Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 → Archive 30

Great Britain vs United Kingdom

The use of the name of Great Britain outside the country is very spread, like Grossbrittanien Grande-Bretagne Groot-Brittannië Storbritannien rather than United Kingdom because the expression united kingdom makes no sense, like calling London the town? All present and past kingdoms are united kingdoms even though it is not any more in the official name. Like Sweden abolished the united kingdom approach in the new ground law 1970. This thing makes it for non-British people senseless to say United Kingdom because it leads to confusions, the listener/reader is not certainly understanding the phrase. So in practical language Great Britain and eq translated terms are the common expression, also make it more distingushed from Brittany in France as well.

The last 15 years there has been more common that British people refere themselves to living in the UK rather than Britain and it is definitly something that makes things more clear, and vey domestic like a STockholmer is talking about STockholm in daily talk as the town it is silly to be used officially.

At the same time there has started a huge confusion about America taht fopr most people is one or two continents and Americans people from this or these two continents and english speaking people starts to use it for USA and the population of USA. Like meeting Canadians refusing to accept he is an American, that is real silly. Then cover this with the Spanish expression for the two continents Americas is even making it worse. The sillyness is that is is the same confusion as with the UK, but the difference is how establish it is. For USA there are hardly any alternative but "the USA" but Great Britain is by far a much smoother and established expression for the Kingdom.

I Suggest strongly that "commonly known as ... or Great Britain" should be added at line 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.161.75 (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The British government discourages use of "Great Britain" to refer to the UK of GB and NI because it refers only to the island made up of England, Scotland and Wales and excludes Ulster. Thet term Britain (with no "Great") is in common currency and is becoming more widely used in an official capacity, but it's already mentioned in the first line so I'm not sure what more we can do. It's also already mentioned that many people incorrectly call the UK Great Britain further down.
Incidentally, we were taught at school that the French called Britain "la Royaume-Uni". JonChappleTalk 06:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
You mean Northern Ireland not Ulster, Ulster includes three counties in Ireland, but I agree with you we should not be saying "commonly known as GB" --Snowded TALK 06:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
You knew what I meant. "Ireland" includes six counties in the United Kingdom. JonChappleTalk 07:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Just concerned that you say what you mean! --Snowded TALK 07:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I did say what I mean. "Ulster" is short-hand for NI in addition to referring to the historical province. Just as "Ireland" is also a misleadingly-named state in addition to an island! JonChappleTalk 08:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The UK is more commonly called "England" rather than the rather technical "Great Britain". But good luck trying to get Wikipedia editors to acknowledge what is staring everybody in the face. Incidentally, I notice that "UK" is increasingly being used as an adjective, eg. UK soldier, UK hospital, UK weather, UK parliament, UK government etc etc etc. This would have been utterly incomprehensible to most citizens of the UK even as recently as 50 years ago, when the natural adjective would have been "English" or "British". There is no doubt that language is changing, and quite rapidly. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this covered in the Etymology section (and the See Also's)? DeCausa (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The suggestion is that "Great Britain" be added to the list of commonly used synonyms in line 1. The fact that, to UK editors and the UK government, that term is seen as incorrect should perhaps not be the overriding principle here, if reliable sources do in fact indicate that "GB" is a term in widespread use to mean "UK". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
From what I can see Britain or England are more common. The latter is so wrong as to not be permitted, the former is in increasing use --Snowded TALK 09:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess both "Great Britain" and "England" is analagous to Holland in the Netherlands article. There it is mentioned in the lead (because of common usage), but with an explanation of why it is "incorrect". I suppose that would be a way of dealing with it. In United States, America is given as an unqualified alternative even thaough it is technically incorrect and highly controveresial in Latin America. DeCausa (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Roman occupation vs Saxon settlement

The most odd thing about moste Englsih/Bristih histroy writings is the expressions, Roman occupation and Saxon settlement, why not the other way?

The time as Roman province England and Wales was indeed a part, provinces of the Roman empire. But certainly it was not hords of italians running around in Britain being it. Rather all research points at the fact it was the prevoius local population that was romanised or worked within the Roman sociaty as Romans. They hardly occupied themselves? During 400 years of Romans the celtic languages were in fact still existing, that is something completely different in comaparnce with Ireland or Wales in the Noraman era. The Noramans were really occupying Britain more than any other.

However the Saxons came and clensed the country from celts in a completely different way than the Roman empire. In fact Briatian becaim Anglish during these years.

I would say that these very politically flavoured expressions of British history are unfit. The expressions shows that no follower of political power refere its regin to the Roman era, and so it should be described as black as possible in contrast to their own. In fact after the Roman collapse during the 5th century half the British population vanished and most likly because the souciaty cound not feed them and domestic wars. People died in masses and emigrated most likly to todays France where the sociaty and its facilities were more intact. During this century of disaster the collapse of a smooth working advanced sociaty things like Arthur and Tristan and Isolde emmerge, the most romantic events in British tailes covering the disaster from history records. Political propaganda in the past was really very advanced, much more than one first believes. Many of the features of the roman era Bitish sociaty hasent been seen in Britain until the mid 20th century. The Roman sociaty was not a democracy and not an equal sociaty form, but very few others has been since. I suggest the expresssion "Roman provinces" should be used instead of Roman occupation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.161.75 (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed "occupation" to "rule", does that suffice? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the key point is the opening of the above post "The most odd thing about most English/British history writings is the expressions, Roman occupation and Saxon settlement" (my emphasis). The point of Wikipedia here is simply to reflect most English/British history writings. If it is the case that these events are generally referred to as the Roman occupation and the Anglo-Saxon settlement - and I think they are, more or less - then that's how they should be referred to here, for good or ill. The rest of the post which may or may not be true, is WP:OR. I would favour reverting. DeCausa (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The wording has come about because, essentially, the Roman occupation was led by an organised military force which imposed rule over the local inhabitants. Clearly there was romanisation of the population over time, but originally it was a military occupation. The process of Saxon settlement was certainly not peaceful, but equally it was not centrally organised to the same extent, so far as I am aware. So, there is no overriding logic in using the same terminology in both cases. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Occupation is usually used only when an area is regarded as foreign territory, but the areas in Britain became full Roman provinces. True it was occupied, but it is more contentious to describe the 400 years as a continuous occupation. In general I think it is best to avoid words with strong emotive connotations when there are better alternatives in the body of an article. The terminology still isn't the same. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Emotive?! 2000 years ago...Are there Roman Empire neo-nationalists who would get upset?! I still think it's best to be guided by common usage: 10,300 hits for "Roman occuation of Britain" on Google books. DeCausa (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Now now, us Romano-celts have been attempting to sustain civilisation in the face of Anglo-Saxon barbarism for the best part of 2,000 years and its still emotive. The Dyrham a vivid memory, and don't even start me on the Normans. Serious stuff aside, I think the current wording is fine --Snowded TALK 08:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Great Britain, United Kingdom and style guides

The Etymology and terminology section says, "Great Britain...particularly in the UK, is not favoured as an alternative name for the United Kingdom." This is not supported by the two cited sources. The Guardian and Observer style guide says, "These terms are synonymous: Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." The opposite of the statement it is supposed to support! It then goes on to advise the writer "not to write Britain when you might mean England and Wales, or just England", which is not of course, the same as using it for the United Kingdom. The BBC style guide says, "Britain remains, just about, an acceptable substitute for the United Kingdom in some contexts", and then says, like the Guardian, that it should not be used for England or England and Wales. Ironically, considering the sentence I quoted from the article, it also deprecates the use of "UK". That sentence needs to be changed to reflect actual usage as shown by the cited sources. Scolaire (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In the early part of your paragraph you have fallen into the frequent trap of confusing "Britain" with "Great Britain". - David Biddulph (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Unless I'm reading this wrong, you've mentioned that the Guardian and Observer style guides say "Britain" is the official short of the UK, not "Great Britain". If that's the case, the article is correct as it stands. JonChappleTalk 11:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know where this (very strongly felt) belief on UK-related articles that there is a clear distinction between Britain, Great Britain and the United Kingdom comes from or that Great Britain, as opposed to Britain, is the "full" name for the island. Elsewhere, the words are used interchangeably and Britain is the original name for the island, rather than an abbreviated from of Great Britain.
For example, the OED:

United Kingdom: a country of western Europe consisting of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland; population 61,113,200 (est. 2009); capital, London. Full name United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Britain: the island containing England, Wales, and Scotland. The name is broadly synonymous with Great Britain, but the longer form is more usual for the political unit. See also Great Britain, United Kingdom

Great Britain: England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom.
Usage: Great Britain is the name for the island that comprises England, Scotland, and Wales, although the term is also used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a political unit that includes these countries and Northern Ireland. The British Isles is a geographical term that refers to the United Kingdom, Ireland, and surrounding smaller islands such as the Hebrides and the Channel Islands

These would appear to contradict the article and give Great Britain as a frequent synonym for the United Kingdom. --RA (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to David Biddulph and JonChapple, you're right, I was conflating Britain and Great Britain. But I would suggest that is the fault of the article, not my ignorance. To say that it is "often referred to as Britain", and then go into a rigmarole about Great Britain, gives the impression that it is the same term that is under discussion. A reader who is familiar with both terms will not register the change from one to the other unless it is signalled in advance. At any rate, the sentence is still not strictly in accordance with the cited sources: both sources give lists of "do's" and "don'ts" e.g. don't use Britain for England, but neither explicitly states that Great Britain for the United Kingdom is "not favoured". A more proper way of saying it would be:

  • United Kingdom is often referred to by the short-form name of Britain. Style guides of British media allow the use of Britain for the United Kingdom, but point out that the longer term Great Britain refers only to England, Scotland and Wales (references). However, some foreign usage...

Scolaire (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your revised sentence to an extent, but it's not just the British media – the Government also frequently refers to the UK as Britain, as evidenced recently by this godawful website, so that would need a mention too. JonChappleTalk 19:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, I also tend to hear "Britain and Ireland" mentioned a lot by Irishmen, which I always took to mean short-hand for the UK and RoI. JonChappleTalk 19:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Ditto, both terms being potentially vague and spilling into and over each other.
I would not say that Britain is a "short-form name" for the United Kingdom, however. Certainly, it is shorter but IMO it would be simply another name. E.g.:

"'Britain' is used informally, usually meaning the United Kingdom." — direct.gov.uk

--RA (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. I took the liberty of dropping pars pro toto while I was at it. It sounds frightfully clever but I don't see that it adds anything to the article. Scolaire (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Plus it's incorrect, as I've been trying to point to HighKing on a number of occasions today. JonChappleTalk 21:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Great edit, btw. JonChappleTalk 21:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Why, thank you :-) Scolaire (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Access dates

A small thing, but curious. Why were all the access dates in an article on the United Kingdom changed from British to American format, here? Scolaire (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh. Weird. I guess it'll have to be all pulled back manually now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Needs to be reverted somehow, I have dropped User:Atomician a note about this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I've changed it back myself. Atomician (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Glorious revolution

There is very little mention of the Glorious revolution on this article. The revolution of 1688 is much more important then the act of union. it should actually be considered the most defining event in British history, because it established England as a major power and as a financial power-house, it saw the beggining of Britain's policy of intervention on the European continent against aggressive powers, which was the beggining of Britain as a global power Voucherman (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the UK, which did not exist before 1707 at the earliest. Although the Glorious Revolution is mentioned in the History section of this article, there is much more information in the linked article at History of England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The article deals with events after at least 1707 and anything before that has to be background and as concise as possible. Mention of the GR is in proportion and it is also very debatable that the Revolution caused what followed. There were colonies and armies successful in Europe before that date afterall.--SabreBD (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The Glorious Revolution establish England as a modern nation-state, and arguably the world's first modern economic powerhouse. England began it's policy of opposing France on the continent after this revolution - before it England was extremely isolationist - after it from the Nine Years's war onwards, Britain would intervene in almost every single European conflict up until the Second world war. Really the Glorious revolution does not get the attention it deserves, but after it Scotland was virtually a vassal of William III's England anyway, so the act of union was inevitable anyway Voucherman (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It deserves more mention on this article because it is the truly major turning point in British history, from political-religious chaos to stability and global power Voucherman (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Find sources that say that, in relation to the UK not just England, and we can take it from there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It is important to the whole British Isles but not entirely to the UK which occured afterwards for different reasons. The article can link to the main article on the Glorious Revolution itself where it is fully laid for a reader. Mabuska (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The Revolution was a key point in the creation of the Union of 1707, just 19 years later. James II & VII was overthrown simultaneously in all three of his realms, though the consequences differed in each. When passing the Claim of Right in 1689, the Parliament of Scotland also called for a union with England, an offer which the English did not take up. The Revolution brought about the settlement of domestic affairs in England, Ireland and Scotland which allowed the eventual union to take place. Citations will be legion, but not at this time of night. Howard Alexander (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
If it is such a key point (I'm not a historian so I don't know), should it not be mentioned in more depth at History of the formation of the United Kingdom, where it only seems to merit a brief mention at present? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

History: "After the defeat of France in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars... " ?

History section - Since the Acts of Union of 1707-

"After the defeat of France in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars... " , Yes France has lost the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) but never lost the Revolutionary wars (1792-1802). This is a serious mistake because without victory during the Revolutionary Wars, modern France would not exist! The evidence, when you click on the link -French Revolutionary Wars- it says: Result = French Republican victory, survival of the French Republic, Republics established several French customer. So there is a contradiction between the article on the UK and article on the French Revolutionary Wars.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Romano75 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Open Ireland page move discussion

After a two-year ban imposed by Arbcom, a page move discussion for theRepublic of Ireland can be entertained.

Changes to GDP ranking by MrRhythm

Three times now, User talk:MrRhythm has changed the ranking of the GDP of the UK in the infobox without providing a source for the change and without also changing the corresponding information in the lead paragraph, leading to contradictory information. I have invited him here to discuss these changes. NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 15:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Current sources

MrRhythm, the sources used for the current UK rankings of 6th (for nominal GDP) and 7th (for GDP PPP) are given in the List of countries by GDP (nominal) and List of countries by GDP (PPP) articles, respectively. The sources are the World Bank, the IMF, and the CIA World Factbook. The values of 6th and 7th in the infobox that you have been changing are linked to those articles, so when you change the values to 7th and 8th in this article's infobox based on your claims regarding the 2011 British census, you are introducing information that conflicts with those sources and those articles.

