Template talk:British Isles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Historic states
You might want to include these too:
There is possibly a case for lising the 5 provinces of Ireland which had also been kingdoms 86.12.249.63 20:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to but I'm not touching any Irish articles with a Barge Pole after the reception that my template's had on the Ireland page. It'll just be removed because "Ireland isn't British", which is an obvious fact but one that still can't be true if Ireland is in the British Isles apparently. Lofty 20:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Considering Ireland is most definitely not in Britain's "British Isles" in the first place that makes the rest of your post a non sequitur. Nollaig Shona duit.
[edit] Ancient and early medieval states
I reverted Danelaw from from the template. I don't see how we can include historical states before the late medieval period in the template itself. Maybe link to a separate page such as List of historical states in the British Isles? But there simply isn't enough space to link to them all. (I also reverted the re-organization of the states currently listed to alphabetical order - i.e. Irish Free State - Kingdom of England - Kingdom of Great Britain .. - "Kingdom of" is only said once to save space.) --sony-youthtalk 22:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] That Template
I'd be happy enough with the template so long as it doesn't appear in any article relating to Ireland. (Sarah777 21:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC))
- Hi Sarah. Regarding the template, it is being used on Ireland-related pages. There was quite a long discussion on the Ireland talk page regarding the template and a name (assuming that this is the issue you have). The template's name can be changed on a per-article basis, as it is on the Ireland and Republic of Ireland pages. --sony-youthtalk 23:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Right. I understand what you have in mind - very good. Regards (Sarah777 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC))
[edit] Channel Islands - include or not?
Like The Tom, I can see why not to include them - some defintion do specifically exclude them, but not many. More explicitly include them. Including them hits hard against the "its-only-a-geographical-term" thing, but surely we cannot exclude them just so one argument about the "meaning" of British Isles looks more consistent.
The people there include themselves. See the Jersey government site. Guernsey is less unequivical (except for Alderney) but a look at the government website shows that they clearly see themselves as being "within" the British Isles, as opposed to "outside" of the British Isles.
Yes, British Isles is different to British Islands. The Channel Islands are always explicity a part of the latter. But what's the case for Wikipedia excluding them from the former when so often they are included. --sony-youthtalk 12:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
