Talk:List of islands in the British Isles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Scottish Islands WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of islands in Scotland. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This page has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Gorumna Island

The area of Gorumna Island is 23.8 km2 and can be found on this site (page 11): http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:MKj9xRf03oUJ:www.ub.ntnu.no/formidl/utgivelser/til_opplysning/to_nr16.pdf+tearaght+island+sq.km&hl=no&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=nohttp://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:MKj9xRf03oUJ:www.ub.ntnu.no/formidl/utgivelser/til_opplysning/to_nr16.pdf+tearaght+island+sq.km&hl=no&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=no

[edit] Revert battles

Bring your disputes here, gentlefolk. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. That is what I have suggested. But some folk seem to prefer edit-warring. Sarah777 (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

While some of Bardcom's removals of the term "British Isles" have certainly been justified, removing it from this article seems strange. Agree with Ben/Canterbury - there is nothing about sovereignty in the article, no need to have Ireland bolded. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

He didn't (so far as I know) remove anything from here. I spotted that Ireland (Republic) was included in a table in a manner that suggested it was an entity akin to parts of the UK and pointed out it was fundamentally different being a sovereign state. This seems to be either (1) beyond the grasp of or (2) unpalatable to some editors - especially some Anon. Of course it should be "bolded"; you don't lump counties and countries together in a list. Sarah777 (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A quick look at the history shows he has. Of course the listing should be Ireland; but Scotland, England and Wales aren't counties. There is no need to bold Ireland's entry; or to make personal attacks, for that matter. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Bastun, I merely reverted to Sarah777's earlier version and made the point in the edit history about the correct and legal term of the country. And I left an explanatory (and very civil) comment on the editor's Talk page. I did not remove anything. I did not bold anything. I did not add or delete anything. Just a revert. Bardcom (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh...come again? Personal attack? Where...exactly? "Mixing counties and countries" is an analogy - a rather apt one at that. And I note you have joined the edit-warring tag-team. That isn't a personal attack btw; a simple observation of fact. Sarah777 (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
"This seems to be either (1) beyond the grasp of or (2) unpalatable to some editors..." is ad hominem. On the actual issue, your new version is okay, as in I can live with it - but really, in my opinion, all this emphasis on "Ooh, look, we're soverign, we are!" just reads to me like Ireland has a point to prove - I thought we'd well outgrown the inferiority complexes of the past? :P BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Re the "inferiority complex" -I never was a great fan of psychobabble. If British editors were not trying to "prove a point" by calling Ireland a "British" isle then the table (before I fixed it) might not look so bad. An uninformed reader (apparently the vast majority of Wiki-readers) could be under the impression that Ireland was part of the UK combining the misleading article title with the undifferentiated layout. Sarah777 (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

MacRusgail - care to join the rest of us in discussion before reverting? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How about there is a disclaimer in parentheses next to the article link through to British Isles such as "(see article for naming dispute)". I personally don't like the term as it suggests either Ireland is part of Britain or controlled by Britain. It isn't and has never been part of Britain and only one sixth remains partly controlled by it. I like to promote the term "Celtic Isles" as it covers more countries and reflects truer the history of these isles peoples. <joke>Since British derives from a meaning of Celtic, perhaps the English will be easier to persuade than thought.</joke> Steve hill4 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection notice

I've put a three day protection on this article. Please use the time to resolve disputes here amicably, it's such an obscure article and really shouldn't be producing so much heat. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I simply can't understand why a minor edit to clarify a point should generate so much opposition! When that happens I always suspect an agenda. Oh and btw - you have, of course, protected the wrong version. How do ye Admins manage to do that all the time? Sarah777 (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Working this out

OK, let's see if we can work this out? Does anyone disagree with the following three sentences:

  • 1) There is an archipelago off the coast of north-western Europe
  • 2) An article listing the islands in this archipelago is legitimate
  • 3) In the English language this archipelago is most commonly referred to as "the British Isles"

What about these:

  • 1) There is an island in this archipelago called in the English language "Ireland"
  • 2) There is a state on that island called officially just "Ireland", but commonly in English called "Republic of Ireland" to distinguish it from the island in general
  • 3) The province of Northern Ireland, not part of [Republic of] Ireland, is part of the island of Ireland
  • 4) Confusion is best avoided

