Talk:Great Britain and Ireland

"also known as Britain"

The article currently states:

The state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, also known as Britain

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate, but if people can provide references ... I agree that the adjective "British" is normally applied in this way (particularly in terms of nationality, with British passports and British Citizenship). Tim (Xevious) 11:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I did some poking around, and British Isles (terminology) has a reference to the Guardian Unlimited style guide, which, under the Britain/UK entry says in part "Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." -- Jonel | Speak 12:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger

It is currently proposed that this article be merged into British Isles. Should it not be the other way around? or in the alternative change the name of British Isles to Great Britain and Ireland. clariosophic 19:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(long overdue response?) Personally, I'd prefer this article be given an AfD. But, I suppose the anti-British Isles folk, need their own article. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It survived an AfD already, but shouldn't be deleted or merged as it is a ligitimate dab page for either British Isles or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Normally a "dab" page wouldn't have any "content" such as this one and in principle I wouldn't oppose stripping it down to being just a dab page, but I see that that was one of it's charms during the AfD. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Article creation

I have changed this from a dab page to a stand-alone geographical article. This article (a work in progress) refers to the geographical archipelago of Great Britain and Ireland and surrounding smaller islands. Being solely geographical it excludes the islands off the coast of France known in English as "the Channel Islands" and also, more debatably, Rockall. Sarah777 (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We should take these things slowy, Sarah. Wait & see what happens at British Isles. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

I've set this article as a redirect. Most of the content is repeated at British Isles and the rest is just an excuse for a political rant by the group of users who don't like using British Isles. 86.27.162.213 (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted this blatant 'VANDALISM by this IP. We really need to do something about these sockpuppets. Can someone do a Usercheck on this IP please? Sarah777 (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No not blatant vandalism. I'm just trying to eliminate duplicate material. What is the purpose of this article? What will be in this article that will not also be in British Isles? Answer: Nothing. This article is just a device to facilitate the ultimate removal of the British Isles article. In time, if this article survives, it will be a near mirror of BI, and then - oh yes, why don't we merge them, and what should we call the merged article? Oh, how about Britain and Ireland? If that is your objective then please say so, or deny it. In which case I again ask the question, what will be in this article that won't be in British Isles? Wikipedia is here to convey information, not to act as a vehicle for a political point-of-view. As for requesting CheckUser - what, because I've made a redirect and then done one revert? Look at the policy and you'll see it's a last resort for dealing with difficult cases. This IS NOT a difficult case, it's a controversial one. I find your approach to numerous admins, including one that you might consider to have "Irish" sympathies, to be quite distasteful. Fishing expeditions are not allowed! 86.27.162.213 (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

At British Isles, I said it would be acceptable (if OR wasn't breached), to have this article while making the BI article 'historical'. Until that idea is accepted, perhaps this article should remain a 're-direct'. We've got to take these things, one step at a time, folks. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur. It should be a re-direct. I don't see any article called "USA and Canada", although there is an Australia and New Zealand article; it re-directs to Australasia. This article is of no use whatsoever. If not a re-direct then it should be flagged for deletion again. Could someone do that, failing agreement on a re-direct. 86.27.162.213 (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Until I started to expand this article it was ignored. And it was not a simple redirect when I found it. Sarah777 (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And IP, your view of my attitude (or anything else) is of no interest to me - I have no regard for folk who hide behind IPs in order to push an agenda. Calling for Admin assistance to deal with vandalism is not "trawling"; on the other hand, what you have said above, is trawling. Sarah777 (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean trolling, of course. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, I actually meant 'trawling'! But maybe trolling as well! Sarah777 (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect. This article is pointless. We might as well have an article called "Denmark, Sweden and Norway" as well as Scandinavia. Furthermore, since I suspect the anti-BI brigade will continue to wage a war of linguistic attrition no matter how long it takes, I'll ask them a simple question: What would you like to call the British Isles when Scotland becomes independent? TharkunColl (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. This is a purely Geographical article; unlike "British Isles" which by inclusion of the Channel islands manifestly isn't. If (hypothetically) the Scots ever mustered the courage (unlikely) to declare independence they would still be on the island of "Great Britain". If they decided they weren't then in that far distant hypothetical situation we could change the name to whatever was appropriate at the time. Sarah777 (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect - its a POV fork. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The "usual suspects" pushing British pov are noted. And I think Bastun your comments on another editor's reference to "British genocide" fairly nailed your colours to the mast! Sarah777 (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly a POV fork. Just as there is clearly a campaign to remove the phrase 'British Isles' from Wikipedia, although if you say so you get threatened, called a vandal, etc. I'm an American with more Irish and Scottish in me than English, and I can see where in some cases it can be a sensitive issue, but this wholesale attempt to eradicate a phrase is ridiculous.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Truse me 'British Isles' won't be eradicated from Wikipedia. The term (at the very least) is historical. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that what is being discussed here is the eradication of the term "Great Britain and Ireland" from Wiki. An act of unacceptable intolerance that may well be provoking a "counter-offensive". (Which, personally would discourage). Sarah777 (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection?

