Talk:Terminology of the British Isles/Archive 9

Euler diagram revision

I propose the following revisions to the diagram (rough draft is at right):

• Add back "British Islands" (not to be confused with "British Isles")
• Add "Crown Dependencies" to illustrate the fact that these islands are not part of UK
• Add fill colors to help illustrate the groupings (visually, it seems to hold the circles together more than just the lines do)
• Differentiate islands vs. archipelagoes, and sovereign nations vs. other political entities. This helps with understanding, in my opinion. The terms most familiar to people ("UK", "Ireland" [island], "Great Britain", "Ireland" [republic]) would be emphasized and clarified.
• Put circles around everything. This resolves the issue where, for instance, Great Britain and Scotland both float in the same circle (it's a bit ambiguous which one is the name of the set, and which is a member of the set).

I'd also like to change "Republic of Ireland" back to "Ireland", because, in general, "Republic of Ireland" is used when differentiation is needed from the name of the island. Since the fill colors now make this even more clear, I think the name is now appropriate instead of the description. I'll take comments on this, since I know it's a divisive issue. TWCarlson (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you on all points apart from the RoI one. I don't feel terribly strongly about it, but I think it's still going to be confusing to the newcomer even with the colours. I wouldn't mind "IRELAND (Republic of)" or something similar, but "IRELAND" for me is still too ambiguous. Other than that, great job. JonChapple^Talk 14:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yours does look much better. Potential issue in describing England as a political entity, although I personally don't have a huge issue with it. I'm on the fence with this Ireland issue. While the key does help I don't know how someone unaware of the situation would see it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of you about the newcomer not seeing the key. It should be unambigious at a single glance. I'll make this change and put it up here. What is the issue with England being a political entity?TWCarlson (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no single political body for England, so there may be some people who object to it, but in my opinion it's a minor issue and doesn't really detract from the diagram. I can't think of a better descriptor for the moment. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I went by what I read in the article and what was on the previous diagram. I can think of even more ways in which it is not perfect (e.g., Scotland has islands that technically are not on the main Great Britain island), but since this is supposed to be an overview, I left them out. TWCarlson (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What evidence is there that 'England and Wales' are one of the "Other political entities" noted in the diagram? Daicaregos (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

