Talk:British

2002 discussion + one comment from 2004

Is there any reason not to make this a redirect to Great Britain?

not as far as I can see Tarquin

shouldn't it be a redirect to Britain? or maybe United Kingdom, since it's mostly used for citizens of that country?

---

Look at the links for this page the vast majority of them are using British to indicate a citizen of the UK. I think this page should be redirected to United Kingdom instead of Great Britain Mintguy 03:35 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. -- Tarquin

I disagree - I just cannot stand to see the UK and Britain conflated. It's probably true that the majority of links to British refer to a UK citizen - that's probably because someone who is British is necessarily a UK citizen. There's nothing wrong with that - they're British too. But what happens when somebody says that George I was a British king, and clicking on British takes us to United Kingdom, which didn't exist at that time? I mean, why should somebody who makes a link to British want it to go to United Kingdom? Honestly, this change seems very bizarre to me. I'm changing it back so the redirect goes to Great Britain - if people are making links incorrectly, it's the links that need to be changed, not this redirect. --Camembert

The article on Great Britain describes the island of Great Britain. The article that describes the state that was Great Britain resides at United Kingdom, for goodness sake look at the links to this page. This page should redirect to United Kingdom. Mintguy 13:59 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

I also disagree that this should be a redirect to the United Kingdom. Although I agree that the majority use of 'British' is 'of the United Kingdom', its use is confused enough to warrent something more. To be honest, I think that it needs some sort of new classification to describe what the article should be - a sort of 'extended disambiguation'.

I have looked at the links page, but I don't see why that means we should pretend that "British" means "of the United Kingdom", which is very clearly does not. I repeat from above: if people are making links incorrectly, it's the links that need to be changed, not this redirect. And I paraphrase myself from below: what's wrong with saying somebody is British and having the link go to Great Britain? --Camembert

My Red Dice, look at the links to this page. There's no need to disambiguate. Mintguy

Sorry, didn't see this discussion page (wasn't expecting to see one on a redirect page, duh) - reverted now. -MRD

I've just realised I've taken both positions up there. My, that makes me look flighty! Given that many, many writers (from all over the word, including the Brits) will misues this word, maybe we should have this page as a disambiguation, that briefly explains what "British" SHOULD actually be used for. -- Tarquin 13:35 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

Maybe, though I don't begrudge the person who'll have to fix all the links pointing here! And really, is it such a big problem? Saying that Michael Caine, for example, is British, and linking it to Great Britain (which is the sort of thing links pointing here do) isn't a misuse of "British" or a bad link, after all (I mean, he is from Great Britain). Saying somebody from Ireland is British would be bad, of course, but nobody seems to be doing that. So I guess I don't really see the problem with things as they now are. Maybe United Kingdom could be mentioned and linked a bit more prominently in the Great Britain article though (like in the first paragraph) - that might be an improvement. --Camembert

This is an interminable discussion: one round finishes and the redirection is set up in such a way, then a few months later someone will reopen the issue by changing it to how they think it should be. Personally I think British should redirect to Britain, since the two words are related. See Talk:Britain. See also America for how the issue is handled there.

Well, Britain redirects to Great Britain, so the current set up is how you suggest. --Camembert

It's not too bad, but Britain/British often refer to the UK, so making Britain a stub is logical.

The situation is now ludicrous. British redirects to Great Britain which is about the island and is completely wrong for the majority of the links. Mintguy

Why is it "completely wrong for the majority of the links"? As far as I can see, the majority (indeed, all) of the links are referring to something of the island (they're referring to something of the country as well, of course, but that doesn't make a link to the island wrong, does it?). --Camembert

Ok here's an example... Duke of Wellington? British? Yes of Course. Only he was born in Ireland. One more what about History of Guernsey - "The islands were the only British soil occupied by German troops in World War II" - Only Guernsy isn't Great Britain or even the British Isles as such. Mintguy

As I've already said twice - if people are making links incorrectly, it's the links that need to be changed, not this redirect. And here's a counter example - people prior to 1801 might be described as "British" quite accurately - but making a link from them to "United Kingdom" wouldn't make much sense, because the UK didn't exist at that time. --Camembert

Well you would want to link such articles to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland perhaps? Mintguy

If the article was relevant to that time frame (which my example was not - I said prior to 1801, while that state was in existence between 1801 and the 1920s), then maybe. I don't want to get involved with that, though - my main point is simply that "British" means "of Britain" and so should redirect to Great Britain. --Camembert

Perhaps a dictionary or two will help here:

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913

British \Brit"ish\, n. pl.
  People of Great Britain.

