Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Isles Terminology task force page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

This page was nominated for deletion on 15 October 2010. The result of the discussion was Keep.

No one followed the opening request, so as I started the poll on this I've opened it. As GoodDay pointed out to me, it was pending for around 4 days now. The shortcut is WP:BIT. Using that to refer to here will hopefully free up a lot of article's talk pages (and the reduce the negative things that can come from that). --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC) The shortcut is now WP:BISLES. Thanks again! --Clubjuggle ^T/C 00:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let the task at hand, begin. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happens now, then? ðarkuncoll 21:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my opening comments, it's a start (I hope). GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we use the main page to begin with? We can discuss the layout and technical workings etc for the moment in here perhaps. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wishful contextualisation. Everything about the name British Isles declares politics, specifically political subjugation of the Irish people for centuries by-surprise, surprise- the British. Are the Irish people here to placate the ego of British nationalists? This name is going nowhere, other than in the same direction as the British Empire. Geography? ' “But he has nothing on at all,” said a little child at last....' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.102.151 (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another nice bit of trolling there. The notion that BI is anything other than geographical is silly - but I do agree with the conclusion that WP:GEOG is the wrong place for this, for different reasons. WP:GEOG deals with geography articles, and geography articles only. From what I can see of the proposals so far, the scope of the task force isn't limited to geographical articles, as one of the key proposals seems to be to not use the term British Isles in non physical geography articles. It is not within the scope of this wikiproject to decide such things. This kind of discussion should take place at WP:PUMP or somewhere equally universal in nature. Waggers (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I've been away but have been reading a lot without having much time to contribute. I think the concept of the task force is a good idea. But I'm not convinced about the current practice, with all due respect to the main contributors. I don't think that there should be any discussions on the main page. They should all be here on the talk. Have a look at this task force, which is the most equivalent one I could find. In principle we should keep discussion on this page and when we have agreed something we should add it to the main project page. Whaddya think? Crispness (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the way we're doing it, was the correct way; I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We might have been for a single issue, I'm not sure. I'm not sure it makes any difference, does it? This won't be the final guideline page - that will be in MOS. We have a specific achievable goal, the Islam taskforce one is general and ongoing. We won't be archiving anything until a guideline is produced (at least that is the intention). As it started on the main page (it had to start one way), it's best to keep to the way it's gone, imo. When the guideline is made the discussion can be archived in some way, and the main page can point people to the MOS guidelines in its lead. Maybe then this taskforce/workgroup can be a 'utility' page for any BI-relative stuff.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, Med Cabals use the main page. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think they do. What they keep on the main page are the statements from the protagonists and witnesses. But others are required not to add indented comments to the statements of others. Ooops, that's RFA. Sorry. I see what ya mean. Haven't been involved with WP:MEDCAB before.

As I see it, this is supposed to be a task force though, and this is not how any of the other task forces I've looked at seem to work. Personally, I am finding the main page terribly inaccessible and I'm just not contributing because I don't understand what the substantive discussions are referring to. There seem to be proposals, which are then amended on an ad-hoc basis when some individuals believe that something would improve them. This ensures discontinuity. Unless someone is involved pretty much 24/7 it is very difficult to follow and track.

IMHO, the proposals should be on the project page, discussions and votes on talk and proposals should not be amended until a consensus is agreed for the change. I'll probably just wait for the substantive vote at the end before I get much involved. Sorry. Crispness (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Crispness here - the main page is incredibly hard to navigate, especially for anyone new to the task force. It's full of discussion (which is what talk pages are for) and it's very difficult to tell what's been agreed, what's still being discussed, and how a first time visitor to the page can help out. Like Crispness, I've been reluctant to join in precisely for those reasons. The project page needs a major cleanup. Waggers (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the text discussions were interlaced in the original guideline (now archived here). Since then the discussion has not been actually been on the text. There is always a problem of discussion (and especially with this issue). We've archived as much of the older stuff as possible.

This talk page is clearly needed as a separate place, so I'll make a proposal-only subpage. At the moment a reference of the current proposal is linked to from my sandbox here (the idea being that you read the sandbox, but edit BITASK). Even the subpage will remove the proposal from its discussion - but there is no perfect solution now (although in the fist draft it went well with people commenting after each point). I tell you what - I'll make two subpages - BITERM guideline proposal draft 1 (sandbox working version) and BITERM guideline proposal draft 2 (NON-sandbox working version). --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans. Waggers (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. The changes are on main page. I used green 'COMMENT' headings in WP:BIDRAFT1 (the sandbox version) - wasn't sure how best to approach it, but it's worked OK before. WP:BIDRAFT2 is the reference version. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About a week ago I had started editing (offline) an essay titled "But it's true!" for which I had intended to use WP:BIT as a redirect shortcut. The essay is intended as a place to direct users who may be confused as to why information they added to articles (or articles they created) may have been deleted. In the interim, it appears someone created WP:BIT and redirected it here. Are you guys strongly attached to that shortcut, and if not, would you be willing to give it up and use something else, like perhaps WP:ISLES? If so, I will of course include a disambiguation link on the essay that redirects people here. Thanks for considering, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it will have to be after we finalised some kind of guideline. I originally created the main page as BIT, which now redirects to the full title page (I simply copied another taskforce when I started it, but they did theirs in an incorrect way). I then put out a number links to WP:BIT, and it's been referred to by others too. I suspect that this page will remain after the guideline is made as a 'workgroup' page, but there is no reason to keep calling it 'BIT' at that point. It couldn't be called 'ISLES', as stabilising the word 'Btitish' in the right context is an key 'factor' in the taskforce! It could end up as BIW or something, though. I'll try and bag that one now, just in case! You would probably have to keep a page-top disambiguation link for the old BIT links that will end up archived.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more than happy top keep a page-top disambiguation link, and also to update the dozen or two already existing links to the new shortcut. Just let me know when I can pull the trigger. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 00:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created WP:BIW for later, as I suspect it will be needed. I have to warn you there is never any guarantees with this subject! Having said that, I'm sure we'll come to some form of conclusion after all this work. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created WP:BRIT which would be more meaningful for me. I would have no objection to losing WP:BIT.Crispness (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful you don't borderline troll, crispness. 'WP:Brit' is meaningless. Don't try and be too politically clever with WP space. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I removed "WP:BRIT" from the shortcut box, and it's been reverted. I've taking it to Talk, as was asked. I have two questions about it:

1) In what way does this benefit the taskforce?

2) How does it not mislead people? It ignores the word "Isles" and makes it look like the taskforce is just a British issue.

