Talk:Great Britain and Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 13 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the priority scale.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.
United Kingdom Portal
High This article has been rated as high-importance within the UK geography WikiProject.

Contents

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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-youthpléigh 23:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. BastunBaStun 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. BastunBaStun 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. BastunBaStun 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? BastunBaStun 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)

[edit] 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)
Small point. Rockall isn't clearly part of the British Isles. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. BastunBaStun 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. BastunBaStun 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. BastunBaStun 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. BastunBaStun 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. BastunBaStun 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. BastunBaStun 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)

[edit] Close debate II

The merge proposal above has now been up and debated for 10 days, which seems long enough. There is a clear consensus for Merge and redirect.

Question - does an admin need to do this, or can any user? And if its any user, how do you "archive" the debate? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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? BastunBaStun 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). BastunBaStun 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Eh...no. This Duck staggers more than waddles. It discusses the issues rather than give clear, precise direction. Sarah777 (talk) 01:51, 22 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)
Good question and as they say, thank you for asking. It's an article that was deemed a fork. The consensus was to merge and redirect. Why certain editors are now claiming it's a dab page is beyond me. --Bardcom (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to let others respond to you, on this. I'm sure the answers will be interesting. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
The AFD is linked at the top of this page, but for those that haven't read this page, here it is [1]. It was a polite, well reasoned discussion. It would have been good for people to follow the example of that discussion rather than the sh**fest that took place recently. A version of this article that is stylistically a little messy but which is certainly BETTER than the result of all the partisan arguing above is here [2]. It's a dab page but with some value added. Again, am shocked that so much effort went into actually eliminating value from WP. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That version of the article looks OK with me. Hard to argue with it really... --Bardcom (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I also think it's fine. Much better than the mess we have now. Unless anyone disagrees, this should be reinstated as soon as possible. Then a consensus can be established on the changes necessary with this new (old) article.WikipÉire ♣ 00:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a dab page or not?

Let's get this straight, so there's no more back-and-forth editing on this. See discussion below. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

So what is exactly disputed about the article that the POV is disputed. I see it's been added back in, but no comments on how it is disputed. If you put the tag in the onus is on the putter to dispute it, just putting the tag in will only get it removed if there is no dispute reason. Canterbury Tail talk 01:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) I contest the removal of most of the article without due process.
(2) There is no need to make any reference to the "British" Isles in the article as it was clearly stated that GB&I is not the same place. That confuses the reader.
(3) Certain editors keep inserting a "dab page" tag when this isn't a dab page.
(4) I'm rather surprised Ben that you can't see all this for yourself.
Sarah777 (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I also asked you to protect this page (as you have the "British" Isles page) and I note you didn't do so. I am disappointed in you Ben. Sarah777 (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm even more disappointed to see a certain mentor of mine engaging in what (to me) looks like edit-warring on behalf of the British pov inserters. Sarah777 (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
If I may be permitted to say so I think one major problem we have in trying to improve this article is that certain Irish editors lack a certain intestinal fortitude when it comes to combating British pov. As Edmund Burke said - it only requires the good to cower in the corner for the evil to triumph (or somesuch - I'm no great admirer of Mr Burke but I can see his angle in this case). Sarah777 (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Addressing the above:
  1. Due process took place (not to your liking, well so be it) but the article cannot in any circiumstance be described as POV.
  2. Must be pretty dim readers if they can't see that GB & I are part of the British Isles.
  3. As far as I can see, it is a dab page.
  4. I'm surprised that you can't see all this for yourself.
  5. Haven't you considered that the bulk of editors (Irish, British, the rest of the world) DGAF about about this so called dispute and you appear to have a very jaundiced view of British AND Irish editors. Bill Reid | Talk 08:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Bill, calling me "dim" is a breach of WP:CIVIL; if you were not pushing British pov that could get you blocked.
  1. Due process is about as real as the British claims of Iraqi WMDs I fear - there ain't any.
  2. I think it was clearly spelt out that GB&I are a different geo-entity to the "British" Isles.
  3. I have a jaundiced view of folk trying to insert British pov into Ireland-related articles. I DGAF what nationality they are; British Nationalists, Irish Unionists or Anglo-American Supremacists - and if they DGAF, why do you? Sarah777 (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Re point 1, I assume you mean the "British government claims" (not even British parliament claims); the British people don't have a single mind-set you know (the February 15, 2003 anti-war protest was the largest anti-war rally in history), which also addresses my objection at your third point. Can you please curtail this type of sweeping language which, given the circumstances here, could be easily interpretted by our users as anti-British. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles

I think this should be linked. One of the Irish terms listed as a translation of BI on the British Isles article translates back as "Ireland and Great Britain", and the first bullet point on Terminology of the British Isles states "The British Isles is an archipelago consisting of the islands of Great Britain, Ireland and many smaller surrounding islands." BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite neutral about. Whatever you guys/gals prefer, I'll go along with it. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ack, me too, really - certainly not going to revert over it :-) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting confused to be honest. I thought this page was to be merged and redirected? But I really disagree that the term GB&I is sometimes used to mean BI. Whatever about the term British Isles being used to mean anything from Britain to GB&I to all the islands, etc, the reverse is not true. --Bardcom (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup, you're right. See my question above. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is not a dab page???