British \Brit"ish\ (br[i^]t"[i^]sh), a. [AS. Brittisc,
  Bryttisc.]
  Of or pertaining to Great Britain or to its inhabitants; --
  sometimes restricted to the original inhabitants.

WordNet (r) 1.7

British
    adj : of or relating to or characteristic of Great Britain or its
          people or culture; "his wife is British" [syn: British]
    n : the people of Great Britain [syn: British, British people,
         the British, Brits]

I vote for Great Britain. This is what comes to mind for me. --mav 14:19 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

No disrepsect Mav, but for most Americans Britain/UK/England are synonymous, so your opinion on this hold little weight with me. Mintguy

Oh yeah, I forgot I am just a stupid American whose opinion doesn't matter at all. Thanks for reminding me. --mav

I'm sorry. As I said no disrespect intended. It's a generalisation but one which I encountered many times myself when working in the US.Mintguy

I've always thought of my fellow Wikipedians as some of the smartest people from their respective countries. Your statement, however, indicates that you don't share this view. --mav

I'm digging myself a hole here which is not something I was planning to do so I'll try to make my statement clearer. I do not think Americans are dumb, and I do not think that you are dumb and I do not think that Wikipedians in general are dumb. I was just pointing out that for a number of Americans (and in my limited experience) the difference between Britain, the British Isles, the United Kingdom, and England isn't clear as it might be to a native. Just as the difference between Kansas and Arkansas (or any other ambiguity for which I am unqualified to speak upon) might be to a native of my country. Mintguy

OK I'm sorry for being so defensive. --mav

Mintguy - I too am troubled by people who make no distinction between Britain and the UK - that's why it troubles me so much that you seem to be advocating that very lack of distinction. "Britain", as the above cited dictionaries say, means "of Great Britain". It doesn't mean "of the UK" (and I just checked a couple of British dictionaries which say the same thing, if that convinces you any further). In my view, the redirect should reflect this. --Camembert

Same as America -> United States then, not? Where would somebody want to go if they clicked on a British link? Probably to United Kingdom. But I think it would be no problem to send them to a Britain page that explains the various usages, since they are still only one click away from UK.

Yes, I can see your point there - I think the best way to deal with it, though, it to make the link to United Kingdom on the Great Britain page more prominent - that way, people who want the UK are still only a click away, and they (and everybody else) also gets some useful information without any extra clicks. I wouldn't object to a disambig page at Britain, it just seems to me that this is a more graceful way of acheiving the same thing. --Camembert

Please don't make a disambiguation block. Just state that the UK is located on the Island on the first line. --mav

Ironically (given the above discussion) that is wrong. The UK is (currently) Great Britain + Northern Ireland Rich Farmbrough

Oh yes, that's what I meant. And that, indeed, is what I've just done :) --Camembert

Well I just looked at French and German and they disambiguate, so maybe the disambiguation for British should be there after all. I don't agree bu the precendent for disambiguation seems to already exist. Mintguy

French and German are also languages in addition to nationalities (two fairly different things). British is an adjective or noun that refers to a geographic location. I would support disambiguation at British only if this word is also used to refer to people/things in the British Isles often enough to cause an ambiguity issue. If that is the case then perhaps an disambiguation article like American or virus is in order (then it wouldn't really be necessary to fix all the links). --mav

The precedent exists because French and German might mean the language as well as something of the countries. This isn't such an issue with "British" because the language is called "English" (which is indeed a disambiguation page). It's true that there's a distinction to be made twixt "British English" and "American English", but I think that's such an unusual use of the word "British" that it doesn't need disambiguating against - people will be careful enough to link it to British English directly, I should think. --Camembert

Britain (2004)

Read the article at Britain. It already incorporates the definition of British and is far more extensive than this. I will merge and redirect. --Jiang 23:32, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I just came to this page and found views that are at variance with the meanings, understandings and usages of the word that I and others who live in the various countries use the term. Yes, outside the wales/ireland/scotland/england area people use the titles as alternatives (and it is irrelevant in this instance what a US-based dictionary states) but in an 'internal' sense the terminology matters; a little to some and a great deal to others. I shall join in the hunt for links and disambiguations! --VampWillow 01:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Summary and Question

This page could be (and probably has been) a redirect to:

• United Kingdom - but that's wrong because it's only existed recently whereas Britishness has existed for a long time.
• Great Britain - but that excludes Ireland, and possibly other territories not on the mainland.
• Britain - which should be OK because it explains the usage of the word and points to all the other entities. In particular it points the the various United Kingdms that have existed, so a reference to British in the context of the Royal Navy would be cover the whole era.

Or we could leave it as a disambiguation, replicating the data on [[Britain]] , or of course make it into a full article about Britishness.

