Talk:Terminology of the British Isles/Archive 1

Moved proposed text

From the archive:
I just moved the proposed text on my user page (User:DirkvdM/British Isles - Clarification of Terms) to this new article because it was collecting dust. For my motivation and the first reactions see the talk page there (User talk:DirkvdM/British Isles - Clarification of Terms).

DirkvdM 10:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

What links here

I wanted to include a link to here at the top of all the relevant articles (see the list in my talk page), but I won't do that for now. I have put it at the top of the Britain article to show what I mean and because that article is already mentioned for a merger. Here's the link-text:

Those who are confused by the meaning of terms like England, (Great) Britain and United Kingdom are referred to British Isles - Clarification of Terms.

A variation of this could be used for the articles about Ireland, like this:

Those who are confused by the meaning of terms like Ulster, (Republic of) Ireland, (Great) Britain and United Kingdom are referred to British Isles - Clarification of Terms.

And maybe other variations for the articles relating to Scotland and Wales.

DirkvdM 10:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Since only two people reacted after this, I'll put (variations of) above links in the articles of the political constituent parts England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland. DirkvdM 12:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Great. I've rephrased your link at the Scotland page, because it seems rather patronising to suggest readers are confused (even though they certainly are!) and the link can be made more soberly. If you agree, you might want to change the others too. Why did you not link from British Isles and United Kingdom? I'd have thought they were the obvious ones. --Doric Loon 13:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I want to take it one step at a time, not put the link everywhere at once. The four I chose form sort of a 'complete set', but for the rest the choice was rather random. One reason not to place too many links is to first determine what the link-text should be, because I wasn't too certain about that. You changed it to

For the terminology (Great) Britain, United Kingdom and England see also British Isles (terminology).

but that has the problem that it suggests it is only about those terms, while the text is about loads of terms, which cannot all be mentioned. So terms like ... would be better. The reason for me to write this summary of the terms is that I was confused, and I still think that is a good word to indicate the purpose of the article. What about For an explanation of often confusing terms like ...? Still doesn't sound too brilliant, though. Maybe if we decide on a text this should be made into a template, but then it would become the same text everywhere, and that could be a problem because it should include all the terms relevant to all articles and in an article about (especially) Ireland it wouldn't look good to have England mentioned first. And the other way around. DirkvdM 18:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I've just added the link to the United Kingdom and Great Britain articles. So now the major political entities are covered, but the list in User talk:DirkvdM/British Isles - Clarification of Terms is much bigger. I'm not sure to which of these articles the link should be added, though. DirkvdM 14:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just added the link to the British Isles, Ireland, Ulster, Islands of the North Atlantic and England and Wales articles. So the complete list of articles that link here is British Isles, Britain, Great Britain, United Kingdom, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Ulster, Islands of the North Atlantic and England and Wales. The list in User talk:DirkvdM/British Isles - Clarification of Terms is much longer, but most of the rest is about historic political entities, except for Commonwealth of Nations, Crown dependency, British overseas territory, Brittany and Bretagne, but those don't seem like appropriate places for a link. Or else, more about these should be included in the article. DirkvdM 08:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation page? Or any other alternative title?