See England and Wales. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 15:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I had seen that already, of course. It explains that Wales and England share a legal system. Does that make it a political entity? Daicaregos (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the article makes it fairly clear it does. JonChapple^Talk 18:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to clarify the nature of that entity, its leadership or how that leadership is selected etc. Which type of political entity would you define it as? Daicaregos (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it depends how you define political. Obviously, as you know, England and Wales doesn't have its own Parliament; however it is certainly a legal jurisdiction. Perhaps "legal entity" would be a better wording? JonChapple^Talk 22:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ideally it would be larger, allowing for the larger entities to have (a little) more prominence. I like the colour coding - but surely British Islands needs to be identified as an "Other legal definition" or similar. Ben MacDui 18:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Daicaregos and Ben MacDui: Perhaps "Other Political Entity" is not the right term. What I (and the previous designer) meant is that it is a human-construct, rather than a physically defined boundary. I would consider "political", "legal", or other words that might be more accurate. I do like the idea of making larger entities more prominent. I'll consider that.TWCarlson (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not an improvement. It looks to me that Northern Ireland is now an island! Also this and the current diagram are both inaccurate in stating the the Channel Islands are part of the Archipelago, they are not, they are part of France. They should only be part of the Crown Dependencies circle (one of the reason I hate the term BI!). Back to the drawing board. Bjmullan (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh? The Channel Islands are under their own archipelago and NI is in the Ireland island circle thingy. Don't follow you. JonChapple^Talk 21:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The outer circle is pink (indicating archipelago) and the Channel Islands is within that circle leading the reading to assume that it's part of the BI archipelago. The blue British Islands circle has Northern Ireland completely enclosed leading the reader to assume that it's a island. Two facts: Northern Ireland is not an island and the Channel Islands is not part of the archipelago called British Isles. Bjmullan (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing what you are with regards to Northern Ireland. It doesn't look like an island to me. And the Channel Islands are part of the British Isles, according to this article. JonChapple^Talk 21:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jonchapple to me it looks like NI is an island. And yes as far as the BI article is concerned CI is part of BI, but to the term BI and not the geographical archipelago. Read the opening of the BI article "and, by tradition, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey in the Channel Islands. The diagram would lead the reader to believe that it was by geographic, which it is not. The outer circle should be blue. Bjmullan (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks for the info. JonChapple^Talk 21:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Bjmullan (talk): You have a great point about the geographical term British Isles; the Channel Islands really do belong to France, physically. It seems that British Isles is mostly a geographical term, with some politically-added small islands. That leaves the problem of how to draw the diagram to best aid the general public's understanding of the terms, rather than to cover every technicality. I don't know the right solution, but that is the problem. ¶ Also, can you explain more about why you think Northern Ireland looks like an island now? Is it because it has a circle around it? (See bullet point 5 in the original post.) ¶ And I know you hate the term BI, but the fact is that it exists and is often confusing, which is the whole purpose of this article. There's a reason I didn't just drop this diagram into the page -- let's discuss specific improvements instead of just declaring "back to the drawing board". TWCarlson (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any geographical sources backing this up? Personally, I wouldn't include them when I construct an archipelago with those islands, but often any island off a certain area is added to form an archipelago, so including the channel islands in the british isles makes sense if you say that the british isles are islands on the northwest of the european continental shelf or something similar. The channel islands are as close to Great Britain as Shetland after all. Anyway, is there any reason that the current euler diagram is better than this one? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have made some changes, as shown at right. Let me know if you think they are improvements or not. I realize that some of these terms are controversial, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to understand them. TWCarlson (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You're really not going to get any love for making the British Isles a political term. I do however like the fact that you've disambiguated both Irelands, rather than just the state. That was a good move. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You use "political" but "geographic" rather than "geographical" - the latter would surely be more consistent. It is also true that over 100,000 people live in parts of Scotland that are not part of Great Britain as such but are in the UK. It might however be stretching a point to allow for this given that the disputation is largely about the political rather than geographical terms. Ben MacDui 17:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you have hit a big point that I have been dealing with, which is that there is no clear overview diagram that can fully cover the nuances of the geographical and political structures without becoming unreadable. To illustrate my point, see List of islands in the British Isles; there are 122 islands that are a part of either England, Wales, or Scotland, but are not technically part of the main island of Great Britain. In general, though, the "Great Britain" name absorbs these small islands and they become sub-islands of the main island. I guess this might make Great Britain a political name, but I see the crumbs as a part of the cookie, so to speak, even geographically. ¶ Surely all of these cannot be included in the diagram. Would you recommend that each constituent country circle have a small piece hanging outside the Great Britain circle? I don't see how that improves clarity. (The Isle of Man would likely be absorbed by Great Britain, too, but since it is separate politically, it benefits the understanding to show it separately.) ¶ Also: Geographic and Geographical have the same meaning. It may be a regional thing; I'll use the latter since it looks more parallel. TWCarlson (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Wondering aloud, is there any mileage in creating two diagrams - one that is purely geographical and one purely political? It would reduce clutter and might allow the distinctions to emerge more clearly? Ben MacDui 07:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite an interesting thought. However, no doubt there will be disagreement still (Is British Isles a political term?). What could be done on the other hand, is just eliminate the key and have the circles. Sometimes it's hard to distinguish between Geography and Politics anyway, and a reader can look up a term if they want to know more about it. The main issue for the original distinction I think was the two Irelands, and since both are now disambiguated it should be fine. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis, I agree that sometimes there is a blurry line, but that doesn't mean we should just eliminate all distinction. The main thing that got me to this article in the first place was that I wanted to know the difference between Great Britain and the United Kingdom. I now know that GB is the name of the island, and the full name UK of GB and NI makes a lot more sense now. If GB had not been shown as a geographical term, I would have found the grouping arbitrary. Thus, I think we need to keep the distinction. (I'm up for more debate on the British Isles circle, although I realize it may never be resolved and we'll just have to make a decision somewhere in the middle ground. TWCarlson (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@Ben MacDui, I would argue that the main source of confusion comes from the strange ways in which the political and geographic diagrams don't match up. If we did two diagrams, you wouldn't see how Northern Ireland is on a different island from the rest of the UK, or how the island of Ireland contains two different sovereign states. Or how the Crown Dependencies are not a part of the UK. I think it is important to keep a single diagram, even though reducing clutter is still always a goal. TWCarlson (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chipmunkdavis about making the overall BI a political term so why not make the colour white and just have "British Isles". And a small suggestion: Could you make the British Islands circle touch the United Kingdom circle on the island of Ireland (does that make sense!). Bjmullan (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's primarily a geographical term; the only time it wouldn't be would be when, as you pointed out earlier, we're including the Channel islands. JonChapple^Talk 20:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

All the circles that are fully contained within another are separated slightly to show the relationships. I want to be consistent with that design; I tried it your way and it seems to smash things together and confuse the hierarchy. TWCarlson (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

According to British Isles naming dispute, the most heated disagreement comes from the use of British Isles to include the Republic of Ireland. This usage is not at all controversial within this discussion (about the diagram). What is most controversial here is whether the Channel Islands are a part of the British Isles; in the naming dispute article, this is never even covered -- that is, the Channel Islands are always included.

Here is an analogy as a thinking aid:

• Eurasian land mass :: islands of Ireland + GB
• Europe :: Great Britain
• Iceland :: Channel Islands
• Question -- in what way is Iceland a part of Eurasia?

Bringing it back -- for the sake of better understanding, I think it is important to still call it either primarily political or primarily geographical. So, here is a summary of the debate as I see it so far:

• British Isles is a geographical term that excludes the Channel Islands
• British Isles is a also political term that includes the Channel Islands
• Which is it primarily?
• Is it even possible to allow BI to be both political and geographical, while still declaring it primarily one or the other?

TWCarlson (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's primarily geographical. British Islands, which excludes the RoI is the political term. JonChapple^Talk 14:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd hesitate to call it simply a political term even if the channel islands are included. If you want to go back to your analogy, in what why is Eurasia a defined geographic body? It's not all on one continental plate, it's not completely isolated by water. It's simply the product of combining Europe and Asia, which are themselves products of ancient greek politics. However, the term is now used in a geographical sense, without relevance to politics. This is the way "British Isles" is used, still a geographic term, even if it does include the Channel Islands. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Where does these British Isles (geographic) and British Isles (political) definations come from? The term is simply a geographical one and it includes the Channel Islands. For example:

"The geographical term 'British Isles' covers the UK, all of Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man." (DirectGov)

"British Isles is a geographical rather than political name. It includes all the main and offshore islands of Great Britain and Ireland, as well as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands." (Ordance Survey)

The term British Isles is a geographical one and it includes the Channel Islands. There are not two defintions, one political and one geographic, with the geographic one excluding the Channel Islands. --RA (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The notion that British Isles was a political term stemmed from the fact that the Channel Islands are geographically a part of France. However, like I've been saying throughout this discussion, many of these boundaries are arbitrary to some degree, and it is often hard to determine what island is an offshoot of what mainland. A purist could argue that only the Isle of Man is a part of the main archipelago because it is so close, but, again, the distance specification is arbitrary. TWCarlson (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"The notion that British Isles was a political term stemmed from the fact that..." So, is it OR then? Statements like these need, even in images, to originate with reliable sources.