Is this page a dab page? If so, why? This is against the agreed consensus of a merge and redirect. If it's not being merged and redirected, then I'm going to just restore the article. It's either a valid term that merits a seperate article, or it's not. The previous AfD discussion (link on top of Talk page) did not vote to delete - inferring it is a valid term. I don't agree that it becomes a dab page. --Bardcom (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I for one don't agree with merge and redirect. I belive the AFD in 2007 reached a far better conclusion than anything from the recent shouting match and that the article in 2007 was far superior. "Great Britain and Ireland" is a self-standing phrase in a number of contexts and the old version of the article described that quite nicely. Wotapalaver (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Er - it's a dab page, get over it. It looks like a dab page, it works like a dab page. Look it up in the Observer Book of Dab Pages. It's there for all to see on page one. What's the problem with a single little symbol? What the hell, why don't we just delete this page? It's causing so much trouble for just a silly little page that no one's really interested in! Should I nominate it for deletion? 141.6.8.89 (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Whatever it is, or suppose to be? hopefully it's decided (once & for all). GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This vote below is a bit pointless. There's no point asking what it is now after a flurring of consensus breaking edits. The vote (if one should be taken at all) should be 'what should the article be?'.WikipÉire ♣ 20:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Should this page be a DISAMBIGUATION PAGE? Please give your opinion, and maybe we'll get a "consensus":

  • Yes 141.6.8.89 (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Obviously No - and pl remember a vote isn't consensus. (At least that's the Wiki-mythology). Sarah777 (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No. The article should look like it did in Feb 2007, tidied up. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(note that my "no" means I think it should be a disambiguation+ page, as it was described in the previous AFD.) Wotapalaver (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • No - debate started on 13th May on my proposal above, to merge and redirect, and there's a clear consensus that that's what's favoured. If consensus changes, so be it, but lets merge and redirect first, eh? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No - It should be a simple redirect to British Isles. However, failing that it should be a disambiguation, as it almost is now, but we don't need the photo. CarterBar (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry anon IP, perhaps you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. There isn't any voting, there are discussions and a consensus forms. Also, the issue is not what the page currently looks like, but what the article should be. Should it be an article? Should it be merged and redirected (which I thought was the consensus above)? Should it be a dab page? If you want to retest consensus, I suggest you start a new section and make a proposal. --Bardcom (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I've just read all the above discussion. One thing is pretty clear; you'll never, ever get a so-called consensus here. There's at least one contributor who won't take no for an answer. I can only think that a vote is the way forward - an opinion survey if you don't like the word vote. I've changed the wording above to refect this, and maybe people could continue to offer their opinions, but just on the disambig issue for the moment - how's that sound? 141.6.8.75 (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Anon, I'd suggest that on the British-pov side there is rather more than just one contributor who won't take no for an answer. That's the problem. Sarah777 (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh well, that was quick. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massive revert warring

I note that IPs are engaged in this. But the really telling point is that all the usual suspect Admins are nowhere to be seen while this is going on. Yet oddly they jump to the defense of certain related articles. You might think this odd but I know why! Sarah777 (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they're busy handing out 3rr warnings to people who've made two edits to an article in a week, none of which were a revert? Oh, wait now... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I can protect this page, but I'm reluctant as I've made some commentary above. If I protect a certain version, I'm likely to be hung, drawn and quartered by one "side" or another. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't matter which Administrator protected this page. He/she would likely get critized anyway. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The page is semi-protected until 7 June 2008. That should solve the IP warring problem. Now, can those of us with accounts be trusted to play nicely, or does it have to be fully protected? Rockpocket 17:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Keeping my fingers & toes crossed. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I've commented on the semi protection at User talk:Jossi. Bascially, I don't think it should have been semi protected. CarterBar (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How shall we show it? Part II

