Talk:British Isles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Former good articleBritish Isles was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 26, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 5, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 16, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 5, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Delisted good article


Should half the lead be about the etymology?

Can we move it to the etymology section? Tikaboo (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Why would we do that? Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
own article
).
As it stands:
  • The etymology part of the lead is around 90 words, summarising around 450 words from the main article (1:5).
  • The "controversial" aspect of the name takes three-quarters of the lead's etymology content, and just under a quarter of the etymology section in the main article.
  • The non-etymology part of the lead is around 100 words, summarising 5000 or so non-etymology words from the main article (1:50).
This suggests that the current lead content gives
WP:UNDUE
emphasis to the naming controversy, and insufficiently reflects the content of the main article.
Substantially increasing the size of the first half of the lead, and moving some parts of the naming controversy from the lead to the main article, would provide a better-balanced lead to the article. Bazza (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, seeing how many people start jumping up and down about the term "British Isles" it is absolutely necessary. But some tweaking is possible. The Banner talk 00:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be tweaked. The third and fifth sentences of the second paragraph could be removed and placed in later sections, but the main thrust of the paragraph should be retained in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that the lead has two paragraphs. Four would be better, with new second and third ones summarising the large number of aspects of the main article which are currently absent; and the fourth (currently second) shortened as @Ghmyrtle suggests. Bazza (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I thought something looked off. Someone removed a significant block of information here[1]. The reason we've had four paragraphs for as long as we have is to follow - fairly literally - the MOS guide on leads. In particular we tried to balance (a) four paragraphs, (b) relative emphasis, and (c) prominent controversies. It took a long time to agree relative emphasis and it's clear that those who feel strongly about the controversy still feel strongly because they keep trying to expand the text. It's reasonable to assume that cutting it back would make them unhappy and restart the edit warring. But equally... removing two paragraphs for spurious reasons has changed the balance and it now looks disproportionate.
So, I've restored the version of 2 November. Most of the intermediate edits were by the same person who made the flawed changed in the first place. Given they've already wasted our time with this, I'm not going to waste my time reviewing any of their other edits - if any of them are valid they can restore them manually - and should probably seek consensus first.
I propose that if we're going to review the longstanding consensus version of the text then we should do so with said consensus version in front of us. And I'd also propose that we give people who feel strongly about the controversy time to respond to any proposal to cut back text they have fought to maintain. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I appreciate the necessity to keep the lead brief. However, we should acknowledge two things in the lead. 1) The term is pretty much exclusively used in Britain, and not used at all by Irish people in Ireland, if we're to consider the two largest islands in this apparent group. 2) There is no consensus on whether it's a geographical term, or a politically-coloured term.
Outside of the lead, the average non-Irish/non-British reader would have no idea there's a controversy, besides the one sentence in the lead. Should we not have at the least a brief section summarising the controversy, and directing the inquisitive reader to the other page? Wikiejd2 (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding to your concerns, do you have any evidence of it? The Banner talk 14:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the term is "pretty much used exclusively in [Great] Britain" and the people in Great Britain use it as a geographic term. And it is "not used at all by Irish people in Ireland" - either as a geographic or political term - in which case does that not mean it is used exclusively as a geographic term because the only people using the term do so in that way? And why do we need a brief section when (a) we already have a brief section and (b) there's a whole article on the controversy? Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't much of a controversy anyway, outside of Wikipedia talk pages. For most people in daily life it simply isn't a topic that crops up, wherever they live and whatever their nationality. It's hugely overblown here and we need to be very wary of giving it
undue weight. We can see from the discussion above that there are people who think there's too much etymology in the lead and others who think it should go into more detail. On balance I'd say we've got it about right as it is. WaggersTALK 12:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2024

Change population of Greater Dublin to 2,125,000 as that is the Census 2022 population . 86.44.233.172 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Your claim also seems to conflict with the information in the Dublin article. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Gaelic name

Why is the Scottish Gaelic for British Isles, Eileanan Bhreatainn when the Irish is Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór. Eileanan Bhreatainn is a direct translation of British Isles just as Oileáin Briotanach would be for Irish. Would the Scottish Gaelic for British isles not resemble something more similar to the Irish language as they are so close. Probably something like Éirinn agus Breatainn Mhór. 109.79.4.140 (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish for the British Isles isn't "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór" - that translates as "Ireland and Great Britain". The Irish for "the British Isles" is "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", but presumably a keyboard warrior has removed that from somewhere, with an edit summary along the lines of "No true Irishman uses that phrase!"? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question for the Irish language Wikipedia, not something we can deal with here. WaggersTALK 11:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is not with the Irish as that is what these islands are referred to and is the terminology used. But rather that why isn’t the Scottish Gaelic following similarly to the Irish 109.79.4.140 (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your issue might not be with the Irish, but the Manx (also with a similar language) might take issue with it. But in any case, you don't translate a language based on how another and different language translates it. Not even if they are related. Now, where did I put my handshoes? I need to go out in the cold. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]