The Channel Islands are closer in proximity to France than they are to Great Britain. No less, however, British Isles is a geographical term and includes the Channel Islands. --RA (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. TWCarlson (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that if the choice is political vs geographical, then B Isles is definitely the latter, but it's really a false choice. In the context of the Channel islands it is the cultural links that seal the deal. Texel is a similar distance from England and the Channel Islands are closer to France than to England, so it's clearly not just physical geography. The cultural, historical, language related links etc. are evident - i.e the human geography, which includes political geography. This suggests that the colour key may indeed be better off avoiding the distinction between political and geographical. Ben MacDui 18:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. --RA (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are three new proposals. I'm not endorsing any of them just yet, so give me your thoughts.

Red "British Isles"

Gray "British Isles"

Remove "archipelagos" and "other political distinctions"; consolidate into "other distinctions"

TWCarlson (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

All good.[Edit: Hadn't read the labels. Per Chipmunkdavis.] The layout of the legend may be an issue on page tho.

Do you have an SVG version though? They are better for editing and printing than a PNG. (Inkscape is a good free SVG editor.)

Personally, I'd also use Republic of Ireland in this context but I know that would cause a fright to some people. --RA (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the best way to show the legend? I was thinking perhaps in the image description, but I don't want to leave it out of the image entirely. // I'll use SVG for the final version; this one was made on PowerPoint because it's easy. // I went with "(Republic of) Ireland" because I felt it was appropriate to use the real name and not the description, but a disambiguator was warranted because of the island. I thought this would be the best compromise; do you agree? TWCarlson (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The second one can't be used without OR, as RA points out. Reliable sources we have all indicate it is an archipelago, so to have the label there and not colour in the BI goes against all our sources. Given a choice, I prefer the first to the third, seem more informative to the reader. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

First here also. The second constitutes OR, as Chipmunkdavis says, and I'm not keen on the "other distinction" label on the third; seems a bit vague. JonChapple^Talk 06:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right about the OR. I often forget this as I am editing. I'm leaning toward the first diagram as well. TWCarlson (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

With regard to OR, RS and the labels: what reliable sources say that 'England and Wales' can be shown as one of the "Other political entities"? Daicaregos (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that what you are really saying (here and earlier) is that the word "political" does not fully describe all of the non-geographical entities listed. I somewhat agree with you. What I'm trying to say is "human-defined". Please offer a better term for me to use. I'll get you started: Legal, Political, Human-Defined, National, Artificial, Virtual... TWCarlson (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

How about "Other jurisdictional or political entities", as England and Wales share a common jurisdiction? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd support Ghmyrtle's suggestion. Personally I would go for "legal entities", which can mean areas defined by law, areas with a single legal system, or a variety of other things. However, anything would work I suppose. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Either would work for me. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Legal entities works best for me. JonChapple^Talk 17:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In making the change to "legal entities", I realized it may also make sense to change the first heading to "geographical features" instead of "geographical distinctions". Here is what my planned legend looks like now:

• Geographical features
  • Islands
  • Archipelagos
• Legal entities
  • Sovereign states
  • Other legal entities

This discussion may translate to the article text, as well, as it is has the same issues ("political distinctions"). Once the diagram is done, it will pretty much prescribe how the article should be sectioned. TWCarlson (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Geographical features

  ISLAND

  Archipelago

Legal entities

  SOVEREIGN STATE

  Other legal entity

Here's a new diagram in SVG format with the legend moved to the caption. There are a few minor rendering issues with the line widths that I plan to fix. Also, the colors may be too bold for my taste -- I'll mess with those more. TWCarlson (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't know how we missed this but the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey (as well as Alderney and Sark, which are further dependencies of Guernsey) are also political entities. ("Crown Dependencies" is not a political entity.)

Also, is England a political entity? Similarly, is the British Islands a political entity? These places may be defined in law but that is different from saying they are political entities? Does England have laws of its own, a parliament of its own, even a jurisdiction of its own, etc.? Likewise, the British Islands.

Finally, I think it would be better to draw this distinction between "states" and "other political entities" (as opposed to "sovereign states" and "other political entities"). There is quite a difference in the political significance of the Crown Dependencies (which are states) vs. and the devolved administrations of the UK (which are no states). --RA (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

RA, these are all things I've thought about. I just think it is all way too complicated for this simple overview drawing. I don't advocate using incorrect information, but omission of detail from this diagram is a must. The article text will cover all the nuances.

By the way, I changed the caption from "political entity" to "legal entity". If you have a better suggestion, toss it out there.

I realize Isle of Man has a political and legal system, but it is primarily a physical description for the purpose of this diagram. Crown Dependencies is a human-created construct that is legally defined. So is England; the boundary line is human-created and legally defined. British islands is legally defined. Regarding the states vs. soverign states issue: I think most people are more interested in sovereign states, which are usually called "countries" or "nations".