You might well be right and the rankings might well have changed, but you need to provide your references (for instance, links to the 2011 British census data that back up your assertions), and you need to make your edits so that they don't conflict with information give elsewhere in the article (such as the lead paragraph of this article, which also contains the values of 6th and 7th) or across the encyclopedia (as in the two lists given above). NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 17:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

We should in my view use the same data which is used in the List of countries by GDP (nominal) and List of countries by GDP (PPP) articles, and in the infoboxes of virtually every other country. The data for this current year is not yet complete (as the year is not complete!) and annualised projections based on year to date growth rates are not in my view appropriate here. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed Rangoon. I really hope that MrRhythm will come join the discussion on this instead of inserting his unsourced information (as he did again today, and which I reverted again). I don't want to edit war with him on this; I'm going to leave a warning on his talk page and see what other options there are. NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 14:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

DRN

I've opened a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 15:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Bertrand Russell 1950.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bertrand Russell 1950.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Climate

In the section Climate, "more so" is misspelt "moreso". 213.122.46.85 (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for pointing it out. NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 20:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured article

This article can easily appear on the main page of Wikipedia by making it a featured article. Can someone please take the initiative. 77.79.7.191 (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the extra punctuation in "At and since the height of the British Empire, Britannia has often associated with maritime dominance, as in the patriotic song Rule, Britannia!." 77.79.7.191 (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
"Easily" doesn't really give due weight to the WP:FA process, I feel. I've made a minor change to the punctuation of the "Symbols" section - looks OK to me now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not gonna get my support for FA. Not until England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland are given the descriptive constituent country. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
GoodDay, haven't we been over this road before?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The IP brought it up, not me. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Coat(s) of Arms

A change I introduced a while back was subject to RV due "no discussion". Therefore, I'll open the discussion here. My proposal is to replace the single CoA of the UK with an image displaying both versions of the UK CoA currently in use. The version used in Scotland does not appear in that article's infobox because Scotland, since 1707, no longer has a CoA; rather it has a separate version of the UK CoA. Article 14 of the 1707 Acts of Union state:


Given that the version of the UK CoA used in Scotland is a CoA of the UK and not the CoA of Scotland, and that a single image exists which displays both that version used in Scotland and elsewhere, the image showing both versions should appear in the info-box as both are a Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. For / Against / Comments below.

Alternatively, a [Note] be added to the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom link beneath the single CoA image, stating that a form of arms specifically for use in Scotland exists which differs from that form displayed in the infobox. Endrick Shellycoat 16:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Single version
Dual version
We should stay with the single CoA, as Wales & Northern Ireland are within the United Kingdom aswell. (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
You've lost me GoodDay; N.Ireland and Wales are represented on both sets of arms and neither (currently) have a version of UK arms specific to them, unlike Scotland. Endrick Shellycoat 18:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep the single image, with a note as suggested, linking to the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom article. In this article, the image is essentially informative and decorative - it should not be confusing, but it need not be comprehensive. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I support the inclusion of a note as suggested, and am neutral on the addition of the second coat of arms. I do see a strong logic for its inclusion, my hesitation is based principally on whether there is room for both in the small space available.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The text states "the Great Seal of England be used as the Great Seal of the United Kingdom" etc., so I think it would be best to keep that one in the infobox. A note saying an alternative version is used in Scotland could be added. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I'll have a crack at adding the note. I may need a hand re. formating but here goes. Endrick Shellycoat 18:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Help! Have tried various combinations to get a [Note] to feature but no joy. Any experts wish to have a go? Endrick Shellycoat 19:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I added a generic footnote. I'm not sure a note on the CoA field is possible. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I've come to the conclusion the format wouldn't allow for one. Thanks for doing the note. Endrick Shellycoat 17:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverted GAN

I reverted a users GAN of this page as this page is not at all up to GA standards. The user has not edited for long, so it was a gf if naive nomination. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I think regular editors are aware of many of the issues. I will try to get back to looking for improvements when I am not so busy (but anyone can feel free to get the ball rolling).--SabreBD (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest adding New Zealand under the cultural subtitle. I would add nothing but the two words if the article was not locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.105.221 (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Healthcare

Healthcare is not 'free at the point of need' if you need prescription medicine, dental care or eyecare in England. 82.46.109.233 (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Change template in Demography section

I propose the template in the Demography section be changed to the below one because it gives a better idea of where the most urbanized parts of the UK are.

 
Largest urban areas of the United Kingdom
(England and Wales: 2011 census built-up area;[1] Scotland: 2016 estimates settlement;[2] Northern Ireland: 2001 census urban area)[3]
Rank Urban area Pop. Principal settlement Rank Urban area Pop. Principal settlement
1 Greater London 9,787,426 London 11 Bristol 617,280 Bristol
2 Greater Manchester 2,553,379 Manchester 12 Edinburgh 512,150 Edinburgh
3 West Midlands 2,440,986 Birmingham 13 Leicester 508,916 Leicester
4 West Yorkshire 1,777,934 Leeds 14 Belfast 483,418 Belfast
5 Greater Glasgow 985,290 Glasgow 15 Brighton & Hove 474,485 Brighton
6 Liverpool 864,122 Liverpool 16 South East Dorset 466,266 Bournemouth
7 South Hampshire 855,569 Southampton 17 Cardiff 390,214 Cardiff
8 Tyneside 774,891 Newcastle upon Tyne 18 Teesside 376,633 Middlesbrough
9 Nottingham 729,977 Nottingham 19 Stoke-on-Trent 372,775 Stoke-on-Trent
10 Sheffield 685,368 Sheffield 20 Coventry 359,262 Coventry

Eopsid (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd support, if the bolding was eliminated. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The bolding of what particular bits? Eopsid (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Urban area names. As they're so long, bolding is unnattractive. However, since it's a coding result, what if we piplelinked "Urban Area" in each name? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
But some such as the West Yorkshire Urban Area and the West Midlands Urban Area have the first part of their name refer to counties and without the Urban Area bit could lead to some confusion. The same is true for the Greater London Urban Area but that would be a good thing for the others. Perhaps renaming the West Yorkshire and West Midlands Urban Areas in the table after the two largest towns/cities within the Urban Area would be a good idea and then pipelinking would be a good idea? Eopsid (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I think due to the title it's clear it's the urban area being discussed and not just a city. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A question about where the figures have come from: it does say '2001 Census' but yet the figure given for Greater Glasgow is different from the figure from the Greater Glasgow article which is also from 2001 Census. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Just checked the source you are right the figure in the Greater Glasgow article is the correct one. The figure for Edinburgh is also wrong. I have changed the template accordingly. Eopsid (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No one has expressed opposition to this change so i will go ahead with it. Eopsid (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Economy section is having the effect of fuddling/fixing UK economic figures

The article on Germany has clear figures that stick to GDP, in this article's economic overview section we go from percentages, to fractions (how can readers easily compare with these figures, this just bogs down easy comparison and good reading comprehension) Then we go from fractions to GVA instead of GDP which is, according to the article:

GVA + taxes on products - subsidies on products = GDP

This has the effect of fixing the creative market figures to look better than they are. 6% GVA is irrelevant when considered in terms of GDP and looking for an overview.--Manboobies (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 December 2011

Re the below: In fact, Cornish was extinct from the late seventh through late twentieth centuries, but it has been revived and is once again a living language. Although the terms "endangered" and "extinct" are used in a linguistic context, languages that are recorded do not become extinct in the way that species become extinct. An extinct species cannot be revived; but a language that has been sufficiently recorded, in print or/and audio format, can. It won't be the same language that it used to be, but that is true of any language. Even Latin undergoes minor changes through its continued use by a small group of enthusiasts in the "computatora" age. 76.126.3.38 (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The article on the Cornish language seems to completely disagree with you it states that cornish may have died out for a brief period in the twentieth century before attempts where made to revive it. Actually from the article it seems it never became extinct, attempts to revive it began in 1904 but in 1914 there were still some elderly speakers of the language this implies it was never extinct.Eopsid (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I note that some of those assertions are unsourced in the article you refer to. From what I've read on the subject, there is at least an element of wishful thinking going on in the continuist theory; most of those making such claims are either ardent nationalists or proponents of the language's revival. That's not to say it isn't true at all, but the article could do with being a bit more objective. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Your article incorrectly states Cornish is a current language of the United Kingdom. Cornish died out over a century ago. If you are going to include Cornish, then you must also include Manx.

89.72.8.24 (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe Manx is only used in the Isle of Mann which, as I assume you know, is not part of the United Kingdom. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
It places Cornish within the list of "Recognised Regional Languages" of the UK and an explanatory note showing sources. Sadly, Manx does not qualify as one of those. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
From direct.gov.uk:

Since 2002, Cornish has been recognised as a minority language by the UK government, under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

(As per James and Fishie, the Isle of Mann is not part of the United Kingdom.) --RA (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Y Gododdin

I've reverted again, as I have found no reliable sources saying Y Gododdin was composed in what is now lowland Scotland; they state the language, Old Welsh, rather than the location. We don't know if it were composed in the lands of the Gododdin, Rheged, the Kingdom of Strathclyde, Elmet or somewhere else. Even if they did, parts of the lands of the Gododdin, Strathclyde, and Rheged, and all of Elmet, are in what is now England. If we are to state the location of it's composition, the only safe location to state would be Yr Hen Ogledd; even that is WP:SYN. Best just to state “Old Welsh” (language) per sources. Can we agree something here, rather than using edit summaries? Daicaregos (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a fair point. I'm happy to stick with the Old North. garik (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The best we can say is that it may have been composed there. It can only ever be a theory and is largely based on the subject matter. It doesn't seem worth getting into the arguments in detail here.--SabreBD (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

UK Not really a unitary state

The article states the United Kingdom is a unitary state, which is not really true. "Semi-federal" would be a better description because the country displays characteristics of both unitary and federal states.

In a true unitary state, the provincial and local government authorities are fully subordinate to the national government, whose authority is undivided. That is not the case in the United Kingdom, just as it was not the case in the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Under the terms of the Acts of Union of 1707, Scotland continued - and continues - to maintain its own systems of law, education and a few other things separately from the rest of the country. Even with the new British Supreme Court, criminal cases cannot be appealed beyond Scotland (though civil cases can) because the terms of 1707 Acts (which are constitutional acts) have not been changed to accommodate the Supreme Court's creation. I speak of sovereign powers retained by Scotland as a "sister province" (or "sister state"), which has been in perpetual quasi-confederation with England since 1707, not of the additional devolved powers settled upon Scotland with the recent creation of the Parliament of Scotland/Parlamaid na h-Alba. If the British Parliament permanently dissolved the Scottish Parliament tomorrow, Scotland would still retain exclusive jurisdiction over her own systems of law, education, and other matters reserved to her under the Acts of Union of 1707.

But while the UK does not behave like a true unitary state, it also does not behave like a true federal state. In true federalism, such as what one sees in Australia, Canada and the United States, there is a sovereign federal state that is coextensive with the sovereign unitary states which constitute it by their perpetual confederation. Both the federal state and the constituent unitary states (called "provinces" in Canada) are sovereign entities - thus, federal nationas are express the principle of 'dual' or 'parallel' sovereignty - with the actual exercise of sovereignty divided between the two entity forms, often with one of the entities actually or effectively designated a basic unit of government for residual purposes. In the United States, this unit is the individual state - that is, per US Const., Amend. X, all powers that are not explicitly or implicitly assigned to the federal government by the US Constitution are reserved to the states. In Canada, the Canadian Constitution effectively provides the opposite, so that those powers not explicitly or implicitly assigned to the provincial states are reserved to the federal state.

The United Kingdom operates between the two concepts - sometimes as a federal state, as with the legal system, in which England and Wales are one judicial province; Scotland another; and Northern Ireland a third. Thus, when Parliament decriminalised male homosexuality in 1967, only England and Wales were affected. Male homosexuality remained illegal in Scotland until a separate act of parliament was passed and took effect in 1980; and it was not until 1982 that a third act of parliament legalised male homosexuality in Northern Ireland. And sometimes the United Kingdom behaves like a unitary state.

So, I would say the most accurate description of the United Kingdom is neither "unitary state" nor "federal state" but "semi-federal state". 76.126.3.38 (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your argument -- as well-reasoned as it might be -- is that you are putting forth a hypothesis without citations. In the vast majority of atlases and almanacs I've seen, the "United Kingdom", is listed as a country, but England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not. If you want to support your hypothesis, you need solid citations showing that, for instance, each of these states has their own defense departments whose members swear oaths to those states, rather than to the UK. And what about citizenship? Do immigrants to Scotland who seek citizenship swear oaths to the UK, or to Scotland? Do each of these states have independent customs departments that citizens of other UK states must satisfy? Are the English forced to apply for a visa to work in Northern Ireland? What does it say on Welsh passports? Who represents these states in the United Nations? Hellbound Hound (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hellbound Hound hound you are confusing "state" with "country". It is well established that England, Scotland and Wales are countries, the evidence on Northern Ireland is more mixed, And to our IP, the UK is a bit of a mess historically if you like nice clean structures. It has three legal systems, but they all end up at the Queen, Parliament has delegated other powers to the Assemblies but that does not mean the UK is not a state, You need authorities if you are going to maintain that argument --Snowded TALK 04:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I may have my terms mixed up. I was trying to find a word to describe England, Scotland, Wales and N.I. I believe the argument here is whether these "territories" constitute what is commonly known as countries. If it is true that England, Scotland and Wales are "well established" as countries, then why do so many atlases and almanacs not list them as such? Why do they not have their own representitives at the UN? I'm not saying you're wrong, only that there needs to be some explanation for these discrepencies.Hellbound Hound (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP writes "In a true unitary state, the provincial and local government authorities are fully subordinate to the national government, whose authority is undivided. That is not the case in the United Kingdom..." Well, actually yes it is. Parliament at Westminster could abolish not only all local authorities but, in theory anyway, the devolved assemblies. Westminster set them up and Westminster could close them down (as it has in the past, in respect of the Northern Ireland Assembly). When Enoch Powell said "power devolved is power retained" he was trying to illustrate this difference between devolution and federation. The US Congress would not be allowed by the Constitution to abolish the state of Texas. It is possible to describe the UK in its present state as a de facto, asymmetrical, quasi-federal set-up but, unless and until it becomes a proper federation (which would require a written constitution to stipulate which powers lay with which bodies), it remains a unitary state. -- Alarics (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominal GDP ranking

Following Missionary's edit which changed the nominal GDP ranking for the United Kingdom from sixth to seventh based on preliminary figures from the IMF for 2011 I must reaffirm the consensus for GDP figures on Wikipedia has always been that they are derived from the last publication of such figures from the IMF, World Bank and CIA. The last publication of these figures by the IMF, World Bank and CIA were for 2010 and these figures, and any rankings, should be updated as and when the IMF, World Bank and CIA publish their figures for 2011. They should not be based upon speculative figures as this would make the article a crystall ball on the matter. Quite vivid blur (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

London is not any longer the biggest financial market place

This should be updated as it is (rather for a while) outdated, e.g. source. Suggested edit: "London, one of the biggest financial marketplaces in the world. (maybe: second only to Hong Kong)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.27.173 (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.27.173 (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 January 2012

I think it would be good if you added Duran Duran to the music section as they are a well known successful British band with over 100 million record sales and known worldwide also.

96.19.208.165 (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Abhishek  Talk 12:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

There is an error under 5.1: Science and Technology.

"Between 2004 and 2008 the UK produced 7% of the world's scientific research papers and had an 8% share of scientific citations, the third and second highest in the world (after the United States and China, and the United States, respectively)."

