Again ... oh dear, yawn! This discussion has been done to death and countless published accounts of the issues surrounding the term have been produced and yet we still have editors who will disregard the contributions of their colleagues here and the value of published sources in favour of their own (patently uninformed) bias. It is nothing short of the height of arrogance and lazy WP work on their behalf.
 * The facts, as described by published accounts of the issue, are, in my view, best laid out by Ian Hazlett (2003, The Reformation in Britain and Ireland: An Introduction, Continuum: London):
 * At the outset, it should be stated that while the expression 'The British Isles' is evidentially still commonly employed, [since] the early twentieth century, that nomenclature has been regarded by some as increasingly less usable. ... 'Britain and Ireland' is the more favoured expression, though there are problems with that too.
 * Last year we had to cut down the number of citations on the main British Isles page to support the simple fact that the term is problematic in relation to Ireland because those who object to objections to the term found it too objectionable to have so many!! It is absurd that a basic fact of vocabulary has to be run through over and over again and at ever turn those who refer to the published sources dealing the issue are brow beaten and accused of pushing some kind of nationalist agenda by others who prefer their own amateur view of the subject and are happy to forget that this project is driven by published sources not their amateur opinion. That is why we need a guideline of this matter: to have the current consensus can be laid out in guideline form so that we don't have to repeat the same argument all over every time someone (inevitably a GB-based editor) posits, "I've never heard of this! It's all made up. The British Isles are the British isles and will be the British isles forever!"
 * "There is much in common between the landscape, peoples and history of the two major islands and 'British Isles' is useful in bringing this together ..." What does this have to do with anything?? Your view of the term and the happy-clappy relationship between the peoples of Britain and Ireland contributes about much value to this project as my view of the same i.e. none. What matters is the view of published sources and they say that the term British Isles is problematic in relation to Ireland. --sony-youth pléigh 01:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (Apologies if I am coming across as foul tempered but it exhausting to have to run over the same arguments and accusations time and time again.) --sony-youth pléigh 11:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - The proposal, especially "Encourage avoidance of the term in newly written material" goes completely against the spirit of WP:CENSOR. Whilst it would be wrong to deliberately use the term in order to cause offence, it would be equally wrong to deliberately not use the term for fear of causing offence, since (as the proposal states) there is no alternative term that describes the exact same entity succinctly. This proposal is for censorship, pure and simple, and we don't do that here. Waggers (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Confusion
I haven't been following this debate closely, but I'm a little confused by one thing in the proposal. It says "There is unfortunately no other term which describes the entire archipelago", but later states that "The term "British Islands and Ireland" is correct: "British Islands" includes both the UK and the Crown dependencies." Can anyone clarify this? Tameamseo (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think prehaps what is meant is that there is no equivelent in common use, ther term "British islands and Ireland" gets less than 300 Google hits whereas "British Isles" gets over six million . Obviously Google results have their limitations but the difference in this case is pretty compelling. Guest9999 (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Google Game again, (British Isles -Wikipedia) get just about 800,000 hits . Quite small in fact. And its first map just says United Kingdom here 78.19.164.54 (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That link gives more than 16 million hits - not about 800,000. Guest9999 (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's odd - when I click on it it comes up as only 331,000! Tameamseo (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 331,000 here also, but we had this issue before ... at one point it ran up to 24 million then down to a couple of tens of thousands. It's not reliable. --sony-youth pléigh 17:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe Google results are geographically related, my initial result of 16 million was in the UK (St. Andrews, in Crete I am now getting just under 14 million. Guest9999 (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "British Islands and Ireland" is not a substitute in every context. For example, if someone said "the Orkney Islands are outlying islands of the British Isles", you couldn't change that to "the Orkney are outlying islands of the British Islands and Ireland".  Tb (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "the Orkney are outlying islands of Great Britain, would probably be more professional. -78.19.164.54 (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Tb (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, being the outlying islands of an archipelago (or group of islands) makes sense, being the outlying islands of another larger island makes less sense - it implies that they are part of that island. Guest9999 (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you're missing the point. The point was a case where a textual substitution of "British Islands and Ireland" doesn't work; the case could just as well be, "The O.I. are far-flung members of the British Isles."  The point is to illustrate that there isn't any term which is a suitable replacement in every context, but rather that care and discretion are sometimes required to find the best term. Tb (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Outlying islands of an archipelago makes very little sense, they are part of an archipelago or they are not. Where would the center be? Where would the in-lying islands be? 78.19.54.72 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In this case I believe we have been refering to different definitions of the word "outlying" which according to Wiktionary can refer to something within a stated area but away from the centre (the periphery) or objects outside of the staed area. Apologies for the confusion. Guest9999 (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And here's an interesting table below that I created for talk:British Isles. One would think that "British Isles" would get more hits than the Falkland Islands. I think it shows that the term "British Isles" may not be as popular a some believe it is. -78.19.164.54 (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * {| class="wikitable"

