STOP STOP STOP!
You are saying "You're wrong since the begining", and have given NO proof at all that there was any error or problem.

STOP THIS HARASSMENT WAR ! I absolutely don't have to ackowledge your different opinion, keep your opinion and I keep mine, but NO there has been NO demonstrated error at all.

You have repe"atedly refuisedf to acknowledge the fact that I ha

When I do make errors, I recognize them immediately, and correct fast. But you've not conveinced me that there was an error, so it is an unfruitful discussion. Nothing wxas decided, but you want absolutely from me that I reply to you that I was worng or made an "error" or that I'm "wrong"'. This is going nowhere ! You have an opinion, I have mine, you have absolutely NO right to force me to accept yours. We exposed our arguments , we just disagree, that's all.
But nothing at all was broken in the data, and that's you absoltuely don't want to recoignize it, and it is really an agressive attitude you have adopted.
We can perfectly have opposite opinions without having to force the others to accept one view.
And here I am strongly convinced that none of your arguments apply. You are seeing importance on things that in fact have no importance. you've not demonstrated any break in the logic or any problems this has caused.
Youy are still convinced that I took my own decision, but I only followed the existing practices adopted since many years and that you just want to change ALONE.
Sorry? I will no longer reply you because of your oppressive attitude, which is all but communatary if you still think that there must be ONLY ONE solution and when you still pretned that I really made a real error that you've never demonstrated anywhere.

"Map what is on the ground" is not applicable. There's no such tyhing on the ground. So these names can ONLY be descriptive and should be made accurately so that it it is still distinct from what would be really on the ground...
This is a case where any choice (with or without the disambiguation) here is equally arbitrary, but then disambiguation is enough to take the priority to all other considerations.

You're continuing to repeat yourself, you are truing to force to accept an argument that you have NEVER justified validly. I gave my reasons and they are valid and this does not contradict any past decision or common practices.

You just fight for a principle that I respect, but that is not even applicable here. And systematic principles in mapping are always wrong ! Maps are full of exceptions everywhere, you should know that, otherwise you should not use OSM at all!

for your most recent reply: you continue making personal attacks. and asserting false things about what I do or think.
I replied, you refused and argumented, and you don't want me to argument ? Sorry but you are not trying to find any solution, your going to nowhere.
You retierate your arguments, I reitarate mines which are justified (your arguments are found nowhere in any discussion or decision, and you actually want to reduce the help we want to give to users).
Stop this fight: ask to developers of editors and tools to add the missing disambiguation. I won't help much for that, as I do not develop these tools.
Only JOSM offers a disambiguation but JOSM is used by a minority of users. Instead, please post a RFE to iD bug tracker and support if you want this to change... You're speaking to the wrong person as I cannot decide their priorities.

You're inventing interpretations.
Since the begining it has always included accurate disambiguation. These landmasses are ***not*** the countries/regions, it has alwyas been a ***part*** of them.
You're just continuing to fight against what is actually not a problem at all anywhere.
The diusambiguation could as well be "Archipelago", or other similar terms. Many of these landmasses have their own defined geographical name distinct from the admin boundary (this is just to demonstrate that they actualyl don't even have to match the name of the admin boundary in which they are located). And as these names are optional, they are actually not used except by contributors trying to edit them or reference them.

This was documented since long first in Germany osm.wiki/DE:Relation:land_area
A name attribute is allowed, but the doc never says it is mandatory, its value is completely unspecified and it can be omitted completely. If it is there it is just a helper for contributors but it has no use at all in rendering or when searching data for these relations (which are also not necessarily "administrative" in the way each country define rules for their coastal area, given that legally they should be defined on the baseline and not the highwater level of OSM "coastlines". OSM still has almost nowhere data about baselines and OSM coastlines are approximations.
So take it seriously, these relations are not legal boundaries, they do not represent the administrative unit you want to reuse to abbreviate them, they are only the emerged part of these units. So qualifid names are complelely fine and less misleasing.

All this changeset was not about changing these names but disambiguate and fix other tags and relation members, because they were confused and this caused severe rendering and usage problems on conflicting boundary relations with the same attributes where the attroibutes should have been clearly different. After I made it, the map here looks finally OK and shows all admin borders (before there were "holes" everywhere caused by conflicts between confused relations. That job is done, all fixes are now OK, geocoding now works properly. And I don't understand why you criticize that only on a minor detail (non mandatory names for these relations, just used as very useful hints for contributors to avoid they make new confusion later or break existing relations)

Only because I'm above average users, just means there is a higher chance of friction occuring with just a few (like you do) for things that are in fact not even a problem or just because of personal opinions. Landmasses could even have no name it all (they are never needed for rendering), but since they were used to disabmiguate things more easily only in editors and tools, a choice was made by others (since long) to use this disambiguation is a way that is immediately usable in editors and QA tools. These names don"t even need to be translated, they or only there as helpers for contributors editing the map and that's fine.