Will I have to request 'page protection', to curb the edit warring? GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Heck, this is just the stub; much work remains to be done. Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I just don't wanna see the article getting 'roughed up' & editors getting blocked. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So long as it ain't me being blocked I can live with it! Sarah777 (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrongly named

If this article is called Great Britain and Ireland, why does it state in the introduction that it's actually about all the surrounding islands as well, and then go on to list them? TharkunColl (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm growing concerned about this article. Having this & the British Isles article? only adds to the confusion over which term to use throughout Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's ask Bardcom and Sarah777 what they think. It would be nice to know (seriously) clearly what their opinions are. When which terms should be used where. And none of this 'when justified'.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In the hope that you genuinely are interested.... You are familiar with the RfC? If not, it articulates my views well. You can read the Talk page on British Isles - at this point in time, the top article also contains my views over the usage in a wide variety of subject. Or check my edit history (everyone else seems to) and read the edit summaries or the discussions on the Talk page. If you still can't figure it out, I'd welcome your questions at my Talk page. Reminds me, when does the RfC conclude, because I think that both Tb and Batsun were starting to put together a proposal which was potentially a great idea.... --Bardcom (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland is the common name for the islands of Great Btitain, Ireland and surrounding islands; purely geographically. If "Channel Islands" (geographically part of France) are included the area becomes what Wiki calls the "British Isles". If someone in Dublin uses the term "Britain and Ireland" there is no implication that the Hebrides or Isle of Man or Ireland's Eye are excluded - it being purely geographical; unlike the geo-political term "BI" which refers to a different set of islands. The list helps to explain this to the reader, so I think it is helpful. Sarah777 (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question, when is it appropriate to use the term 'British Isles' (which is not a Wiki phrase). Britain and Ireland mean to me the 2 islands, nothing else. Dubliners may be different but I think most readers would not think of 'Britain and Ireland' as including the Orkneys, etc.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Britain and Ireland is the common name for the islands of Great Btitain, Ireland and surrounding islands; purely geographically." No, it isn't. Well, possibly on the island of Ireland, it is. But not worldwide. "British Isles" still is. WP:COMMONNAME applies, and this is just a PoV fork. This article should be deleted. Or possibly left as a disambig page with links to "British Isles" and its forks and the BI-related articles such as List of islands in the British Isles by area, etc. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I must admit, seeing the term British Isles mentioned in this article? is quite a surprise. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? --Bardcom (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just kidding (couldn't help myself, with all the recent BI usage disputes). GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:LAME

what an idiotic dispute. The article on the archipelago is at British Isles. If you don't like that status quo, propose a {{move}}, basing your rationale on Wikipedia guidelines, don't create spin-off articles. dab (𒁳) 11:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Can this not be flagged for deletion or speedy deletion - whichever it is? 141.6.8.75 (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. The article titled the "British Isles" is about a geo-political entity; this article is purely geographical. Sarah777 (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The current consensus is that "British Isles" is purely a geographical term - or has the consensus changed recently? --Bardcom (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