The Shadow 277 17:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. What do you think is the error?--SabreBD (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
It would perhaps be clearer without the brackets, and with dashes immediately after 'third' and 'second'.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Noob Move. I saw the double "United States" in the brackets, and immediately thought was an error. I really should pay more attention. Oh well. I'm still geting used to wikipedia. The Shadow 277 01:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

UK is a Christian country

UK is a Christian country. This should be worked into the article? [1] 117.198.57.111 (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully David Cameron is not a reliable source in this case (or many others for that matter). You need something with more authority --Snowded TALK 10:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
More authority than the recent "Victor of Europe", Supreme Etonian and embodied PR machine that is D Cameron Esq?? Impossible! Treating the issue seriously though, we do have something in the Religion section about the C of E being the Established church in England and about the Protestant and Presbyterian oath of the Monarch; there could perhaps be slightly more in that section about the religious situations in Wales and Scotland and also a little more on the non-Christian religious proportions perhaps. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we had that and then took it out after much debate. I will try to dig the discussion out from the archives.--SabreBD (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Its here: Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 25#Religion--SabreBD (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
One, perhaps offhand statement of a Prime minister is not really notable to be in the main article, perhaps it's suitable for the article on David Cameron or Religion in the UK? And how can you put any real stock on that comment is beyond me. How do you define it. It's weird. (and I agree with Snowded, weirdly, I would trust the words of the Archbishop or his Catholic equivalent more so) --Nutthida (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the United Kingdom has not listed Christianity as it's State religion. However, the Church of England is the State Church of England, only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrobin08 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of addition of 'Significant' to lead

My addition of the word 'significant' to the start of the sentence 'British influence can still be observed in the language, culture and legal systems of many of its former territories.' at the end of the second paragraph of the lead been reverted by Chipmunkdavis.

Although I can conceive of valid reasons for such a reversion, 'Word doesn't add any information' is not an acceptable or coherent one.

My reason for the addition is two-fold. Firstly it is factually correct and both highly relevant and of likely interest to readers. Secondly, many countries/polities/peoples can be validly said to have had an influence on the 'language, culture and legal systems' of many of the former territories of the British Empire, not least the Romans, Greeks, French and Germans. The addition of the word 'significant' is needed to clarify why this is a relevant and lead-worthy sentence in this article.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The word significant is just as meaningless or meaningful as the word influence is, adding it doesn't suddenly make the term more meaningful and notable. It has the same amount of clarification for the reader.
I am limited by the space of the edit summary box, so I apologies if the partial sentence wasn't totally understandable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
What you mean, I think, is that the word 'significant' is not precisely quantifiable. That is very different to saying that it conveys no information. The great majority of human affairs, and of subjects which are addressed in Wikipedia, are incapable of a reduction to numerical quantification.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I feel that its lack of quantification means that using it as an adjective without elaboration coveys no additional information. If I read that the UK had significant influence on something with no further elaboration, I'll come away with the same impression if the word significant is absent. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The English language has adjectives for a reason; they convey information. Would 'Minimal British influence can still be observed in the language, culture and legal systems of many of its former territories.' mean the same to you as well?Rangoon11 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
No, because when read alone influence is implicitly assumed to be something notable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Why? And why not make it explict and less ambiguous? Rangoon11 (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Just by saying something has influence notability is shown, otherwise it wouldn't be mentioned. Adjectives are most useful in comparison, something not done here. Including one would almost be a redundancy which is not the best of prose and also draws close to being peacocky. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The aim of the article is to describe the subject as clearly and accurately as possible for readers. The addition of the word 'significant' would in my view assist that, by providing clarification on a highly significant point, at the expense of a single additional word, and with no diminution of the elegance or conciseness of the prose. It appears that we will have to agree to differ on the point, and wait to see if any other editors have an opinion. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
In Wikipedia's description of Weasel words, the very first category is "Numerically vague expressions". I would suggest that "significant" is a perfect fit. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
That is a WP article in mainspace and completely irrelevant. What would be of more relevance is the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch guideline, although I see nothing in it which precludes the use of the word 'significant' here. The word significant clearly imparts and plainly summarises verifiable information. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
You may think so and you may be right for the way you want to use it here, but surely you realise that the word is also badly misused at times. It's NOT quantifiable, and speakers and writers wanting to colour a description will often use the word when it has no particular meaning at all, just for emphasis, when it's simply not justified. Most times they won't be called on it, but here it matters. Can't you find a better word? HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
"Significant" adds nothing of value in this particular sentence. "Influence" on its own can be inferred to be significant without saying so, otherwise it would not be mentioned. In the interests of concision, I therefore favour leaving out the word "significant". -- Alarics (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
In fact this sentence British influence can still be observed in the language, culture and legal systems of many of its former territories. seems to mildly replicate in the next paragraph (also repeating the "influence" word): The UK remains a great power with leading economic, cultural, military, scientific and political influence. I would suggest "leading influence" is just as subjective but I also agree that we should attempt to refer as accurately as possible to the scope of such influence and the references do just that. One sentence refers to language, culture and law; the other to economy, culture, military, science and politics. There's probably a way to simplify all this. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Scope of Parliamentary authority to end the devolved governments

I just noticed this change of Snowded's on 31 Jan to a long-running piece of text. [2] This edit deleted the sentences (in relation to the House of Commons) It is the ultimate legislative authority in the United Kingdom since the devolved parliament in Scotland as well as the devolved assemblies in Northern Ireland and Wales are not sovereign bodies and could, theoretically, be abolished by the UK parliament.[citation needed] But not without a referendum (public vote) from the citizens of the country. For example, if the UK government wanted to abolish the National Assembly for Wales then it would need to hold a referendum with the people who live in Wales.

I am interested to know the facts on these and so have started to do some prelim. work on researching them but would be grateful for help. Is it the case that the UK Parliament could theoretically end the devolved governments? I assume the answer must be yes but can't easily see sourcing on that, can anyone be of assistance? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested too. I looked but could not find any source hence the change. If anyone knows it would help ----Snowded TALK 17:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
There are a couple of inaccuracies in the text. There are no legal restrictions on the Westminster parliament abolishing the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly. There would be no need for a referendum, as far as I understand (are there any sources to support the asseveration that there would?). Although there may be a "moral" obligation. There are restrictions on the Westminster Parliament abolishing the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is subject to an international treaty and would require the involvement of the Government of Ireland in any decision around it. --RA (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Article by Vernon Bogdanor - http://www.politicscymru.com/en/cat2/article9/ - seems to conclude that, in practice if not in theory, the sovereignty of the Westminster Parlament is constrained in relation to Scotland, and a lesser extent Wales. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Interesting source there, thanks Ivor. I think this says that we should really say nothing about what could happen. We could say something specific about Northern Ireland as that is sourced, but should leave any statement about Wales or Scotland to the messy coherence which is at the heart of the UK constitution ----Snowded TALK 07:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
In practice, yes, it be difficult to see the Westminster Parliament unilaterally rolling back on Wales and Scotland, but in theory it could. If anything we should avoid speculating about what constraints there would be. In any case, that doesn't mean we should avoid saying what is verifiable. How about something like this:

The United Kingdom does not have a codified constitution requiring a referendum to alter it and constitutional matters are not among the powers devolved to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Consequently, the Parliament at Westminster could, in theory, dissolve the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly through legislation. In practice, the political circumstances in which it would do so, and the consequences for the internal relations of the United Kingdom, are unclear.

Devolution in Northern Ireland is subject to the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent British-Irish Agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Under that agreement, the United Kingdom guaranteed the Irish government involvement in the decision-making around matters affecting Northern Ireland that were not devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. These include constitutional matters. Consequently, a decision to prorogue or dissolve the Northern Ireland Assembly would require the involvement of the Government of Ireland.

--RA (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that the Bogdanor article be used as a reference for anything in the first of those paras about what might happen - if necessary by saying "According to Vernon Bogdanor...." All these issues will be the subject of debate in the real world, and (as others have said) we should avoid speculative commentary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The following from the Bogdanor article is the crux of the matter:
  • "Devolution, by contrast, preserves, in principle, the sovereignty of Parliament. The Westminster Parliament can, in theory, continue to legislate for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland even on devolved matters; and it can, if it wishes, simply abolish the devolved bodies by a simple Act of Parliament, as it did with the Northern Ireland Parliament in 1972."
This is exactly the point I was making when we discussed this on here only the other week (see "UK Not really a unitary state" further up this page). It is what Enoch Powell meant during the original devolution debates when he said "Power devolved is power retained", drawing a contrast with a federal system under which a written constitution specifies which powers lie where. So I think we should simply reinstate the first sentence that Snowded deleted, and cite Bogdanor as the source for it. However I agree with his deletion of the second and third sentences, which say that a referendum would be necessary. This idea that constitutional change requires a referendum is purely a political convention and actually a very new one. It is simply fashionable among many of the current generation of politicians to assert that it would in practice be politically very difficult to make such changes without a referendum. There is no constitutional basis for it as far as I can see. Referenda are in fact alien to British constitutional doctrine and they can only be advisory. Parliament remains supreme. (I accept RA's point that this may no longer be the case for Northern Ireland because of the Good Friday Agreement.) -- Alarics (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
No one is disputing that the UK Parliament has the power to abolish the devolved legislatures unilaterally but in practice this would never happen without the consent of the people and or the legislatures due to the political consequence's--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 11:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any sources that would support RA's draft per se, and it gets close to OR without some. I removed something that had a citation rage unanswered for some time. If there is now w affirm citation fine. However I suspe t that the answer is not fully knowable in advance, hence we should not say anything definitive unless it comes from a recent text book or journal ----Snowded TALK 13:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Snowded, please, this is a talk page and the above is a draft. What part do you think needs sourcing?
Barry, "...in practice this would never happen without the consent of the people and or the legislatures due to the political consequences." It happened in Northern Ireland in 1972, 1974, 1986, 2000, 2001 and 2002. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't know the circumstances in which the devolved assembly/parliament would be dissolved or prorogued. --RA (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Well most of it RA, I don't think it's clear without OR based on heat we have----Snowded TALK 15:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
It's all citable. There is a difference between something failing WP:OR and the same thing failing WP:V. While everything needs to be citable, not everything has to be cited. And "what we have" to cite statements is subject to change once it becomes clear what it is that needs to be cited. Are there any parts in particular that you think need to be cited? --RA (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it? Can you point me to the source which discusses this issue? ----Snowded TALK 15:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
One is linked above. Do you have any particular concern? --RA (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The situation is NI is unique and not really comparable to Wales or Scotland due to the fact that is an entirely diffident set up with the parties being into a forced coalition, I remember reading a report from the House of Commons library which stated in practice Westminster could never abolish or prorogue the Scottish Parliament without its consent. Will have a look and see if I can find it. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I would not doubt that. --RA (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The article would probably be better off without penultimate paragraph of the section. In theory parliament could enact legislation requiring that the sun rises at 6 every morning. It is only what they can do in practice that has any meaning and they always subject to outside forces such as the laws of nature, constitutional principles and ultimately the will of the people. The vexed question of how, and if, they could go about reversing devolution is largely speculative and cannot be adequately covered in a single paragraph.

The paragraph on the Northern Ireland situation as it stands overstates the position. The Good Friday Agreement cannot guarantee anything. Again it would be speculation as to what would happen if either country decided to unilaterally violate the agreement. As (to the best of my knowledge) there has never challenge to government actions brought on the basis of international law in the British courts you cannot guarantee (or even be confident) that one would be successful. "The agreement requires that..." would probably be a better way of putting it. Eckerslike (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

On the first paragraph, the same can be said for any act of Parliament: Parliament can legislate for traffic tickets but its practical power to do so is only as great as the extent to which anyone will pay them. Think of the poll tax. But, that's a little too philosophical.
On the second point, the UK is sovereign and what consequences would come from breach of an treaty is unknowable. "Guarantee", I guess, is strong. I'm happy with your suggested rewording. --RA (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I've rewritten the section RE: Northern Ireland. In doing so I also recalled that devolution in NI is pre-requisites by participation in the North/South Ministerial Council and the implementation bodies. That needs to be mentioned too. If that ceases, devolution in NI ceases. --RA (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily disagreeing, but you need to put some sources in there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
And no problem with that but I need help identify which parts need sourcing :-) I can't tell by myself because, after so long, it all seems matter-of-fact to me. I know that it is not to others, but I can't tell which parts. --RA (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The two paragraphs you changed round this morning. They may not have had sources before, but changing them round has just highlighted the fact that they need sources now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Per the sources provided below and another, I have amended the section in the article substantially. The last sentence still needs a source, or it should be removed. ISTB351 (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
[comment moved below --RA (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)]

New sources

The following may be of interest [N. Burrows, "Unfinished Business: The Scotland Act 1998", The Modern Law Review, vol. 62, issue 2, (March 1999), p 249]:

Also, [M. Elliot, "United Kingdom: Parliamentary sovereignty under pressure", International Journal of Constitutional Law, vol. 2, issue 3, (2004), pp 553-554]:

ISTB351 (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Issues of synthesis and OR

In recent edits by RA (talk), that user has attempted to use the Good Friday Agreement and an Act of the Oireachtas to support the text "Decisions to temporarily suspend the Northern Ireland Assembly have involved agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland. They were affected through acts of Parliament at Westminster and necessitated corresponding legislative changes in the Republic of Ireland" and "Devolution in Northern Ireland is subject to the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent British-Irish Agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Under those agreements, the participation of members of the Northern Ireland Executive in the North/South Ministerial Council, and co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland on a number of devolved policy areas, are prerequisites of devolution in Northern Ireland. The British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference was also established under the agreements, whereby "the Irish Government may put forward views and proposals" on non-devolved matters with respect to Northern Ireland. However, the United Kingdom government remains sovereign over Northern Ireland unless a majority of the people of Northern Ireland vote to form a united Ireland."

He claims that these primary sources are explicit enough for WP:SYNTH and WP:OR not to apply. That is clearly not the case, and primary sources are being used to support interpretations. In addition, he has removed sourced secondary content about the relevance of the suspension of Stormont in 1972 to contemporary devolved institutions. ISTB351 (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I see that the user is now taking a more constructive approach... ISTB351 (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
ISTB351, for one thing, the quotes in the paragraph you quote above come from the source, so it is necessary to cite it in order to cite the source.
The other thing is that the source is very explicit about each point made in the paragraph. Have you read the source or did you just remove it because you assumed it breached OR? --RA (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, about removing material: assume good faith. It was an accident. You accidentally removed some material in this edit too. --RA (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
[comment moved from above] I added a source for the NI paragraph: the Belfast Agreement itself, which is explicit, I think, on all the points made in the paragraph. I also added a source for the involvement of an agreement between the UK and Irish governments in the suspension of the NI assembly: the agreement itself, which is explicit about its purpose, need and extent.
I have hidden them for now, but what part do you think is OR? You cited WP:PRIMARY as if to suggest that primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Per, WP:PRIMARY: "...primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.". I think that is the case in both instances here. Neither require any specialist knowledge. And they are both quite straight forward. --RA (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I will await other editors' comments, but I fail to see how a 1998 agreement and a 2006 Irish enactment can provide sufficient support for what is being contended here. It is policy that "[a]rticles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." The text which you are suggesting can be supported plainly contains analytic or evaluative claims that these primary sources cannot support. The consensus that had emerged was that reliable secondary sources were needed here. ISTB351 (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Which point in particular do you think is not supported by the source? The second source, I agree, is border line (particularly with respect to the second sentence, I think it does support the first explicitly) ... but the Good Friday Agreement is so explicit (for obvious reasons), there really is no interpretation involved.
That said, secondary sources for both would be good too. I only put those in because they were the most obvious. (Though the GFA would have to remain in some shape since the text is quoting it.) --RA (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Excellent source here. Well done. --RA (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Not trying to be confrontational. It's just that we need to be very careful about sources on this topic. ISTB351 (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. Better sources are always better :-) --RA (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Politics

I was not too impressed when i read: "The monarch itself is symbolic rather than political, and only has "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn"."