Please respond. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing a valid shortcut? I'm not trolling. I happen to think that WP:BRIT is a more accurate, more memorable and more useful shortcut than WP:BIT, which someone else would like to use. It doesn't ignore the word 'Isles'. It just doesn't use it. It doesn't need to. It's just a shortcut. It doesn't make the task force look like a British issue, at least not in my eyes. Perhaps it does in yours. You seem to have real ownership issues with the project. It seems like you are unable to accept that others may have valid opinions and ideas. I've created a valid and useful shortcut for the project. You don't have to use it if you don't want to. But others can if they do. I'd really like to hear someone elses opinion on the trollishness of WP:BRIT. If there is consensus to remove it, or if editors in general find it in some way objectionable then I will remove it. Otherwise it stays. Crispness (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very uncomfortable with it. I don't see how it helps in any way, and it looks like someone is either pushing a pro-British POV, or distancing Ireland from the subject. I don't see how is possibly helpful in any way - we already have BIT until the taskforce is over. I won't 'edit war' now, but I could never accept BRIT for any final workgroup. WP:BRITISHISLES, WP:BRITISLES, WP:BISLES, WP:BI etc are fine (and you could have chosen those!) - but never just 'BRIT'!! Those at other UK-related projects would not like it either, as it's so ambiguous. Nor would the Irish, ultimately, surely? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We might check about WP:BI clearly! (its talk page redirects to British Isles).--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>@Matt - I think you forgot to mention that you had nominated WP:BRIT for discussion. I'm sorry Matt, but that nom displays astonishingly bad faith on your part. I will have to seriously consider my participation in the future of this project, although I feel that was probably the point of your action! Crispness (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be uncomfortable with it. I accept that. You may feel that it pushes a pro-British POV. But you don't speak for all the other UK-related projects, nor the Irish. Why don't you just let them make their own objections if they have them and we can deal with them as and when they arise. Don't lets fantasise problems that don't exist. Crispness (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"But it's true" seems to me to be a [draft] global wikipedia policy and thus more deserving of a TLA than is a minor regional squabble about an archaic phrase. I support Clubjuggle's request that this project give way and choose something longer. But not BRIT, which is unambiguously provocative. --Red King (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable - if clubjuggle is willing to change the links already going here, he may as well have the shortcut now, rahter than wait until the guideline is made (as I originally asked him to do). I'll contact him over this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this - he'll remove it from here when he's sorted out all the links etc. I'm going to create WP:BISLES too. We can use that one later with any resulting Workgroup, along with BIW and BRITISHISLES.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect squabble?

Helloe Crisp & Matt. What's going on with the redirect? GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry GD. Missed this until now. My take (and I'm sure others will have their own take on it) is that the original RfD was closed with a 'keep', but with the recommendation that discussions could be undertaken to find a new home for it. Matt decided, unilaterally, to 'give' it to WP:UK without asking or discussing. I reverted and replaced it on the project page. I have said time and again that if another project wants it, or the community finds it offensive, then so be it, but it is not up to Matt to be arbiter of what does or does not 'fit' on the project. It's a whole community decision. Waggers submitted a new RfD yesterday. I'm not sure if s/he was aware that another identical RfD had closed the previous day.

Matt has consistently thrown bad faith allegations at me in this matter and frankly I'm sick of his behaviour. There is no evidence of bad faith by anyone other than Matt. He is the one that removed the shortcut from the project page without mentioning it in the edit summary. He is one who created the first Rfd, and then 'forgot' to mention it here. He is one who blanked the shortcut 9 minutes after the RfD had been closed with a keep. I don't think I'm the problem here, do you?

We have processes and procedures on WP for a purpose, to exert a modicum of control over the anarchy. We really don't need a "Lewis Method" of doing everything differently. Crispness (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The protagonists might usefully read Names of the Irish state#Name dispute with the UK, which explains how our political masters approached this issue. (I recommend Names of the Irish state generally, because some editors appear not to understand that the designation "Republic of" has no constitutional status [cf French Republic (République française), which does] - it merely notes that the state is a republic, not a monarchy. I suppose it is analogous to "United Kingdom of". I also recommend Éire). --Red King (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does constitutional status have to do with anything? Are you saying that people do not know what ROI is? I'll cetainly follow the links. I'm not sure how we can use Eire - it seems too out of the blue - archaic even (in its English use, I mean). It is possible I suppose, but we would most often need to contrast ROI with the UK in some way. Only ROI can do that without muddiness. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link above is a concise read that clearly explains why "Ireland", and not "Republic of Ireland" is the name of our state, and is now officially used by both the Irish and British governments. Perhaps now we can ringfence the Ireland/RoI political discussions, and acknowledge that they need to be dealt with seperately, while this task force concerns itself with the majority of articles that aren't going to be affected by the Ireland/RoI debate. --HighKing (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would narrow the framework of the guideline to a degree that will favour those who are 'anti' the use of the term British Isles on a wider nationalist level. We have to be non-censorious and fair. It is outrageously anti-Wikipedia to 'ringfence' anything in this manner! --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, but especially during dispute resolution and/or negotiation, a good methodology is to agree on what we can all agree on first, and put it to one side. Then we can look at what we can't agree on and piece by piece, continue to shave it down. If you think back to your initial guidelines, a lot of people agreed with the general principals, and I believe we need to return to this approach. --HighKing (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "I also recommend Éire", I meant of course the article of that name. Since it translates identically as "Ireland" and this is en:wiki, it would make no sense to use it. As for "Eire" [sic], that is merely illiterate. --Red King (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference to the "names" article. It's kind of hard for us Brits to be aware of these name issues particularly when even the history book I was reading got it wrong. My reference to UK&ROI on the main page would clearly better be UK&I. But I think I should keep out of this debate. Chris55 (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request was made on 11 August for mediation. The case has now been listed for 7 days without a mediator taking up the case. Is mediation still needed, or is progress being made with discussion within the project? SilkTork *^YES! 13:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll close it as it's clearly died off as a discussion page. If the issue actually stopped the guideline in some way, it would have to go to Arbcom anyway - I see it now as essentially a technical policy/guideline issue over what Wikipedia's rules are regarding ROI-use and "geography" or "geography-related" articles. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. It's normal for mediators to close cases rather than individuals within the case - including those who requested the mediation - but that's OK, everything is rather informal here, and no harm has been done. However, I have had one comment from a person who feels that mediation may still be needed. I'd be quite willing to listen to views from all sides if people felt a moderated discussed would be helpful. However, such a discussion can only work if all parties are willing to take part. I have removed the MedCab tag from this page, but will keep it on watch for a few days if people want to have a discussion. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 19:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case has been reopened. SilkTork *^YES! 14:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, some discussions that have taken place on this page are related to discussion taking place elsewhere. A poll is taking place regarding "Republic of Ireland" here. If you are interested in registering an opinion, please do so. --HighKing (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone clarify what the current status of this project is? As far as I was aware it was effectively put on hold pending mediation, but the mediation page is inactive since the mediation case has been reopened. The reason I ask is that this diff seems to suggest that Matt believes it has some sort of quasi-official status. I didn't think we'd gotten quite that far.Crispness (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation was initiated by Matt in respect of his exchanges with me. They did not suspend this project. I was happy to go ahead with the mediation on the basis that it might get some objectivity into the exchange with an editor who I respect. However that was not to be. I think you are right to say that this task force does not have the status it needs, to do so a lot more editors would have to be involved. I also think we jumped far to quickly to a guideline without first settling on some principles. I also remain convinced that we should not be using political terms (especially contentious ones) on a geography page. In the meantime the name of Ireland as a political state (ROI etc) is under active discussion again and resolution there I think means that on practical grounds we should hold off for a bit here. --Snowded TALK 09:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As far as I was aware it was effectively put on hold pending mediation" - rubbish.

Nothing was "put on hold" due to the mediation - that is totally absurd, and you know it Crispness. So I linked to BITASK? - this place explains itself perfectly well, as did my comment provided in the diff. The line "Matt believes it has some sort of quasi officials status" is a weak dig indeed: I've made all the work ahead clear many times.