Someone moved this page from British Isles - Clarification of Terms to British Isles (dismabiguation). I thought of that title too, but it's not really a disambiguation page is it? Disambiguation pages can be rather wordy, but not as much as this. Also, the term refers to ambiguity, which means different meanings for the same word. Wikipedia:Disambiguation says this: Disambiguation [...] is the process of resolving ambiguity — meaning the conflicts that occur when articles about two or more different topics have the same "natural" title. This doesn't apply here. But then it goes on with ... disambiguations are types of turnpikes that lead to different meanings of a related word. Which does somehow apply here. But notice the singular in the last words a related word (which sounds odd by the way), not related words. Other quotes from that page: A disambiguation page contains no article content, only links to other Wikipedia pages. and Start each line with the link to the target page. However I did mean this one to apply: Don't wikilink any other words.
So it's related to disambiguation but not the same. I've thought of other titles too, like British Isles - Terminology (can't remember the other ones now), but I decided British Isles - Clarification of Terms was the best choice. I'm open to suggestions though, because it feels a bit awkward. Anyone? DirkvdM 18:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I made the move, the baptismal title being quite odd by normal standards. My feeeing is that if it is not currently too like a typical dab page, it ought to become more so. That is, it should be tightened up; and anything interesting that is not naturally here should be moved out to somewhere more spacious. To sum up, disambiguating British Isles and other confusing terms seems an excellent idea, and something I can wholeheartedly approve of; while 'clarification' is not so clearly good (old business about a distinction without a difference can be invoked. Charles Matthews 16:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not all about distinction without a difference, but some things indeed are. But that is quite the opposite of ambiguity, some of which is also in the article. The first is about different words for the same meaning, such as 'the six counties' and 'Ulster', while the second is about different meanings for the same word, such as 'Ireland' for both the island and the country. So there's a bit of both in it, but more too, like pars pro toto, such as the use of 'England' for 'the UK'. In other words, the terminology is a big mess, and that mess was my reason for creating this page. I don't see how this could be turned into a true Wikipedia disambiguation page. There's just too little in it that falls under that definition. Like I said, I'm not too fond of the original title either, but at least it's better than 'disambiguation', because that is just plain wrong. DirkvdM 18:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

You are right that this is not really a disambiguation page. How about "British Isles (Terminology)"?--Doric Loon 13:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I proposed that too. Maybe that's the best option. I'll move the page there (although Charles Matthews won't like it because that's the only edit of his I did not revert (see argument below)). DirkvdM 14:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

First edits

I wanted to draw attention by turning this into a real article, and that's certainly worked. Within two hours two people started editing it, which is what I hoped for. Now I have to take care not to see this too much as my baby that no-one may touch, but it is not a stub that is meant to invite a lot of work in the structure. It's especially the contents that may need tweaking. I've set this up according to a certain logic. Let me go through some edits, first those by Charles Matthews:

• Some humorous bits removed., That's fine (and was expected).
• Wikification of the first list by linking the words. I did not do that because the idea was not to drown the article in links (there are plenty already - this is also why I didn't link the years). The first (next) paragraph links to the larger parts. Then come the constituent parts of those. Then sort of a continuation of that (a less orderly bit). Then Ireland. And then some other stuff (history and languages). And I wanted to use the links to highlight what the different sections are about. Combine that with just one link per item and the first 'equations' can't have those links. I know that breaks the rule of linking the first occurrence of a term, but in this case I think that's excusable. By the way, I notice you didn't link 'Britain', probably in anticipation of the removal of that article.
• So changed to Therefore in the third paragraph. Therefore suggests a 'logical' conclusion but it isn't. The paragraph starts with sort of a regurgitation of what was already stated, so So seems a better choice.
• The last bit about all this being part of Europe or not is also a cause for confusion, so I think it certainly deserves a mention. It's just a small bit and it's way at the end.

Sorry, Charles. Now for the edits by Owain. These are edits of the content, the type of edit I anticipated and I won't change them because I don't really know the details. However:

• Does the Prince of Wales have anything to do with Wales? I thought it was just a title. He doesn't have any hereditary or political connections with Wales, does he? By the way, when it's the next queen of England is it the princess of Wales?
• You removed two bits about the level of independence of Wales. But surely Northern Ireland has more independence and the fact that Scotland has its own parliament is worth mentioning. I strongly suggest putting these back unless you have good reasons.