! Google ! Hits ! Link
 * "British Isles"
 * 6,030,000
 * 
 * 


 * "Falkland Islands"
 * 27,800,000
 * 
 * }


 * British Islands is a legal term in UK law that refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey. Ireland is the legal name of the Republic of Ireland. Hence, British Islands + Ireland = British Isles. This is not name for the area but two names and a conjunction. Anybody who needs this explained to them, in all seriousness, has too little a grasp of the vocabulary of these islands to contribute to this discussion.
 * Regarding the Orkneys being an outlying island of Great Britain, Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales considered as a unit (never mind WP, check the OED). Whatever one view of "outlying", the Orkneys are certainly outlying islands of Great Britain. --sony-youth pléigh 01:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (Apologies if I am coming across as foul tempered but it exhausting to have to run over the same arguments and accusations time and time again.) --sony-youth pléigh 11:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's politicial correctness run amok. That's the reason why, I've chosen not to argue anymore about where British Isles should or shouldn't be in Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also political (and linguistic) reality, but, on the subject of reality, is anyone really suggesting that the term should be "banned from Wikipedia" as you keep saying they are? --sony-youth pléigh 17:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've stopped claiming that weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (From my Talk: "I no longer claim there's a move to omit that term from Wikipedia.") My apologies, I misread "where" above as "whether". --sony-youth pléigh 20:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As the Falkland Islands has its own website and form of governance and the British Isles has neither, being a geographical entity as opposed to a geographical and political entity, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the Falkland Islands to get more google hits. Intriguingly, if we limit it to a google scholar search, we see a different set of results:
 * That would indicate the term is used with wider currency. Hiding T 12:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

After all that, have we got any case where 'British Islands and Ireland' could not be used and another term would not be as good or better than 'British Isles' (GB being the althernative in the first example given)? I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be used, just curious. Vpag (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, The Google Game can be a lot of fun, as I mentioned earlier. I think the page is really about the "proper usage" of the term, and in what instances etc. 78.19.156.62 (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative proposal
I have numerous concerns about this proposal as it is currently written 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. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth pléigh 20:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

British and Irish Isles
Does that work? Hiding T 14:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That said, I notice that most sources use the British Isles. It seems to be the term utilised in studies commisioned by the UN, .  That would tend to make this a POV issue. Hiding T 14:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Most sources". That's interesting, given that most mapping companies I've seen referenced don't use it anymore. In addition, many serious organisations use "British Isles" as a synonym for UK or even Great Britain.  e.g.  and .  One is apparently from Oxford University and the other had an association with the British Royal Family.  Wotapalaver (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't tend to come into contact with mapping companies, but historical and botanical works tend to use British Isles as a geographical rather than political construct. Your mileage may vary. Hiding T 14:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Mapping companies are companies that make maps. You almost certainly come into contact with maps.  Botany does seem to be an area where the relevant society still uses "British Isles".  It´s probably quite unusual by now.  Most other societies use Britain and Ireland or Great Britain and Ireland.  Also, and it´s a trivial point, searching (only on google mind you) for "British Isles and Ireland" and Botanical, I got hits for several books and articles that use "British Isles and Ireland", including an Encyclopedia of Trees.  No argument that "British Isles" is common in historical contexts.  It´s even appropriate in a historical context for some periods.  Wotapalaver (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Botany uses two letter area(country) codes for recording distribution. The table is available in Flora Europaea.  Ireland is Hb for Hibernia. Br is Great Britain, including Orkney, Zetland and Isle of Man; excluding Channel Islands and Northern Ireland.  France is Ga for Gallia, and includes the Channel Islands (Îles Normandes) and Monaco; excluding Corse (Corsica), etc. Bardcom (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

British and Irish Isles is a good proporal Clearly neutral, covers all bases (only pedants would eclude the Channel Islands) and IMO is unambiguous isn't a clumsy neologism. We have an ecisting precendent of sorts in the joint rugby touring team, once called the British Lions and now called The British and Irish Lions Google also suggest that its a term being used in enough quarters to make it a reliably socurced title and irrepsective of comnapritive popularity with other terms it should not court controversy from either side of the debate Dainamo (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)