"only has"? .. no; David Cameron said not so long ago that people who refer to the Monarchy as "symbolic" underestimate the constitution.e.g source

The British Constitution, especially around the Monarchy is a paradox. Yes, it's true that there are very few documents within the constitution that referrer to the monarchy: the same can be said about the Prime Minister who isn't even mentioned in it.

The Crown, or "Monarchy" as it is said by the UK Parliament, is fused to all 3 branches of Government:

The Executive

  • Traditionally, the Crown holds ALL executive power.
  • The Cabinet is part of Her Majesty's Privy Council
  • The Crown appoints its ministers, including the Prime Minister

The Judiciary

  • The Law Courts and Judges all form part of the Royal Court of St james's
  • Law and Order is enforced in the Queens name and behalf

The Legislature

  • All members of Parliament swear an oath to the Queen
  • Only the Crown can summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament
  • Bills must have assent from the Crown to become Law - Geord0 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
My goodness, where to start? You might like to begin by reading The English Constitution (Walter Bagehot), which is the source of the phrase "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn" to which you object. Note e.g. that if the monarch ever did refuse to give royal assent to a Bill, there would instantly be a major constitutional crisis. -- Alarics (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
In past examples (e.g. Catholic emancipation), the monarch signalled their intention not to sign in advance of legislation being formed; thus heading off a constitutional crisis. That could reasonable be attributed to their "right to warn". The interventionist role of the monarch should also not be undermined. For example, the intervention of the monarch during the Anglo-Irish War pushed the government to negotiate a treaty with the rebels (thus eventually leading to the secession of the Irish Free State and the creation of Northern Ireland). That too could be put under the "right to encourage". All of this, of course, depends on the "right to be consulted".
Because of this, for me, if the sentence has a problem it is the "only". Suggestion:

The monarch is, in practice, largely symbolic but has "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn". The most obvious consequence of these rights is a weekly meeting between the prime minister and the monarch.

--RA (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
We need to be careful here, the role of the monarch has further diminished over the last century and I can't see any circumstances under which the monarch would indicate an unwillingness to sign in advance, that would precipitate a constitutional crisis. The weekly meeting is appropriate for an article on the Queen, or possibly one on governance. I am less sure it is material to one on the United Kingdom where the range of material to be covered is far greater. The current sentence is properly sourced and covers what is needed for this article. ----Snowded TALK 10:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree, but I think we could safely lose the word "only". I suggest we just use the first of RA's two suggested sentences and leave it at that. This also has the advantage of not referring to the monarch as "it" (as in the current version), which seems to me wrong. -- Alarics (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds OK to me, and I always prefer Mrs Windsor to anything more abstract! ----Snowded TALK 10:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Simply delete "only" from the current sentence, but don't add any more. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree only another issue with the current wording is that, "The monarch itself is symbolic rather than political..." The monarch has a non-symbolic political role. That role may be ineffectual on a day to day basis, but it are real and potentially influential.
No issue with dropping last sentence. --RA (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
How about: "The monarchy is primarily symbolic, with the monarch having "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn"" ...? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I think "The monarch is, in practice, largely symbolic but has 'the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn'." is less clumsy. -- Alarics (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The only problem is that the monarch is a real flesh and blood person. It is the institution of the monarchy that is, in practice, largely symbolic. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Grand with either version. That's a nice example IMO of monarch vs. monarchy. "Primarily" hits be as being better too. --RA (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It's that "with ..." construction that I find inelegant. How about "The monarchy is in practice primarily symbolic, but the monarch does have 'the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn'." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alarics (talk • contribs) 12:50, 27 February 2012‎
Can we shorten it to: "The monarchy is primarily symbolic, but the monarch has 'the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn'." In terms of style, I don't like the "pr... pr..." wording! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read the book. I did not object to the phrase, but the use of the word "only", and I did not say anything about refusing assent to bills, simply that they need assent to become law. I emphasized the functions of the monarchy to back up my case about the word "only". I have noticed that the websites of the UK Parliament, British Monarchy and Direct.gov prefer the word ceremonial to symbolic - as ceremonial means relating to formal events, symbolic means only to serve as a symbol. I think "The monarchy is broadly ceremonial, but the monarch has 'the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn'." sounds appropriate. Geord0 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

My immediate reaction is that it is the monarch's role that is ceremonial (or primarily ceremonial), but it is the monarchy that is symbolic. How about turning it round: "The monarch has 'the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn', but [in practice?] has a primarily ceremonial role." Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the order of the clauses is important. "But" implies the exception. Since the Revolution of 1688, the monarchy is, in practice, ceremonial. The exception is the 'the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn' (including the treat of constitutional crisis). --RA (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I take the point, but "The monarchy is broadly ceremonial..." does not sound right to me. We may need to look more closely at the words the sources use. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Stating that the monarch is merely "symbolic" is simply incorrect. I'm amazed that such a statement has made it to this article. The monarch, as head of state, has considerable reserve powers. It's true that the monarch's role is not political - indeed that is the whole point of constitutional monarchy. But it's not 'symbolic'! This needs to change, pronto. I suggest editors read the Monarchy in the United Kingdom and Constitution of the United Kingdom articles. David (talk) 01:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've taken out a few words, to leave the sentence reading: The monarch has "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn". That avoids any arguments as to whether the monarchy (or the monarch) is primarily symbolic, ceremonial, etc. - it simply uses Bagehot's words. I'm not wedded to that particular form of words, but it seems to me to be an improvement on the words that were there before. Happy to continue the discussion - which seemed to have died otherwise. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed? Seriously?

The sentence "The United Kingdom was one of the three main Allies of World War II." has a "citation needed" tag. Seriously? Seriously!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephalon1 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's "three" that needs citing. Who were the main allies in WW2? USA, USSR, UK, France, ... that more than three already. What about China? Poland? etc. --RA (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I've rephrased it as follows: "The United Kingdom was one of the Allies of World War II and an original signatory to the Declaration of the United Nations." And remove the citation needed. --RA (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we could say "major" allies. Not quite sure what this sentence intended, but a traditional view is that the major allies are the US, UK and USSR - not that such a view is necessary accurate, so I would definitely agree that it is best to drop the "three".--SabreBD (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Britain is often referred to (both then and now) as one of the "Big Three" in both WWI and WWII. David (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
And also as part of the "Big Four" in both wars: example 1, example 2. The UK was "big", but it's not possible to say definitively how many more were "big". France, for example, is also included in another variant of the "Big Four": example 3. --RA (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 March 2012

please add to sport; Horse Racing, Cheltenham National Hunt Festival ,Cheltenham Gold Cup


Flossieg (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I added it to the list of famous events for horse racing. --RA (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

State Religion?

Yogesh Khandke has made a couple of recent edits to the article's Religion section. Effectively, the changes have made the Church of England and the Church of Scotland out to be state religions. I will leave comment on the status of the Church of England to someone with more knowledge of the issue (grey area with the Queen as head of the church?) - but the Church of Scotland is a national church not state church ... this was made clear in the Church of Scotland Act 1921 and is described in the Church of Scotland article. I don't have access to the source provided (Oxford companion to family and local history) but no page number is provided in any event, and it seems like an unlikely source for this kind of information. Connolly15 (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but my memory is that the Act of Union endorsed it ----Snowded TALK 15:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm no expert either, I thought it just endorsed its independence from the Church of England. Anyone know for sure? Connolly15 (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
This section was all discussed a few months ago - here. No doubt it can be improved further through discussion. My view is that, as England and Scotland are not "states", how can they have a "state religion"? It's terminologically inexact at best, and the fact that one "atlas" (which would probably uses some forced consistency of language) supposedly uses the term, doesn't mean it's accurate. I'll revert the changes made to that part of the article, and if necessary we can discuss it again here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The C of S themselves state that "the Church of Scotland (the Kirk) is not State-controlled, and neither the Scottish nor the Westminster Parliaments are involved in Kirk appointments". of S website - "how we are organised". Looks like this is written up correctly in Church of Scotland but not now in this article. Yogesh's change and the non-relevant source he attached to it have been correctly reverted. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
We may have had an edit conflict, but hopefully my reverting back to the earlier version did what you wanted to achieve? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Connolly15 (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
"Established church" is the more appropriate phrase, IMO (they mean the same thing anyway). Interestingly, though, in this publication, the Home Office describe the Church of England as being "the church of the state in England". --RA (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
There obviously is a difference between "Established Church" and "State Church" (or State Religion or variants thereof) - one thinks of the Church of Sweden which used to be (until about 10 years ago) the State Church of Sweden and had rather a different kind of role in that to the C of E, although there were similarities as well. The difference would mainly be about the role of the church in vetoing legislation and monitoring state appointments, neither of which the C of E has (other than nominally via the activism of the Bishops in the Lords) but were part of the Lutheran Church's scope in Sweden. State religion has a good summary of the subject by country. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with RA. Also the Church of Ireland was always the Established Church of Ireland even when part of the UK until its Destablishment. It was regarded as the state church. So i agree with RA when he says they mean the same thing anyways. Mabuska (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The Church of Scotland is a National Church but not a State Church.. In fact it fought for over 300 years to get the UK government to stop treating it as a state church. That is the major reason for all the 18th/19th century schisms which are documented in our C of S article. In the 1920s it finally managed to get Parliament to admit defeat and since then it has been as independent of HMG as any UK organisation can expect to be. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Music: Sugababes

An editor insists on reverting my addition of Sugababes to the listing of British artists who had international success. The group is notable in said case because:

  • They were named the most successful female act of the 21st century
  • They had number hit singles in European countries (such as Ireland, Denmark, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands, Norway), Oceania (being New Zealand and Australia), and Middle East (Turkey).
  • The group sold 10 million albums worldwide.

I mean if we were talking about Girls Aloud then fair enough, they are virtually non-existent outside of UK and Ireland. But Sugababes are a credible and notable act outside of the UK and so they should also be listed. Till I Go Home (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep that was me. I did the revert because this list is prone to list creep and because the edit was unsourced. If you look above you will see that Duran Duran didn't make it into the list with 100 million sales because a consensus was not established, because not every major act can be included. I have no particular axe to grind here, and maybe consensus can be obtained to put the Sugarbabes in, however, I should point out that the most successful act "naming" is for their British sales, that the list of places they have had hit singles lacks Canada, Asia, Latin America and the critical US market, unlike most of the bands in this list, and that 10 million sales worldwide compares with 20 million for Amy Winehouse, 30 million for Radiohead, 70 million for Oasis and 75 million for the Spice Girls. In this article we have a cut off point for the first rank of acts at 200m+, then the next group at 100m+. If we were to set the final group at 10m+ we would probably be unable to resist the addition of a lot of acts. My preference would be for setting something like 20 million, but other editors may have different views.--SabreBD (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
For me the Sugababes are pretty trivial in the context of the history of British popular music, both commercially and critically, and I don't favour any mention of them in this article. A minimum sales number is a good idea, I would be tempted to put it higher at 30 million though.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Well Jessie J's record sales hardly amount to 20-30 million and she has been included in the list - explain plesae? Till I Go Home (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
In that case please go ahead and delete Jessie J. I agree with Rangoon. -- Alarics (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
There may be little point in debating 20 or 30 million as a cut off point, there are no artists currently in the sentence in question that are between 20 and 30m. If we cut out the acts below 30m (and rearrange them into rough chronological order) this sentence would read: "More recent UK music acts that have had international success include Oasis, Radiohead, Spice Girls, Coldplay and Adele". That does neatly give us at least one for each decade from the '90s. My suggestion is that we put that in with references and a hidden note stating the 30m cut off point.--SabreBD (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Support - good idea.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

British, English, United Kingdom, England

I've been correcting things lately on many pages which include 'England' in. Can I point out that England is not a sovereign state and in location details on many articles it says 'England', not 'United Kingdom'. Also, instead of 'British', it says 'English', and it's same for Welsh, Scottish, and Irish too. Someone explain what to do because every time I correct it to 'United Kingdom', an administrator changes it back. Thanks. Josh Robinson 21:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrobin08 (talk • contribs)

Oh boy, did you ever step into a hornet's nest. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
@Josh: The first thing you should recognise is that, when you make changes to articles, not everyone will necessarily agree that they are "corrections". The fact that the UK is a sovereign state, and that England, Scotland, etc., are not is, often, irrelevant. There have been many, many, discussions about these issues on talk pages in the past, which you might want to read. There are also many relevant articles and guidelines - for example, this - which you may find interesting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted that WP:UKNATIONALS is just an essay representing one or more editors' viewpoints, not a guideline or manual of style, so I'd be wary of citing it. — JonCॐ 10:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but the point for Josh is that he is not the first to have considered these issues, and his views on what is "correct" are unlikely to be shared by everyone. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

UK is domestic British, should not be used

There are united Kingdoms all over the world, most Kingdoms are. Using United kingdom is like calling London The town, is logical for Londoners but not for others. Great Britain should be used if not wanting to type the full name, or United kingdom of Great Britian. Some argue that there are more than the ile of Great Britian in the kingdom, but so it is in most states. Swabia is a part of the state Bavaria for instance. Internationally this Country is refered to Great Britain and just United kingdom makes no sense, united kingdom of what? What is decided in the British parliament makes no difference in the shorter forms, for people outside the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.129.54.220 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

In fact the title of this page should be Great Britain and the entire name in the box to the right and any other form of expressions of the name of the country in the leading text. This article is not about just political events in the 18th and 19th century but a country. If it is republic or kingdom is not a main issue and the differences are very small. It must keep the style of other similar articles like Italy, France, Germany and Sweden. Certainly it can state in the beginning of the article it is a historical union of old kingdoms (like most kingdoms) and parts are lost like most kingdoms have. But it must be written from an outside perspective the British know what Britain is, outiders not that clear.