I had a look at your userpage. So you're Welsh? Gee, I never would have guessed :) . DirkvdM 19:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The original wording regarding the Prince of Wales that I removed was "(the prince of which is really just the king of the UK to be, who has nothing to with Wales)". Obviously someone who is the king of the UK to be has something to do with Wales! My edit regarding the 1539 'Act of Union' was to remove the redundant parts - the original stated "In 1536/1543 England and Wales united (though effectively Wales joined England". That is stating the same thing twice! "the name England is still often used to mean Wales" is was removed because it is a PoV. "and the laws are largely the same" is not relevant in an article describing the British Isles. Neither is the part about the devolved institutions - they are more relevant (and already covered) on the United Kingdom page. BTW, my user page doesn't really say anything! Owain 09:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I assumed that the bit about Newport is in your user page because that's your hometown. Anyway. The wording about the Prince of Wales was indeed too strong. But I understood that it's just a title and that he has no direct link to Wales, or at least doesn't actually rule over Wales, not even only in name, the way the King of the UK rules over the UK. If that is the case the term is confusing and needs clarifying, which is what this article is meant to do. There's a subtle difference between two nations joining each other and one being added to the other. Like everything else, I got this from other Wikipedia articles, so if any of this is wrong it should be corrected there too. I just haven't kept track of what comes from where, alas. That something is already covered in another article isn't really relevant, that happens all the time. What matters is if something is relevant to the subject at hand. And of course that is debatable. The article didn't just state "the name England is still often used to mean Wales" but "the name England is still often used to mean Wales *as well* ". Maybe that should be rephrased to "the name England is still often used to mean both England and Wales". If that is true, that is, but, again, I just got that from another article. DirkvdM 18:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think I'll refer to what it says under the box: 'If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.' So, edits happen. I'm actually not usually thought of as a wikibutcher; the page needed and needs work. Charles Matthews 16:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I see - most of the wikification has just been reverted. No, I can't accept that that was the benefit of the article. Obviously one links to Great Britain here. I can't accept removing essential links. Charles Matthews 16:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, I should take care not treat this too much as my baby, but I can still argue about it. Of course the article links to Great Britain (in the first section), just not in the 'equations' at the top (well, it does now ... ). This is not a big deal, I just thought it looked better the way I did it. Wikirules say, if I'm not mistaken, that on the one hand one should link the first occurrence of a word, which puts you in the right, but also that one should link a word just once, which would then mean removing the link in the article, which, like I said, is there as a visual aid to see what the sections are about. I'm sorry, but I disagree with your other edits as well. The line after the equations was a comment on them and now it is just 'hanging there', not really being about anything much. And the word 'therefore' suggests a conclusion, but there isn't any. The fact that GB is both a political and a geographical entity is concluded from what? From the fact that that was already stated? That's circular reasoning. I won't revert your edits again. Yet. But you'll have to use some pretty strong reasoning to keep it that way :) . DirkvdM 18:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No reaction after two days, so I've re-reverted the article. DirkvdM 12:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You like reverting, as is clear from your list of edits. You do however have to have better reasons than a weekend. Charles Matthews 09:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite get that second sentence. And which list of edits do you mean? The ones here? They were all your edits and I suppose that hurts, but I had good reasons and they weren't too many. Someone else changed 'so' to 'thus', which does make sense ('therefore' doesn't). The links at the top weren't a big deal, so put them back if you wish (and then delete the duplicates below), although it doesn't make enough sense to me (and no essential link was lost as you claimed). The sentence below that was better than your alternative (as I explained). The remark about whether these islands are part of Europe has been expanded by someone else, so I don't seem to be the only one who thinks that should be there. And naming this a disambiguation page doesn't make sense. Still, I did not revert that (yet) even though you haven't given a proper reaction hereabove. And someone else agrees with me now. So what's your gripe specifically? Maybe you should exchange a bit of your speed for precision, given your (total) list of edits (today over 80 edits in just 3 hours on loads of different subjects; that's less than 3 minutes per edit! - no wonder you missed a link while it was right under your nose). DirkvdM 14:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The Intro