WE ALL US KNEW THAT THE mediation was always a side issue - and it clearly lead nowhere and was simply tortuous to me to I backed out (you must respect my decision on that and let it lie, Snowded). Clearly related discussion is elsewhere at the moment: we not bloody Octopi are we? Show some bloody respect to people who are putting in work, Crispness.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respect, bloody or otherwise and adult behaviour sound like good ideas. Lets move forward on that basis. Good to see you moderate the language a bit between edits --Snowded TALK 11:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/Between edits? How about being less of a wind-up merchant for once in your life? --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You moderated your language here and I thought the edit sensible and worthy of note. Hardly a windup, and not intended as such. Content Matt, keep to the content. --Snowded TALK 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hardly shirking on the content, am I. You know what Crispness can be like - please don't respond to it. I just find it so distracting, I really do.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>Back to the original point, are we all agreed that nothing has as yet been agreed on this project? Crispness (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind this is a pants category. What do the task force members think? Lucian Sunday (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree wholeheartedly. CFD it! Crispness (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you who aren't aware, WP:BRIT - the 'longest serving' of the 5 shortcuts that the project currently 'owns' - is up for discussion again. You may like to contribute. Crispness (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish - WP:BIT is the longest standing shortcut (B.I.T), as made by Waggers after I originally called the page BIT. WP:BIT was then used all over the place! You made "BRIT" to be a provacative chump, and have tried to push me to 3RR over it too. Why don't you get off my back? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read what I actually said was that it is "the 'longest serving' of the 5 shortcuts that the project currently 'owns' ". It doesn't currently 'own' WP:BIT. You seem to fantasise that I am on your back. I'm not. I'm trying to find all the offence that is apparently being caused by WP:BRIT. If you choose to exercise yourself over this then that is down to you, not me. And by the way, the 2nd RfD has closed with a kept, if anyone is interested. Crispness (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was keep becaue Waggers made it too close to the old one (so was closed as a formality) - will you stop trying to pretend you have consent for this. You are being nothing but a troll here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The shortcut itself does little harm but I don't think we need to publicise it at the top of the project page, as that could put non-British editors off (and having more than one or two shortcuts listed breaches the WP:SHORTCUT guideline). Waggers (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a wikipedia shortcut is one of the least likely things to put off non-British editors. In fact, it seems to me that only people bothered by this are British editors. Crispness (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on not using WP:BRIT shortcut

I can't believe I'm having to do this (some people do actually value their time):

Reasons for not using it at BITASK:

• Only one person wants it at WP:BITASK (there is no consensus or desire for it), and there are plenty of other shortcuts here (too many if anything).

• The Republic of Ireland is part of the archipelagos, but is not British: "Brit" (the colloquial name for a 'Briton') gives the incorrect impression that the taskforce, the term, and even the Republic of Ireland are British entities.

• Even though ‘British Isles’ is a geographical term, a number of people have taken offense to it on Wikipedia - hence the need for the actual taskforce in the first place. It is against the very principle of the taskforce to have a misleading name.

• IMO, if it's not actually deleted it could always be a problem - now and in at a 'British Isles workshop' planned for the future too - especially if it is used as a shortcut regardless of the taskforce or workgroup accepting it on their pages. These things must have consensus, but this has fallen through a kind of 'no deletion' loophole. It's like someome creating the shortcut 'NOB', and us all having to find the best article for it to point too, only to find someone keeps re-pointing it to your user page. Surely it should be deleted until someone actually wants the shortcut 'NOB'?

• If someone needs BRIT in the future they can always re-make it. IMO, this is very unlikely however, as the word British has always had ambiguities, and all the UK Wikiprojects etc have never previously chosen to create a 'BRIT' on its own - it was just created recently by Crispness for WP:BITASK.

(copied from the recently disbanded RfD)

• Also it is a distraction. Why edit war on a fifth shortcut? Honestly. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• support non-use --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support non use GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support non use Waggers (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support non use - if this name is a problem let's dump it - hard to believe this is an issue! Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment - I assume someone else will move Matt's comments above into this discussion section at some point in the future, so I won't touch them.

Reasons for continuing to us WP:BRIT (at least for the present)

• No one has suggested that they won't participate in the project if it is used.
• No one in their right mind would suggest that Irish editors are more likely to be offended by WP:BRIT than they are by WP:BRITISHISLES, are they?
• No one will die if it continues in use. This is a non-issue being turned into an imaginary crisis.
• It's a shortcut. If something like WP:DICK is acceptable, what can be possibly be the problem with WP:BRIT?
• If we are to reduce the number of shortcuts in use for the project then the poll should be about which is the most appropriate shortcut
• There is a venue for polls such as this. It has twice closed with a keep when asked to discuss this matter. This smacks of forum shopping

It's not worth keeping, if it's being fought over. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we should fight about anything we want to get rid of? Crispness (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not worth the hassle, delete it. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renom @ rfd

Lets do this properly. I've renominated WP:BRIT for deletion at RfD. If you want it deleted, then please go there and ask for it. Crispness (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time now its been to RfD? You have put it up for deletion AND put it back in the article! Have you ever done anything constructive on Wikipedia? If you have I've never seen it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear about the exact sequence of events, shall we?

1. 1. I create the shortcut in order to facilitate another user having WP:BIT
   2. You object, create 4 more, and put it up for rfd, but conveniently forget to tell anyone.
   3. The community rejects your RfD.
   4. Waggers puts it up for RfD again 24 hours later. Speedy close.
   5. You WP:FORUMSHOP another poll here - a poll to not use it. The only 'not use' poll on WP. You cite offense by non-british users.
   6. No non-British users cite offense although 4 suggest non use.
   7. As retialiation for being stymied elsewhere, you again remove the valid shortcut.
   8. I replace it, and, true to my word, nominate it again for RfD. Sufficient time has elapsed so that it might be successful this time. I cite offense, a valid reason for deletion.
   9. You come along and stick a whole load of irrelevancies on the nom page, characterise opposition as disrespectful, and misrepresent my position. Like any of that is likely to help your cause.
   10. You launch a personal attack on me and wonder why you've never seen anything constructive I've done.
   11. I replace the valid shortcut and reply that there is no reason why you should see everything I've done on the project, so why would you know if I've ever done anything constructive. It's not logical. Unless of course you spend vast amounts of time trawling thro my contributions, the sort of behaviour that is usually classed as stalking. Are you a stalker?

Matt, there are ways to get things done on WP and they are usually not the way you approach things. Try a different approach. You may have more success. Crispness (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crispness - You are clearly only doing this to distract me from other things, and to wear me down, so my only response will now be to ask ask others to sign the above!! Crispness is denying that 4:1 equals a consensus, and is writing "wait and see" when replacing it (he has put it up for deletion himself now, having realised that actually deleting shortcuts iis not the current policy!). He has also pipe-linked BRIT behind BITASK, so it shows up as being used! (here - how sad is that?),

The edit/conflict I just had here shows me that you removed the two points I actually wrote replies to!

• No one in their right mind would suggest that Irish editors are more likely to be offended by WP:BRIT than they are by WP:BRITISHISLES, are they?