Let's remember the big purpose: this diagram should help those who are confused to decipher some of the higher-level differences in terminology. It's not supposed to be a complete and thorough analysis of the historical context of political and geographical boundaries. TWCarlson (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

All of which sounds very subjective.

To give a practical example, the Isle of Man is capable of raising taxes, creating laws, passing judgement and making international agreements. It is for all intents and purposes sovereign. It is not marked as a political entity on the diagram. On the other hand, England, which has no parliament, no fiscal powers, is not a jurisdiction and no capacity to make agreements is said to be a "political entity". In reality, England, for all intents and purposes, is simply the area of Great Britain that is not Scotland or Wales.

Similarly, is a readers supposed to imagine that the British Islands are some form of confederation?

The choice about what is important, which items to highlight and what they are "for the purpose of this diagram" can be very misleading. Looking at the the diagram, for example, I would image the the Crown Dependency was some form of state composed of three islands. --RA (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Then tell me how you think it should be done! You offer a valid and sound interpretation, and I agree with a lot of what you're saying. You've thoroughly explained what you find wrong with the diagram; now please offer your ideas for a solution.

I do need to defend the fact that the sovereign nation portion is pretty objective. From the article List of sovereign states: "The British monarch has direct sovereignty over three self-governing Crown dependencies: Guernsey, with three dependencies: Alderney, Herm, Sark; Isle of Man; Jersey". None of those 3 appear in the list other than as being under the U.K. I'm not saying this isn't controversial, but it represents the current widely accepted interpretation as it is today.

I never claimed it would be easy to please everyone, but surely there is an answer out there. Now let's have your ideas for how to improve it. TWCarlson (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, since earlier we were discussing OR, I'd think that we'd need some sort of Reliable Source asserting that the Isle of Man or another crown dependency is a sovereign state. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

True - the IoM, Jersey and Guernsey are better described as self-governing territories, rather than sovereign states. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

IoM, Jersey and Guernsey are not sovereign states (although they occasionally consider becoming so). They are however states (territory implies that they are under the jurisdiction of another place, which they are not). They makes their own laws, they have their own executive, they have their own judiciary. They just rely on the UK to do certain matters on their behalf (e.g. to negotiate with the EU).

Not identifying them as political/legal entities — but to pick out Scotland, Wales, NI and England(??) — is very neglectful. --RA (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Part of the difficulty arises because several are both legal entities and geographical features, and you are using only two colors. --84.130.252.252 (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that point - certainly, the IoM, Jersey and Guernsey are both legal and geographical entities, and the diagram should try to reflect that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree also. --RA (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

All true. However, this is supposed to be a diagram which gives a nice concise overview. I'm beginning to think we may have to scrap the colours. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Could the IoM/Jersey/Guernsey issue not be resolved by finding a way of showing those three as both "islands" and "other legal entities" (not "sovereign states")? Maybe retaining the solid red line around them, but perhaps using stripes (or a third colour) within their ovals? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I can experiment with mixing the colors. It would have to be stripes or dashes probably, because purple would indicate an overlap, like between Ireland (island) and United Kingdom.

RA, if we found a way to (a) represent the Crown Dependency islands as both geographical and legal, and (b) clarify that "British Islands" is only a descriptive term, would that solve the problem? TWCarlson (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The trick might be to simplify rather than build more complexity in. How to do that is the question, though. I've also see video on the web explain these things. It might be more difficult but a video might be something worthwhile. --RA (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If "descriptive terms" were to be in italics, but other terms in upright (Roman) font, could (b) be achieved by simply changing the script style for NI, England, Wales and Scotland from italic to upright? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Political entity,          Island / archipelago

(edit conflict) Here's another style of diagram. It does not explicitly stated that the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey are islands. Political entities are labelled blue. States are in bold. Sovereign states are also capital. --RA (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that is far more confusing, particularly the fact that some descriptive names appear to be inside circles/ovals (eg Scotland) while others (eg United Kingdom) are outside. Also, the differentiation between blue and black is difficult to see. If TWCarlson's version can be clarified in relation to IoM/Jersey/Guernsey, I think it is far preferable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Np. Was also playing with a map-style diagram (it was more work) but easier to see the geographic places. --RA (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried to make mine as close to the geographic orientation as possible (although Scotland ended up to the right of England and Wales). I think that is secondary to the schematics though.

RA, although yours is a bit confusing, it could be fixed pretty easily too by just rearranging some of the names. However, I still think there is value in keeping most of what we have in my diagram so far, and just altering some of the items a bit. Let me post a new version tomorrow and we can see if it solves the problem.

For the record, RA, I agree with what you are saying about what is still lacking, so I'm not trying to be confrontational. I just want to make sure most people are happy with the accuracy of the diagram. Thanks for all your help in making that happen. Stay tuned. TWCarlson (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Same here. I'm trying to offer constructive criticism. Don't take it personally or too harshly.

