Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Empire/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject British Empire. 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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
It's alive
Right I have created the basics of this page but as you can see there are still a lot of red links. The projects (as you can see also) is modelled on WikiProject:Commonwealth realms. I have added a "standard text" to the scope section but obviously it is still up for discussion and anyone may change it at any time. --Cameron (T|C) 18:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Break out the Pepsi (I'm a tee-totaller), WikiProject British Empire is born, via the caring hands of Cameron. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Urgent to-dos
- Add articles to the project list of important articles
- Add {{WikiProject British Empire}} to articles within our scope
- Add {{WP British Empire}} to your userpage = )
--Cameron* 20:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
British Empire template
{{Template:British Empire}} does not seem to function maybe it would be better {{WikiProject British Empire}} was put in its place on the main Project page --ARBAY (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I can't actually see what you are referring to, could you be more precise? Thanks...--Cameron* 20:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Important articles list
I went ahead and started our important article list with just a raw list of articles with the WP:BE talk page template on them so far. (Obviously, not all are critically important, but we can cut the lesser ones later. As it is, it is very short, with only 20-some articles.) I suppose we should figure out, before the list gets too long, exactly what it should look like as far as formatting, categories, what is/isn't considered 'important', etc. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks Alexius, looks great! --Cameron* 20:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Shortcut WP:Empire
isn't WP:Empire a bit presumptuous for a shortcut here? One might be thinking of Rome... or Napolean... afterall, we call furniture "Second Empire", referring to Napolean II. 70.55.85.143 (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not really. According to policy we may use such shortcuts unless another project or policy could make better use of it. Best, --Cameron* 09:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The map
The map seems to be missing Hanover, Aquitaine, Normandy, Brittany, and Gibraltar... etc (If a blue dot can represent HK, surely one can for Gibraltar) 70.55.85.143 (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm really not talented to edit images beyond different colours! If anyone has any idea how do so, feel free to edit the image! --Cameron* 20:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at the map's links, it isn't used in any article, I think it is just used for this Wikiproject. I don't know that it's that big of a deal that there are a few minor issues here or there. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hanover, Aquitaine, Normandy and Brittany were never British nor a part of the Empire. Merely other possessions held by the Crown. -MichiganCharms (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not as usually conceived maybe, but "held by the Crown" is a pretty good definition of dynastically-defined Empire; in a sense even Holland falls under that category during the tenure of William of Orange. I made some comments on teh map's talklpage at Camaeron's Commons talkpage related to this. Hanover et al. were something like "proxy states" - like vassal kingdoms of Rome etc; not part of the Empire in technical terms, but in practical terms, or purely dynastic ones, they were. Not in governance, or as managed/defined by Parliament, but personal fiefs of the monarch seem to be a pretty good definition of Empire; which is who other Empires can and are defined. Protectorates are shown (Aden) - why not royal possessions? Or else you can't include Sark, Guernsey etc which technically aren't and never have been part of the British state, though part of its imperial demesne....Skookum1 (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- �The British also held the Baleearic, Corfu et al and parts of the Aegean; not just Cyprus....Skookum1 (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- On Camaeron's talklpage linked above I mention "proxy states" - some are shown, like Egypt, although I suppose that was a protectorate or occupation - but I'm wondering about "spheres of influence", namely the British sphere in China; or are the concessions made by the Chinese Empire to the European Powers not to be considered?Skookum1 (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I answered on your commons talk page, incase you hadn't already seen it. --Cameron* 09:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- On Camaeron's talklpage linked above I mention "proxy states" - some are shown, like Egypt, although I suppose that was a protectorate or occupation - but I'm wondering about "spheres of influence", namely the British sphere in China; or are the concessions made by the Chinese Empire to the European Powers not to be considered?Skookum1 (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- �The British also held the Baleearic, Corfu et al and parts of the Aegean; not just Cyprus....Skookum1 (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Not as usually conceived maybe, but "held by the Crown" is a pretty good definition of dynastically-defined Empire; in a sense even Holland falls under that category during the tenure of William of Orange. I made some comments on teh map's talklpage at Camaeron's Commons talkpage related to this. Hanover et al. were something like "proxy states" - like vassal kingdoms of Rome etc; not part of the Empire in technical terms, but in practical terms, or purely dynastic ones, they were. Not in governance, or as managed/defined by Parliament, but personal fiefs of the monarch seem to be a pretty good definition of Empire; which is who other Empires can and are defined. Protectorates are shown (Aden) - why not royal possessions? Or else you can't include Sark, Guernsey etc which technically aren't and never have been part of the British state, though part of its imperial demesne....Skookum1 (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hanover, Aquitaine, Normandy and Brittany were never British nor a part of the Empire. Merely other possessions held by the Crown. -MichiganCharms (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Categories