The original intro was nice and simple. For a very good reason. This article is meant to explain what's what to people who are confused. People might want to really dig into it, but the foremost purpose is to take away the confusion and the way the intro looks now is still very confusing. If the simple intro is too wrong, that's another matter, but I did put the disclaimer underneath for just that purpose. I'm getting ready for bed now. Tomorrow I'll see if I can merge the additions there into the body text. DirkvdM 19:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, if someone is just confused about the difference between Britain and the UK or between Britain and Brittany, they will soon find the answer. What REALLY is confusing, even for people who know the issues well, is the large number of Wiki articles which partially overlap. The most important thing this article can do is to make sense of them. --Doric Loon 06:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

After a good night's sleep I saw the light; I'll just leave the new 'intro' as it is and put the old intro back above it, thus creating three stages. The 'new intro' is largely about historical issues. I wonder if that could be turned into a nice timeline-diagram such as in the EU article. DirkvdM 06:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, the intro has been changed again. I wrote this article for people like me, who are confused and fist of all want a simple explanation of what is what. The original intro gave just that. So I reverted that, with slight modifications. DirkvdM 11:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

The article refers to this name applying from 1937 onwards. Is this strictly correct? I was under the impression that the country's name changed in 1937 to 'Ireland' (or 'Éire') and then again in 1949 to the 'Republic of Ireland'. Nigel Campbell 22:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, the term "Republic of Ireland" dates from 1949 Republic of Ireland Act. But "Republic of Ireland" isn't a name, legally it's a "description". "Ireland" continues to be the only official name of the RoI, according to the 1937 constitution. Demiurge 22:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, the article reads thus:

  'Ireland or Éire refers to the island of Ireland, or to any of the following: 
  Historically: 
  The Kingdom of Ireland = Ireland, 1541-1801. 
  The Irish Republic = unilaterally declared 32-county republic encompassing the entire island, 1919-22. 
  Southern Ireland = proposed Home Rule state under the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Never came into existence, being      
  superseded by: 
  The Irish Free State = Ireland excepting Northern Ireland, 1922-37. 
  The Republic of Ireland = Ireland excepting Northern Ireland, 1949-present'

It leaves out the situation between 1937 and 1949; what was this, and could someone rectify it? Robdurbar 21:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Having just read the Republic of Ireland article, I propose the following change:

  'The Irish Free State = Ireland excepting Northern Ireland, 1922-37
  Ireland = Ireland excepting Northern Ireland, 1937-1949
  The Republic of Ireland = Ireland excepting Northern Ireland, 1949-present'

Robdurbar 21:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

4 nations & parliament

"The United Kingdom is a country. Its four component parts, whilst being legally responsible to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, are sometimes considered to be of different status." The 4 "components" aren't responsible to parliament, neither are their inhabitants responsible to parliament. Parliament is responsible to the inhabitants of the country. The 4 component nations(I'll use this term for simplicity) are under the power of the Government (operating through, scrutinized & restrained by parliament) but I don't think 'responsible to' is the right term for referring to Gov either. I'd suggest something along the lines of ""The United Kingdom is a country. Its four component parts, whilst having equal rights to elect Members of Parliament on the same terms are sometimes considered to be of different status. This may be supported by the existence of devolved assemblies with different levels of powers in Scotland and Wales." I won't change it yet but let me know if anyone has any objections AllanHainey 15:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Links

I originally meant this article to just have links to the geographical and political entities, to give a 'coloured overview' of which there are. For example, I haven't linked any of the years (as one is normally supposed to) and no-one has changed that yet. I'm not sure if we should stick to this, so I'm asking for comments on this. So far several different types of links have been added. For example to interregnum in the history section. This is a period and makes enough sense. The link to the Act of Union likewise (especially since (I believe) it was one of the major historical events that defined the present situation). But a link to King James VI goes a bit too far. And the links to the nationalists and unionists certainly do (following my original ideas). And the Anglosphere may be seen as something geographic, but it's not about this region, so that's out of place too. Any thoughts?