• That is your ONLY point. Now you have made it can you please stop this!!! --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a venue for polls such as this. It has twice closed with a keep when asked to discuss this matter. This smacks of forum shopping

• The keep was not to delete it - not to use it in this article. Stop lying about that all the time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying them here as it shows exactly what is on your mind. As for "stalking"!! Talk about projection! I could put up a hell of a stalking case about you, from Association football right down to your sandbox earlier today (which was a bizarre compilation of my edits and comments) - so don't get me started on that!--Matt Lewis (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the RfD failed. Again. The closing admin's comment was, IMHO, very telling "Intimidation and name-calling is NOT the way to obtain consensus." Sorry people, but this one is not down to me. It's very obviously someone else who has the problem. Crispness (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it failed - they had already made it clear they do delete these the actual shortcuts. As the consensus was not to use it in here, and you opened the Rfd (for obvious gaming reasons) who else could that comment be about? The last comments made to the RfD before closing were:

Closing commments:

"The outcome of this discussion cannot be remove or keep the shortcut on Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force since that is not what this redirect deletion discussion is set up to discuss. -- Suntag ☼ 20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

"Redirects and shortcuts are two different entities. Redirects need only be useful whereas shortcuts need to be useful and reflective of the content of the page it is on (not the exact standard, but I think you get the idea). Removing a shortcut from a page should take place on that page's talk page. Using RfD merely to delete a shortcut from a page isn't the best way to handle things. As for its usefulness as a redirect, do you think that the average Wikipedia will type in WP:BRIT and expect to find "Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force"? I think the redirect would be more appropriate as directed towards Wikipedia:WikiProject UK or Wikipedia:WikiProject_England. Even Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Great Britain task force or Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Catholicism in Great Britain articles by quality seem more appropriate than where it is headed now. In any event, there should be about three months between deletion nominations when the prior deletion discussion resulted in a keep. -- Suntag ☼ 19:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

"The result of the debate was Speedy Close as too soon. Intimidation and name-calling is NOT the way to obtain consensus. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC"

I am going to re-point it back to Wikipedia:UK (ie "Wikiproject United Kingdom"), per Suntag's suggestion. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about we all agree a single shortcut for use on the project? Crispness (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is anyone interested in reducing the number of shortcuts used for the project? Can I propose that we cease to list all shortcuts other than WP:BITASK. Anyone in agreement? Any disagreements? Does anyone care one way or t'other? Crispness (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should a whole taskforce compromise with one disruptive user? The shortcut now leads back to Wikiproject UK. Can somebody else delete it from BITASK now? If I do it I will get into trouble (which was the only reason for this whole exercise in the first place, imo). --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read some of these discussions about the "British Isles"/"UK and Ireland" (and please don't get into a discussion about whether I'm using potentially offensive terms, since I'm not even European and have no plans in the near future to go to Europe), and it just amazes me how you people haven't gone and killed each other yet. If you have a problem with another user, here's a suggestion for mutual action: Both of you pretend that the user you're talking to is someone completely new. In other words, start over with each other. In extreme cases, ignore the username altogether (pretend it's a new person each time), and let someone else criticize the other person's behavior, etc.

When you're in an unfriendly debate, how likely are you to be accepting of personal criticisms from the other side? Now project that onto your opponent, and you'll have a good idea of how likely your criticisms are going to go through.

If you're in a heated discussion and you know it, what exactly do you think will happen if you force the discussion into the personal realm? Think about whether it's actually likely that the other person will admit whatever faults you see in him or her, or whether the other person will quit arguing with you if you make them feel bad enough for being a bad faith POV troll. Think about how likely you're going to convince your counterpart that something's inherently wrong with Wikipedia if something's not the way you want it. Before you make a possibly heated comment about other people that you're arguing with, pause and think about the potential outcomes of your words.

And if your reason for calling the other person a logical moron, or some more reasonable name, is to make others realize how much of a moron he or she is, your opponent will probably be trying for the same, so it'll be a battle of whoever can make the more convincing personal attack, which doesn't actually prove (or even support the possibility) that you're correct at all. --Raijinili (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've chosen to leave this Taskforce, folks. As long as IP.86.xxx.xxx is alowed to be involved with British/Irish articles (particularly British Isles) discussions? I won't be involved. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just expect Wikipedia to block a range of IPs from editing a range of articles without showing that no one else will be affected. Are you sure you know how IPs work? Wikipedia can't tell one user from another if their Internet service provider changes their IP every time they connect.

Try a noticeboard? --Raijinili (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping away, is the easiest route (for me). PS- IP accounts over 1-month old, should be forced to register in. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd go with full registration and no 3RR for reverting IPs by registered editors. Sarah777 (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay: Stop posting that everywhere. Not only is it impossible any way that you would like to have it, it goes against the core Wikipedia principle that everyone can edit because forcing an IP to register usually affects tens of thousands of people randomly without blocking the person you want to block. Besides, it doesn't help anything, as people can create accounts again and again with no way to track them IP-wise (go read up about how IPs work).

Sarah: That rule is unnecessary, unfair, and can be easily abused by registered users. Reverting obvious vandalism doesn't count towards 3RR, so the only thing the rule does is to give registered users power over unregistered users in disputes. --Raijinili (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raijinili, if you have been around the WIkipedia for any time you will know that there is a large group of editors who feel that registration should be required. There are no technical reasons why its not possible, its a matter of policy. Registration would not affect tens of thousands of people - where do you get that from? About a third of my time on Wikipedia is spent clearing up vandalism and the vast majority of that is from IPs. So you may not agree, but its a reasonable position to hold and there is no reason why GoodDay should not post the comment as often as he wants - and he has my support, the sooner IPs are out of here the better. --Snowded TALK 05:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What GoodDay wants (selective forced registration) is impossible. It will affect tens of thousands of people that it's not supposed to.

Forced registration is an entirely different matter. However, while most vandalism is anonymous, most anonymous edits are not vandalism, and the problem with persistent anonymous vandals (which most aren't) might be solved if you people would only bring it up on WP:AN/I and get admin intervention. Wikipedia already has ways to prevent anon IPs from repeatedly vandalizing a page, such as semi-protection. Wikipedia should not prevent most people from making contributions just because you don't know the right course of action to take. --Raijinili (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean that. Well, he was posting it in my talk page after I saw it once or twice from him before, so I was sick of reading the same thing everywhere, especially since he was just posting a statement without supporting it. --Raijinili (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this Taskforce? I prefer certain IP accounts to stay away (particulary at British Isles & Republic of Ireland) as they refuse to register in. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put up a notice on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Since I don't know what the IP's done, it's all up to you people to make sure that something happens. --Raijinili (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination against IPs is breathtaking at Wikipedia! I was a registered user from 2003 to 2007 (good user, never ever blocked) but now I edit wholly as an IP; it's my choice, so you lot better learn to live with it. You make some good points Raijinili. 86.24.126.222 (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I call confirmation bias --Raijinili (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't apologies for my views on mandatory registration. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree G'Day. Leaving aside the "controversial" articles most of what I do on Wiki is mundane stuff about the towns and villages, roads and ruins, rivers and mountains of Ireland; I maintain a watchlist of over 2,000 of them. 99% (literally) of the vandalism is done by IP's. Very rarely does a registered user engage in vandalism. Sarah777 (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely missing the point. 86.24.126.222 (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that unregistered users would be as lazy to register if they had a greater incentive for doing so? --Raijinili (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the intention behind allowing IP registration was to facilitate irregular contributers. It's difficult to understand why an editor choses to edit as an anon IP if they regularly contribute. --HighKing (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional return

