Talk:North Channel (Great Britain and Ireland)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Article to North Channel (Britain and Ireland)

I propose that this article is renamed to "North Channel (Britain and Ireland)". It is a more appropriate disambiguation, and is more accurate.

talk) 19:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Support renaming - it's the channel between Britain and Ireland, after all, not the channel between the British Isles and the mainland. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 20:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely North Channel (Irish Sea) is more accurate?Traditional unionist (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? I thought it was more descriptive to mention the two islands that it's a channel between. Is the North Channel an extension of the Irish Sea in some way?
talk) 19:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I too think North Channel (Irish Sea) is the right way forwards here. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it would be a part of the Irish Sea and therefore using the wider body it is a part of is the best option. Thats my 2p worth anyway.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very bad idea. The North Channel is not part of the Irish Sea per se, neither is St George's Channel. They are three distinct entities. One Night In Hackney303 22:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bardcom has gone ahead with his proposal without obtaining consensus here. Reverting... Waggers (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's a little late to add to this discussion, but may I humbly point out that it's part of the
International Hydrographers' Organization?--Nomentz (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Straw Poll

From other discussions elsewhere, I'd like to propose the following options. Please indicate your support or opposition accordingly.

talk) 14:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

This poll has closed. The result is to change the article to North Channel (Great Britain and Ireland) with 3 supports and only one oppose.

talk) 19:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Option 1 - North Channel (Great Britain and Ireland)
  • Option 2 - North Channel (Irish Sea)
  • Option 3 - North Channel (North Sea)
  • Option 4 - North Channel (Scotland and Northern Ireland)
  • oppose as it uses political terminology to describe a geographical feature where an alternative exists
  • oppose Too wordy. Waggers (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral Accurate, but otherwise as per, er, Bardcom? (The top comment) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5 - North Channel (Irish Sea and North Atlantic Ocean)
  • Option 6 - North Channel (British Isles)
  • support - it says what it is, it's the status quo, and (so far) no reason has been given for why this is in any way incorrect
  • oppose Not precise. Does it separate the BI from the mainland? Or from Scandinavia? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose - Not precise as per Bastun
    talk) 14:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Option 7 - North Channel (Europe)

Discussion

Even though Waggers has reverted to the earlier incorrect{{cn term, he was correct in noting that (Britain and Ireland) is wrong in any case. The correct terminology should have been (Great Britain and Ireland). I'm a firm supporter of using accurate terminology where possible. The North Channel can either be described in relation to the two land masses it flows between, or can be described as linking to bodies of water. Encyclopedia Brittania opens the description with strait linking the Irish Sea with the North Atlantic Ocean, so that lends some weight to option 5. I propose to close the poll in 3 days - Sunday 30th March.

talk) 12:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The only other article with the name North Channel relates to Canada (although the dab page also links to the Canal du Nord. Therefore, if North Channel (British Isles) is unacceptable as a form of disambiguation (and so far no reason has been put forward to support that notion), North Channel (Europe) is also available. Note that nowhere in the naming conventions or disambiguation guidelines is any mention made of needing to specify which land masses, or other bodies of water, a channel runs between. This idea is not in keeping with the rest of the project and is, frankly, more than a little strange. Waggers (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a point of fact on Waggers opinion, the other article refers to Ontario, not Canada, and it refers to a channel of water that flows along the Ontario coastline. You make some vague accusations about "not in keeping with the rest of the project" and "more than a little strange" - care to explain?
talk) 14:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Does North Channel (Ontario) separate Ontario from the rest of Canada, or from anywhere else? No, that North Channel is within Ontario, just like this North Channel within the British Isles; it's perfectly accurate, and maintains consistency across Wikipedia. Waggers (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's as correct as saying (Europe). (GB & I) is more precise.
talk) 14:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Surely "British Isles" is just as precise as "Ontario". Why this attempt to fix something that isn't broken? Waggers (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be more precise than Ontario, what term could you use? There is no further precise term available. I would equate the preciseness of (Ontario) with (GB & I), and the (less exact) preciseness of (BI) with (Canada). Just my 2c.
talk) 15:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Ontario covers an area of 1,076,395 km² yet the British Isles cover only 315,134 km², and you think "Ontario" is a more precise location term than "British Isles"? I don't see how that works. Waggers (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bardcom and the British Isles

I wouldn't even want to count the number of pages where Bardcom has deleted or replaced the word British Isles. This is ridiculous.

Swapping order of Irish and Scottish Gaelic

An editor swapped the order of these terms in the lead paragraph. Is there a reason behind this edit? Please explain. --

talk) 09:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

British Isles usage

the hydrographic department (?)

In the nineteenth century, (the) suggested name St Patrick's Channel had currency, but it was rejected by the hydrographic department. Is this department = United Kingdom Hydrographic Office? --Schwab7000 (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion

Hallo there

I wonder why we don't add this channel to (list of seas) template? doesn't it belong there?? Wafaashohdy (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HV power link

Article here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/19/lost_ww1_german_submarine_ub85_found_loch_ness_monster/ shows the route of a high-voltage power link being laid through the channel which might be useful for the future. MarkMLl (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geology section???

I'm disappointed that there's nothing telling me when the channel formed. Whilst a reasonable guess is 12000-8000 years BP I'm sure some of the universities can provide authoritative links. Regards JRPG (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second to that. I came here to see if Ireland and Scotland were connected at low seastand in any of the last batch of Ice Ages. Apparently not, as the Whatsit Dyke is some 300 m deep, far below any low seastand. But it might have gotten pretty close? I'm a geologist myself, but know basically nothing about this area. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to say how deep it is? And is there any truth in the story that it was used to dump WWII munitions? I don't suppose anyone gives any credence to Johnson's kite-flying about building a bridge (or elsewhere I saw an even more insane idea to dig a tunnel!) but if it did gain any traction, we don't have even basic information here. Admiralty charts, anyone? --Red King (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And just to put salt on our tails, I see the BBC is reporting Work 'under way' into Scotland-Northern Ireland bridge feasibility and to help us, cites a Scottish Government report Case study: Munitions Dumping at Beaufort’s Dyke. --Red King (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Irish Channel' claim

The name 'Irish Channel' is unknown in Ireland and never used. Moreover, the two accessible sources cited in the text refer (in a general manner) to the Irish Sea, not the North Channel. Therefore, there is no basis for this name, although it might be possible to say that it has incorrectly been called this in the past. Billsmith60 (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose what I'm really getting at is that 'Irish channel' is a general term for the waters between the islands of Ireland and Great Britain, primarily the Irish Sea area, but that it is not specific – certainly not to the North Channel/Sea of Moyle Billsmith60 (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Channel_(Great_Britain_and_Ireland)&oldid=1209404341"