This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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.
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-youth talk 22:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
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))
OK. Right. I understand what you have in mind - very good. Regards ( Sarah777 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC))
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-youth talk 12:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is the default of this template to collapse? I think it should be to autocollapse, because for some of the articles it is on, this is the only navbox. Reywas92 Talk How's my editing? 17:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone has changed NIR icon to union flag, and NI link now points to uk. 84.68.67.13 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Reference to IONA should be included in the header.-- Vintagekits 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
On purpose not stating a preference, but if it's added then it shouldn't be in the header - should be in the main body of the template and needs to be expanded out too (not just " IONA" which either a: means nothing or b: is very confusing with Iona which is British and an Island...) / wangi 22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Can the proper name of Ireland please be used. If the UK can be put by its full formal name then so can Ireland. -- sony-youth pléigh 21:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ Editprotected}}
Can we please sort out the name of Ireland (the state), its name is not the Republic of Ireland, just is just a plain fact. See CIA World Factbook, The Economist Country Briefings, the European Union, the United Nations. Listing it in the the template as the Republic of Ireland is as correct listing the UK as Britain. -- sony-youth pléigh 17:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Editors familliar with this debate need not worry!... I'd just like to point out that I object to the use of a map icon for Northern Ireland on this template. To me, place alongside the 3 other (sub-)national flags, it suggests that the map is somehow the constitutional flag of NI, which it isn't. I doubt any other encyclopedia would put it there in simillar terms. It's a kind of innocent original research being employed here.... Surely, we should have no flag at all? -- Jza84 · ( talk) 21:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I added the icon months ago, it seemed like a good solution at the time. I didn't even think that someone might consider it some kind of offical symbol of N Ireland(well I still don't think anyone would... but lets not get into it).
Anyway I have no problem with removing it, however I do have a problem with suggestions to remove the flags of Scotland, England & Wales; they are the undisputed flags of those regions, they add to the template, & they offend no one. Also, quite frankly, it seems like an attempt to validate the
Ulster banner. Kind of like saying "well the Ulster banner is fine & represents N Ireland, but we just aren't going to go in the flags direction".
Fennessy (
talk) 19:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've taken the bold step of modifying the template to use a single map image for visual appeal instead of flag icons for selected wikilinks. I realize we don't have prior consensus for a change, but I thought it would be helpful to see this version first and generate some feedback. Andrwsc ( talk) 21:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, now take a look at the bottom of the Ireland article, where this template now shows some wonderful symmetry with the navbox next to it ( Template:Celtic nations). Andrwsc ( talk) 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
And yet again, at the trio of navboxes at the bottom of Wales (including Template:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe), all with the same style. I hope we agree this is the best approach! Andrwsc ( talk) 21:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, the no flags at all way is best.
Ras52's edit reminded me of the fact that the
Flag of Wales featuing
Y Ddraig Goch didn't even exist during the period of the
Principality of Wales which it is placed next to, at least not in the form it is now.
This format will stop any future arguments over this issue in the future, hopefully. Anything to put a stake in the heart of this monster of an issue once & for all.
Fennessy (
talk) 23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Sony, I admit I was WP:BOLD for a reason — pictures are worth a thousand words when it comes to discussion of visual changes such as these, so I thought it would be easier to solicit feedback after looking at my proposed changes instead of just talking about them. I still am puzzled by your passion for the icons as a readability aid, as surely there are hundreds of standard navboxes that do fine without them. The (larger) portion of this navbox that has always been flagless didn't seem to suffer without them either. As for the map image, yeah, it is somewhat superfluous, and strictly speaking, this navbox doesn't really need it. It can certainly be removed to "unsqueeze" the space, but I note that removal of the flag icons also helped in that regard, as it resulted in the "Historic states" group fitting onto a single line on my current display. I only put the map there because there seems to be a certain amount of consensus (not just here, but wiki-wide) for "visual bling" like that in navboxes. Flags and maps are often the most common free-use images available, so that's why we use them. I was pleasantly suprised to later see that Template:Celtic nations and Template:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe took the same approach! Those maps also lack context or a legend, but in all these cases, I don't think it matters. Remember: this is a collapsed navbox at the bottom of every article it is transcluded on. Better maps and prose text to explain geographic context are going to be present at the start of those articles. Lastly, I note that I updated Template:UK cities a couple of weeks ago in a similar effort at curbing persistent disruptive edit warring, and so far, all I've seen are positive comments. A few days ago, I also made similar edits to Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations, Template:UK subdivisions, and Template:World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom, and in every case, those changes have stuck. Andrwsc ( talk) 00:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Great stuff, Ras. Absolute stellar work. Could do with a little tidying (aligning the left-hand column widths, not sure about the colour of the horizontal dividers, etc. blah blah) but a feat of organization. Well done! A fantasitc thing for me to see before my bed time. Thanks! -- sony-youth pléigh 02:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Instead of United Kingdom, it should be Great Britain.
GoodDay (
talk) 19:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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.