New merge proposal

Propose this is merged to List of islands in the British Isles = which is already better referenced. This article is unreferenced and contains nothing that isn't in that article. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Contrived proposal; yet another attempt to assert an imaginary acceptance of the term "British Isles" and deny the widespread and consistent objections in Ireland to that most rabidly British nationalist of terms. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not very impressive coming from an SPA with an IP address. 'British Isles' is the common name in America and worldwide.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the views of a bunch of clearly undereducated Yanks and assorted anglophiles on where I live are so completely irrelevant that it doesn't bear thinking. This is the people whose "common name" for the native Americans has been "Indians" for centuries. By your "British Isles" logic, we should name the wikipedia article "Indians". 86.42.90.145 (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: --Jza84 |  Talk  10:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This is not a !vote. Care to provide a reason? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge as per nom - this is a redundant article which serves no purpose. (as an aside, it doesn't matter if an editor doesn't like Americans, the English, or whoever, Wikipedia guidelines on 'common names' don't take personal feelings into account, or even education - and most Native Americans still prefer the term 'Indian').--Doug Weller (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge as per nom - also, this article may intensify disputes over BI usage on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, GoodDay, we must keep those rebel Irish in their place, mustn't we. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Boring. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But entirely accurate. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge there's nothing in this article that isn't elsewhere. 141.6.8.75 (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge What is the point of this? Just an excuse not to use British Isles. 81.5.133.201 (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge content yes (they clearly overlap), but Redirect the name to British Isles. 'Britain and Ireland' isn't notable in the way 'British Isles' is: people don't make TV programmes called "Britain and Ireland". The British Isles article should cover alternate names and have a 'name controversy' section - that way 'Britain and Ireland' as an alternate name can be covered there. I personally don't favour the 'dispute' fork - this should redirected to the main article only (but prior to that could be redirected to the fork if consensus required it). I think merging with List of islands in the British Isles is missing the intention of this article, which is to compete with the "British Isles" article. We need to meet that face-on, merge the information per the proposal, but redirect to British Isles. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to British Isles - there's no content here to merge (ie. nothing here that isn't already in the suggested target articles). Waggers (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose because there's a (technical) problem with the current British Isles article. The consensus is that the term "British Isles" is a geographical term, and is a term to describe the archipelago of islands, etc, etc. If that is true, then the Channel Islands should not be included in the article. Also, the article swerves suddenly into a history section that talks about the states (and the arguments start, etc) - if it was truly a geographical term and article, this should not be here. This article avoids the mistakes of including the Channel Islands, the the political content of "British Isles". --Bardcom (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge The content of this article is almost a word-for-word copy of material in other articles. There is no useful purpose served by it. CarterBar (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - for all the reasons stated previously. Is this the third re-wording of the same motion? Sarah777 (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - because the proposal is not clear due to the wrong version being in place. As there is a diff between BI and GB&I, there needs to be something here. A list of islands is a bad idea. A dab page is a good idea. Crispness (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge content and redirect to British Isles. Pointless article. -Bill Reid | Talk 11:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect article serves no purpose at all. Valenciano (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to British Isles. That is clearly where this content belongs per several above.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge content List of islands in the British Isles and Redirect to British Isles. Page is a clear POV fork, and even if it weren't it contains no information that is not dealt with elsewhere. — ras52 (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Naming dispute - questions

I'm sure I have been told elsewhere that the term Great Britain and Ireland is generally assumed not to include Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Is that the general consensus? Personally I never make that distinction but in some of the more vitriolic arguments, I'm sure I have been told that the wiki consensus was that BI covers Britain, Ireland, IoM and CI (+ Rockall, if necessary). If that is so, then surely it makes no sense to merge this article back into BI? Or am I missing something? Crispness (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is to be merged back into List of islands in the British Isles (which is identical anyway) and ideally redirected to British Isles. The Channel Islands are not part of the UK, but are "traditionally" part of the British Isles (according the the British Isles article - obviously they are closer to France and part of the landmass of Europe). The Isle of Man and Rockall are clearly part of the British Isles! --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Things which are different Matt, are, by definition, not identical. Sarah777 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What is different about it that isn't there to avoid consensus somewhere else? It is against Wikipedia policy. The basic information is covered elsewhere.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it shouldn't be elsewhere, but 'should be here. WP is a dynamic encyclopaedia that anyone can (and should edit). Stuff can be moved, edited and added. There is a real problem here as the article keeps changing from this to this. My questions were posed (and are relevant to) the [WP:DAB|dab] version, whilst it seems the merge is pointed fair and square at the list-of-islands version. TBH, I have very little sympathy with the list version (sorry Sarah), whereas I am passionate that because there is a notable difference between BI and GB&I (or B&I), then that needs to be reflected in separate articles. And that is not the naming dispute article, which could quite easily be lost IMHO. Crispness (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Close Debate

Maybe we can close this debate now. As it the stands, the article is a disambiguation page, which seems to make a lot of sense. Anyone want to oppose maintaining the current status? CarterBar (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine - a good compromise (but need to get the "British Isles naming dispute" back into the British Isles article, where it surely belongs.) --Matt Lewis (talk)