Anyone? I gotta say I don't think this matter should be busying anyone's time. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

To be sure, these disputes are educational & entertaining. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Deek - I search your bullet points for a suggestion but I don't see none. I agree that "Confusion is best avoided". It's a kinda mantra with me. Sarah777 (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
No, the suggestions will come. I'm giving Socratic method a try. ;) Do you agree with all? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No, No, Depends. No, Depends, No, No. Bardcom (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Lol ... surely if there is no archipelago [I must be sitting on water just now!], it can't have any names. Unless British Isles is a fictional place like Narnia or something. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hang on - your asked if I disagree with the statements. Confused yet? (Are you sitting in water? :-) And you know - sometimes I really do believe that the British Isles is a fictional place - so I'm agreeing with that too :-) Bardcom (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. Good. You paid attention, I didn't. 3) should be simple. I think we both know that British Isles is by far the most common was to refer to the archipelago in English. That aside, we have no problem with use of the term here? Just checking. Next part. Why do you have a problem with the term "Republic of Ireland", and insist on "Ireland" when Northern Ireland is also being used? Surely the availability of the term "Republic of Ireland" is convenient in this context for disambiguation. No? Would you support getting rid of all references to both Northern and Republic (in the table) and replace with Ireland? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi - do I get a gold star then! 3) should be simple, but given that the language used in your test assertions is very generalised, let's agree that for *this* article it is appropriate. For the last part, in my mind it's very simple and many discussions have been had on this topic before. We use "Republic of Ireland" where we need to disambiguate the state from "Northern Ireland". Given that it's clear from the article that one column is for the name of the island, and the other column is for the name of the country, then it's clear that there is no need for using a term reserved for disambiguation. Recently, the use of the term has gotten out of hand, with many people using the ROI term all the time when referring to Ireland. Is there an agenda on Wikipedia to rename the state? This is not wikipedia's role. I believe that incorrect use of the term only serves to confuse people as it implies that the name of the state is actually "Republic of Ireland", which it isn't. It doesn't help that the article on the state is called "Republic of Ireland" - it's factually incorrect, and causes more problems that it solves. --Bardcom (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, presumably we can all agree to include (a form of) the disambiguation sentence at the top of the article, re Ireland being a sovereign state and the other entities being constituent countries of the United Kingdom? If so - could we agree on amending that sentence so that it also clearly informs the reader that Ireland is the official name of a state on the island as well as the island and that state is described as RoI, yada yada. Will try to draft something in a bit to show ye what I mean if its not clear... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds better - although it reminds me of an earlier discussion where someone suggested using a disambiguation of "Ireland (island)" and "Ireland (state)", which to me is a better and more appropriate disambiguation, and gets rid of the idea that somehow the term "Republic of Ireland" is the name of the state. Bardcom (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't that you who made the proposal? :P Anyway, how's this?
Nope, wasn't me... --Bardcom (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It was my proposal: 'Ireland (island)' & 'Ireland (state)'; at least I think it was me. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
"This page is a list of the larger islands that comprise the British Isles by area. The Faroe Islands are not included. Note that Ireland, which uses the official description "Republic of Ireland", is a sovereign state comprising 26 of the 32 counties on the island of Ireland. The remaining six comprise Northern Ireland. Where Ireland is used in the list below, it relates to the state. The other countries mentioned are constituent countries of the United Kingdom."
A bit longer than I'd wanted, but I think it gets everything across. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
For me, I think that's good - minor changes below. I think the column names should change as well to say "Island Name" and "Country Name" --Bardcom (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
"This page is a list of the larger islands that comprise the British Isles by area. The Faroe Islands are not included. Note that Ireland, which uses the official description "Republic of Ireland", is a sovereign state comprising 26 of the 32 counties on the island of Ireland. The remaining six counties comprise Northern Ireland. Where Ireland is used in the country column below, it relates to the state. The other countries mentioned are constituent countries of the United Kingdom."
Works for me. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for any further explanation in the article. The meaning is clear and concise, so I vote to leave it as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silas Stoat (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah. Not even close here guys. Firstly, the use of the term "British Isles" IS a problem, as it is an offensive term to Irish people. Secondly, setting that aside, the constituent "parts" (NI isn't a "country") of the UK cannot simply be listed along with Ireland as it they were political equivalents. Thirdly, the suggested text is nonsense; - Note that Ireland, which uses the official description "Republic of Ireland" - this is bull. We are using names of places here - not "descriptions", official or otherwise. Sarah777 (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
How about just going the rugby way and listing by nation, i.e England Scotland Wales and Ireland, i.e. by nation rather than state? The British Isles thing ... offensive or not, it is established English usage, and not the only term in the language to have irritating connotations. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
However controversial, as a geographic location, an article like this is valid. But the column "country" is causing problems. Why don't we just drop it, thereby ridding the article of political influences and returning the article to a geographic-only state. --Bardcom (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, sorry, the term is widely used in the English-speaking world, and not including because some people object, in an article with this title, would be just silly. In my opinion. Bardcom - the Gordian Knot solution! I like! BastunBaStun not BaTsun 21:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, ya'll can put in the article content, whatever ya'll want. Just don't omit the term British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion kinda petered out. The last thing discussed was removing the final column. --Bardcom (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd support that, as well as restoring the text we had in the intro, pre protection. (One is not conditional on the other, though!) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Watching like a hawk here. Removing the final column is a good idea and would remove the equivalence issue that I object to. Support removing the final column - and moving on. Sarah777 (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking at it again - removing the country column also removes the need for restoring the lead text - what's there now is fine. I went to be bold and remove the country column - and got faced with complicated wiki markup. Will leave it till I'm more awake, unless someone beats me to it. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merged?????

