Talk:North Britain

Origin

I think it needs to understood that the term "North Britain" was never ever in use by those who actually lived there! In the same way that I seriously doubt any Englishman called himself a "South Briton" living in "South Britain"! Furthermore Walter Scott is hardly an authoratitive referrence, he was a fiction writer whose work was designed for English speakers alone. He was also thoroughly accultered by English values of the early 19thC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.97.15 (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

National Records of Scotland today tweeted a letter signed by someone from Ardrossan, who used the term "N.B." in their address. The letter was dated September 1892, so it is consistent with the idea that the term was used somewhat in Scotland during the Victorian era. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Scotland

• Support proposed merge - the article adds no value--Snowded TALK 15:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - seems like there is plenty of information here to warrant its own article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• 'Support' --Cyrusmilleyhannana (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose -Scotland is a Country, this Article serves no porpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiemaloneyscoreg (talk • contribs) 16:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - this expression was in general enough use historically to warrant its own article. Delete the "modern use" para, though. Ehrenkater (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Articles such as Eire have their own article too, as do articles such as Albion...--Cameron* 18:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - There is no scope whatsoever for including a serious discussion of this term in the Scotland article. I'd like to see a serious argument but forward for the merge: there's precious little given above, and to be frank the style of this 'vote' without a proper debate or a putting forward of opinions is completely worthless. --Breadandcheese (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I really think some people here should have a look at WP:DEMOCRACY - Wikipedia is not a democracy, and thus simply leaving comments like 'agree' or 'disagree' are worthless and meaningless. Ultimately this 'poll' is doing nothing to achieve consensus and doing nothing to improve the article: until a decent discussion erupts, this is a pointless waste of time. --Breadandcheese (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose "North Britain" was a term used historically. This article is about that term and its use, not about Scotland per se. DrKiernan (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support North Britain could be a section of Scotland, it would be easier to access.--Aberdeen fc (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Article should be linked to in the Scotland article, but not merged as IMHO it remains sufficiently worthy of note to continue as a stand-alone article, in its own right. Endrick Shellycoat 14:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  I don't think it's significant enough to Scotland to include on the already-overloaded Scotland page. --Breadandcheese (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Removal of tag - I propose to remove the tag on the page tomorrow if there are no objections. The discussion seems to have run its course and no consensus for change has been reached, or seems within a reasonable grasp. --Breadandcheese (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

  Happy enough with that. Views above generally agree with leaving this as a separate article. SFC9394 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding modern use

I studied geology at university, and briefly worked in meteorology after that, and in both fields I heard the term "North Britain" being used, although I don't think I ever saw it defined. (Indeed, it was to try to find a definition that I came to this article) I suppose for those subjects - as for prehistoric Scottish history (prehistoric history - can you have that?) - it is a useful term given that you are dealing with things that don't respect national boundaries. I just did a quick Google search and found a few other contemporary uses; most were using it to mean Scotland, but these people are including parts of England in it as well: http://northbritainpermacultureinstitute.org/node/3 Wardog (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting link and no, you cannot have prehistoric history. I have fixed that. Ben MacDui 09:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge in from North Briton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The weird stub at North Briton serves no purpose and is not an encyclopedic topic but an unhelpful WP:CONTENTFORK. The people who live in North Britain are just residents of an area, and are not a distinct ethnic, linguistic, cultural, or other population. Cf. South Briton redirects to South Britain, and this is typical for "South/North/East/West[ern] [whatever]" names when they simply refer to indistinct populations of regions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• SMcCandlish, Huh. I thought I had boldly merged that already. So Merge, I guess. GPinkerton (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Merge. So long as we have this article and the separate one on The North Briton newspaper, that is enough. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, good use for hatnotes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.