Also, I originally didn't put any links in the top, leaving them for the text below, as sort of a guide to what's discussed where (that guide isn't needed in the top). Not a big issue, though. DirkvdM 19:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the more links you have, the more you are helping readers. I think it is not bad, though, that in this article they start under the titles box. The top third of this article is now very useful. It provides an orientation which was lacking. The discursive part further down still needs work, though. --Doric Loon 09:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think so too, now. The links in the overview do make sense. But still some sort of marker of what is discussed where in the discursive part would help. Maybe make the keywords bold type? Or would that violate some WIkirule? By the way, the way the top third is now is essentially the way it was at first. What sort of work does the discursive part need? DirkvdM 18:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

What is Uladh?

I included in the article that Uladh is a Celtic name for Northern Ireland, and 195.92.168.169 removed that, sying it is not true. Now, like everything else, I got this from some other Wikipedia article, so this mistake (if it is one) is also elsewhere (just can't remember where). However, Googling the term gives 20.000 hits so the term does mean dsomething and it does seem to have to do with Northern Ireland. What is it then?DirkvdM 19:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Uladh is the Irish language term for Ulster but, as you know, Ulster is not Northern Ireland 195.92.168.176 21:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello again Dirk, I think the term you are looking for is Tuaisceart Éireann but be aware that this is a manufactured term for use in official contexts (multi-lingual signs, etc) that has appeared only in the last few years as official attitudes in 'the north' have softened. The term used by Irish speakers is (unsurprisingly) An Tuaisceart meaning the north 195.92.168.173 22:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright, so I put that in the article. See if I got it right. Is 'multi-lingual signs' just an example or indicative of the types of use? I left it out. DirkvdM 06:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I have only ever seen it used once, on a multi-lingual sign attached to a government building within the last year. The conflict in Northern Ireland is about national identities. On the one hand, up until now the authorities have frowned upon expressions of Irishness. On the other hand, those who know Irish are not the sort of people who would use the term Northern Ireland. So the term Tuaisceart Éireann lacks authenticity and seems to me to be little more than a belated attempt to create an Irish identity for Northern Ireland. A long answer but that's the way the place is 195.92.168.173 14:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah well, if it's too minor to mention and/or too complicated to explain, just remove it. I'm no expert, so I'll leave it to you. DirkvdM 17:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I clarified the situation a bit by adding Uladh to the Celtic names section. Bandraoi 12:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Overviews

Over the last few days several edits have been made in the two overviews. I've reverted most of it. My main gripe is with the way the structure of the article has been changed. There were (and are now again) three stages. First a simple overview of the main issues, so you can see the major distinctions and causes of confusion at a glance (I find this very important). Then a larger overview with most links. And then a more verbal bit with all the ins and outs and other aspects that would go too far for the overviews. Maybe the second overview could be more verbal, but I prefer it the way it was.

The equations are indeed not mathematical, that's obvious. Ever seen a computer program? Characters mean what you want them to mean and here it is obvious what is meant. The main thing is that the overview is visible. I also generally prefer sticking to the official rules, but that's mainly to avoid confusion. Here, however, they perpetuate the confusion. You might find the signs ugly, but it makes for much easier reading. Maybe an 'equivalent sign' would be better (a combination of = and ^) but not everyone would understand that, so, while strictly better, I'm not for it.

One other thing. Is England a 'social region'? DirkvdM 08:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

No, that's true. It's obviously not a mathematical equation. But it is also obviously not an encyclopedia article. Writing is communcation through words, not symbols (in a simple sense of both words). The organization came with my edit, though it was not the intended purpose. The equals and plus signs interfere with the meaning for me, they do not contribute to it. I understand that a clarification article should be simple, but this is not the simple English Wikipedia (see it for yourself). I suggest, if not adverbial phrases, then the words "is"/"are" and "and" be used. I added England because it is part of the confused set of terms (people confuse England, Britian, and the U.K. but usually know what the British Isles are). I do not see how England is not a social region. The English are a separate people from the Welsh and the Scottish, even if those lines have been blurred in the last 100 or so years. Not terribly long ago, they spoke a separate language as well. As a final point, MediaWiki provides a facility for indented lists: use multiple asterisks. Colons followed by asterisks make the article confusing to edit. It's your article and I have no desire to start an edit war, but it needs to conform to a higher standard. I'm not spending another two hours working on it, so I hope someone else does.—Kbolino 05:27, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