It's not an easy thing that you/we are trying to do here. In fact, I think it will take a couple of weeks yet. We shouldn't try to rush into it. --RA (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think the coloured one is better visually, trying to line up geographically is a mistake (think London Tube Map). That said, this latest one has Great Britain as including Northern Ireland and I think its wrong to use the same code for legal entities and sovereign states. I admit (with shame) that I was not aware of the definition of British IslesIslands in the Interpretation Act of 1978. That has an impact on the whole debate about BI use which we may want to take up in its own right. However its key that the diagram makes that clear. --Snowded ^TALK 08:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you not mean "British Islands"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did, apologies too many years of debate here, my fingers got ahead of me. Interesting that the capitalise "Islands" --Snowded ^TALK 08:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, the latest one does not include NI in with GB, it only appears that way, and that's the problem I had with it (again, something easily fixed). The labels in the latest diagram are on the outside of the circles, which is the cause of the confusion. TWCarlson (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As I work with the diagram, I'm finding that for the sake of simplicity I included several types of human descriptions under one umbrella. These may need to be represented differently (or may not), but just so we're on the same page, here are the types as I see them:

1. Sovereign states (United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland)
2. Constituent countries (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland), which, admittedly, have varying degrees of political independence and governance, the depiction of which I believe to be out of scope for this diagram
3. The individual Crown Dependencies (Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey), which are not technically sovereign states, though they are independent in many ways
4. The jurisdiction of England and Wales, which is a shared legal system, though Wales has some legal independence with its devolved national administration
5. Descriptive terms:
   1. The term "British Islands" which is merely a legal description (not a legal entity) for convenience when legislation affects the UK and the Crown Dependencies. It likely is not significant enough to include on the diagram, except for the fact that its name is so dramatically similar to other terms (British Isles, Great Britain) that it could be confused.
   2. The term "Crown Dependencies", which is just a collector and not any type of entity in itself (because each of the CDs is distinct and not a part of some larger "triple-crown" grouping, so to speak).

If everyone agrees that these are the types of descriptions, it will help the debate move forward. How to represent these distinctions will be the challenge.

TWCarlson (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Geographical features

  ISLAND

  Archipelago

Legal distinctions

  SOVEREIGN STATE

  Other legal entity or description

Another new diagram:

• Added legal designation to Isle of Man, Guernsey, and Jersey
• Removed the "island" designation from Guernsey and Jersey, because Guernsey isn't really an island by itself but an archipelago (with Alderney and Sark). To reduce clutter, I just called the entire Channel Islands grouping an archipelago.
• Constituent Countries and individual Crown Dependencies now non-italic; descriptive terms italic (this is not differentiated in the legend at this time)
• Changed the colors to green and blue to avoid any sort of nationality bias (Red and Blue are both used in the UK flag, but not in Ireland's). I also felt green and blue were more visually pleasant, and green sort of represents land or physical features to me.

TWCarlson (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

British Isles should be italic, I think - so should the words (island) and (Republic of), in relation to Ireland, in my view. Sorry to nitpick - it looks VG+ to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In the interests of being pedantic, the political area of the Isle of Man is slightly larger than the geographical Isle of Man, so having the blue oval in a green oval is wrong. We're not going to be able to show every division in the British Isles here, so I think just keeping the Isle of Man as a legal entity will suffice for our purposes. Agree with Ghmyrtle on the italics, for consistency with the British Islands description. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Good. However:

• IoM, Jersey and Guernsey should be bolded (if not capitalised). Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are simply not of the same order of political entity as these three, which are independent states even if they rely on the UK for certain matters.
• The Crown Dependencies are not a group. The IOM, Jersey and Guernsey are not collectively Crown Dependencies, they are separately Crown Dependencies. If we are to group them together then by the same logic we should draw an oval around the UK and Ireland labelled "Sovereign States".
• England is not a political entity (or if it is, to the extent that it is, it is not one of any real consequence).
• England and Wales, which as a legal jurisdiction is of significance, is missing.

--RA (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• IOM, Jersey, and Guernsey are correctly labeled as "Other legal entity or description", right? (Unless you can provide sources stating that they are Sovereign States.)
• Regarding Crown Dependencies not being a group: that is a fair statement. I'll consider removing them if there are no objections. But I also still see value in keeping it as a descriptive term. They are as much a group as are the Channel Islands, aren't they? If they are not a group, why then does the article "Crown Dependencies" uniquely point to the 3 entities listed in the diagram?
• I agree with you that England is not a political entity, which is why it is not labeled as such. It is labeled "Other legal entity or description". Would it help if I called the last blue legend box "Constituent countries, crown dependencies, and other descriptive terms"?
• I forgot to mention that I took out England and Wales in this revision. The reason is that they don't contribute to the clarification of terminology. This diagram is not to be an exhaustive definition, but rather a clarification of confusing terms (that must also meet the criteria of not being false). Do you think it detracts from the greater understanding for me to have removed that circle?

TWCarlson (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TWCarlson on the Crown Dependencies points. This is meant to show terminology, not the exact legal setup of the islands. I'm on the fence on the England and Wales thing, as it is an interesting point in that one can mean both countries separately or the combined group. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all TWC's points. The Crown Dependencies are a group (unlike "sovereign states"), as they are the only three with such status anywhere in the world and are treated the same way by the UK, EU, etc.. England is.... something..... and the term "other legal entity or description" covers its peculiar constitutional status (or lack of it). I also agree about not including "England and Wales", simply because it is both an over-complication and unnecessary here. For the same reason, we don't include Guernsey's dependencies. My point about italicising "BI" and the descriptive words associated with the two uses of "Ireland" still stands though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because there are only three Crown Dependencies in the world does not mean that they are a group. There are only two sovereign states in the British Isles. Does that make them a group? Showing the British Islands is a more accurate way of illustrating the significance of being a Crown Dependency. It is the British Islands that it the group, not the Crown Dependencies.