Not sure I understand what is meant by maintaining the current status - the current status is that two articles exist, fulfilling a related and overlapping, but different, role. I don't think anybody has yet addressed the issue that the article "British Isles" currently includes the Isle of Man and that the article also includes lots of non-essential political historic stuff. A merge only makes sense if the current article on "British Isles" is overhauled so that it mainly discusses the geographical land masses (and can gently point out the anomoly of the Isle of Man), and the political/historical sections moved to their own or other articles. If there is a consensus for these suggestions, I would support a merge. Otherwise, this article is fulfilling a unique and different role, and is therefore a valid article and shouldn't be merged. --Bardcom (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Therefore a valid article"? Absolutely not! Wikipedia does not support 'forks' simply because you cannot get what you want in the main article! You have simply given another reason for deleting this one. When was the Isle of Man not part of the British Isles, anyway? You would simply have to change it in the Isle of Man article first, as it states clearly that it is in the British Isles. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom, by current status I meant the current status of this article, that is, as a disambiguation page. The consensus was to merge, but since there's actually nothing to merge, the current status as a disambiguation page is probably acceptable. One thing is certain; the article as it was, consisting entirely of duplicate material, was not acceptable. Let's give it another 24 hrs then close this off. CarterBar (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Close it by all means - so long as the result is "don't merge". And even looking at the count (excluding socks/IPs) 4 'merge' and 3 'oppose' isn't consensus. Do not vandalise this article again please. Sarah777 (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict What on earth are you talking about? Not that it's a vote here, but the count is 7:3 in favour of merge. The IPs count the same as anyone else as far as I understand it. CarterBar (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No they do not. Not is a topic area that is infested with socks (on both sides). Sarah777 (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

the sock monsters round here have six left feet to every right one (and I'm not talking wings, I'm talking feet). --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the disambiguation page, which I see User:Sarah777 reverted (temporarily). That seems the best compromise.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:If I didn't know any better? I'd suspect this article existed because of what its name is (or more importantly, what it isn't). But again, I know better. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm behind the times, folks. I hadn't noticed the article was changed to a disambiguous page (until now). GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the status quo while discussion is ongoing. Any further reverts will constitute WP:Vandalism Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No 24-hour deadlines this time, Sarah? Odd, that. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Jumpin' Junipers, I'm getting dizzy. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What is odd about it? Sarah777 (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There is not a consensus on this issue (yet) as far as I can see. I've asked some very reasonable questions which have yet to be addressed, and I've suggested that the existing article is overhauled to reflect the geographical nature of the term - by removing the political/historical sections from the main "British Isles" article (no probs moving to their own articles if appropriate). This article is not currently a fork, given that it is not duplicating the "British Isles" article. I've no problem merging so that only one article exists, but only when we have an agreement on a geographical article. --Bardcom (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to make all those cross-article demands? This article is simply a fork. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The usual bullying and gaming here: accusations of "vandalism", followed by stonewalling (ie insisting that discussion is "ongoing", making unreasonable demands, claiming their edit represents the "status quo" etc). Don't be afraid to make a revert people - you have to get involved to show you mean business. Otherwise the page will just stay and the game will go on forever. Before I'm admonished for encouraging people to edit war - all I'm saying is that there is strength in numbers in Wikipedia, and the most 'courage' in this debate (if you can call it 'courage') has been shown by the people who are dedicated to the 'anti-British Isles cause' (and they rarely if ever follow WP policy). If people are afraid to revert in these cases they simply never change. Nobody has to 'war' - there seems to be a big 'thing' on Wikipedia against reverting these days (1R warnings, threats of locking etc) - and some partisan editors are simply thriving on the fact that so many editors are afraid to revert them. Boy I feel better for saying that!--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about strength in numbers Matt - thanks for being so honest and explicit, it is refreshing. I was only pointing out on another page that British pov is poisoning Wiki not because of any 'rules', 'verifiability', right or wrong - but simply because there are sufficient British editors to impose British pov. You clarion call to your compatriots says all there is to say on this! Sarah777 (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The point I was making of course, was that the odd dedicated few can control so much though playing a variety of 'gaming' tactics. The clarion call was to common sense, but thanks for making me sound so valiant. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey! You're in a large tribe - why wouldn't you be valiant? Sarah777 (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

@Sarah: Once again - stop insisting you speak for all Irish editors. You don't. And stop assuming all British editors think the same - they don't.

@Bardcom: Whether this article is a PoV fork of British Isles is debatable. Its abundantly clear, though, that its a content fork of List of islands in the British Isles. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow! In one sentence you manage to accuse me of TWO things I haven't done. You really should read the lines rather than the space between them - you might learn something. Sarah777 (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the article back to the disambiguation version. Anyone who doesn't like it should take it to whatever arbitration facility is available in cases such as these. The remark that the IP comments don't count is nothing short of astounding. Sarah777, your vitriolic approach to this matter does not help anyone. Please try to be more sympathetic to opposing views and accept the consensus - and don't say (again) that there isn't a consensus, there clearly is. CarterBar (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus. What you did was edit warring and vandalism. Sarah777 (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. 8:4 for merge/redirect including the anon IPs and the voter who left no other comment. But it's still 7:3 for merge/redirect excluding the anon IPs and still including the voter. And some canvassing last night. A ratio of 2:1 (or slightly more than 2:1) seems like a sufficient consensus. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