The colons followed by asterisks are indeed a bit messy. I wanted to change that too, but decided this looks better (the rendered version, not the source). But if anyone knows knows a better solution ... DirkvdM 11:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I've just stumbled across this article, and have to say that I think it's an excellent idea. However, while appreciating that it's a work in progress at the moment, I feel that the emphasis of the introductory section is wrong; it's trying to start from the top down, rather than build up piece plus piece from the bottom. As a start to show what I mean, I've therefore rewritten the introductory section. I'll freely admit that it's a first attempt, and without dwelling too much on the pros and cons, I can see that I've produced some rather over-long sentences. Hopefully, though, the overall result is acceptable; I look forward to the response. (Silverhelm 04:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC))

Right, I've decided to "be bold", and have posted a complete rewrite of the bulk of the article. It's not quite complete, but should be a good base to work from. I feel that anyone trying to understand the distinctions between the various terms will probably be interested in knowing why they exist, and a brief explanation of the background of each should reinforce correct usage in the reader's mind. I hope that my contribution's found to be useful! I've refrained from having a bash at the rest of the page, as having spent a while on this so far, I don't want to be barking up a tree no-one's interested in. Cheers, Silverhelm 06:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC).

Silverhelm, I am really, really sorry, but there was an "Edit Conflict" when I tried to publish my contributions this morning. I tried to wade through your work, but we had both done far too much to merge. I therefore, very selfishly, just reverted to the old version plus my work. I absolutely do not wish to diminish your work, much of it should be added back (or to other articles, see below), but I would point out that you seems to be heavily duplicating the "Historical Aspects" which are already in the bottom half of the article. I also feel that perhaps you are going into too much detail: if people want to know all the details about English, scots, Welsh etc, then they should refer to THOSE articles, not here! This article was long and confusing enough anyway.--Mais oui! 08:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. The article is getting too long. It should be focused on the confusion regarding the terminology. Anything else should go to the specific articles it links to. It's sort of a disambiguation page (though not really; see discussion under that title above). The idea is that people can come here to get a bearing on what's what and then follow the links to the specific articles for more detail. I'm specifically defensive about the introduction because that covers that aspect. There's a three-tier structure; first the main points, then more detail with the main links (the disambiguation bit, so to say) and then any other details that are relevant for this purpose.

About the introduction. I jut reverted to the original presentation because that seems clearer to me. Especially noting which terms are geographical and which are political should not be removed. DirkvdM 11:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem with just having a "sort of" disambiguation page is that anyone wanting to understand anything about the various terms has to look at each and every linked article, and rely on those articles forming a cohesive explanation. Surely it makes sense to have a centralised place, ie this article, to explain reasonably briefly all of the terms, and how they relate to each other? However, the current structure of the article fails in this regard, as it is effectively a summary followed by two unrelated articles. For me, it makes much more sense for any explanation of the use of a given term to be given in the same place as its definition. There will certainly be people interested in knowing why all these different terms exist, rather than the mere fact of their existence, and this article is the ideal place to answer that need. I do feel strongly that a step-by-step approach answers all these needs, and the draft text I posted dealt with this reasonably successfully (at least in terms of structure), with a TOC at the beginning enabling a "one-stop shop"; see a section called "England", click on it, and you have everything you might need there waiting for you.

