Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force

This geographical WikiProject is believed to be inactive.

Consider looking for related projects for help or ask at the Teahouse.
If you are not currently a project participant and wish to help you may still participate in the project. This status should be changed if collaborative activity resumes.

Archives

Working subpages

According to the dual-political ROI/Ireland naming situation:

WP:BIDRAFT1 (the sandbox version)
WP:BIDRAFT2 (the reference version)
Specific Examples

According to possible changes to the dual-political ROI/Ireland naming situation:

Prospective non-forked or piped "Ireland" proposal (the sandbox version)
Prospective non-forked or piped "Ireland" proposal (the reference version)

Shortcuts

This British Isles Terminology task force, a workgroup of WP:GEOGRAPHY, is for discussing and resolving all removal, insertion and description issues surrounding the term British Isles, in view of facilitating a more universal approach.

Current discussions
The most current discussion of specific examples is held, here: Specific Examples.
Shortcuts to the proposed guideline (work in progress)
WP:BIDRAFT1 (the sandbox version) WP:BIDRAFT2 (the reference version)

There is/are a 'prospective' version of the proposed guideline, based on possible changes in the naming of Ireland articles - see the archive box on the right.

Main articles

Participants

Comment

Perhaps we should have began with a Participants section, but I don't think it's fair to start one when the taskforce has been going over a week, and is in a difficult position, and one where people have backed off in protest. It forces people's hand, and makes it look like some are not participating when it is not exactly a quesion of that. For this reason I am not going to sign it at present (if ever - it's not all that needed is it?). --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial discussions

Discussions from August 2008 are archived here. Discussions inactive since 2009 are archived here.

Opening up shop, again

Recent events at Gunpowder, has IMHO required visiting this Taskforce again. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

explosive stuff! lol :) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reopening. Thank you to Snowded and BritishWatcher for joining in also. What is the best format for this? BritishWatcher, I'm not even sure if you've visited these pages before now - perhaps the best place to start is the Working Draft sandbox WP:BIDRAFT1. I've also posted a note to User:Crispness that the taskforce may be restarting (seeing as he was the only other signed up participant).

In terms of moving forward from here, can I suggest we review the latest edits involving British Isles on a separate page? If this is agreeable, perhaps we can open a subpage to this article? --HighKing (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review the latest edits involving BI on a seperate page? sure, whatever helps. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I've reverted the latest rash of deletions, so HK, put the details somewhere and justify your case - before making the deletions. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is only going to work if editors resist the urge to name-call, or other anti-social WP behaviour. That means avoiding use of language such as "the latest rash of deletions". If you feel you can't adhere to these *minimum* standards, please stay away. In fact, unlike the Ireland Naming Poll thingy where it all went very personal, I'd make it mandatory that participation in this Task Force requires strict adherence to WP:CIVIL and absolutely no ad-hominen comments. --HighKing (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A stricter 'conduct code' would be welcomed. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you don't insist on a stricter dress code, GoodDay, I agree with you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This will get no-where without good faith and good manners. RashersTierney (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those who have not seen it this is where some examples by Highking have been mentioned. Input on where British Isles should or should not be kept on there would be good. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page appears to have been dormant for some time, but the issue keeps on coming up on other pages, most recently at Ben Nevis. Am I missing something, or did the discussion here end inconclusively? If a consensus were to develop against our use of the term "British Isles" then I would have no objection to its deletion from Wikipedia, but I cannot see any such consensus. The term is not geographically incorrect and I personally do not support the case for its deletion from geographic articles. Viewfinder (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the Specific Examples link at the top of the page. You've missed a lot! --HighKing (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HK. There seems to be consensus there. I have not digested the linked page from top to bottom, but "Use of Brisish Isles is OK in geographic contexts" was included in what seemed to be a generally agreed list, and one which I would agree with. Please correct me if I am wrong. Viewfinder (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted on the talk page at Ben Nevis, but usage in this context is appropriate and correct. It can happen that consensus on individual articles may override general MOS guidelines, but that isn't the case here. --HighKing (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm getting a bit muddled in the bureacracy, but isn't this (Gunpowder) a WP:BISE issue as it's to do with the phrase "British Isles"? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]