I see "List by Pop" has been merged with "List" - I think. I guess one less article with "British Isles" in the title is a victory for progress. Sarah777 (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

well, since the advent of "wikitable sortable", it has become pointless to keep separate lists "sorted by $ITEM". You can just click on the column header to sort by anything you like. dab (𒁳) 15:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Country and island

It is of course particularly important in this article to distinguish between the Republic of Ireland and the island of Ireland. As the Manual of Style states, "A large number of Republic of Ireland towns and villages (and other types of articles too) state that they are in Ireland, not Republic of Ireland in the opening paragraph. This is misleading as it creates the impression that the island of Ireland is one state." While it goes on to mention a possible compromise of piping the link in articles on towns and villages in the Republic, it's not appropriate here as it is downright confusing. Warofdreams talk 09:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You can change it back to appearing as Republic of Ireland if you want. I must admit, it does look confusing (think of how it would look to a person non-familiar with Ireland). GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Channel Islands

Why are the channel islands discussed in this article as being part of the British Isles (being the geographical area, not the historical geo-political area). I propose to remove these references. --Bardcom (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom; you need to read the back issues! There was a major kerfuffle about this exact point 6 months ago and what you might call the 'consensus' decided the CIs were part of the BIs. The same consensus that disallows any name for the islands we live on except "British". (That was my point on the difference between GB&I and what Wiki calls the "British Isles"). Alas, that race is run for now. Sarah777 (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, if you get a chance, can you point me to the previous debate please? Was it on this article or a different article? I don't see any archive pages for this article... --Bardcom (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
No - not here. It was on the British Isles article talkpage. In the archives by now - I'd guess about last January. The question was were the CIs part of the BIs or not? The reasons given for inclusion were a bit iffy IMHO but the big numbers won the day. But it did establish that BI wasn't purely a geographical term. Sarah777 (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Sarah. Found them in Archive 12 of the British Isles Talk page here. I can't see a consensus to include them given that a consensus has formed that the term is a geographic term. I see lots to suggest that they are included when referring to culture or history, but this is a old-fashioned use of the term. If, on the other hand, the term "British Isles" is not a geographical term, but a political term, then let's acknowledge it up front. If there's an elephant in the room, let's just point it out. --Bardcom (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Same Proposal. Why are the channel islands discussed in this article as being part of the British Isles (being the geographical area, not the historical geo-political area). I propose to remove these references. Support since Channel Islands are not part of the geographical area of British Isles. --Bardcom (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)