You are completely mistaken to say that "United Kingdom" is a usage recognised only within the UK itself. "United Kingdom" is a long-standing, internationally recognised short form for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", just as "United States" is a recognised short form for "United States of America". The title of this page should certainly not be "Great Britain", which is a purely geographical entity, not a political one, and which includes only part of the United Kingdom. -- Alarics (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If "United Kingdom" is only a "domestic British" usage, we really ought to let the United Nations know, since they have been using the term for nearly 70 years. As for the idea of calling the place "Great Britain", at present the state includes in its territory a large chunk of Ireland, which is a different island altogether. Brocach (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Great Britain is actually not a purely geographical entity, Alarics. In addition to its geographical use, it's used to refer to all territory pertaining to Wales, Scotland, and England. Anglesey, for example, is not part of Great Britain in the former geographical sense, but it is part of Great Britain in the latter political sense. But you're quite right that it would be completely wrong to retitle this page "Great Britain". Our anonymous poster just doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, or how country names work, for that matter. garik (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Bit hard on Alarics there, garik - Anglesey, and other immediately offshore islands of the mainland of Great Britain, are counted "purely geographically" as part of GB in the same sense as any other non-contested offshore island is reckoned part of its mainland. It is only when the territory is or has been subject to dispute that it is reasonable to say that mainland A does not include island a. Brocach (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Yep, same thing for the Isle of Wight and the Scilly Islands. They are part of England and part of GB. -- Alarics (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but once the issue of contested and non-contested land comes into it, there's a political dimension. And the Isle of Man isn't especially contested, but it's not part of Great Britain. Indeed, the Isle of Man is geographically closer to mainland Great Britain than South Uist is (among other Scottish islands), but South Uist can be considered part of Great Britain, while the Isle of Man cannot. This is because Great Britain is not defined in purely geographical terms (or rather, it can be, but when it is, it excludes islands like Anglesey and South Uist). I notice that the Wikipedia article on Great Britain makes this very point: That the term Great Britain has both a geographical and a political definition; the first excludes smaller islands, while the latter includes them. In any case, I freely concede that it was a matter of pedantry on my part, which contributed little to the main discussion. And I'm sorry if I came over as a bit harsh—I really didn't mean to. Sorry, Alarics! garik (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC) edited by garik (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but the Isle of Man has never been part of the UK, never mind Great Britain, so I don't see how it comes into the picture at all for the purposes of this discussion. -- Alarics (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It comes into this discussion because, if "Great Britain" is defined in purely geographical terms and is taken to include South Uist, then it has to include the Isle of Man too. I'm not aware of any purely geographical criteria that would include the former and exclude the latter. If Great Britain is taken to include South Uist, and not Man, then the definition of Great Britain is not purely geographical and is at least partly political. garik (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

None of the Scottish Islands are regarded as a part of GB--only as part of the UK of GB & NI.--Bill Reid | (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure about that, Bill? More usefully, do you have a source? If you're right, we should edit the Great Britain article. Under the geographical definition, it's certainly true that the Scottish islands are not part of Great Britain (none of the outlying islands are). But under the political definition, I'm pretty sure they are. In other words, I understand the political definition of Great Britain to include the combined territory of England, Scotland and Wales. This at least is how I read the definition on this UK government page. garik (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course the Scottish islands are part of Great Britain. -- Alarics (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

On further reflection, I think Garik is right. When I said GB was "a geographical entity, not a political one", I meant that there is now no functioning political entity called GB. But of course there was between 1707 and 1800, and the definition of that 1707-1800 political entity (i.e. with Shetland and S. Uist, etc., but without the Isle of Man) continues to apply albeit now only in a geographical sense. I now see that I was wrong to imply that GB could be defined in purely geographical terms without reference to the political history. Sorry for sloppy thinking. -- Alarics (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain as a member of the European Union

Almost in every article I've read about member countries of the European Union, this fact is reflected more explicitly. I think it should be made clear in the introduction of the article, the fact that UK belongs to EU. I would begin the article, at least, with something alluding to the European Union, like this: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland[nb 5] (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign state, member of the European Union, located off the north-western coast of continental Europe."

I hope you'll take this into account when the article is edited, because although European countries now enjoy of certain sovereignty, it is undeniable that the fiscal union of state members in the EU last years, has been crucial to the development and future of Europe. And the fact that UK doesn't belong to the euro area, doesn't mean that it isn't a voluntary and important member of the Council of the European Union. Zathrian12 (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, fiscal union has been very patchy, but that is by the way. You are right in that the EU is not a mere intergovernmental organisation that countries might opt in and out of, but a complex constitutional entity, a fundamental part of the machinery of government, into which the UK has been fully integrated for 40 years. Many UK citizens may not like this, but as things stand it is an objective fact. It does therefore seem very odd that the article doesn't get round to mentioning the EU until the end of the third paragraph, where it comes in a list of things like the WTO and the OECD, which *are* mere intergovernmental treaty bodies and quite different in nature from the EU because they cannot directly make legislation that is binding on their member states. -- Alarics (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with both the comments so far. The fact that the UK is part of the EU is a quite fundamental constitutional point (like it or not), and it should really be given greater prominence than it now is. I suggest two options. Either, in the first sentence, add, after the words "sovereign state", "and a member of the European Union...". Or, in the second paragraph, insert a new second sentence: "It is a member of the European Union". In either case, then remove the reference in the third paragraph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
How about in the second paragraph, "It is a country in its own right..." --> "A member of the European Union, it is a country in its own right..." At any rate, this is why we have the EU in the infobox map. CMD (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the only justification for the (seemingly bizarre) statement that "It is a country in its own right and consists of four countries" is that its very oddness encourages readers to click the linked terms - and adding to that sentence would tend to lose that. I'm happy with changing the second para, but prefer my suggestion of adding a separate sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I was just thinking it would be good to have it after the information on the overall UK government system but before looking at all the devolved details. Where would that sentence go? We could put if before the country sentence, but one would have to be fiddled to remove the "It...It..." phrasing. CMD (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Good point. I'm happy to wait and see what others think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
It's worth comparing with the intro sections of the other largest EU countries (I concur on the basic point about the centrality of EU membership to the current state constitutional structure):
These variations seem fairly reflective of their roles, I would have put it higher in the France article. Perhaps the UK article should mention something about membership having been later than many others and remaining controversial? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

For me the current wording is fine. Importance is not established by position in the lead. The lead has a structure based upon paragraphs with themes, as it should, and whether something is in the first or third paragraph should not be read as an indication of importance, purely of topic. The point about fiscal union above I don't understand, the UK is not part of the single currency, and even the single currency area does not presently have a fiscal union. Membership of the EU does have certain constitutional implications, although the UK can leave the EU at any time. Membership of NATO is arguably of more fundamental significant, with very profound security implications - an attack on one is an attack on all. This could well mean the UK is engaged in anything upto a full scale nuclear war without having been directly attacked. Furthermore, for the great majority of the UK's history it has not been a member of the EC/EU, whilst the article covers the whole of the UK's history. In my view shoe-horning a reference to membership of the EU into the first paragraph would be messy and undue. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The UK could leave the EU, yes, but to say it could do so "at any time" is misleading. It could decide to do so, and it would then take years to put into effect because it would be extremely complicated and messy to untangle all the relationships and the legal complexities. For a start, what are you going to do about all the thousands of UK staff of the EU institutions whose permanent careers and homes are in Brussels and Luxembourg. It's not like just switching a light off. Also you have not taken on board the point that at the moment the article mentions the EU in the same breath as OECD and what not, whereas it is qualitatively quite different from those merely intergovernmental arrangements. -- Alarics (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Leaving the EU would be messy and complicated, I agree. But so would leaving the United Nations or NATO. I agree that membership of the EU is important, and clearly more important than membership of the OECD. I'm not sure I agree that it is more important than being a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, but these things are ultimately highly subjective.
If you wish to give more emphasis to membership of the EU, I would suggest doing so by amending the third paragraph, perhaps in this way:
The UK has been a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council since its first session in 1946 and has been a member of the European Union and its predecessor the European Economic Community since 1973. It is also a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, the Council of Europe, the G7, the G8, the G20, NATO, the OECD and the World Trade Organization.
 Done -- Alarics (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking in general Terms, Is it as relevant being a member of the NATO or the United Nations Security Council, for the UK, as being a European Union member? Really?

Let me remind you that UK was one of the twelve founding members of the European Union. The development, politics and history of UK (specially the last decade) is closely related to the European Union and its participation, and not even to talk about the economics, for better or worse...

It is not my intention to overestimate the presence of the EU, but is it so difficult just to mention the name (European Union) at the beginning of the article? It's not just me; I heard some comments about it.

I'm not saying that it has to be an explanation about the situation of the UK in the EU in the introduction, but it should be mentioned at the beginning at least, as a EU country member, making this fact more explicit, and emphasizing it from the beginning to give a more simple general view of the UK in this article. It is my humble opinion, thinking for example, of a student looking for a general summary about this topic.

Here, I leave two links of a UK government website, specifically The Foreign and Commonwealth Office:

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/european-union/europe-approach/ http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/european-union/eu-act/

It is mentioned a little about the UK's role in the EU. Of course there are legal documents in support of this, but I consider pointless to extend such a simple subject. Zathrian12 (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

National Anthem

That rendition of God Save the Queen by the US Navy Band is awful. It's too slow and has the wrong ending to it. The one played on BBC Radio 4 at 12:58am is by far the best and most correct sounding one, and it would be nice to have that on the page instead. A much nicer representation of the anthem. I have it in an ogg file. How do I put it on here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherbetdip (talk • contribs) 19:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This should help. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

edit request

There are too many {{ in this article, due to a markup mistake in one of the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.223.136 (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You didn't say where it was, which would have been helpful, but I've fixed one instance of it. garik (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Overseas territories

Why does this article only have a few paragraphs on overseas territories whilst the France article has more info about them like geography etc. When I visit the UK only a few know about them but those who do only 2 territories Gibraltar and Falklands but don't know about the others at all. Ironic cause us Americans go there on holiday. If you put more info in about them maybe people in UK and around the world can find out more about them. It could help more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.16.122 (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Essentially, I think, because many of the overseas departments and territories of France are an integral part of France - they are within the EU, for example - but neither the British Crown Dependencies nor the British Overseas Territories are part of the UK. They have different constitutional positions, more analogous to, say, Puerto Rico or American Samoa which are equally not part of the US. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
What Ghmyrtle said. French territories are all legally full parts of France. They just have special status, sort of like autonomous areas. CMD (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
But that's not completely true guys. They have French Polynesia in their article and some other ones in some diagrams. It's not integrated just like all of the British ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.88.26 (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
French Polynesia is legally a full and proper part of France. Under article 74 of the French constitution, French Polynesia is an 'overseas country within the French Republic' (translation kindly provided by the Australian government). CMD (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit protected

{{Edit protected}} The article was protected in the incorrect state. The state was created by Ubiquinoid here. It should be restored to before that point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The page isn't fully protected.JOJ Hutton 03:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Walter, if you're really interested in keeping score, the links were arbitrarily stripped away without discussion by Ohconfucius a short while back. I'd have restored them if I'd seen them first. --Ckatzchatspy 04:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I think Ohconfucius was just following the rules. WP:OVERLINK says: "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions." -- Alarics (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
"Overlink" - actually an aspect of the overall linking guideline - is just that, a guideline, and a highly contested one at that. There are a few editors - a small group - who have been making rapid-fire script-based edits to strip out links that they dislike, often (in the case of geographical locations) without attention to context, using "overlink" as their justification. Note that the overlink text advises not removing links if they are "particularly relevant to the topic of the article". I think it would be hard to argue that Great Britain is not relevant to the United Kingdom... --Ckatzchatspy 05:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Why was the script approved, if it produces results not in line with policy? -- Alarics (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Guideline, not policy - very different intent. Plus, it's a personal script, and doesn't require approval. The list of items that are delinked is arbitrary, based on the preferences of the authors, and not open to discussion or changes by other users. --Ckatzchatspy 05:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Moot point. It's a good thing not to do. I'm sorry, I see an edit six weeks ago but that's not the one. Where's the original, recent edit?
Ubiquinoid also has an WP:AXE. Another edit who feels strongly about should feel free to remove the links as they're clearly not necessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Moot? Hardly, you've yet to explain how GB is not relevant to the UK. --Ckatzchatspy 06:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I have stumbled into this by reverting the re addition of these links in accordance with my understanding of WP:OVERLINK. If there is some issue about whether that guideline is appropriate then we should be discussing it at some appropriate central place. If we are going to make a decision based on local consensus then lets just do that here without recourse to wider or acrimonious dispute on the guideline.--SabreBD (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
How can one link Northern Ireland yet not Great Britain? They are both in the country's long-form name, e.g., and of direct relevance to the topic and per guidelines...whichever ones one may adhere to. Idiotic. For fcuk's sake, there is an entire article and Venn diagram explaining the difference of terms regarding the British Isles. Apropos, observe WP:UNDERLINK. As for W_G's commentary, no comment. Lastly, con-editors have been to asked to demonstrate the root of consensus or agreement for the OVERLINK geo guideline of note -- unsurprisingly, silence on that point. So, that assertion is quite debatable and the script of note is arguably disruptive. (That discussion will restart soon.) Otherwise, per Ckatz. Ubiquinoid (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that there was no agreed consensus on this because until it was changed recently it was not disputed. Since it is now a matter of debate lets attempt to establish a local consensus on the implementation here of WP:OVERLINK - which includes a clause to "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions." and WP:UNDERLINK - which states point to linking "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully". Here are two proposals:

  • Proposal 1: That we link all major geographic, national and geographical terms (such as Great Britain, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland)
  • Proposal 2: That we link only constituent parts of the UK (such as Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland), but not wider geographical features or countries (such as Ireland and Great Britain).