What do the team think this year? Rich Farmbrough 21:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not a true disambiguation page like most others i.e. a page redirecting people to other aritlces. It's a in itself description of the various meanining of the word British. It should remain as it is. Note that this is a different opinion to the one I had about 2 years ago above. Mintguy (T)

Should we then perhaps remove the diambig tag? Rich Farmbrough 23:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note that I disambiguated British recently, there's already a load more links.... Rich Farmbrough 10:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A British national identity is one of the competing Imagined communities within the UK and indeed beyond its borders and there is a role for a treatment at greater length of its ebb and flow, but it needs to be based on peer reviewed research to be useful.Dejvid 3 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)

Format of page

Widefox, I reverted the changes you made in November, back to when it stated that "British" is an adjective referring to the UK or Great Britain. MOS:DAB does state "Include exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term". However MOS:DAB also states "Usefulness to the reader is their principal goal", and "there may be pages in which a good reason exists to use another way; so ignore these guidelines if doing so will be more helpful to readers than following them". I am struggling to see how following those guidelines in helpful. The page is far more straight forward to understand as it is right now (as of 09:39, 6 May 2016‎ [10:07, 6 May 2016‎]).

And concerning whoever added them: the inclusion historical British states is certainly unhelpful. No reader is going to search "British" looking for those articles.

Rob984 (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Dabs aren't articles - they are just for navigation, so what looks like a defining sentence isn't the purpose here (and is counterproductive). That's handled by the wiktionary links. Here we have no scope for creating prose, as anything more that a concise list may be open to dispute, and WP:OR claims (and tagging as currently) ie content disputes. Invoking WP:IAR would have weight if there's a consensus (say on this page). Is there? The issue of this dab being an adjective won't go away and will require a compromise but I prefer my sectioned version [1] to the current (disputed) mess [2]. Probably the most important is to have one link per entry, which this current version fails. As readers have switched to mobile platforms (small screens), a single link at the front is more important than ever, and sections are also important on the mobile for longer lists, so I will mark this dab as needing cleanup, and revert unless there's consensus here to IAR, which seems to just fly in the face of the consensus at WP:MOSDAB. There's no need when both links can be put on separate lines. Of course, more opinions are welcome and may be useful. As for Kingdom of Great Britain or "Great Britain" to me (at least) that's a useful disambiguation for writers (and readers) as those links should be used in historical context (although they may or may not be WP:DABMENTIONed) it seems common sense to me that they'll be useful as subs (but not as unindented items due to dabmention). Be mindful of WP:RECENTISM as this is a loosely defined adjective. ps. See also Britain. Regards Widefox; talk 09:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I found Rob's revisions to be a step backwards and have reverted most of them. older ≠ wiser 11:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay. The only thing I can really add is that "British" doesn't directly refer to those topics. You don't search "British" looking for the United Kingdom or Great Britain, so those links aren't actually important (and even less so, the historical states). I agree however that it is defining the phrase, which like you say is not the purpose of a dab page. As for section headings, I agree, but I don't think the amount of entries here warrants them. Given the majority of entries are under one heading, a mobile reader is simply presented with two collapsed headings rather than a list of 10 entries which would quite easily be viewed. As for Britain, I largely cleaned up that page, as well as a number of other ones related to adjectives and names for England and Britain. Anyway, I accept if I want a change in the way we handle adjectives on dab pages, I should look for wider consensus. Rob984 (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. The question is only what article(s) does the reader/writer want when they put in "British". It's not going to be a beautiful result mapping adjectives to noun phrases but if we focus on utility it does its job. Wiktionary is for definitions. I'm guessing that generally redirecting adjectives to the noun (phrase) dabs is not as useful ie. we shouldn't do British -redirect-> Britain. MOSDAB isn't explicit on adjectives so the default would be to treat them the same. I consider the big problem with adjective dabs is that the dabs fill with WP:PTMs e.g. British Isles.

I favour using sections slightly more than other dab editors, and generally as long as there's three or more entries I see if sections will work on a dab (there's exceptions when two entries in a section seem appropriate but never one apart from catch-alls like Other uses and See also). The mobile client (both stable and beta on Android) use the section headings on this dab to create its own small floating TOC (even though on desktop a TOC isn't created), adding additional choice for the mobile reader not there without. It also adds a "Read More" with "Wales" etc which isn't too useful IMHO. Don't think I've mentioned this before at the dab project, but I think this is useful now we have so much mobile traffic, and the small list format ("In X...Thingamajig") should be deprecated in MOSDAB. I convert all I come across nowadays. Thoughts older? Widefox; talk 11:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)