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-youth talk 22:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
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))
OK. Right. I understand what you have in mind - very good. Regards ( Sarah777 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC))
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-youth talk 12:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is the default of this template to collapse? I think it should be to autocollapse, because for some of the articles it is on, this is the only navbox. Reywas92 Talk How's my editing? 17:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone has changed NIR icon to union flag, and NI link now points to uk. 84.68.67.13 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Reference to IONA should be included in the header.-- Vintagekits 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
On purpose not stating a preference, but if it's added then it shouldn't be in the header - should be in the main body of the template and needs to be expanded out too (not just " IONA" which either a: means nothing or b: is very confusing with Iona which is British and an Island...) / wangi 22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Can the proper name of Ireland please be used. If the UK can be put by its full formal name then so can Ireland. -- sony-youth pléigh 21:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ Editprotected}}
Can we please sort out the name of Ireland (the state), its name is not the Republic of Ireland, just is just a plain fact. See CIA World Factbook, The Economist Country Briefings, the European Union, the United Nations. Listing it in the the template as the Republic of Ireland is as correct listing the UK as Britain. -- sony-youth pléigh 17:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Editors familliar with this debate need not worry!... I'd just like to point out that I object to the use of a map icon for Northern Ireland on this template. To me, place alongside the 3 other (sub-)national flags, it suggests that the map is somehow the constitutional flag of NI, which it isn't. I doubt any other encyclopedia would put it there in simillar terms. It's a kind of innocent original research being employed here.... Surely, we should have no flag at all? -- Jza84 · ( talk) 21:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I added the icon months ago, it seemed like a good solution at the time. I didn't even think that someone might consider it some kind of offical symbol of N Ireland(well I still don't think anyone would... but lets not get into it).
Anyway I have no problem with removing it, however I do have a problem with suggestions to remove the flags of Scotland, England & Wales; they are the undisputed flags of those regions, they add to the template, & they offend no one. Also, quite frankly, it seems like an attempt to validate the
Ulster banner. Kind of like saying "well the Ulster banner is fine & represents N Ireland, but we just aren't going to go in the flags direction".
Fennessy (
talk) 19:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've taken the bold step of modifying the template to use a single map image for visual appeal instead of flag icons for selected wikilinks. I realize we don't have prior consensus for a change, but I thought it would be helpful to see this version first and generate some feedback. Andrwsc ( talk) 21:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, now take a look at the bottom of the Ireland article, where this template now shows some wonderful symmetry with the navbox next to it ( Template:Celtic nations). Andrwsc ( talk) 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
And yet again, at the trio of navboxes at the bottom of Wales (including Template:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe), all with the same style. I hope we agree this is the best approach! Andrwsc ( talk) 21:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, the no flags at all way is best.
Ras52's edit reminded me of the fact that the
Flag of Wales featuing
Y Ddraig Goch didn't even exist during the period of the
Principality of Wales which it is placed next to, at least not in the form it is now.
This format will stop any future arguments over this issue in the future, hopefully. Anything to put a stake in the heart of this monster of an issue once & for all.
Fennessy (
talk) 23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Sony, I admit I was WP:BOLD for a reason — pictures are worth a thousand words when it comes to discussion of visual changes such as these, so I thought it would be easier to solicit feedback after looking at my proposed changes instead of just talking about them. I still am puzzled by your passion for the icons as a readability aid, as surely there are hundreds of standard navboxes that do fine without them. The (larger) portion of this navbox that has always been flagless didn't seem to suffer without them either. As for the map image, yeah, it is somewhat superfluous, and strictly speaking, this navbox doesn't really need it. It can certainly be removed to "unsqueeze" the space, but I note that removal of the flag icons also helped in that regard, as it resulted in the "Historic states" group fitting onto a single line on my current display. I only put the map there because there seems to be a certain amount of consensus (not just here, but wiki-wide) for "visual bling" like that in navboxes. Flags and maps are often the most common free-use images available, so that's why we use them. I was pleasantly suprised to later see that Template:Celtic nations and Template:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe took the same approach! Those maps also lack context or a legend, but in all these cases, I don't think it matters. Remember: this is a collapsed navbox at the bottom of every article it is transcluded on. Better maps and prose text to explain geographic context are going to be present at the start of those articles. Lastly, I note that I updated Template:UK cities a couple of weeks ago in a similar effort at curbing persistent disruptive edit warring, and so far, all I've seen are positive comments. A few days ago, I also made similar edits to Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations, Template:UK subdivisions, and Template:World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom, and in every case, those changes have stuck. Andrwsc ( talk) 00:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Great stuff, Ras. Absolute stellar work. Could do with a little tidying (aligning the left-hand column widths, not sure about the colour of the horizontal dividers, etc. blah blah) but a feat of organization. Well done! A fantasitc thing for me to see before my bed time. Thanks! -- sony-youth pléigh 02:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Instead of United Kingdom, it should be Great Britain.
GoodDay (
talk) 19:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)