Regardless of that, however, lumping the three Crown Dependencies, the three devolved parts of the UK, the British Islands and England(?) into one group of "other stuff" (that is contracted against "sovereign states") is very unhelpful. They breadth of political entities in that group is simply too large. If we are making distinctions between political entities then lumping a genuine political entity like the Isle of Man in the same group as the eastern side of some jurisdiction, the part that doesn't have its own assembly (i.e. England), is simply ludicrous.

To my mind the following are the important political entities in the region (in order of decreasing autonomy):

• The two sovereign states (UK and Ireland)
• The three dependencies (IoM, Jersey, Guernsey)
• The three devolved administrations in the UK (NI, Scotland and Wales)

England and Wales is notable because it is the only one of seven jurisdictions on the islands not mentioned above:

• Seven jurisdictions, each with separate systems of law (ROI, NI, Scotland, England and Wales, IOM, Jersey, Guernsey)

The British Islands is notable because it is the maximal extent of the authority of the Parliament of the UK. However, that is something that is different in its significance to the above items, as the British Islands are not a autonomous entity but is in effect the UK maximal reach of the UK and not something in its own right.

England is notable too because but not for being a political entity or how it is defined in law. It should be shown but it is not a political entity and should not be allowed to be confused with political entities if we are drawing distinctions between them. If anything, it is a political non-entity. However, that does not detract from it significance for other reasons. --RA (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(At this point, Political-only diagram splits off into a new section. Discussion on the overview diagram continues here, previously under its own subheading, but now refactored to be part of the main discussion.)

  Geographical features

  Legal distinctions

  Geographical features

  Legal distinctions

Here is a new overview diagram. I did one with the oval style, and I did one with RA's rectangular style (just a rough sketch now, SVG later). They have the same relationship structure. Which style is more clear? Here are the changes:

• Removed the CD and CI circles
  • Kept British Islands, because I think it still deserves clarification (though it would otherwise not be important enough to keep).
• Simplified the legend back to just two items, which I still believe are important to differentiate.
  • The Crown Dependencies were kept as legal (not geographical) because, in this context, they are — they fall within the British Islands circle, and its use of the CDs in its definition is almost certainly the legal one. I know this might get some heat, so bring it on.

TWCarlson (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this one (the blocky one) is very clear. It has just enough to give the overall picture without over fussing things with details. More details maps, diagrams, etc. could follow later in the article. But, for the top of the article, that one has my thumbs up. --RA (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good though I prefer the ovals style myself, however, a graphic comment, the svg files seem to render well down to about 300px but the png (the rounded rectangle style) does not render well, so if that is chosen perhaps it can be converted into an svg file and/or a stronger font used. ww2censor (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned above that the rectangular one is just a rough sketch right now. TWCarlson (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

RA likes the rectangles; ww2censor and Chipmunkdavis like the ovals. Who else has an opinion? TWCarlson (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the ovals personally, but either would work. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the shape of the ovals better, but the diagram looks a little rawer; the text isn't as smooth and it looks a bit less polished. I much prefer these diagrams to the odd "political" one below though. JonChapple^Talk 14:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I also think England and Wales needs clarifying in "legal distinctions", but that doesn't seem to be a v popular opinion. JonChapple^Talk 14:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Would a solution to the "England and Wales" issue, that does not over-complicate the diagram, be to put a symbol (*) beside "England" and "Wales", with a footnote such as ' * Shared jurisdiction '? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "England and Wales" is as important a terminological issue as everything else we are trying to clarify. I see that footnote as adding more confusion, and while I would like to include England and Wales, if it makes things less clear then it defeats the entire purpose of the Euler diagram. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what would be confusing about marking it on the diagramme, but I'm aware I'm in the minority. JonChapple^Talk 15:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's okay to be in the minority! At this point I don't think the plan is to include every legal distinction. It is to make a diagram that describes some of the common legal distinctions (and geographical ones). We did go through trying to put all of them on there, and we ended up here, making it simpler again and possibly putting a different comprehensive diagram deeper in the article.

Again, it's not supposed to be a definition diagram, but a clarification diagram. That's my view on it.

TWCarlson (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll explain why I prefer the rectangles. It's because they are a more efficient use of space within the image (which is it's self a rectangle). This means that text can be laid out larger, more regularly and with enough space around all sides. I think it is easier too to run the eyes along the boundaries of rectangles, compared to ovals, and so see where the overlaps between different items are.

About England and Wales, I don't think it is a "headline" term and is a difficult concept to understand. I think it would makes other, more important terms more difficult to understand and further confuse things for the uninitiated. It is important but it can be left for later in the article. --RA (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

  Geographical features

  Legal distinctions

  Geographical features

  Legal distinctions

Here are a few new ones. I softened the colors a bit, but made text and borders all black for better clarity. I also created an SVG diagram with recatangles. The spacing is not necessarily final, so try not to judge on that. TWCarlson (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we in agreement that we will not show England and Wales, the Channel Islands, and the Crown Dependencies? Is the only outstanding issue stylistic? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If the Channel Islands (geography) and Crown Dependencies (legal) could be shown without too much clutter I think it would be an improvement, but I don't see a need for England & Wales. Van Speijk (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