If the IP accounts stay away or register in? then I'll participate on this Taskforce. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys. But, it's best I take a break from this Taskforce (again), as I'll only become frustrated with the involvement of veteran IP accounts. The Taskforce is quite capable of moving on without me involved in my absence. PS- Don't be harsh on the IP, he/she hasn't done anything wrong. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are taking about GH then you really do need a break! The 'other' has an account he could sign in with too. But I thought we were ignoring them (a wise thing for sure). Just have another break (we are having them lately) and come back when there is movement.-Matt Lewis (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem. I've no clue who the IP account is & I'm frustrated (still) by his/her refusal to create an account. Anyways, I'll take a break (while keeping this page on my watchlist, of course). GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latest reference is at WP:BIDRAFT2. The sandbox for comments is at WP:BIDRAFT1. Currently there are 5 guidelines on how to use the term British Isles in articles. The objective is to reach agreement on how to use the term in Wikipedia articles. --HighKing (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I invite interested editors to comment on the current guidelines and to make suggestions as to how to improve them. --HighKing (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just having had a brief look, I can say that I reject utterly the notion that BI can't be used except under specific conditions. It's a perfectly normal part of the language. ðarkuncoll 18:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Your opinion is as good and as important as anyone elses - and has the benefit of being simple. Let's just let this develop - perhaps someone will have some suggestions. --HighKing (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tharkuncoll - do you think the term should be used in any situation? (eg in the "the aid workers are from the British Isles" example?) Surely without some kind of rules/guidelines for things like this (even unwritten rules) we will have anarchy, as in 'anything goes'. There are often choices of representation regarding the UK and Ireland ('British' or 'English'? etc) - these kind of guidelines help people to find the best one. Why don't you draw up what the you see the limits of the term are? That would certainly be helpful to others. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of these guidelines? Are they what might be called official policy, or have they yet to be accepted as such? If the latter, then I would suggest absolutely no more removals of British Isles until the former is the case. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are in a draft stage, and your suggestions for improvement are requested. --HighKing (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the use BI in predominantly UK articles & don't in predominantly RoI articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's probably better to make suggestions directly against the 5 existing guidelines, or perhaps you might want to suggest a sixth? --HighKing (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MY preference would likely be unworkable. Disputes could arise over whether an article-in-question were UK predominant or RoI predominant or neutral. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What do you suggest if a dispute arose? --HighKing (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, my Irish & British descended fingers are tied. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you have succumbed to the idea that there's actually some sort of genuine dispute here, whereas in fact it's just the posturings of a small, vocalised and politicised group on Wikipedia. ðarkuncoll 23:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, still interested in hearing what your suggestion would likely be. I agree that some articles would not be easily classified, but I suggest that references should be used in any case. What do you think? --HighKing (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to determine which article is predominant British & predominant Irish? I've no clues. Northern Ireland topics is even more stressful (politically British, geographically Irish). PS- I'm sorta taking a break from here (see above discussion). GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archives:

CArchive 1 ,12 Oct (this is not an actual guideine proposal)

Hi. Just a heads up. Discussion has resumed on the BIDRAFT 1. 79.155.154.185 (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed that Ireland should be moved to Ireland (island) and Republic of Ireland to Ireland. To comment, please visit Talk:Republic of Ireland#Proposed move. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are Wikimedia UK - the group of local Wikimedians helping the Foundation to create "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge". Love Wikipedia? Based in the UK? Can you support us in projects such as generating free-content photographs, freeing up archive material and media relations? Or are there other projects you'd like us to help with? if so, please click here to Join up, Donate and Get Involved

AndrewRT(Talk) 21:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Silly is it Snowded? Well, I would suggest the whole process is silly; the process that started with HighKing's campaign to remove British Isles which started in early 2008, or perhaps before. So, in the interests of fairness if we are to permit HighKing to trawl through Wikipedia picking up instances of British Isles and listing them here with a view to removal, it's surely acceptable to look at instances of "Britain and Ireland", "Great Britain and Ireland" and various other terms to see if it makes sense to use British Isles instead. There's plenty to go at and they are easy to find. One approach is to review HK's edit history from say December 2007 and pick out all the changes he's made which have resulted in the removal of British Isles. I'll make a start and list them here, then each one can be debated properly, and on average, I would expect just about as many instances to be changed back to British Isles as might be changed the other way as a result of what's going on at the moment. Of course we could call a halt to the whole thing. I'm more than happy not to add British Isles, reinstate British Isles or even challenge what's gone before, provided HighKing gives up on his campaign. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A freeze would be easier, when one considers that there's likely hundreds of articles yet to be examined. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are talking a few hundred. I agree; a freeze on all counts would be preferable, I'm more than happy to adhere to it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent and moved from SE page)Keep in mind that the idea isn't to examine articles one-by-one, but to develop broadly applicable policies that can be applied, with a dose of common sense, to various uses. It should not be used to make a point though, and MBM has been warned several times in the past for similar attacks on the editor (me), like the one above (please see civility notice above also). As to a freeze - let's just call a spade a spade - it would be censorship, and it would result in many articles remaining with incorrect and inaccurate terminology - even the current SE page is inherently *bad* from the project. --HighKing (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever helps end the disputes across Wikipedia (freezing usage/non-usage or continuing this Taskforce), is fine by me. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history to retain BI at all costs is at least comparable to HK's desired to remove it. Some of us are trying across a range of articles to create an understanding of the correct and incorrect/unnecessary use of the term and its a pity you are not prepared to work with that. The case in question was a complete nonsense, as the words used were directly take from the book which was the subject of the article. If you were deliberately proposing a nonsensical change to make a point then I then that disruptive. --Snowded ^TALK 21:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you just need to read the SE page. You'll find some that I've raised (e.g. Tasmania) and others that I note as incorrect usage of British Isles. Please show me an example of HighKing pointing out where British Isles would be appropriate. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect usage of the British Isles? Oh please! The "Island of Great Britain, the Island of Ireland, and the adjacent islands" is a pretty clear definition, and frankly one that is used across the entire English-Speaking World. If a significant portion of the population of the Poblacht na hÉireann may not like the term British Isles well too bad, the rest of the English-Speaking World will use it "just-fine", thank you very much.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, some contributors have used the BI term to refer to just Britain and Ireland, i.e. not including the adjacent islands. Its good to see consensus around the exact definition of BI. We should note somewhere that when the adjacent islands are not included, then BI should not be used. Fmph (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC has been opened inviting comments on whether the Channel Islands should be treated as part of the British Isles on Wikipedia. All views are welcome here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WT:BISE TFOWR 09:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A key sticking point is that there is no consensus on what the BI covers as a term. Until that's resolved, the arguments will continue in ever-decreasing circles of usefulness. There are two basic positions. Position (1) is that the BI only relates to all parts of the islands, including the CI and I of M. Position (2) is that it is a more generic term, relating to anything that covers multiple spots or parts of more than just the British mainland. Personally I come down on position 2 but with some limits. If the "British" camp can move to defining those limits, we will make progress. If the "Irish" camp (I'm using these terms very loosely, so apologies for the shorthand) can accept that it is more than just Position (1), we will make progress. If a number of you in both camps remain unwilling to move on either, there is absolutely no point in further discussion and the best move for the admins would be to freeze all further removals/adds Wiki-wide until such time as you can agree to move on these positions. We should really put this to the vote. Enough time has now been wasted on pointless arguments and pointlessly (sometimes laughable lame) arcane specific examples. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems appropriate in this case, given BW's example. However, there is no reason to create a 'block' of any type of argument besides WP:IDONTLIKE. I'm quite sure there are situations where British Isles is incorrect to use. Both Jamesinderbyshire's opinions are really just different usages of the same meaning. Going back to the Europe analogy, I'm sure if someone said "European civilization flourished during the Roman Period" it'd be a nice solid fact, and would fall under position (2) of above. However, if one was to say the "Roman Empire controlled Europe" it would be incorrect, but would be using position (1). Anyway, my point is that there is no reason to block certain arguments if they are valid. As for a vote, let's not. It'd be a polarization of a complex issue. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The principles are not complicated. At the moment you don't even have agreed principles on this crucial point. Still, I'm not one to cut across people who enjoy a nice, endless argument for it's own sake, and so long as the admins aren't bothered by it and there are no actual add/deletes resulting from any of this, I am sure most will be happy. Shame about the quality of articles, but it's a small price to pay. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's magnify your divisions to make them even clearer.