Please comment below:--SabreBD (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Proposal 2 It would be odd not to link constituent part of the UK, but the wider terms seem to me to be major features and locations that are probably familiar to most readers.--SabreBD (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There really is nothing firm or sensible supporting the subjective linking of diminutive territories but not major ones per P#2. That is counterintuitive. More so given this archipelago and the various constituent parts, but also others. Countries do not exist in isolation, and to delink those territories and geographic features of direct relevance is rather inane (particularly to novice users, who may not know better), and a disservice to all users. Also note that the article existed -- links and all -- for many more months (at least 8 ) before being changed with the aforementioned script, without apparent discussion let alone consensus. This requires a wider discussion. Ubiquinoid (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Proposal 2 although there are other options. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
And further, it wasn't Ohconfucius who removed the links. Because of all of the templates it takes a long time to load the page to see when the links in the lede were removed but the link provided above does not remove the links in the lede. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes it/they did - the diff provided shows the removal of links to Great Britain, Ireland and Republic of Ireland from the lead and Irish from the language section in the infobox (as well as some links that probably should have gone, such as country). Are you really not seeing that? Are we living in a different universe? N-HH talk/edits 15:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh god, it's all here too. Anyway,Not taking part in another of these polls given how the last one, on Canada, was dealt with. Again, one or two people cite overlink and claim it mandates the removal of well known terms .. while missing out the crucial qualification "unless relevant to the topic" (even though this has been highlighted by a previous comment); and ignoring WP:CONTEXTLINK in wp:lead. Great Britain and Ireland are clearly relevant to the UK. It's absurd to suggest otherwise. Also, let's point this out again to those demanding the removal of links that others may well use because they happen not to like them: links do not exist solely to explain what something is to some purported average, idealised reader with some arbitrarily assumed current knowledge base. They provide navigation to detailed encylopedia entries on other, related topics that readers of the first article may well - or may not, sure - be interested in. And, finally, actually there is a great deal of confusion about the terms Ireland and Great Britain so even on the "links for explanation only" standard, they have value. N-HH talk/edits 15:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Did you check the provided link? The links in the lede were not removed, although other links were removed. I'll assume good faith and assume that you thought that it was the right link to history, but you're wrong and you should check before assuming things like that. And I'll remind you that comment like this are considered personal attacks since you're discussing the editor and not the edits, the contributor and not the content. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
That's not a "personal attack". Anyway, Walter, perhaps you could please elaborate on what you were looking at when you said that OC didn't remove the links? If you compare this version, saved by Micropot and the next version, saved by Ohconfucius you will see that OC's script removed geographic links. --Ckatzchatspy 18:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
It is a personal attack per WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."
I see what you're saying. He unlinked the constituent parts (Ireland, England, etc.), unlinked common terms (sovereign state, country), but left the bodies of water linked. Thanks for the clarification.
We're discussing the constituent parts and it seems that linking them is acceptable. Is it necessary to have those common terms (sovereign state and country) linked? Is it necessary to link the geography (continental Europe) and the seas? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
My edit summary was indeed not a personal attack, and you have not just received "clarification" of what OC did - you have simply had to have it pointed out to you for the third time before it registered; while flinging ridiculous and untrue claims at others (including me) that we had not checked it properly ourselves. And even now it seems not to have registered fully, and what you say makes no sense. OC did not unlink England in the lead. It's not been unlinked and no one has been saying it was - he unlinked, as I said, among other things, Great Britain, Ireland and Irish [language]. Nor is Ireland a constituent part of the UK. And I, for one, btw also said he was right to unlink country, for example. Any further discussion with you is pointless. The experience here and on Canada shows you are clearly incapable of reading or understanding what is in front of you. I guess that is now a personal attack, but I find your obtuseness and refusal to acknowledge that you were in the wrong on a simple point a personal attack on my wish to discuss things sensibly with other reasonable, intelligent people. Hundreds of words have been wasted because you can't follow a diff. N-HH talk/edits 21:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The islands of Great Britain and Ireland are very closely (even intimately) related to the topic of the United Kingdom. Indeed the original name of the state, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, referred directly to them. Therefore, it is appropriate to link to them in this article (and would be peculiar not to). Also, remember WP:COMMON and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY when discussing guidelines.--RA (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The heat generated by this is pretty strange even by WP standards. I suggest all involved remember this is a very minor issue and not very important. DeCausa (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Second that. --RA (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
It is minor, and I certainly wont be losing a lot of sleep over it, but even minor issues need to be sorted, so it would be helpful if editors could make their views on the proposals clear. In this context we don't need long and accusative explanations.--SabreBD (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I wish everybody would calm down. This is all a quite ridiculous amount of fuss over almost nothing. We are supposed to be grown adults here. Let us try to keep a sense of perspective. -- Alarics (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand

There are three constituent parts that must be discussed:

  1. constituent nations (Great Britain, Northern Ireland)
  2. common terms (sovereign state and country)
  3. geography (continental Europe, Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Atlantic Ocean, North Sea, English Channel, Irish Sea)

Which, if any should be linked in the lede and which can suffer to be linked later in the article? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Don't care. Suggest leaving as it is now (whatever it is - I haven't looked). DeCausa (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support linking first mention of all terms mentioned. Absolutely no good reason not to do so, and many good reasons to do so, given the geographical and constitutional complexity and our global and relatively uninformed (that's why they're here) audience. We are here to provide information, and links are extremely helpful in doing that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Largest Urban Areas?

Pointless debate here

With the information that is given in this page, you will actually find Greater Glasgow is larger than West Yorkshire Urban Area, the population in Greater Glasgow is 1,999,629 and in West Yorkshire it is 1,449,465? 92.22.25.168 (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't understand. The table in the article says "Greater Glasgow 1,199,629". Have you misread it or are you saying it is wrong? DeCausa (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying way it is presented is wrong. Greater Glasgow, accordingly, has a population of 1,999,629, but it says that West Yorkshire Urban Area has a population of 1,449,465. Therfore, Greater Glasgow should be #4 and West Yorkshire should be #5? 92.22.25.168 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The table says Greater Glasgow has a population of 1,199,629 not the 1,999,629 you say. Are you saying the number in the table is wrong? DeCausa (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
By way of confirmation, I checked the source (note 265), which says 1,199,629 for Gt. Glasgow.--SabreBD (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
No! I'm not saying the number is wrong. I'm saying the order of the list is wrong. Greater Glasgow has a higher population, it should be 4th, but West Yorkshire Urban Area is currently 4th but it is ranked 5th. Greater Glasgow has a higher population than West Yorkshire according to this. Greater Glasgow should be 4th and West Yorkshire 5th. 90.219.161.94 (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
So you think that 1,199,629 is higher than 1,449,465? I think we have spent enough time on this.--SabreBD (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
For goodness sake. 1,999,629 is higher than 1,449,465. Greater Glasgow should be #4 on this list as it has 55,164 people MORE than West Yorkshire urban area. If you wish to continue to portray the information in a wrong order be my guest, but Greater Glasgow has a higher population than West Yorkshire currently ranked #4 in your list even though Glasgow has 55,000 odd more people in IT! 90.219.161.94 (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you have misread the numbers, Glasgow is 1,199,000, not 1,999,000, which you have read it as.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Either this is a wind-up or you are incapable of reading numbers. Either way this thread needs to close. For the last time, the number in the table for Greater Glasgow is 1,199,629 NOT 1,999,629 as you claim, and therefore Greater Glasgow is less than West Yorkshire, whose number is 1,449,465. DeCausa (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Map for BOTs

Please add the legend to the Overseas Territories map like this:

  British Overseas Territories
  United Kingdom
  Crown Dependencies
Not done: Mdann52 (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Why? --92.14.183.23 (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Mdann52 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I really don't see why someone would want to oppose this. If it doesn't get an opposition in a few days then shouldn't we assume consensus? --92.14.183.23 (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Other discussion

On a separate issue I think the map should be got rid of altogether. Other than the big swathe of pink in the antarctic, you can't really see much at all. DeCausa (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree on the map. I cannot see anything but the claim to the Antarctic.--SabreBD (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree - the pointers can be seen for the individual territories if not the names themselves. Maybe the older map was better than the one instated recently. --92.14.183.23 (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
From a thumbnail point of view, your right. But from any world map you wouldn't be able to see the territories. The previous map had a red 'swathe' over antarctica which was also an eye catcher. Only main differences between the maps apart from projection is that I didn't add a sploge over each territory but highlighted around them, and the font colour.GBozanko (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Done Map removed Mdann52 (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm.. Does the removal of the map really benefit this article? The fact is, whether they big or small, the map showed the correct locations of the Overseas Territories. GBozanko (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Tharticle is too hefty as it is - so any slimming down is welcome in my opinion. The BOTS are strictly out of scope of this article (not being part of the UK) so I've always felt there was an element of undue about the amount of space they've been given - and the map adds to that. Given that not much can be seen on the map, i think the foregoning + that = removal is best. But...stop press, someone's just put in a new map! It looks a bit of a mess IMHO! DeCausa (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that such a map is not needed in this article. I've removed the new map - although it is informative, I personally dislike the design, but (more importantly) it is unnecessary for this article, which is already over-long and causes problems of loading for many users. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
If downsizing the article is priority then it's only right to remove maps which can be included in their respective articles. Yes, the latest map was very confusing, also. GBozanko (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 July 2012

The "government" section of this page does not list the UK as a democracy. This needs to be corrected as the UK is a parliamentary democracy.

Kutuup (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Her Majesty would beg to differ. Not done. Hot Stop 05:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the real answer is that the word "democracy" doesn't seem appear in the infoboxes of any of the democracies, having sacnned several of them. Not sure why - since it is the most pertinent aspect of their governmental systems - but that does seem to be the approach. So, the US is a "federal presidential constitutional republic", France is a "unitary semi-presidential constitutional republic", Denmark has the same description as UK etc etc DeCausa (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
As a noun, a democracy is a form of government ... a state of society ... political,social or legal equality.
As an adjective, democratic. Enough said.
Therefore, the existing description in the United Kingdom article, both in the Lead and the Government sub-section is exactly correct and requires no addition as suggested above by Kutuup (talk)
-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
"Enough said"!! I have not the slightest idea of what you are trying to say! Sorry. DeCausa (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, really! And this from someone who does not agree with QueenElizabeth II. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Ha! Educate me! DeCausa (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
On the day that in it, this is a interesting question. For example:

"Broadly speaking, the British people seem comfortable with the present constitutional arrangement which could accurately be described as a Parliamentary democracy with a monarchical facade rather than a 'constitutional Monarchy' as in the standard textbooks." — F. N. Forman (2002), Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom, London: Routledge, p. 202, ISBN 0415230357

None the less, I was surprised to find the following in "Life in the United Kingdom: A Journey to Citizenship", published by the Home Office:

"The British system of government is a parliamentary democracy."

I have seen the UK described as a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. For consistency and to avoid unnecessary verbiage I agree with DeCausa. --RA (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 July 2012

$2,452.689 trillion Please change $2,452.689 trillion TO $2,452.689 billions 92.26.13.140 (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 16:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The OP's question may relate to the long and short scales. Whatever, the "long scale" use of the term "billion" to mean the term now (almost) universally understood as "trillion" is deprecated per WP:MOSNUM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

An odd notion of Demographics?

The last paragraph under the 'Ethnic groups' subsection refers to 'ethnic diversity' by citing official ONS statistics:

Ethnic diversity varies significantly ... 30.4% of London's population and 37.4% of Leicester's was estimated to be non-white as of ... whereas less than 5% of...

Shouldn't this state the percentage of people in London and Leicester who don't identify as 'White: British (Persons)'[3][4] rather than simply those who don't fall under the broad 'White (Persons)' category?

To say that people from Estonia and Poland don't contribute to ethnic diversity seems absurd to me.
--Tshloab (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Gypsies and Travellers

I would like to see a brief mention of the Romani (Romany) Gypsies and Irish Travellers populations. People may not care for them but they are an important part of the UK's demographic. Rough combined population of 350,000. Problems with accurately recording population due to fear of discrimination, movement away from traditional lifestyle etc. Their languages are still spoken in small numbers but data is once again difficult to obtain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.245.90 (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Devolved Administrations

Probably has come up before, but...the devolved administrations represent 16% of the UK's population. In this article, the UK Government section is 6kb and the devolved administrations section is 11kb. The two sections seem grossly out of proportion to their relative importance. DeCausa (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it from the stand-point of 'how many words it takes to explain something', they are fairly in balance though. A specific "problem" is that the three devolved administrations are all very different: Scotland has close to effective autonomy, Wales less so and shares a jurisdictions with England, Northern Ireland has a complex diacritical arrangement and shared institutions with the Republic of Ireland. All in all, the current text is quite tight, IMO. --RA (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it's really around Wikipedia:Summary style. Is there a need to explain that much given that they have their own articles? Given their relative importance I would have thought it would be sufficient to note their existence with the pointer to the relevant articles. DeCausa (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
In my view, at least, they already do take summary style: skipping jauntily over Devolution in the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland Executive, Scottish Government, and Welsh Government in a few paragraphs.
Relative importance is more than simply a population game. Otherwise, we would end up with a mirror of the England article + minor appendages. In talking about the politics of the United Kingdom, devolution to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is an important topic and deserves suitable treatment in this article. --RA (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Belatedly:....I think the "England + appendages" scenario isn't applicable here. That would be the case if the topic was, for instance, "Local government". I agree that an "England + appendages" argument would result in some artificial apportionment of that section to English local government based on population size etc. I think this is different. The "UK Government" section is about a UK-wide institution, and this article is, after all, United Kingdom. The devolved administrations are, of course, not UK-wide institutions. It feels misleading (at least to me) to give so much space to institutions which are not UK-wide - and significantly so - especially when so closely juxtaposed to a related section which does cover a similar UK-wide institution, but in half the space. DeCausa (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I think see the where the issue lies: do you see the devolved administrations as "local government", rather than "UK Government"?
The devolved administrations are (academic arguments aside) top-tier legislatures and executives in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, whereas the administration at Westminister is only the sole top-tier legislature and executive in England. The Westminister administration is not an unequivocally "UK-wide institution". On devolved matters, the administrations at Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast are top-tier government in those parts of the UK. --RA (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
They're not top-tier. By "academic arguments aside" I presume you mean that the doctrine that sovereignty remains with the UK parliament and merely devolved is trumped by the realpolitik of practical reality. I think that's dubious, but even if true, they are still not "top tier". The Scottish Executive wants greater powers as does elements in the Welsh Assembly. That's only within the power of the government/parliament in London to grant, and at present doesn't look likely: "academic arguments" and realpolitik intersect at that point, and demonstrate that these are not top-tier institutions. The fact is the devolved administrations and UK government, in an overall UK context are not of equal significance, or anything near it. But I think a reader is given a misleading impression of this by the imbalance in the two sections. DeCausa (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
And that's the academic argument :-)
The ultimate sovereignty of the Westminister parliament — including practical constraints on it — is discussed in the final paragraph of the section.
Funnily, to my eyes, the two sections offer balance rather than imbalance. "In an overall UK context", governance is both central and devolved. --RA (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The "Devolved admins" section is only 670 words in a 15,000-word article. Relax, DeCausa. If you think the description of the UK government is inadequate, work on it instead of expecting cuts elsewhere to produce 'balance'. Brocach (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with DeCausa here. Do we really need to know about former elections and older constitutional situations on this page? Half the Scotland paragraph covers the 2007 elections and political proposals by the opposition. CMD (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Long term editors will be aware that saying things more briefly is pretty much my default position. I would say that it is easiest, and appropriate, to deal with this issue in a separate section. However, looking this over I think we could prune 100-200 words out of this. Bits that strike me as more appropriate to detailed articles include: the West Lothian question, Scottish elections before 2011; the commission on devolution, the stages of development of Welsh devolution; the exact terms of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference; the 1972 example in the final paragraph. There could also be a bit of rewording to be a bit more concise. I am sure that some editors will legitimately disagree with some of this, but it does give an indication of how we might deal with this more concisely and probably more clearly.--SabreBD (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The Scotland paragraph (and the Wales paragraph to a lesser extent) is definitely out of date. Pruning seems reasonable, if the information can be fit into less space. --RA (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I think pruning was what I was after! (Brocach: this article is obese enough at 240kb without adding yet more!) DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I was taking a look over just the Scottish and Welsh paragraphs, and after cutting all the details of previous elections and previous powers, we're left with quite short paragraphs:

The Scottish Government and Parliament have wide ranging powers over any matter that has not been specifically 'reserved' to the UK parliament, including education, healthcare, Scots law and local government.[5] At the 2011 elections the pro-independence Scottish National Party was re-elected and achieved an overall majority in the Scottish parliament.[6]
The Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales have more limited powers than those devolved to Scotland.[7] The Assembly is able to legislate on devolved matters through Acts of the Assembly, which require no prior consent from Westminster. The 2011 elections resulted in a minority Labour administration lead by Carwyn Jones.