So what exactly is the problem with this one: [1]? Van Speijk (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Van Speijk, read through the conversation between diagram 2 and the current revision. It's been a lengthy debate, but the main issues were (a) "Crown Dependencies", while a description of the three islands, is not a legal entity in itself, any more than "lower 48 states" are a legal entity in the U.S. They are just a description, so for clarity we took it out. I saw some reasons to keep it in, but for the overview we thought it best to make it as simple as possible and not leave any room for misinterpretation. (b) "Channel Islands" was seen to be less important than most other terms on the diagram, so we took out the archipelago label (but left the individual islands). This was for the same reason -- not because it was incorrect, but just because we wanted a simpler diagram. TWCarlson (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Either of the recent two get my thumbs up. No need to overcomplicate things or add clutter by adding anything else. It gives a nice, easy-to-understand overview as it stands. --RA (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward the ovals, myself. RA, I actually think the circular shape is easier to follow, because the tightness of the curve gives an indication of how large the ellipse is, even by examining just a small part of it. The straight lines, on the other hand, tend to run in parallel and get lost amongst each other. I do like the mathematical neatness of the rectangular one, but (IMO), the each ellipse looks more like an individual entity, and that's what I'm going for. Feel free to shoot me your opinions on this. In regards to the colors and hierarchy: is it okay that Great Britain floats "on top" of UK, while Ireland (island) blends together with it? And do the colors need to be more different from each other? TWCarlson (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The "blending" is perfect way of showing the relationship, IMO. It's mainly the 'mathematics' that leads me to prefer the circles in an objective sense. Otherwise, it's only a matter of preference for why I find the rectangles easier to follow. It's clear too that others prefer the ovals and we've no reason to believe that readers would have a different preference. So, I'm happy to go with the ovals. --RA (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information TWCarlson. I didn't notice the earlier discussions, but I've read up on them now. I accept the points about clutter so I wouldn't object to the current proposals. I too favour the ovals, and I think it is important that Ireland goes on the left of the diagram, as it does in both current examples (but not in an earlier version). I expect this diagram could also go in British Isles? Van Speijk (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeating what I've said elsewhere, but I also prefer the ovals, and I agree it should also replace the diagram in the British Isles article (also at Administrative geography of the United Kingdom). Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Would "entity" be better than "distinction"? I can't see this particular comparison having been debated earlier - but correct me if I'm wrong. Van Speijk (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to gather every nuance of the debate just by reading it over quickly, so no problem. "Entity", we decided, did not fit for "England" or for "British Islands". Since England does not have any sort of legal power or governance on its own (as it is either paired with Wales or a part of the UK), it is best described as something of a piece left over after defining other legal entities; thus, distinction was the name I chose (and nobody objected). ("Term" might work, too.) British Islands is a legal description contained in the Interpretation Act of 1978, but it is not really an entity; or, perhaps, it might be, but calling it such would constitue original research, so it seemed best to go with "distinction". Do you agree? TWCarlson (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

We could just scrap both and leave simply "Geographical" and "Legal". Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm open to some new wording in the legend. Using just adjectives may be okay, but I do think it would be more clear if the noun is kept, too. Maybe "term" would be good, or "description". TWCarlson (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  Geographical features

  Legal distinctions

I'm going to go with ellipses instead of rounded recangles. Here is what is left to decide on before the diagram is complete. Please give me your thoughts:

• Legend titles
• Colors (mainly, is there enough difference between green and blue?)
• Other issues (spacing, drawing anomalies, artifacts)

I already know about the clipping at the bottom and white space on the sides. Thanks. TWCarlson (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There's advice at WP:COLOR on avoiding colo(u)rs that present difficulties to those with colo(u)rblindness. I'd be happy with the use of "geographical term" and "legal term". Did anyone else support the idea of using italics for "unofficial" terms (e.g. British Isles)? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Althou I have not contributed to this debate I have been keeping a close eye on it. Regarding Ghmyrtle's comment just prior to this comment of mine - the circle incorporating RoI has the words "(Republic of) Ireland". For this reason alone I don't believe we should use "legal term" as the descriptor for the political entities as this term is not a legal term but a legal "description" according to the Irish constitution, and would probably only inflame certain editors, and thereby bringing us back to the drawing board. "Geographical terms" and "legal entities" or "legal distinctions" would seem fine by me though. Oh, and it's a no from me for the rectangle option - the oval option here seems good though. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 21:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually that was part of my point in suggesting italics for "BI" and the two descriptions of Ireland - to differentiate between the correct terminology and the explanatory wording (see earlier discussion). It's actually more pertinent to use italics - or some differentiating format - for the two descriptions of Ireland than for "BI", in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Can we go ahead with italics then? Regarding the label - I still feel that the descriptor "legal term" should be avoided. Best to leave it at "legal entity" or "legal distinction" I feel. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 22:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think using italics adds anything. Their use would possibly need an explanation in the key and could just be confusing. None of the terms used are "unofficial". Some are geographic, others political/legal. Maybe we should leave it at that. As they stand, the colours look fine, but I'd be open to other possibilities. Van Speijk (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Van Speijk, I don't see what exactly makes a term "official". However, per WP:COLOR we could have geographical thingies italicised with legal ones bolded or normal. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd go as far as to say they are all "descriptions" for the purpose of this diagram. British Islands is a legal definition; Republic of Ireland is a legal description, but the part outside the parentheses is a name; I don't think (in an overview diagram) that people need to see the difference between any of them.