(1) Some individuals are actually trying to argue that to use BI, the topic/subject MUST BE PROVEN to relate to ALL parts of the islands.

It is just a pedantic gambit designed to tire out their opposition.

Such logic would extrapolate to "any topics mentioning Europe MUST BE PROVEN relate to all European nations".

Nonsense.

I am with (2). It is a more generic term and the only one free of chauvinism.

Commonsense should apply. British Isles should also be the default term in preference to the wholly and endlessly inaccurate Britains and Ireland, as it is the broader, safer and non-political brush. The islands are so close woven --- excuse the pun --- in environment and history that should the subject or topic apply to a majority, the onus should be on the accusers to prove that it DOES NOT apply to the whole. That we MUST exclude one or other part for a good reason.

--Triton Rocker (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A specific example about Europe would be when talking about World War 2. Would it be wrong to say war broke out in Europe despite not all of Europe being at war because some countries chose to remain neutral? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me as both 1 and 2 are partly true. The British Isles = does equal GB+I+IOM+CI, but that does not mean we must find a source saying British Isles, or a source backing up something for every part of the British Isles for it to be justified. Some times saying the country (be it England or United Kingdom) is more appropriate. But it does depend on the circumstances, these fixed set of rules are harder to agree to.

When it comes to limits on the use of BI the one thing i am prepared to agree on is BI should not be used when talking about a political act. The example ive mentioned a few times... British Isles declared war on Germany. This is totally incorrect, a group of islands do not declare war, countries do. However German invaded the British Isles is totally acceptable, because the political action is being taken by Germany against a geographical area, which is true. Just like you could say Germany invaded Africa or Asia. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion nicely captures the positions adopted by the two "sides". I'd be happy to accept a more common sense approach for certain general categories or topics or subject matter. --HighKing (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inappropriate venue for this discussion. This page is for discussing specific examples. The project page is the correct place. Fmph (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only active place to discuss these matters, this page has already gone well beyond its original name. That is why a proposed restructuring seems needed, because the main terminology page is now inactive as we are all here. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Fmph. Stuff gets punted between different venues all the time, I don't see why non-specific examples can't be moved to Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force. Focussing on specific examples here, and general examples there would make my life slightly easier, and that's got to be good, right? ;-) Thinking about it, "blanket rulings" (which aren't rulings...) should be promoted to Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force and discussed there, with exceptions to the rulings being discussed here (along with anything else that's a specific example). TFOWR 09:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer all British Isles debate take place in one location, rather than having separate debates with specific examples on one page and potential blanket rulings and everything else on another. I think its easier only having to check this one page each day not having to worry about anything on the taskforce page as its inactive. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise, but really - do you only check this page once a day? Does anyone? And surely if a page that is otherwise inactive suddenly pops up on your watchlist, surely that's more dramatic than the numerous pops from this page? Splitting the non-specific examples from the specific examples page has got to cut down the noise here, at least. We already discuss the broad issue elsewhere (at ANI, for example...) so another page on our watchlists isn't that great a burden. TFOWR 10:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When articles are being discussed please place a message on the article talkpage with a link to the discussion here. As it is, the repeated failure of this self-appointed "task force" to do this suggests that you are more interested in getting you own way than in constructive debate and consensus building. DuncanHill (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a template for notification, {{BID}}, but editors are very bad at using it when raising issues here. Thanks for the reminder. TFOWR 13:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the taskforce doesn't get better at notifying, I think it might be necessary to reconsider whether its existence is beneficial. As a group, you also need to be a bit more efficient at notifying affected Wikiprojects as well. I'd also encourage members of the group to actually read linked Wikiproject guidelines on article talkpages, as in some cases they contain existing solutions to problems of wording. DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that for some of the stuff raised for discussion, it's not unusual to have a preliminary discussion in case a reference or other material fact comes to light that makes it unnecessary to template an article. I'd argue that the template should only get used if the discussion proceeds to the "Arguments For/Against" stage, which is a signal for the template to be used. --HighKing (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And in some cases, templating would have removed the need for discussion at all. If you are discussing a specific article, the talk page should have a link to the discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're all in agreement that unless usage is obviously wrong, a template on the article Talk page is required. Some articles, for example, pipelink to British Isles incorrectly - for example [[British Isles|United Kingdom]]. An example of where templating would have removed the need for discussion would help enormously. --HighKing (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geevor Tin Mine. There is an existing guideline, linked from the Cornwall Wikiproject template on the talkpage which, when followed, removed the problematic wording. A mention on the talk page at the start of the discussion instead of after a day or so would have resulted in the article being edited to remove the problem. At least one of your members has previously had his attention drawn to the guideline, but he chose not to mention it in the discussion. Reading talk pages will also help your members know if the wording has previously been discussed, and could thus also help prevent pointless further discussion here. It only takes a few moments to mention your discussions on a talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. We're still feeling our way on some issues. In future, we'll post immediately on Talk pages. --HighKing (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as I say, it could help resolve some problems more quickly, it will also hopefully make more editors aware of possible problems and involve more editors in considering the problems which do exist, and help find broadly agreed ways forward. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I've just found three more active discussions with no notification on the article talk-pages. DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, the States of Alderny is hardly an active discussion. Even including that, that's 3/15 untemplated, and I didn't include resolved discussions in that 15. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see Kurt Jackson - I told the editor responsible for initiating that discussion to hold off with the template while we iron out an issue with the template. Which other ones are you thinking of? There are a couple that aren't "fully open" - States of Alderney/Alderney we haven't yet worked out what the initiator is actually proposing, if anything (or even at what article...), and Banded Demoiselle looks like it may not be opened at all (it's fine as it is). Were these latter two the two you'd seen? TFOWR 15:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did mention it in the discussions. I do have a big problem with your apparent assumption that it's best to discuss articles away from their talkpages and make decisions about them before notifying on the talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those posts after replying to the one here - I didn't realise you'd posted in two places. Many "discussions" are relatively quickly identified as "non discussions" - a few BISE participants post, it's realised that there's no issue, and we move on. Under those circumstances it seems pointless to notify talkpages. Once a "structured discussion" - one with "for" and "against" sections - is opened, talkpages are notified at that point. There is one open discussion where I told the editor responsible to hold off due to an issue with the templates. That's exceptional, however. TFOWR 16:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, I've never brought cases to BISE & so have never put notifications on the articles-in-question. This is due to the fact that I suffer from laziness. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone hasn't seen it we have a proposal for deletion here --Snowded ^TALK 19:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a proposal on ANI here, that we should refactor this TF to produce a British Isles MOS (working title WP:BIMOS.

The basic proposal was that:

1. We close down this discussion and move it to a more appropriate venue, perhaps WP:BITASK
2. We agree a code of conduct at the new venue to include WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and any other pots of acronym soup that you want to check into the pot
3. Specifically the code of conduct will include a pledge not to add, remove or edit the term British Isles anywhere on the pedia for an agreed period of 3(4/5/6?) months
4. Additionally it would include a commitment to agreeing a draft WP:BIMOS WITHIN the pledged time period. This draft would be recommended to the wider community for adoption at that time.
5. If agreement could not be reached, then 2 contrary drafts should at that time be sent to the wider community, for them to choose the most appropriate. I'm thinking about the successful Ireland naming ballot in 2009.