More nonsense. I haven't voted, and neither have I emailed this page to anybody I know, none of whom would ever, ever, ever use the term "British Isles" to contextualise Ireland's place in this planet. 86.42.90.145 (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. 8:3 or 7:2, then. The canvassing wasn't by you, it was by Sarah777. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no canvassing. I was alerting interested parties to preemption of the discussion by a cabal of socks and edit-warriors. At the time I reverted the move the score was 6 - 4; not 70%. Sarah777 (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Either way, it isn't acceptable to revoke the status quo here based on a vote; the political motivation and past record of several of the British side make WP:AGF impossible. This probably needs to go to arbitration. Sarah777 (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration? no doubt, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

British side? There you go again... So, just who are you accusing of being a sock? And I make it 12:3 now in favour of merge/redirect. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)@Batsun, your proposal for a merge was based on contains nothing that isn't in that article in reference to the "List of Islands in the British Isles". I've added a number of sections to this article, focussing on geographic attributes. I hope to add additional sections and expand some of the current ones - but I think you get the gist of where I'd like to take the article. As the original proposer, I'd ask that you take a look and comment? Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a PoV fork of "List of Islands in the British Isles". Now its also a fork of British Isles itself. Sorry, Bardcom, my proposal still stands. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I'll go with the consensus - merge and redirect. --Bardcom (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Jersey

Aside from being an obvious POV fork, the opening paragraph does make me laugh: "Unlike the term British Isles, it does not include Jersey." Does this mean that Guernsey is included? Mind you, any lazy Google search would thrown up instances of the term that explicity include Jersey e.g. Stanford's 1914 atlases to 2008 websites. --78.152.200.17 (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually that was vandalism. I've removed it. And I don't do lazy searches. Sarah777 (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No agreement; no consensus

For the record, I don't accept there was any consensus here. This is a disgraceful act of imposition of British pov on Wiki. Another one. Sarah777 (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What is it about 11:3 that doesn't reflect a consensus? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

12:2 now as Bardcom has agreed to merge and redirect. Bill Reid | Talk 15:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the 11:3 was including Bardcom's agreement. Though admittedly I was running light on only one coffee when I counted... (I also excluded the anon IPs). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a clear consensus, but some people will never accept anything that doesn't accord with their position and won't accept that they might be wrong (and of course will explain their loss by conspiracy theories, etc).--Doug Weller (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No conspiracy theory necessary to explain the numerical dominance of British pov over WP:NPOV. National numerical strength is sufficient explanation. There is no consensus - period. Just a vote of 3-1 imposing British pov. Sarah777 (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea that this is a 'British POV' is pure POV (and 3-1 is not the same as 3:1). Doug Weller (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's quite obvious to me, that there's a consensus, Sarah. GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

May refer to...

Great Britain and Ireland, may refer to Great Britain and Ireland? Why isn't it ..refer to British Isles..? Clarify please? GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain and Ireland does'nt include the Isle of man or the Channel Islands. Jack forbes (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Or Rockall :-) Or Iceland. --Bardcom (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

But erroneously, people do view BI as being Great Britain and Ireland only. That's how I used to think of it. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

People who view it that way are simply wrong!:) Jack forbes (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

How shall we show it?

Should it be Republic of Ireland or Ireland. This is to avoid a suspected 'edit fight'. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your far too suspicious! Say nothing and nothing will happen. Jack forbes (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As this is now a disambiguation page, see WP:MOSDAB, specifically:

Entries should not be pipe linked — refer to the article name in full.

and...

Do not pipe the name of the links to the articles being listed. For example, in the entry for Moment (physics), the word "physics" should be visible to the reader. In many cases, what would be hidden by a pipe is exactly what the user would need to be able to find the intended article.

If a certain user wants "Ireland" over "Republic of Ireland" he'll have to take it up with the Manual of style. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is not a DAB page. No such decision was taken. Piping per IMOS. Sarah777 (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's got a disambiguation footer, so I've restored the compliant version. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It look like a DAB page, to me? GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Does it disambiguate? Rockpocket 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. CarterBar (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles - are you saying that there other subjects vying for the same title? There isn't => it is not a dab page. --Bardcom (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not? then what is it? GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Roll back the clock

I wonder did any of the usual edit warriors bother to read the AFD conclusion from 2007, which concluded perfectly politely and reasonably and didn't include too many of "the usual suspects". The page from Feb 2007 was useful, educational, about the term "Great Britain and Ireland", and was a far better dab than anything left now. Shame on the lot of you. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, a little dab 'ill do ya. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Link? --Bardcom (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)