MacTire02, "legal entity" was tried earlier and we decided it implied some kind of official organized group that had legal powers (perhaps Scotland is an entity, but British Islands may not be). So we changed that. What's wrong with "term"? Doesn't that just mean a "description of a concept"? I almost like that better than "distinction". TWCarlson (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Conversation on this topic has slowed considerably, so I'm going to go ahead and post the latest revision soon. I'll use "legal distinctions" in the legend (can easily be adjusted later without changing the file). I'll keep the colors mostly how they are (with a few minor adjustments). And geographical features will be italicised for better accessibilty by people with color vision problems.

Question: Do I supersede the old diagram with the new one (two separate files, new and old), or do I upload this one as a revision to the same file? TWCarlson (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well you still have one howler (it should say Ireland (state), since that is its name: 'Republic of' is only needed to disambiguate, so not in this case). But when you've made that correction you can supersede since Commons will show the history. --Red King (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the difference between "(Republic of) Ireland" and "Ireland (state)"? Both are just descriptors used to disambiguate with the island on this chart. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of history and the agreement of the UK to use Ireland rather than RoI was a part of the Good Friday Agreement so its not neutral. Ireland (state) is --Snowded ^TALK 12:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:UCN, (Republic of) is preferable to (state). JonChapple^Talk 12:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me jump in now and catch this early -- I can see that this is going to be a controversial issue, and I understand why; the terms are politically and culturally loaded. Let's do our best to avoid a divisive argument where we each dig in our heels into our own sides. Instead try to discuss what might work best for this diagram, while agreeing that both terms have validity in certain contexts. TWCarlson (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've no problem with either term, but given that we have a caption as "Ireland (island)" I think "Ireland (state)" would add a measure of consistency. Van Speijk (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It might be less controversial to change "Ireland (island)" to "island of Ireland", mightn't it.? Fmph (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The diagram is best served by something simple and non-controversial. So Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) seem best to me. Jon, I can't see what in WP:UCN supports that statement --Snowded ^TALK 14:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Fmph, why would your suggested term be less controversial?

JonChapple, it appears that WP:UCN applies only to article titles, so it probably doesn't work here. Besides, I would actually argue that "Ireland" is more common than ROI, but that's irrelevant because of the need to disambiguate.

I like the parallelism of "Ireland (state)", so that works well for me. Any objections? TWCarlson (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be less controversial because it would be closer to the actual article names which are subject to ArbCom move restrictions. The article names are "[Ireland]]" and "Republic of Ireland". That is what should be used in the diagram. If there 'needs' to be some changes then they should keep the nomenclature as close to the actual article names as possible. Parenthetical disambiguation may be used elsewhere in WP, but it isn't in relation to Ireland. Fmph (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that the move discussion on the name remains controversial and the previous vote was not overwhelming its difficult to see how the use would be uncontroversial, and its a disambiguation name only remember there is no dispute that the proper name of the state is Ireland. The parenthisis route is not only less controversial, it is has more explanatory power in this context. --Snowded ^TALK 10:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It may be a bit circular to use Wikipedia article title conventions as a higher standard than the names found outside in the real world. And besides, even the WP article for ROI lists "Ireland" as the name in bold in the first sentence. I do consult WP in many areas for guidance on consistency, but in this case everything tells me that using the real name would be best — and I agree that there is no dispute about the real name of the island. In conversation, saying "I went to Ireland (state) last month" would be very awkward, so saying "Republic of Ireland" is most appropriate there. But in a diagram, there is no problem with the parenthetical clarifiers, in my opinion. TWCarlson (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that the name of the state is Ireland, why on earth would you use Republic of Ireland? The only places its in regular use are in Britain and in FIFA. Everyone else uses the real name. Fmph (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fmph, please clarify your stance. The following quotations are both yours:

• "The article names are "Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland". That is what should be used in the diagram."
• "Given that the name of the state is Ireland, why on earth would you use Republic of Ireland?"

TWCarlson (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Snowded is right, parenthesis would be more explanatory in this context, although I'm fine with anything consistent. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There's an interesting video on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10) about this topic. The author admits on his blog that there are some things he got wrong and will be correcting, but, overall, I think it is an extremely compelling and informative video.

At the end, he cites Wikipedia as his most important source, so it would seem that our discussion here is actually very important in helping others to get the facts right in their own presentations later on. I want people to keep making this kind of stuff, and would hate to see bad information get propogated. Just some more inspiration for us to keep remembering our duty as editors to present the best possible information we can. TWCarlson (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  Geographical features

  Legal distinctions

Here is the final diagram. (Of course, things are never final, though.) I'm going to use it to replace the current diagram on the following pages:

• Administrative geography of the United Kingdom
• British Isles
• Euler diagram
• Terminology of the British Isles

I've also added a superseded tag to the previous image. After things are settled, I'm going to add a link to this discussion in the image summary so future editors can see the changes and the reasons behind them before making modifications. (This will involve a small amount of refactoring in the form of section heading changes and possibly moving comments that are out of context [specifically, ones relating to the creation of a political-only diagram].)

Last call for input before it is posted! TWCarlson (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought, but seeing as NI is not an island, should it really be included in British Islands? Fmph (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

See British Islands. It is a legal term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The new diagram has been posted and linked on the appropriate article pages. Here is an FAQ to serve as a reference in the future if anyone wants to modify the diagram. Thanks for all of your contributions; this has certainly been educational for me. TWCarlson (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any appetite for changing this diagram to one that can be edited in text, as per this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Supranational_European_Bodies and including flags instead of text? Gavinayling (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)