If we are agreed on the general principle of doing then we need to agree a few things:

1. Most appropriate venue - Is this the best we have? Any other suggestions?
2. Code of Conduct vs Membership - I see that there is a small list of participants on the main page. Can I suggest we agree to remove it and replace with 2 sections:

• 1. Code of Conduct - to be agreed - will include long stop dates by which time a draft or drafts will be submitted for wider community approval
  2. Membership - membership signifies assent to be bound by the code of conduct. If it changes, members are still bound by the changes and must strike their sigs to withdraw if they disaagree.

1. Draft BIMOS - should eventually be a subpage of the TF, but for now to be discussed here.

Anything else? Fmph (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your numberings aren't adding up. GoodDay (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should vote of the numbers, while bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Following which, we should discuss the results, disregarding any and all sock puppets and those with whom we don't agree. After that, as there won't be any visible Admins to police applying the numbers, we, and the entire project, can ignore them completely. Don't forget to bring it up again though, every six months or so. There, that about covers it :) Daicaregos (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understand the frustration Dai but I think we should try to make this work. Fmph, I agree with the above but suggest a special subpage. Otherwise I think you need a tight not a relaxed timescale to reach agreement --Snowded ^TALK 13:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it'll end the edit warring, then go for it. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This all sounds excellent, thanks for being so clear and for initiating it Fmph. Couple of queries - should we try to ensure that we keep several interested admins on board - I don't want us to do loads of work only to have it drift again into squabble about the basics due to negligible admin interest in supporting the moratorium. Secondly - maybe we should contact all past participants in BISE to ensure they know about this. I'm sure most will pick it up here but there may be some interested who don't. I'm happy to do this latter task. Fainites seems to be concerned as are one or two other admins. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@James - I appreciate the concerns, but i have my own. I think you will probably guess that i don't agree with a simple topic ban type approach. Personally I feel it just rewards bad behaviour. So with what I've proposed above there is a certain urgency involved. An enddate, and for me that's what makes it work. So if the admins come along and take apart and do a bit of admining as well, hey!, thats great news. But we cant afford to wait for them. Once we set the clock ticking, we need to get on and do it. We cant be doing "Oh theres no admin here to close/approve that". It's a voluntary role, and I appreciate the work they do, but we've had quite a few false dawns with involved admins here. And its always been a better place when they are around. But lets not pin our success criteria on an admins tailcoats. We just need to knuckle down and do it ourselves. And I believe we can! Fmph (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should be clearer Fmph - I was not suggesting admin support for the process of BIMOS formation; I was talking about ensuring that we do get the three months to think about it unfettered by the need to keep going off and fighting local battles with editors who refuse to play ball. I'm not clear that we have admin-level agreement to the process yet, eg, to the moratorium and code of conduct. Do we? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say that if a gaggle of editors came over here, made an agreement, got on with the discussions, all without admin intervention, and then were disrupted, I'm sure a bunch of friendly ANI admins would step in and kick ass for us. But as I said, I'd welcome admin involvement from the outset in whatever capacity they want to offer. Fmph (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I'm not talking about disruption here - I'm talking about how we will obtain a moratorium in the meantime. I don't feel confident that all of the relevant editors with a track record of single-minded action in this area will collaborate unless it is pretty clear that they have no option. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe a moratorium is *required* for a process to create a BIMOS. Not sure if it's even possible to *insist* that participation in the BIMOS is conditional on observing the moratorium? I'm pretty confident, either way, that any edits made during the moratorium will be critically examined once the BIMOS is agreed. If the edits pass muster, then fine, no harm done. If the edits don't, they'll no doubt be changed to meet BIMOS. And if the community believes the editor is in breach of policy, don't forget that the BISE sanctions are still active. --HighKing (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your last point is the key one HK - I understood that the BISE sanction is no longer active. Hence why you and others were off editing BI without bringing to the BISE page - or have I misunderstood the nature of the sanction? This isn't me being snide, I am puzzled as to the current status of it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James. No - the BISE page is no longer active, having been dismantled by the constant disruption of one or two editors, and the lack of administrator involvement. But the BISE sanctions are still active. See WP:GS/BI - and note that the sanction states Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. --HighKing (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the whole point was voluntary moratorium - suggested in circumstances where the other suggestion was a BISE-wide topic ban. If during that moratorium you can come up with a method to deal with future issues - then hooray. If not, we may be back to considering topic bans.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am with Fainites here. We need to resolve this as a group of editors who understand the issue (although we also disagree) and that needs a voluntary ban on changes. The alternative is going to be a Armcom review or an arbitrary resolution which is in no ones interest. To help this along how about a one month limit? --Snowded ^TALK 11:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{ec}Sure, it is voluntary, but I don't believe it can be *enforced* - there's a difference. Think about the scenario whereby a single editor, perhaps two, who don't want any agreement reached. What happens if they participate at the beginning, don't like some of the decisions, and start editing articles? They can simply say that it is against policy to enforce a moratorium, etc, and start editing as they like hoping that all other editors will react, file more AN/I reports, and create another stink that no admin will go near. In fact, that was the downfall of BISE in the end - there really was no way to *enforce* the notifications of insertions and deletions and reversions onto that page, and no acceptance of agreements reached or no "agreement" carrying over onto other similar articles. If it's not enforceable, then it's purely voluntary, and the timescale of 3 months is fine. If participants here act in good faith, we can volunteer not to insert/delete, and that's the best that can be done, and ignore any attempts at disruption. --HighKing (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then we go straight to ANI and their behaviour is exposed. --Snowded ^TALK 11:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I would prefer topic bans at this point. I can see where the current attempt at standards might lead; any standards or MOS guidelines will generally be restrictive towards the use of British Isles and we will then be faced with a plethora of edits removing British Isles, with edit summaries along the lines of "according to BIMOS". This is just no solution at all. LevenBoy (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well from the warnings on your page that may well happen! Are you saying that you refuse to be a part of the proposed process and accept the temporary freeze? --Snowded ^TALK 11:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I'm sure you'll agree that those warnings are, at this point, wholly inappropriate and could be viewed merely as an attempt to raise the aggravation level, which was actually declining. They were quite unnecessary, given that a number of issues and complaints were in the process of being closed off, and as I pointed out, the debate is moving on. I haven't yet decided whether or not to be part of the process. As for accepting the "freeze" it's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I don't seek to add or remove British Isles and I have no intention of doing so. LevenBoy (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think, LevenBoy, you said at ANI words to the effect that you would happy to be effectively topic banned provided all the "deleters" were too. Suppose you guys create a list of "deleters" and "adders" and then see who is prepared to sign up to a moratorium. This will only work if everyone involved signs up and if editors involved in BISE who carry on adding or deleting in the meantime face admin sanction. (I don't mean unaware editors who just happen to be writing articles - but BISE participants).Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the case. I have really only ever replaced BI when it's been deleted by, for want of a better word, a "deletor". See my comments above - in a way signing up to this is irrelevant for me - I don't intend to add or delete anything. LevenBoy (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then in that case it's no skin off your nose to sign up is it - along with HighKing, Snowded, BJMullen, LemonMonday (if he gets back) and so on and so on. I'm sure you guys can work out the full list.