For the sake of not confusing less familiar readers; perhaps we should show Republic of Ireland, so as not to be confused with Ireland. I know this is sensitive for some editors, but the charge of it's offensive is a weak complaint. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we need to decide on the purpose of the page. It reads like a disamiguation page; infact, it's a disambiguation page with the dab-footer supplanted by a rather lackluster image!... there isn't even any categorisation.
OK, I see a couple of options:
  1. Delete the page. There is only a limited number of links here that could be replaced by "Great Britain and Ireland".
  2. Keep this page as a disambiguation page.
  3. Develop the page into an article.
There have been vocal calls for the third option, but if that's the case, can we invisage say, an article for this topic reaching good article status? What would the content be? I don't mind either option. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about expanding this into an article (again). I fear it will be seen as an Irish alternative page to British Isles & thus a focal point for removing Britih Isles usage throughout Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree - it's pointless to have an article on GB&I for this purpose. But there are articles covering land masses and island chains such as the Iberian Peninsula and Polynesia, and there are articles such as Benelux covering areas consisting of more than one country. But I suspect the real reason for expanding this article is because of the difficulties with the British Isles article. --Bardcom (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Before considering the third option, we should ask ourselves whether there is verifiable content, not covered in another article, that explicitly addresses the subject of this one. What, exactly, is notable about "Great Britain and Ireland" that is not covered in the articles it currently disambiguates between? If there is material, then we should write an article on it citing those sources. But I don't see a specific article for Spain and Portugal, Germany and Austria, Holland and Belguim, USA and Canada etc. What makes GB&I, out with their shared geography and shared history, so special that we can write a decent article about it?
Regarding the first option, we should ask ourselves, what is the likelihood that someone will search for the term "Great Britain and Ireland" while looking for information about those articles currently listed. If that seems a feasible possibility, then we should not delete it and instead leave it as a disambiguation (the second option).
These are the things, and the only things we should be considering here. All the other political subtexts do little but betray the POV of those promoting them. Rockpocket 23:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but it's all the political subtexts that have ruined the British Isles article. I suspect that if the British Isles article was amended to remove all the political/historical text, this issue would disappear....(at least to other smaller more focussed articles) --Bardcom (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, these are sound sentiments. I note there are perhaps some grounds for a British and Irish dab page, or sub-section to this possible dabpage (there is British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums, British and Irish Communist Organisation, British and Irish Lions etc), but I can't see there being groups for an article. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Um... guys? New merge proposal shows a 13:3 consensus for merge and redirect. (It was 12:4 but Bardcom changed his mind in a later section). I'm asking there how the mechanics are actually carried out. Problem solved? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 07:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Part of the British Isles

Great Britain & Ireland are a part of the British Isles. Why is this fact being removed? GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For political reasons, why else? We are all of us the 'evil British' and they are the brave Irish freedom fighters. Or maybe it's all just a little bit silly. Certainly the 'compromise' of removing the wikilink on British Isles "per MOS:DAB#Individual entries" is just Wikilawyering as far as I'm concerned. It is more than reasonable for the link to be there if the terms is. It's just not about being reasonable though unfortunately, it's about actively depreciating the term so Wikipedia can lead the way in its 'eventual' demise. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Matt; please note that WP:CIVIL doesn't just apply to Irish editors. The "they" you are sneering at are your fellow editors. Sarah777 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect II

Bardcom has redirected to "List of islands ...." OK, maybe that's fine, but looking at the above comments there seems to be a majority to redirect to British Isles. For me that would make more sense. CarterBar (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

May I remind you this isn't a vote? We need consensus here. Sarah777 (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You may, but I'd be interested in you giving me an example of a consensus. CarterBar (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Bardcom says there is a consensus for redirecting. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I would be the last person to say Bardcom isn't entitled to his opinion. Sarah777 (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Did I get it wrong. A proposal was made. The proposal was discussed. A consensus formed to redirect and merge. The proposal was to redirect to "List of...". If you wish to retest consensus to redirect to British Isles, I suggest you make a proposal. --Bardcom (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, in a spirit of generosity I will now withdraw my objections to redirecting this article; but the picture should be saved. Sarah777 (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No, you are correct, but an assessment of the comments indicates a majority to redirect to BI (I think), despite the original text of the proposal. Anyway, let's not lose any sleep over this one, I can go with the current redirect. Why don't we just close this off now - for good. All in favour sign below. CarterBar (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. CarterBar (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. Sarah777 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Bill Reid | Talk 07:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not agreed. No consensus. Undone. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