Both these have all the information about devolved powers and current administrations that the current article has. Perhaps instead of simply saying Wales has more limited powers we shoudl describe its powers, but as it stands I don't think any of the information I cut out is needed at all. CMD (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The excised material is all highly relevant - it deals with the recent political discourse around devolution in both countries - and these are just two quite brief paragraphs in a long article. The proposed edit, two sentences for Scotland and two for Wales, reduces it to a snapshot of the constitutional situation right now, rather than an (extremely brief) account of devolution issues in the recent political life of each country. Brocach (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Chipmunkdavis. Spot on reductions. "reduces it to a snapshot of the constitutional situation right now" exactly defines what's needed for the UK article. "an (extremely brief) account of devolution issues in the recent political life of each country" is what's needed for the 2 country articles which are then expanded in the articles on the specific devolved admins. Summary style! DeCausa (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the attempt, but it looks like a bad haircut to me too.
Maybe a better (but more difficult) approach would be to look at the section as a whole. Rather than taking Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland separately, maybe it would be more appropriate to talk about "devolution" in the context of the UK — and indicating unique aspects of devolution for each of the three places as they arise.
That would mean a complete re-write but the result may be more satisfying for all? --RA (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like a promising approach, and gets away from the case-by-case detail. I think it sounds similar to Spain#Autonomous communities and autonomous cities which I think is quite an effective approach. DeCausa (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I cannot quite see how this can be done, but I am willing to see what can be achieved. If that is unsuccessful then I suggest we go back to the trimming strategy.--SabreBD (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll turn a hand to trying it, though I probably won't have an opportunity to to do until next week. It will probably take a few iterations — and won't be right first time — but I think it can be done. --RA (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
A prompt on this one before it goes off to the archives.--SabreBD (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

New proposal

Since we have no movement on this I have produced a version based on the idea of cutting out some of the detail of past situations and elections for which there seemed to be some support. This paragraph would replace the existing middle three paragraphs:

It has been a week and no objections, so I have made the change.--SabreBD (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring the economy

I notice that we have two sets of references to aerospace and automotive industries: one under the general Economy section and one under Science and technology. I suggest we combine these in the later section. I am also not sure why the opening section here is in the current order. I also suggest moving the bit on recession to near the bottom of the section as it is time limited (I hope). I would also welcome views on whether we need the historical bit here, or whether it belongs in the history section.--SabreBD (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea to remove the duplication but in my view the references should be in the economy section if only in one of the two. Industries are primarily viewed in an economic context, although it is true that high technology industries do also have a strong scientific aspect.
In my view the two or three historical sentences in the economy section should remain as they give context to the topic. The content would also fit in the history section but in my view it is more relevant and useful where it is.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks those comments RA. I kept the economy version. I have left the historical bit and moved the paragraph on the current economy to nearer the end.--SabreBD (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Common names

Great Britain is a widely used common name for the UK. It is, for example, the name of the UK Olympic team. In my view this should be be added to the opening, which I propose be changed to "(commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, Great Britain or Britain)". I know that Great Britain is also the name of the largest island of the nation, but this is does not change the fact that the name is also commonly used in this context.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the full name of "Team GB" is the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team. Someone obviously thought Team GBNI didn't sound quite so snappy. — JonCॐ 09:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Usage of GB is described in the Terminology section. I think if it does go into the lead it needs to reflect that it is deprecated in the UK (other than eg Team GB) and is largely limited to the US. Too much of a mouthful for the lead I suspect. DeCausa (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed i do not think it should be put in the lead, especially as it will add to confusion when the next line in the article mentions the island of Great Britain. Outside of the olympics which is only a few weeks every 4 years, use of Great Britain is nowhere near as common as United Kingdom or Britain so not mentioning it in the lead is justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
That is true yes.. the BBC for example in their medals table put Great Britain + Northern Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It's partly historical: until 2004 Team GB literally was only GB. NI was (and still is, I believe) represented by Ireland in the eyes of the Olympic authorities. The Northern Irish were entitled to join either the GB team or the Irish team. Then in 2004, Team GB unilaterally declared itself to include NI. As might be expected, there was a bit of a rumpus about it. Not sure what the eventual compromise/solution was (if any). This explains. According to the Team GB article it's pretty much just a commercial brand name owned by the British Olympic Association. But I think I read somewhere that Ireland still represents all of Ireland in the Olympic charter so technically Team GB may not be a UK team (at least in terms of Olympic officialdom). DeCausa (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It isn't a UK team. Athletes from the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and BOTs compete under the Team GB banner too. Daicaregos (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Whatever may or may not be the case about the Olympics, "Great Britain" means England plus Wales plus Scotland. Any other usage is simply incorrect and should certainly not go in the lead. -- Alarics (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
And despite everything Great Britain is still a common name for the United Kingdom particularly in the UK and is still widely used as such outside wikiland. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A name does not to be a scientifically correct description of the subject however. For example "America" as used as a name for the United States, or "Russia" as used as a name for the Soviet Union. Even proper names are often not scientifically correct, for example The Carphone Warehouse is hardly an accurate description of the subject. In this case the question is whether "Great Britain" is a commonly used name for the UK. In my view it is, particularly in the US and Germany. If cites were provided demonstrating this would it affect editors' stance?Rangoon11 (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No. One can cite incorrect usages for all kinds of expressions, but they are still incorrect. I bet many people who say "Great Britain" when they mean "UK" are simply unaware of any distinction between those two entities, but I do not think we should copy or legitimise their ignorant behaviour. It's like people who say "infer" when they mean "imply", or "diffuse" when they mean "defuse". The thing is, they're just wrong. -- Alarics (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
So you would wish to remove "America" from the lead of the United States article? And "Britain" from the lead of this article, since it is itself merely a contraction of "Great Britain" and therefore also not scientifically correct? A name is a name. Someone could have the surname "Short" but in fact be tall. A common name in particular is defined by useage alone, there is no such thing as an "incorrect" common name, the only test is whether it is commonly used. The alternative is to remove all of the "common names". However there needs to be some consistency here, not an exclusion of certain common names for wholly subjective reasons. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Should add, your examples are not names, I don't therefore see any relevance there. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that "Great Britain" is commonly used to mean "United Kingdom" by significant numbers of careful or well-informed writers. "Great Britain" has a very specific meaning, which is different from "United Kingdom". We should preserve that distinction, and not encourage sloppy and ignorant misuse. -- Alarics (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an incorrect common name. One will see "America" used as a description of the United States in all manner of formal and informal settings, the same with Great Britain as a description of the United Kingdom. "significant numbers of careful or well-informed writers" sounds horribly subjective to me. However a cursory look at Google archive reveals a vast array of examples of useage: [5]. You can adjust the date field for the search and find large numbers of examples for each year, in all manner of highly reputable sources. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC);
I agree, in WP policy terms, "correct" and "incorrect" is not relevant here. But what is relevant is the extent of usage. Based on the sourced statements in the Etymology and terminology section, usage (eg newspaper style guides) of GB is significantly less common than "UK", "Britain" etc and is mainly a US phenomenon - as reinforced by your Google search. (Remember that policy requires it to be English language usage &, eg, Großbritannien isn't relevant.) For it not to be misleading, a reference to GB in the lead would need to be so caveated in this way that it would make it unsuitable (in terms of detail) for the lead. It's best left for the body of the article. DeCausa (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I take your point regarding German useage. I also accept that the use of the term in the UK is significantly less common than in the US (that may be because of editorial guidelines laid down by a relatively small number of UK based media organisations which have a very large share of national media output, but it is undoubtedly true).
However what cannot I feel be denied is that "Great Britain" is a very common name for the UK in the United States (perhaps they, like the Germans, have a higher opinion of the British than the British do of themselves!). We need to avoid a UK-centric approach here. I believe that all of the contributors to this thread are British, as am I, but we should consider that the majority of native English speakers, and readers of this article, are not British. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC);
WP:OR but I've always assumed it's because it was GB in 1776! I think not just in the UK, but in global English generally, “UK” and “Britain” is much more common outside the US. But, I admit, it does seem unrealistic/parochial to ignore US usage. How about ...and, in North American usage but not generally elsewhere, "Great Britain". DeCausa (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Its also the case that in the US a lot of people use England interchangeably with the UK. Common use does not require us to perpetuate a wrong name, or a false interpretation of "Great". ----Snowded TALK 12:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
"England" is only used colloquially to describe the UK. If the same quantity of high quality written sources could be found as exist for "America" being used to describe the US, or "Great Britain" being used to describe the UK, then yes England should be included. Once again, there is no such thing as an "incorrect" common name - a common name is a name which is commonly used to describe a subject. That is not the case for England however, not in terms of quality written sources. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it certain that "Great Britain" is being used as a synonym for the UK in these circumstances? "Great Britain" is the correct name for the island that is the territory of the vast majority of the UK. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that those using "Great Britain" are referring specifically to either the island or those living on it. And btw, I disagree with the suggestion that England could be given as a common name for the UK. It is incorrect and only used due to ignorance. For quite a time the Chinese referred to the US as imperialist running dogs of capitalism. Would you accept that as a common name for the USA or Americans if enough sources existed? Daicaregos (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
On your first point - absolutely, look at the Google archive. On the Chinese point - firstly "imperialist running dogs of capitalism" isn't a name but a description, secondly the Chinese are not English speaking. On the England point, I disagree. Many people referred to the Soviet Union as "Russia". If it could be shown that "England" is widely used as a common name for the UK in quality English language sources then it should be included. However that is not the case and I have never proposed the addition of England to the lead in this way, in fact I would strongly oppose it.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
My mistake. I was under the impression that editors making a proposal needed to provide sources. But, as it appears to be up to me to look, I can confirm I have found none. As I recall, 'capitalist running dogs' was used as a noun instead of using America, the US or USA. English speaking ... if you are proposing to only use English language sources on the English Wikipedia, this is not the venue for that proposal. And I didn't say you proposed the addition of England to the lead in this way. I said "I disagree with the suggestion that England could be given as a common name for the UK.", as it was suggested that, given certain circustances, England could be given as a common name for the UK. I disagree because it is inaccurate. As I disagree with showing Great Britain as another name for the UK. Great Britain and the UK are not synonyms. Daicaregos (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I have linked to the Google archive results. Thousands of examples are available there. Am I supposed to individually link to each of those thousands of sources here? If you have found none, then you have not bothered to look at the link which I provided above to Google archive. If I linked to five here, no doubt the response would, only five? What does that show? If I linked to 10, the same.
There is a fundamental failure here to grasp the meaning of firstly a name, and secondly a common name. A name does not need to be a scientifically accurate description of a subject. And the only requirement for a "common name" is that it is 1. a name, and 2. commonly used.
Re the Chinese point, policy in that case has already been described by DeCausa above in response to my comment about German useage of Great Britain. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Have to agree that England is is not a synonym for the United Kingdom but clearly outside of wikiland Great Britain is a synonym for the United Kingdom, which is why the subject keeps getter raised regularly on these talk pages. MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
To try to be objective about it, let's look at the first line of United States as an analogy:
"The United States of America (commonly called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States)".
They bring in at least one very widely used but technically wrong usage ("America"). So there isn't some kind of bar on Wikipedia article intros on major subjects giving widely used common names that are technically wrong. This would surely apply to "Great Britain" and it might also be worth having "England" in there and mentioning that it's incorrect. Certainly right across the US, the two are used wrongly and interchangeably. This article serves a world en-speaking market, not just a UK-based one. In addition, opposing having the Great usage in there on subjective personal grounds to do with local nationalisms is NOT a valid criteria for debate on this point, any more than wanting it in for glorification reasons would be. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Whilst we're at it - first line bracketing

One other issue in the intro - the use of double brackets to embed "UK" - is this right? It might be better to replace

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland(commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain)