Why would one not wanna sign up? GoodDay (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm happy to "sign up" by agreeing not to add or remove BI. That's always been the case with me, but I'm not sure what level of participation, if any, I wish to have with the ideas suggested above. LevenBoy (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most appropriate venue

I would like to propose that WP:BITASK is the most appropriate venue for discussions on the development of a new British Isles related Manual of Style.

Support

• Support - No right or wrong on this one. It seems like a good venue, we should have only one venue, and there are plenty of us here. Seems like good enough reasons to me. Fmph (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - As long as we're all in one place, I'm content. GoodDay (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The only game in town. Daicaregos (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a sensible plan which I will engage with. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comment

Who are the people actually saying that we need a manual of style? LevenBoy (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, and I genuinely don't know the answer to this, but are there any instnaces of where there's a (sub) MOS detailing how and when it's appropriate to use a particular geographical entity? LevenBoy (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read WP:IMOS? Fmph (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that someone should knock something together, so here goes:

1. By signing up to membership of this taskforce, you automatically agree to be bound by this Code of Conduct
2. Personal attacks of any description will not be tolerated. The subject matter under discussion can prove controversial, but all members need to assume good faith
3. Members agree that between the Xst Julember 2011 and the longstop date of XXth Mavember 2011, they will refrain from adding, removing or changing any usage of the term British Isles on the encyclopaedia
4. Members agree that in the week leading up to the longstop date, they will agree a minimum of one draft British Isles-related Manual of Styles, which will be put to the wider Wikipedian community
5. Should there not be consensus around a single draft, each member shall be entitled to propose or support a single alternate BIMOS
6. (added 29/4/11) Members will continue to be bound by any consensual changes to the code of conduct agreed after they sign up

OK, so what have I missed? Loads probably. Fmph (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, I've rarely (if ever) added or deleted British Isles from any article, so I'd have no probs with Conduct codes. GoodDay (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the sock-farm of yours? ;-) Fmph (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no socks. GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to NPA? or was that a joke that I didn't get?Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that my use of the smiley indicated that it was a joke, and I think @GDs response indicated that was the way it was taken. Fmph (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. NPA? Smiley? GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley ;-) - NPA No personal attacks Fmph (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know (;-) was a smiley, no probs. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Here's a laughey. :D Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehehe. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a clause requesting editors also refrain from adding or removing *content* from articles (and the editor is not a content-expert for that article) where the main purpose is to adjust the content to make it more or less favorable to use or not use "British Isles". We've had a few problems in the past... --HighKing (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know its been a problem before, but its difficult to word and really difficult to enforce. Wording suggestions? Fmph (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to word. I've drafted 3 or 4 paragraphs but actually I now think that most of the times I've come across this behaviour, it's really already covered by existing policies to ensure that content is sourced and referenced. Even the instance of changing country names to geographic areas is covered by this. Lets see how it goes, we can always revisit this later if need be. I take it that this code of conduct doesn't need to be set in stone before commencing. --HighKing (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was one of the things I intended to add, but forgot. Will do so now. Fmph (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a minimum number of participants we need? Perhaps it would be helpful if we could see "expressions of interest" in advance of agreeing code of conduct. Just that (deja vu) it's gotten awfully quiet over here.... --HighKing (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need to inform people about it - activity started again here from a link in ANI and not everyone bothers to spend their waking hours voyeuristically engaged in other people's battles. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what question you're answering there James. But if you look at the flurry of activity generated by this topic on AN/I, compared to the fall-off to this point in time, I suppose I'm wondering if this latest effort is also doomed for the same reasons as before. --HighKing (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the UK of course it's a long holiday, so I'm not sure the absence of activity is indicative. Also of course some prefer the hostile tones in ANI debates to the practical work. :) The point I was making is that there may be a lot of people interested who simply don't know this has resumed. I suggest a note on former BISE-interested editors' talk pages. Is it a holiday in Ireland as well tomorrow? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets just get started, this exercise is as much about exposing those who focus on the conflict at the cost of a long term solution as it is about the solution itself. --Snowded ^TALK 15:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a holiday in Ireland also, May Bank Holiday. I'll help in any way I can. --HighKing (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my lack of patients, but has this latest attempt at calming the BI disputes, dried up? GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the AN/I is over... Guess what? Nothing happened. Again. --HighKing (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think a starting point is to work out a list of "deleters and adders" to whom the moratorium and code of conduct is intended to apply. They can be told it is intended to apply to them. Otherwise, they could just keep quiet and then say it's nothing to do with them. If you guys work out a list and they still don't take part then that would be a matter of significance shall we say? Fainites ^barleyscribs 07:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure we can force anybody to participate or adhere to a moratorium. And I strongly hold the opinion that it's particularly unhelpful to label anyone a "deleter or adder". There's a number of editors who may share views on usage, one way or another, but labelling someone a "deleter" or "adder" needlessly politicizes the situation and take the focus away from usage. Refusal to participate may be (or not) a matter of significance - but significance of what, and in whose opinion? Whenever we get to a state of sanctions (and check out the specific wording of the BISE sanctions), we find that we're not inventing new policy. Existing policy already covers reliable references and consensus. The biggest problem is disruptive behaviour, and a failure to accept consensus. BISE guidelines are simply to avoid rehashing the same discussions over and over in order to reach consensus on usage within articles dealing with specific topics. What I find most odd is that we already have policies to deal with disruptive behaviour, yet we seem to want to only focus on content-related issues and policies... --HighKing (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that last bit's correct HK is it? We've had quite a few recent blocks on disruptive/discourteous editors relating to the issue. On the general point, from my part it looks like things go quiet every time there is an announcement that we are going to calmly work out the issue and agree detailed points. I think this is partly because past experience suggests this may be a wearisome battle! It need not be if admins invigilate and promptly crush people who don't know how to remain civil. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, I think editors should be categorized as deletors & adders. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So which are you GoodDay? RashersTierney (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither, as I haven't been adding or deleting British Isles from articles. I have been calling for leaving articles as they are. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And therein lies the problem with trying to categorize people into "adders" and "deleters". If you're not with 'em, you're agin 'em! We'll call you an "adder"... --HighKing (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm neutral. I just want the deletions and additions to stop. When those stop, so will squabbles. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I'm neutral too. And I want the squabbles to stop - sick of them! --HighKing (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it sounds like you both accept a moratorium? We need LevenBoy to do likewise. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LB has (in the past) agreed to stop the squabbling, if the articles were left alone. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean it in a pejorative sense. How about listing deleters, leavers and adders? That should just about cover everyone, because not everybody has the same opinion on what the root of the problem is. A moratorium on deleting/adding, and an agreement that an independent admin or someone will be invited to revert any changes so there is no benefit in breaking the moratorium.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a 'leaver', so I'd have no probs with an administrator enforcing a moratorium. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just use one label - participants. Some will have differing views. But any labels will ultimately be pejorative. For example, we could use "Referencesers" and "Opinioners". Or how about "Correctors" and "Reverters"? etc. As to signing up to anything, I'll sign up as soon as there's something to sign up for, and I don't even believe we need a neutral admin. I'd like to see at least 8 participants, just so that discussions aren't taken over by one or two (and I've been guilty of this in the past). --HighKing (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "participants" is fine. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with that. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the tumble weeds are blowing through. Where is everyone? GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we'll all be back again once another of us is up at AN/I. Seems to be the way it happens. --HighKing (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politics of the British Isles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --KarlB (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]