Just curious as to a listing of BE-related categories, and if it's appropriate that, say, Category:British Empire be added to items such as Colony of British Columbia et al. Technically even the Canada article should be in that, as it remained part of the Emipre until the 1920s, no?Skookum1 (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think categorizing Canada or Australia under BE will last very long, it'll likely be immediately reverted. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- If historical articles about Australia and Canada etc were included I don't see a problem. For examples, Australian Goldrush or Eureka Stockade could be included, because Australia was part of the British Empire at the time. But generic articles, or articles about modern Australia should not be, for the obvious reason that the British Empire no longer exists.--Gazzster (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, technically it does, they just like to call them British Overseas Territories instead of "Colonies". ;) Commander Zulu (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know how you say 'technically', as the Brit. Government never uses the term, and, in fact, as you say, has substituted 'Overseas Territories'. And the Empire was a concept, a mindset, just as much as it was a geographical empire. That mindset has passed (I would hope). But if neither of those considerations serve to convince, Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Papua NG, Barbados, etc, are not part of any 'British' dominion; they are free and equal members of a Commonwealth of Nations, from which the word 'British' was dropped decades ago.--Gazzster (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, technically it does, they just like to call them British Overseas Territories instead of "Colonies". ;) Commander Zulu (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- If historical articles about Australia and Canada etc were included I don't see a problem. For examples, Australian Goldrush or Eureka Stockade could be included, because Australia was part of the British Empire at the time. But generic articles, or articles about modern Australia should not be, for the obvious reason that the British Empire no longer exists.--Gazzster (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Templates for Deletion
A number of templates relevant to this Project are up for deletion/merger at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 3. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Map of the british empire
i think the map should be cleaned up a little bit , for example Gibraltar is NOT that big , and the louisiana border in north america looks too biased --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow you. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think he means the 49th Parallel on the west of the Prairies, the south flank of the Red River basin on the east. The map is correct if that's the issue; one part is the pre-1819 boundary, the other is post-1819....think I'll have a closer look at Maine and the Columbia District borders....hmm.Skookum1 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okie DOkie. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Duh, of course the Maine border variation needn't be shown, since both sides were at some time British; the Columbia District border looks OK, if a bit odd and pointy in that map projection. The one spot I can see that's not adequately shown is the lease of teh mainland portion of the southern half of the Alaska Panhandle, which was leased from 1839 onwards by Britain from the Russians, until the Alaska purchase of 1867, from which point the Americans ignored British lease-rights in the area (and which likely the Russians hadn't bothered to tell the Americans about, though American traders in the region would ahve known about it...). anyway the Louisiana border is fine, EuroHistoryTeacher; if anything there's a sliver at the western end of the Prairies where Rupert's Land used to dip to Triple Divide Peak in Montana, other than that the line is showing the maximum extent of the British Empire; though at different times; the "arc" of the Palliser triangle maybe should be shown in a blank line like the US-Canada border, though it would just be a sliver and not very nice-looking graphically.Skookum1 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okie DOkie. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think he means the 49th Parallel on the west of the Prairies, the south flank of the Red River basin on the east. The map is correct if that's the issue; one part is the pre-1819 boundary, the other is post-1819....think I'll have a closer look at Maine and the Columbia District borders....hmm.Skookum1 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Or All-Red Route, I'm not sure if it's hyphenated or not. This was atag used in reference to an all-British route around the world: via Gibraltar-Suez-Aden-India-Malacca-HK-Vancouver-Montreal-London or alternately via the Cape of Good Hope. it features in CP Steamships/CP Railway tourism promotions, and Ithink in Cook's and in P&O's...something of an imperial slogan. I don't have the resources to wriet/cite it properly, just observing that it's "out there" as an Empire-related topic in need of an article. Basic cites I can piont to for Vancouver being a key connection are in alan Morley's Vancouver: MFrom Milltown to Metropolis and J.S. Matthews' Early Vancouver; als oin Peter MacDonald's Historical Atlas of Vancouver (Historical Geography of Vancouver?).Skookum1 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have a BBC/Time-Life Magazine thing (The British Empire) here with an issue devoted entirely to The "All-Red Routes"; with the hyphen. Covers Steamships, Telegraph Cables, and Flying Boats. If I get some time I'll try and get an article up soonish. Commander Zulu (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)