Simplified English speaker here: That is the correct way to do it.
This also fixes the problem in the proposed solution for countries that have multiple languages which are regional but don't reflect the nation's borders, i.e. Canada's English and French; and here in Finland, Finnish, Swedish, and saamelainen (which I can't spell in English because I don't remember which letter has the diacritical... and it's not like you can type that on a US keyboard anyway, so it will just get messed up by most US web developers.)
@seachaint I bumped into a chap on G+ one time who was absolutely insistant that Ireland was not part of the British Isles, and that using that term was an offence against all Irish.
That ... isn't a well-supported case (there are numerous references to BI among Irish sources, and none that I could find clearly articulating an alternative) but it does reflect how contentious language and symbols can be.
There are certainly numerous other instances (as this thread is highlighting).
@dredmorbius @rysiek @johl A thing is called whatever it is called, but Ireland already has a name (several, actually, there's mythology about that whole mess), and "British" has evolved into a national identity and not merely the name for a set of geographical features. So, referring to Ireland as part of the "British Isles" has had evolved connotations and sensitivities. Referring to Ireland as Ireland is only liable to offend a small number of people, who you'll doubtless offend some other way anyway. But implying that we are British is likely to offend many more. :)
@seachaint That said and understood, how is the archipelligo as a whole referred to then?
Etymology is as always interesting if not currently prescriptive (I'm using "Briton" as "British" derives from it):
c. 1200, "a Celtic native of the British Isles," from Anglo-French Bretun, from Latin Brittonem (nominative Britto, misspelled Brito in MSS) "a member of the tribe of the Britons," from *Britt-os, the Celtic name of the Celtic inhabitants of Britain and southern Scotland before the 5c. Anglo-Saxon invasion drove them into Wales, Cornwall, and a few other corners. In 4c. B.C.E. Greek they are recorded as Prittanoi, which is said to mean "tattooed people."
In Middle English it was exclusively in historical use, or in reference to the inhabitants of Brittany (see Breton); it was revived when James I was proclaimed King of Great Britain in 1604, and made official at the union of England and Scotland in 1707.
@seachaint And apparently the Irish proscription against "British Isles" is in fact official:
@rysiek So, odd fact here: often it is the immigrant populations of a culture who more accurately reflect the language as it was originally spoken and written. In the case of English, usage underwent a major shift in Britain during the 19th century, whilst there are portions of the United States (mostly among the upper easterly mid-west, particularly in Michigan) who have retained language closer to that of the late 18th century.
Similar situation in Quebec, though that reflects a rural French again of the 18th/19th centuries. Parisians openly mock it. (Source: known multiple Parisians who've done so, without prompting.)
That's not always the case, and other influences can come to bear (esp. in the southeastern US, w/ African influence, and southwestern, with Latinx / native populations influence).
Note that it's East Taiwan which has more widely adopted simplified Chinese scripts, whilst it's RoC who've rertained traditional scripts.
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!