"lot of people is your interpretation" actually this is very small to the number of thank you I receive directly.
You are just harassing me for sometinh which is absolutely not an issue anywhere and don't want to recognize that I solved really incorrect tagging that caused real problems.
You are doing transforming this into a agressive personal war for no valid reason at all, based only on your own theoretical assumption which here is also false. No I did not tag anything for rendering, and yes the names are accurate, and the convention used does not come from me, it has been used since long without any problem to avoid similar issues, and it will remain as long as editor tools (or navigation tools) to not disambiguate things correctly. There's much more benefit in disambiguating this explicitly, and espacially there when the designated objects are clearly different.

Why is it only you that inists on what is not an issue at all ? Stop this harassment.

The incorrect tags (notably using type=boundary and boundary=administrative) or references caused also severe rendering problems for the international borders or some regional borders: they were discontinuous because queries for borders retrieved two unrelated relations, and renderers tend to eliminate ways that are selected twice: these borders were NOT rendered at all.
This caused also severe problem in Nominatim while it tried to locate a place in relevant superboundaries: superboundaries where eliminated. It caused severe problems for geocoding places (finding places by name or address and retrieving coordinates: places were not found).

These bugs were NOT caused by names of landmasses but the fact that landmasses were incorrectly tagged as boundaries.

Confusion between relations will continue to happen again as long as editors are not changed to display relation types (at least): landmasses are NOT tagged with boundary=administrative, or type=boundary. It is what I fixed, individually, area by area.

And this was absolutely NOT an automated edit but individual fixes to solve existing problems that would have not exited at all if names were more accurate and not so confusing.

I repeat: "Jersey (land mass)" is NOT "Jersey". (I can say it for other cases, this is of course an example, I did not invent it, this naming scheme was used since long and not invented by me, I have respected the existing conventions that worked everywhere else and did not cause any problem except for you).

In summary: I did not use any incorrect tags, I fixed them to remove duplicates or incorrect references between unrelated areas.

I've not tagged for the renderer. FULL STOP. I have used existing conventions (sused since long). FULL STOP. I have solved incorrect tagging caused by confusion. Names are accessory but still essential for editors. the iD editor still does not make any distrinction when selecting relations, you have to visit each one after selecting to know if this is the correct one by looking at the list of tags.
Many people are confused. And as long as this does not cause any rendering problem for any one there's no reason to change something that was in place since the begining: "Jersey (landmasses)" is NOT "Jersey", only a part of it and this makes sense to have this precision, just like we add disambiguation prefixes in wikis that need unique names for linking and especially because this also causes confusion (OSM still has no mechanism to signal ambiguities and help resolve them to perform the correct selection; yes we have tags, but unfortunately they are ignored by the tools, as well as by people that don't check them at all or have no idea about how to choose correctly).

I repeat it becauser you don't want to read: I have used those names to help fixing incorrect tags (not names, they don't matter here, but tagging distinct landmasses as if they were boundaries, and they are not !)
The augmented names are not descriptive they are accurate because these landmasses are NOT the same as the place from which they borrow a part of their name and only a part of their semantic meaning.

So you want to reverse a decision that was taken long time ago by other people (not me) to use distinctive name without even asking them why they chose that convention? And you don't care at all about the confusions that were made (which was why I made this changeset to solve duplicates or incorrect tagging for landmasses which were confused with boundaries !)

Remember that these "names" found landmasses are never rendered at all with labels on maps because they are NOT boundaries. They are just used by reference from other objects or selected and found by specific tags.
May be iD and this site should display at least the "note" tag, or the "type" tag of relations.

Note: the OSM website (here). Does not allow seeing distinctions easily (the types of objects are NOT specified at all in list of members or list of parent relations).
So confusion is extremely frequent when this OSM site does not make any difference, but just displays the "name" tag, the object "id", and the object version.
When people see that, they want to remove what they think are duplicates, or select the wrong objects as references.
iD also does not offer any easy distinction.

This method of naming differently has been used everywhere else since the beginning, because there were confusions betwee ndistinct objects (and Nominatim was also confused and did not allow making the distinction between landmasses and admin boundaries, but also because various contributors changed landmasses into admin boundaries, creating duplicate)
This is NOT specific to Jersey, it has been used since long in Germany (the first to use it), and it was not by me but was decided because of these confusion problems between distinct objects.

Note: "Jersey" alone would alsop be incorrect ! Jersey is larger than that.
The name is already fully descriptive of the intended use.
It will never cause any problem in searches of boundaries....

Except that rawedit is integrated with other tools that propose to use either it (simple and fast for minor tag changes), or JOSM (too slow for these cases)
The names are consistant witrh other names for Landmass and were used because of confusion of admin boundaries and the fact that soime people created duplicate admin boundaries but actually not the same thing.
Nominatim does not even help to disambiguate the two, and for now adding the precision in the name has been completely harmless everywhere else it is used.

An no this was absolutely not "mechanical edit", they were done individually at very small speed, with raweditor, over a long perdiod of several hours using other editors.
If you know how to force "rawedit" to close its open changeset...
Why did I use rawedit, it's because for changing single tags, it was not necessary to load the full objects (which is dramatically slow here, even with JOSM partial doanload of relations)

Raw edit is a set of individual edits on isolated tags. There's no way in it to create separate changesets, they are closed automatically but after long time (only made by the server, not by that editor).
The names for landmasses are not rendered on map, but they do no represent the whole area so yes "Jersey (land mess)" is accurate here, as it does not include the maritime areas of "Jersey" as a whole.