See here, please. 13:3 is a consensus. Presumably that's actually 15:1 now that Sarah777 and Jza84 have changed their minds, making it almost unanimous! BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Apparently consensus requires unanimity. No consensus. Also, the phrase "Great Britain and Ireland" is a common phrase in frequent use and a redirect to "List of Islands in the British Isles" is simply wrong. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"Apparently consensus requires unanimity." Er, not on this wiki... care to show me where it says that? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[3] Merriam Webster. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Also on other pages recently where very high votes were made for changes, admins have said that majority ≠ consensus. In any case, the reasons for the move here are wrong. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned " (Merriam Webster, my emphasis). "majority of opinion." (dictionary.com). Consensus != uananimity, or else our policy would state unanimity is required. Absolutely, majority != consensus, but overwhelming majority (15:1 or even 13:3) is pretty overwhelming. "the reasons for the move here are wrong". Er, in your opinion - many others obviously disagree. Please revert so we can avoid yet another edit war on this article. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"1 a: general agreement : unanimity " It's also what is happening on other pages. The version I have placed was supported by many other editors in an AFD in 2007. Their views are also valid. The recent discussion was - mostly - garbage and was based on personal animosties rather than reasoned discussion. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Guys, the dictionary definitions of the word consensus are irrelevant here; relevant here is wikipedia policy, particularly WP:CONSENSUS. Please also note that edit-warring has gone on long enough on this page, and if it emerges again blocks rather than protection will transpire. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) Well said Deacon. As per policy "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted." In this case here a fairly closed group of consistently opposed editors came and made a mess of a page that was actually useful and informative and which had been AFDd in 2007. That AFD had a reasoned discussion from a lot of neutral editors. The recent shoutfest doesn't constitute consensus. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok - earlier this morning, you said pretty much the direct opposite of what you said above: [4]. Is this a case of WP:POINT? And Webster's is not saying consensus = unanimity, it's giving a 'see also' reference. "...an AFD in 2007. Their views are also valid." Per Consensus can change over time. "The recent discussion was - mostly - garbage." In your opinion. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Deacon, which is why I've asked Wotapalaver to self-revert and not done so myself. Voluntary 1RR FTW! ;-) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Wotapalaver - Absolute rubbish! I thought we'd finally come to a conclusion here, but no, here we go again! It doesn't matter what happened in 2007. We are here now debating the subject again and all the interested parties (apart from you it seems) have finally reached agreement. The current arrangement is not what I want (I want redirect to BI), I assume it's not what Bardcom wants, nor what Sarah wants, to name but a few, but like everyone else I and they have agreed to compromise in the interests of Wikipedia as a whole. Now you come along and start it all over again. I'm reverting your change back to the redirect. How on earth would a consensus where everyone is of the same mind occur at somewhere like this (or British Isles). In this case, for consensus read compromise. And don't revert it back. You're definitely out of step here. CarterBar (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) Out of step in that I'm not political about this stuff? That's perfectly possible. As for consensus changing over time, I don't think that's true at all. I don't believe any of the discussions in the 2007 Afd have changed and I don't believe that any of the views from the AFD in 2007 would have changed. What's happened is that we've got a bunch of continuous edit-warriors who have come to this article and brought the same fight they always have to this article. That's not consensus on this article, it's a stand-off in an ongoing shoutfest between a small group of editors. Let's do this formally and put an AFD on this article again from where it was. They we'll get some neutral input. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not "political about this stuff"? I nearly fell off my chair when I read that! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Matt Lewis, please point to a diff with any political thing I ever said on WP. I don't think there is one. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Why another AfD? If it's results were 49-1 for deletion or 49-1 for keeping, that wouldn't be a consensus according to you Wotapalaver. If I understand your views on consensus correctly. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Because an AFD is a formal process and actually gets input from the community, not a bunch of editors that follow each other around WP shouting at each other. In any case, the "consensus" here was assembled in eleven hours. That's entirely bogus. No, an AFD will get real community input. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as the last AfD occured in 2007? Guess it wouldn't hurt to have another one. Go for it. PS- note the article in question, is already a re-direct. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Why give in though? Wotapalaver doesn't realise that AfDs are always headcounted - and it is very seldom that the judging admin over-rides a distinct majority, let alone this kind of WP consensus (the strongest I've ever seen on WP, especially considering all the parties involved). He is entitled to start one, but I for one won't be bullied into one after seeing all the "agreeds" above.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Not true. The consensus here was built over six days from the 13th to the 18th May. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Well Wotopalaver? the next move is yours. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
No need to prompt for a response - that can be construed as baiting and/or trolling. Let's leave it. Silence equates to agreeing with the consensus. --Bardcom (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Didn't the consensus agree to save the picture? Sarah777 (talk)
You can't put an image on a redirect page. You could put it here, though. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Bardcom, I'm not silent, I'm just away for a while. I propose to replace the article as it was in 2007 before this recent shouting match and to THEN put in an AFD to get real community input. If the decision is to redirect at that point then fine. I don't regard the travelling circus that's been here and on other pages recently as anything like reflecting the community, and if it does then [5] is totally accurate. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)