Talk:Atlantic Archipelago

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• British Isles
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:British Isles

Not a dictionary[edit]

Is this article just about discussion of the term or is it going to treat the topic at any time? Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its in order to prevent "some people" who have been here a lot longer and should be reasonable from claiming its a POV and then deleting it, if you have some suggestions im all ears Caomhan27 21:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've hear about the British Isles naming dispute? That article has an alternative terms section. Atlantic Archipelago is not mentioned there already (although it is in a footnote). I believe the best way of preserving the article is to add it there.

The problem is that, by rule, no two articles can deal with the same topic, so if the topic of this is the *ritish Isles then it won't last - sorry, but that's just a fact, nothing more intended by it.

If it's to be an article that just deals with a term (i.e. not discussing the thing itself, just the term, its usage, history and etymology) then its got to be a hell of a notable term. Éire is an example of one that fits the bill, Britain is an example of one that didn't make the grade. That level of notability is a tough credential to establish, and since one of your references says this is a term that would "provoke blank looks so far as most people are concerned", I don't think it going to make it.

Now, don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of the "*ritish Isles" either - but there are better ways of preserving information and (more useful, honestly) not causing war. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, something I'd be hugely in favor of, the alternative terms section in the *ritish Isles article could be meated up, in fact started, but it would need to be approached carefully as there are a lot of suspicions among British editors of that article resulting from several stunts performed in the name of Ireland in the not-so-distant past. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its definitely not about the islands because as you say that would breach the rules, but according to waggers and the existence of a page detailing the similar IONA term (which no one has a problem with?) and which has far less references than this one, then surely it has a right to a similar page of its own, and it may draw a blank look from mr davenport but the amount of authors using it is pretty high Caomhan27 22:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on an aside I also wrote a small article on Eueriio which according to authors is the orignal name of ireland, is this worthy of a page? Caomhan27 22:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IONA, in fairness, is far more well known and more thoroughly treated as a proposed alternative. Eueriio deals with more than just a (long form) definition. Honestly, I don't see this a being very worthy, but what the heck. But, promise me that if I make a copy edit (which will be pretty extensive) that you won't take it as a sign of wanting to eliminate it. There's a lot unsupported in it "extensively employed by modern authors" - ummm ... ? Can we have reference that it is not example the few sparse examples of it. Talk of one phrase being "easier on the tongue" than another is simple POV. etc. I'm also going to copy edit Eueriio (just to warn you). --sony-youth^pléigh 22:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, IONA may be more well known today, but 'Atlantic Archipelago' has probably been more seriously considered as an alternative by historians. J.G.A. Pocock coined the term in a famous essay in 1974, the same essay which began the 'new British history'. That said, i'm not sure that there is really enough here for an article and we should probably merge to the naming dispute article.—eric 01:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

surely every single line in the article does not have to be a quote? I have detailed 12/13 diiferent authors using the term thats pretty extensive far far more than the IONA term, I have read in a few places that people find it an easier term which i will endeavour to retrive, I aslo have an authored quote saying it is more fashionable which i lost(so i cut it out) but will find again well dont go mad on it lifes to short and the rugby world cup is starting, oh and how about adding the Eueriio to the ireland article, i think the date you erased was possibly the date of the copied map used not the great man himself but i will recheck itCaomhan27

The IONA article doesn't claim that that term is "extensively" used.

I'm sure you're gonna hit the roof when you see the copy edit I made, but all of the same info is there, just a lot of the rambling is cut out. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rambling! oh nice lol, i felt the quoted rambling was required for the article to survive, its not too bad even if you have gutted it, but i think map should stay, though i doubt you will agree? compromise?Caomhan27 00:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slap an image in if you like but I wouldn't use the "islands template" or a "political map" type of thing though since the subject is not about the islands themselves. The purpose would really be more to pretty it up, no? See the Éire article for what I mean. How would you feel about one of these: pix 1, pix 2, search. Personally, I like the second one just 'cos it look weird. --sony-youth^pléigh 07:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. these are all OK to use because they are US govt. owned and therefore copyright free. --sony-youth^pléigh 07:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah its good to have a visual aid related to the article, as some kids learn far easier through visualisation, one of those pictures you found will do grand thanks, i will add it in a bit..Caomhan27 16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this, and the other similar pages (and that includes IONA) give us that British Isles naming dispute#Alternative_terms does not? Perhaps it would be more useful to redirect all of these terms to that (maybe broken out into its own article if there is sufficient to say). Mucky Duck 13:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well i dont think its very constructive to learning if a valid term in use is looked up by a person who might be using it and he/her finds himself in an dispute page full of all sorts of guff, both the Atlantic Archipelago and IONA pages should have links to important pages but to relegate them to dispute page is doing a diservice to wikipedia who holds to the opinion that "Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia"

Yes but there is no flesh behind these pages simply because what they refer to is either the British Isles, for which there is an article already, or it's the fact that the term British Isles is controversial and that there are alternatives. In the first case it should be a redirect to BI in the second to either the dispute itself or to an article on alternative terms. The policy isn't about simply padding! Mucky Duck 12:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The piece is about the term 'Atlantic Archipelago' nothing else the same as the IONA article, it mentions BI and gives a link if the user wishes to go there, however the user may specifically not wish to go there. The disputes page is merely a dicussion and the article would be devalued amongest some inaccurate information and supposition, this is qualified material on a term proven to be in use by quite a large number of authors not speculation and is therefore deserved of its page, far bigger to begin with but was cut down in as a compromise, do you wish it to be fleshed out further?Caomhan27 11:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want it to be padded, and I do not want it to be a repetition of information at other articles. As it stands it has no substance - and remember that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary - we don't have articles about "terms". Basically; what is this article about? Mucky Duck 11:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are complaining its not fleshed out enough and yet you dont wish it to be? is it not true that you simply dont like the article and what it refers to? There is no repetition, in fact it is not even mentioned elsewhere, for like articles which you claim do not exist look at the IONA article and Éire article they are not written in a dictionary context and so are acceptableCaomhan27 12:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I have said. This article, and it is true for IONA too, have no substance. If there were anything to be said beyond that this is an alternative term for the British Isles then the article might well have merit - but is there anything (bar padding, or that which is proper to the actual BI article)? I find it hard to imagine what that would be.

Now the reason we have these alternatives is itself noteworthy. An article that discusses that is worth having. It would then make sense for the individual terms to be linked to it but they don't stand up as articles in their own right. Mucky Duck 20:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was pocock the first to publish the term? or was it geographers? as suggested by davenport[edit]

just want to be sure before its added to the article as it wasCaomhan27 09:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Archipelago?[edit]

Is this article for real? Seems more like an anti-British Isles article to me. If it stays, its needs some work done to it.GoodDay 22:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty easily resolved, GoodDay - check for published uses of the term (e.g. Google Books). My opinion on a stub of this nature is known from above and elsewhere - I think that it should redirect the British Isles - but the term itself is one of the many alternatives get around the problematic nature of the term British Isles. I promise you, nobody is making this up! :) --sony-youth^pléigh 16:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's just that this 'political correctness' theme, tends to get annoying at times. GoodDay 17:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree somewhat - your woes in this subject are understandable and I just want to say thanks for the continued input. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to flag this nonsense for deletion. There's only one legitimate name for the "Atlantic Archipelago" and that's the British Isles and seeing as its not a political term and never has been, there shouldn't be any controversy surrounding its use. Christopedia (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]