A fact from Windmills in the Channel Islands appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 May 2008, and was viewed approximately 5,918 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Channel Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Channel Islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Channel IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Channel IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Channel IslandsChannel Islands-related articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Jersey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jersey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject JerseyTemplate:WikiProject JerseyJersey articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Mills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mills on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MillsWikipedia:WikiProject MillsTemplate:WikiProject MillsMills articles
This article was nominated for deletion on 24 February 2022. The result of the discussion was redirect.
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
St Ouen's Windmill is just off La Rue de Grantez - unless I'm mistaken, it's the only windmill in Grantez. Man vyi (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Object to reversion of split. The article was split so that the windmills could be found under their respective countries. The logical arrangement is by country, and with so many windmills in both countries, there's little sense in maintaining the single article lumping them together with no rationale. Unless there's some sort of source for a cultural, legal and architectural unity which makes the windmills a special case? Will revert to separate articles in due course unless there's some justification. BTW these are by definition not windmills in the United Kingdom: they are all outside the UK. Man vyi (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument that the logical arrangement is by country doesn't bear out from looking at the other articles - the logical arrangement appears to be some arbitrary territory, whether that's a country or an island or a group of islands or a county/province, etc, - doesn't seem to matter. For example, there's an article for Windmills in the Isle of Man (an island) and List of windmills in Ireland (another island), but also List of windmills in East Flanders (a Belgian province), etc, etc.
With that in mind, your explanation doesn't explain why the article can't exist under the heading of "Channel Islands" as it is the [[WP:COMMON|commonly] used geographic region, and the article has existed here for years without any issues? --HighKing (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better if they're split, so that they appear within the Windmills by country template in the same way as other by country templates, which have Jersey/Guernsey articles shown. Jersey and Guernsey often treated as if they're countries. For example, by the German National Library, see Jersey where Jersey and Great Britain are specified in the "Land" field, Land being country in German. Danrok (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That template is poorly named. For example, it lists the "Isle of Man" and it lists "Ireland" too as I've pointed out above. Neither Jersey or Guernsey are countries - the German word "land" can mean a lot of things including "land mass". Far better to simply rename the template so that it's "Windmills by territory" to fit in with the way the articles were originally written and organized, as opposed to trying to make countries out of every territory. --HighKing (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are Jersey and Guernsey countries? The answer depends on context, it is in any case just a simple term in the English language. There's no end to the number of different ways in which the world could be categorised. Here's another example, where Jersey is listed along with countries: Countries or areas, codes and abbreviations. In my experience, it is the ISO country code which determines whether or not an area ends up being categorised as a so called country. Danrok (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note, that the title is very careful to say "Countries or Areas". Getting a ISO code doesn't mean you're a "country" per se. See here for the UN explanation which states The designations employed and the presentation of country or area names in this list do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. For example, Turks and Caicos Islands and The Falkland Islands are listed with ISO codes. And the Channel Islands is listed as territory 830. If you want the official list of actual countries recognized by the UN, see here. --HighKing (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, as a Jersey person, which country am I from? What is the answer to that question when I am opening a bank account? Danrok (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jersey, and the rest, do fit Wikipedia's country article, quite rightly. Danrok (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Jersey is a country or not is kinda immaterial and a bit of a red herring on this issue. You were the one that stated that the articles are already organized by country and that various sources (a German website and the UN website) say Jersey is a country. I was simply pointing out that translating from German is inexact, and the official UN list doesn't say any such thing.
The primary point is that most of the articles on windmills aren't written according to country. The detailed articles use smaller subdivisions like counties and other territories. Look at the articles for England or Belgium for example. These together are then in turn listed under a List article, and this is mostly by country, but not all (as I've pointed out above). There's no logical requirement to split this article. Most articles use Channel Islands to describe the islands and that has served here until now. It is the term that most people would search on. --HighKing (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The logical argument for splitting is that Jersey and Guernsey are two very separate entities, as defined by law. They are countries. Windmills in Guernsey have no connection with windmills in Jersey. on the Channel Islands, you claim that "It is the term that most people would search on." Who are "most people", and how have you determined this? Danrok (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're separate entities/territories. Be aware that lots of territories are defined by law - it doesn't mean that forms the basis on how articles are organised though.
As to most common - just that most other "List of" articles appear to use "Channel Islands". For example, List of castles in the Channel Islands is also organized in this way. But. Not overwhelmingly so. It seems I've stepped onto a landmine. I didn't realise before now that some editors didn't like/prefer Channel Islands and would rather present articles that asserted their own autonomy and identity. I get that, and if that's the real underlying motive, I'm fine with that - go ahead and split. --HighKing (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The List of castles in the Channel Islands looks like a different case, because there is some direct connection between at least some of the listed items (many of them were owned by The Crown and were used, added to during the same wars). Danrok (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Danrok. Took a while but I'm fine with the split now that I've thought and read some more. :-) --HighKing (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for discussion. Is there a technical way to achieve a harmonious split that preserves article history? Man vyi (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think it's possible to preserve history. Guidelines suggest you clearly state in the edit summary of the original article that it is being split, but you already did that. I've no objections to the split any more, so harmony achieved. --HighKing (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