Incidentally, some parts of the article as it stands are entirely irrelevant, eg discussion of the BOTs, the numbering of various British monarchs, Rockall, names in other (ie, Celtic) languages, and the nature of "Britishness". (Silverhelm 13:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC))

Starting with the last bit. Yes, the monarchs can largely go (I commented on that elsewhere on this talk page). The historical section especially has gone a bit out of hand. To get some idea of what I had in mind look at one of the 1 august versions. It should be about the geographical and political entities. Mentioning the treaties that made them come about makes sense, but the monarchs can go. And I'm not too happy about linking other stuff than geopolitical entities (such as dates) because the link-colour highlights the various subjects and thus works as a guide. The names in Celtic languages should stay, though, because the article is about terminology. Rockall should be mentioned but not in that much detail. The Britishness-note might be moved to the Britain article. And what are BOTs?

About your reverted addition. Looks good. But I also like two things about the previous version. One is that it fits on one screen (well, my screen anyway), which is fitting for an overview (literally!). The other is that it has all the major links grouped snugly together. That's sort of the disambiguation bit, so to say. One thought is to make the article four-tier, with the bigger overview with the links coming second and your version coming third. But then the fourth section could be merged with that. Or is that what you had in mind? It's a bit too late now to read it in detail, I'm just talking about the structure (as were you). DirkvdM 19:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Geographical Distinctions

The content of this section is fairly weak, with most of it either irrelevant, flippant or repeated. I suggest that this section could easily be deleted without the article losing anyhting. Thoughts? Robdurbar 10:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It is more or less a remnant of the original setup of the article. In sofar as the information is repeated elsewhere, that repetition could also be deleted there. The existence of this section is needed to emphasize that the distinctions can be geographical or political. That's rather important. I'd sooner expand this section (though I wouldn't know with what :) ) than remove it. DirkvdM 10:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The terminology really comes in two sets - geographical and political, I've relocated some stuff from the political section because it really dealt with geography. Bandraoi 12:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, read much better now Robdurbar 16:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

North of the Republic

Is Northern Ireland used for the North of the Republic? What is the usual name for the North of the Republic? --Error 00:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No. The most northerly counties would usually be called the "border counties". --Ryano 08:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Channel Islands

The article says that the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles. This is not correct. The British Isles is a geographical term for the archipelago which includes Great Britain, Ireland, Wight, Man, the Hebrides, the Orkneys and (at a stretch) the Shetlands and Rockall. The Channell Islands are just off the coast of France and are not geographically part of the British Isles. This is why the term "British Islands" has been coined to encompass the UK and those entities which are linked to the British Crown but not part of the UK (Man, Guernsey and Jersey). Adam 03:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Isle of Man

According to the Isle of Man Government web pages, the Isle of Man is an "internally self-governing dependent territory of the British Crown. It is not part of the United Kingdom but is a member of the British Commonwealth." 64.180.30.77 08:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Scandinavian Orks and Shets?

After the Cornwall bit someone added Similarly, many people on Orkney and Shetland consider themselves to be distinct from mainland Scotland, thinking of themselves as more Scandinavian, as opposed to Scottish or British. This was later removed. But it sounds intriguing. Is there any truth in it?

By the way, I hope I haven't offended anyone with 'Orks and Shets' :) . What are the proper names? I suppose 'Shetlanders'. But, ehm, 'Orkneyers'? The answer to this would also be worth a mention. DirkvdM 11:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

People from Orkney are Orcadians, with a C.

While the peoples of the Islands do tend to think of themselves as slightly different from the mainlanders, there is little (almost none) feeling of being Scandinavian. I don't have a source for this though, and to be honest it's probably not worth mentioning in artivle, they don't get offended by being called Scottish as some Northern Irish might be by being called British.

Bretagne

Surely this translates simply as 'Britain', rather than 'Little Britain'? Robdurbar 08:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Funny, I had just changed that. Bretagne doesn't mean 'Little Britain' (afaik), but it was called that by the British settlers in the early middle ages. Or it might be that those British used a term meaning 'Little Britain' which the French then adopted and which then changed to 'Bretagne' over time. I wouldn't be surprised. After all we're talking 1500 years ago and words can change a lot over such a long time. Come to think of it it's quite surprising that the words 'Britain' and 'Bretagne' are still so much alike. DirkvdM 06:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)