with

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain,

Thoughts? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we need the bracket around "UK", we never used to have them they add nothing and they aren't used in the US example shown above. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
It could just be commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK or Britain. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I added them in because "UK" isn't short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it's short for "United Kingdom" specifically. I'd support Jamesinderbyshire's proposal to de-bracket the "commonly known as..." sentence. — JonCॐ 11:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, understood about the reasons, the problem is we're writing in the English language, not doing algebra. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I think the above discussion is forgetting that the following is already in the article with two decent sources: "However, some foreign usage, particularly in the United States, uses Great Britain as a loose synonym for the United Kingdom". The question is should the lead reflect this? I think yes, and propose adding "and "Great Britain" (often considered incorrect, but common in North America)". And dispense with the brackets per James. DeCausa (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Is "often considered incorrect" citeable? That isn't in the three sources used in the article at present. I also feel that any such qualifying text would be best put in a note.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC);
From the article: The United Kingdom is often referred to as Britain. British government sources frequently use the term as a short form for the United Kingdom, whilst media style guides generally allow its use but point out that the longer term Great Britain refers only to the main island which includes England, Scotland and Wales.[32][33][34] DeCausa (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually only one source (correctly cited). MOS:LEADALT says: “Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead." "Great Britain" is noted the Etymology section already. The relevant section says: "The United Kingdom is often referred to as Britain. British government sources frequently use the term as a short form for the United Kingdom, whilst media style guides generally allow its use but point out that the longer term Great Britain refers only to the main island which includes England, Scotland and Wales. However, some foreign usage, particularly in the United States, uses Great Britain as a loose synonym for the United Kingdom." This single sentence, referring to GB use in the entire article, cannot be sufficiently notable to require inclusion in the lead. Further, any proposal to alter this important article along these lines, must cite relevant MOS guidelines and reliable sources. Daicaregos (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The MOS guidelines are just that, and in this case are both unclear and not in any case being followed by this article at present. We have a separate name section which refers to the "Britain" name, and yet that still appears in the lead. The United States article has five common names given in the lead but also has a name section. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think it's a little more common sense than that. GB is widely used in the US (per Rangoon's Google search & as we all know, or should know). Given the US's importance in absolute terms & in the context of WP readership, this is an obvious lacuna in the lead. This is turning into one of those silly WP terminology disputes so I think I'll drop out now. DeCausa (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Rangoon11, the common names policy does not require to present a mistake as a fact. I think we can say that Great Britain and sometimes England are wrongly used as synonyms for the United Kingdom. That would reflect common usage but also inform. ----Snowded TALK 19:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it needs a sentence like commonly known as a, b and c and also often called (innacurately) e and f. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I am going to drop out of this discussion after this post as it is proving too painful, I should have known better than to open this up. There is no such thing as an incorrect common name. Many people commonly call the UK Great Britain. That is not "incorrect", it is simply a short hand, just as Britain, the UK and United Kingdom are shorthands (BTW where do people think that "Britain" comes from exactly? From the "Great Britain" part of the proper name. It is also scientifically incorrect in the sense that it does not include Northern Ireland.). They are all contractions using part of the proper name. The US lead does not say "and, incorrectly, America".
"America" is not a scientifically accurate description of the US in the sense that it is also the proper name of the continent. However it is wholly meaningless to describe it as an "incorrect" common name. Saying that is incorrect is also, of course, unciteable. There is no source capable of making such a claim with authority.
"England" is a complete red herring. It isn't used in large numbers of high quality written sources as a common name for the UK in the manner of Great Britain, it is used colloquially. "England" does not appear in the proper name of the UK and is not a short hand for it.
Great Britain as regards the UK is directly analogous to America as regards to the US. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
For the record, the continent is NORTH America, not America... just saying. MrZoolook (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
No it isn't. Apparently authoritative statements should be accompanied by sources to back them up. WP:OR should have no place in these discussions. The American Government use “America” or “U.S.” as a shorthand to describe themselves, whereas the British Government use “Britain” or “UK”. “Great Britain” does not constitute all of the UK, so it is inaccurate to use it as a term for the UK. Daicaregos (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
It's certainly true that there needs to be backing from sources for commonname usage, but that doesn't mean it has to have some seal of approval from the relevant governmental authority before we announce that it's commonly called something in Wikipedia; the fact that the US government sometimes mistakenly calls it "America" isn't needed to know that there's a widespread common usage, US = America = USA = Uncle Sam, etc, etc. The only question really is how common things are, how widely used, sufficient to justify mentioning them in the opening sentence. America is such a widespread misusage it would have gotten in anyhow. To use an Americanism. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
e/c "Britain" is simply a contraction of "Great Britain". Great Britain when used as a shorthand to describe the United Kingdom does not exclude Northern Ireland. Neither does "Britain", despite clearly also excluding it in terms of semantics.
This is not a discussion about what is the preferred nomenclature used by the subject itself (and in any case the current British government does not equal the nation, they are two wholly different things; the Government is merely a part of the nation. And Government policy can change at any time, as can the wording on a website like the Directgov page you link to).
The relevant issue is only what are the commonly used names for the subject. And "Great Britain" has for a long time, and continues to be, a very commonly used name for the United Kingdom: [6]. I know that some people do not like the name used in this way for reasons of political correctness but that is also irrelevant.Rangoon11 (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I oppose using "Great Britain" as a synonym for the UK because it is incorrect. Please link to current WP policy and/or MOS that would allow an incorrect name to be included in the lead – no more OR, please. The link provided shows using "Great Britain" as a synonym for the sovereign state a long time ago, current usage seems to relate to sports. It isn't just the UK government that deprecates using “Great Britain" in this way. The BBC style guide begins its Great Britain entry: "Great Britain comprises England, Scotland, and Wales. It is a geographical term; … ". The Guardian and Observer style guide says "UK or Britain in copy and headlines for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (but note Great Britain comprises just England, Scotland and Wales)". And regarding American use: here is the NSA style manual. It says, under UK, "Use the abbreviation for the United Kingdom either as a noun or adjective … In most cases use British for the adjective rather than UK". Daicaregos (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't incorrect, there is no such thing as an incorrect common name. And even the sources which you have yourself provided do not state that using "Great Britain" to describe the "United Kingdom" is incorrect, they are primarily explaining the composition of the proper name, including that "Great Britain" is the proper name of the largest island of the nation.
Here are some examples of "Great Britain" being used to describe the United Kingdom. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]
There are thousands of examples available in a few seconds using Google, as eveyone here no doubt knows, but it seems that some still wish to deny the fact.
Interestingly, when one actually bothers to look, one finds that "Great Britain" is used as a common name for the United Kingdom worldwide, not just in the United States by such well established outlets as the New York Times and USA Today.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
It's used all the time in the US media to mean "UK". I think people will need to get over to the US article and query their use of "America" if they think innacurate commonnames are barred from mention in the opener, not to mention about a million other popular articles. Please. This is pretty obvious stuff and the objections are nothing to do with supposed WP policies really are they? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are trying to insinuate by the edit summary “Objectors should state their real views”. I have stated my real views i.e. using “Great Britain” as a synonym for “United Kingdom” is incorrect. Great Britain is a geographic term for the island containing Scotland, Wales and England. I have provided reliable sources to support that viewpoint from both sides of the Atlantic. I have also quoted from MOS:LEADALT, which says if the subject has more than three alternative names, they should be noted in an Etymology section – which is how the article appears currently. If anyone wants to propose changes to that, then Wikipedia policy and/or relevant MOS must be noted as part of the proposal. If you can't do that, stop wasting everyone's time. If you can, do so. Daicaregos (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The guideline about the 3+ alternates is repeatedly broken all over the place, including, as pointed out, the US article, which suggests (given the importance of that article) that it is just a guideline and not a rule. If we did stick to it, it's arguable that Great Britain is actually a significantly more common usage than Britain - and that also both are wrong. Your argument Dai that we can't use Great Britain because it isn't accurate holds no merit. Britan is not equal to UK. Nevertheless, it is often used that way and we have it right there in the intro. The argument really here is are only the three we have sufficiently widely used to get their intro mention, or are there four, as in the US article? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Just realised that we now only have two alternates following the removal of the surplus brackets - "Britain" and "United Kingdom (UK)" - the latter being the same thing in reality. Even with Dai's proposal that we exactly follow the guideline, there is room for one more. I propose we have:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Great Britain (Britain), is a sovereign state located off... (etc) - or similar. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Britain is not "simply a contraction of Great Britain". The term "Great Britain" was devised as a means of differentiating between the main areas once occupied by the British - the island, and Brittany. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Most of the arguments have already been rehearsed, but I have to say I cannot agree with moving to something that says "commonly known as ... Great Britain". I might be able to live with something that points out the inaccuracy more clearly.--SabreBD (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you say why you could not agree to that, since that is a wide common usage meaning "UK"? See the Olympics and the US media for example. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Because the name of something is not a vote. The fact that there are lots of Americans and lots of them have the internet or that the BOA cannot resolve its descriptive issues is really not that important compared with what the country is actually called. Anything that is pointing to popular usage would need to make the erroneous nature clearer.--SabreBD (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Sporting use is not analogous to using Great Britain as a synonym for the sovereign state. The UK team has often been called Great Britain, or Team GB as it is now. Daicaregos (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, the Olympic team is hardly a casual "sporting use" as you put it - that's one of the flagships of the UK in the world's public eye. Search for "Great Britain" on any major news site worldwide and you pull up thousands of references that cover UK, Britain, England, etc. The terms are considered absolutely freely (and admittedly cluelessly) interchangeable in most of the English-speaking world. Can I remind people (again) that this article is NOT in the UK space only - it's a global english-speaking world article. We need to address things like this head on and not from within local viewpoints. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
As noted above, Team GB does not directly represent the UK. Athletes from other parts of the world represent Team GB too. Therefore, it is not analogous. Daicaregos (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
@Sabrebd: what is "erroneous"? What makes "Britain" correct and "Great Britain" not? Since 1707, the name of the state has been determined by statute either expressly or by inference. Britain is "correct" because, I believe the argument goes, it is sanctioned by government and other official sources. But that is ultra vires. Governments can't change statute. It's just a form of common usage, albeit highly influential. All names other than the names sanctioned by statute are "incorrect", it's just a question of whether there is significant common usage. I think heavy use in the US of this particular "incorrect" name is as valid as the usage of the other "incorrect" names in the list. But I do think when GB is mentioned it's North american popularity needs to be explained. DeCausa (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Its only valid to say "commonly known as Great Britain: is we say "commonly known (eroniously) as Great Britain". We have a duty to acknowledge a common name, but also to inform people as to its correctness. ----Snowded TALK 17:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The UK's legal name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It's three alternative (or common) names are the United Kingdom, the UK and Britain – noted in the lead. Great Britain is already noted in the Etymology section as a common name, in accordance with MOS:LEADALT. Daicaregos (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
A few people are here stating that "Great Britain" is incorrect as a common name for the UK. Pure POV. Not a single source has been provided which states this. And of course it can't be, because there is no such thing as an incorrect common name.
Great Britain is used by outlets as prestigious as The New York Times [28], Der Spiegel [29], and USA Today [30]. In the face of this there needs to be some overwhelmingly good reasons why it should be excluded here. Those reasons don't exist. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
... US State Department, US President, the White House...DeCausa (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't just ignore this. Daicaregos (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Why not? Plenty of articles do. It's not policy. It's a "recomendation" contained in a "guideline". DeCausa (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
America is Not the World, Rangoon11, and, last time I checked, Der Spiegel wasn't an English language newspaper... — JonCॐ 19:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Really scraping the barrel now I fear. Who said it was? It has over four times more native English speakers than the UK however. Der Speigel has an English language version, look at the link.
Sources have in any case been provided which show useage in Russia, the Middle East and South East Asia. Many more can be provided.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
And how many native English speakers are there in Russia, the Middle East and SEA, as opposed to those speaking English as a foreign language? I'm afraid the Americans making an error and the rest of the non-natively English-speaking world following suit isn't a very convincing argument. — JonCॐ 19:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Considering that this has been discussed before, and it's the same predictable names taking part for the exclusion side, it is really shocking just how thin the arguments are. In fact arguments is being very kind. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't recall our ever meeting... — JonCॐ 19:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall discussing this before either. Daicaregos (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Rangoon, please address the content issue rather than commenting on other editors. You are not dealing with the arguments or the evidence. ----Snowded TALK 22:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Which arguments or evidence? "America is Not the World"? Or "the Americans making an error and the rest of the non-natively English-speaking world following suit"? I've not heard anything worthy of response the last few posts.
In fact, in the entire thread thus far, the sole even remotely coherent argument I have heard against inclusion is the one regarding the MOS. That's it. The rest has just been piss and wind. Just as I expected. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Rangoon makes some quite valid points. Why is Great Britain wrong? Because some editors say it's wrong. It's not uncommon for a large or otherwise powerful subentity to be used to identify the larger entity pars pro toto, and due to historical circumstances it makes even more sense here (the same I assume, applies to why England is sometimes used to refer to the whole UK). Cuba has islands other than Cuba, Taiwan has islands other than Taiwan, the Isle of Man has islands other than the Isle of Man. Just because the UK has other common names that are more widely accepted doesn't make the others wrong, especially in a language like English which grows organically rather than under a governing body. Anachronistic or depreciated maybe. CMD (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree there is a point here and that people are being a bit too dismissive of it - the "error" of using Great Britain for the country as a whole is not as egregious as that of confusing England for the UK or E-S-W, which is an outright mistake that no reputable source would make without subsequently correcting themselves. Yes, technically, GB for UK is incorrect, but it is, as noted, fairly common in quite a few half-decent sources and even in effect incorporated into official country codes (and let's not get started on "Team GB"). That said, I'm not sure it needs to be in the lead, especially when we already have "Britain" there - the coverage in the Terminology section seems to cover it with sufficient prominence and in sufficient depth. Equally, I can see the case for adding something brief along the lines of "sometimes referred to as Great Britain" to the lead, which would note the usage without endorsing it (or explicitly having to qualify it by an explanation or with a denial of its correctitude [sic]). N-HH talk/edits 06:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The point is that despite the widespread use of "Britain" here in the UK, the most common international usage is "Great Britain" - this is the En-Wikipedia, the first line is supposed to give the most common alternates and the plain fact is that GB should be in there, possibly even to the exclusion of (or at least in addition to) "Britain". If we are being objective, because more than half the English-speaking world uses GB before it uses B or UK. If instead we are attempting to use Wikipedia as a political tool, not a encyclopedia, and not pay attention to the facts of what is common, but instead use our local cultural and political norms as a guide, then we won't use the commonest ones. It's really that simple. I agree with Rangoon that many of the "arguments" being put up, apart from the MoS guideline, are basically nonsense. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Firstly Rangoon needs to cool down, that last post files fails to assume good faith and just raises the temperature. Secondly it seems to me that the issue is not inclusion or exclusion, but how it is included. I am happy for it to be included, but we need to be clear that it is inaccurate. The use of "England" is the same error, but its different in scale. Great Britain or Britain excludes Northern Ireland, England adds Scotland and Wales to the list. Sorry James, your comment on political tools is a think excessive. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform and educate, so we reflect common use, but we also educate as to correct use. ----Snowded TALK 08:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
But this is the problem: what is "correct use". Why is Great Britain any more inaccurate than Britain? Just because one is used in governmental circles and the other not doesn't alter its accuracy. That is about usage not accuracy. None of the "common names" are accurate (including "United Kingdom" in the sense of the whole truth and nothing but the truth). "America" isn't described as inaccurate in the opening of the US article. There is no logic to GB being treated differetly to the other common names. What is different is that usage is more restricted i.e. predominantly to North America, and I see a case for saying that in the lead opening. But to ignore deprecate American usage is really not sensible relevant: love it or loathe it is is very very important and it smacks of Little England (inaccurate - I should say Little Britain, I know, but that gives a different message!) to say it's just Americans getting it wrong. DeCausa (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Great Britain excludes Northern Ireland, Britain doesn't. If consensus dictates it must be in the lead, not the more appropriate "terminology" section, then I'll accept that, but it must be made clear it's erroneous. — Jon C.ॐ 09:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's excluded from "Britain"! It's just that one pars pro toto is in common use in the UK and the other isn't! DeCausa (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
No one is suggesting ignoring the common use DeCausa, I reference my above comment that we have a role to reflect that usage but also the make the facts clear. ----Snowded TALK 09:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Britain is used by numerous sources to describe the United Kingdom, unlike Great Britain where it may be used by some, including many Americans, but there are sources clearly stating the term does not apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, and the UKs name demonstrates it. Many American sources describe Her Majesty as Queen of England, something so inaccurate is not what would be worthy of being included in the opening sentence there even though it sadly does have common usage. It just seems easier to handle the GB usage in the section of text where a detailed explanation can be given, rather than trying to fit it into the intro with the necessary qualifications. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Snowded: I wasn't suggesting you were saying ignore it. My comment was in respect of qualifying it by saying it was "inaccurate". It's no less accurate than the other common names. Where it differs is more limited (though still substantial) usage. DeCausa (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
DeCausa, "Britain" doesn't just mean Great Britain and doesn't by definition exclude NI. It's much more ambiguous than that. The terms "Britain" and "British" originally referred to the pre-Roman Celts of the British Isles. Great Britain is an island; Britain is much more. — Jon C.ॐ 09:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
No. It referred to the pre-Roman Celts of, well, Britain, - Britannia i.e. the big island - not Ireland. The Brythonic "Britons" were from the big island and the Goidelic Celts (not Britons) from Ireland. Not sure where you've got that from. The "Great" was added intermittently in the middle ages and was only popularized from the time of James VI (.e. 17th century) DeCausa (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
There's also an underlying historical confusion to the usages in the US, where many people either do not identify Northern Ireland as part of the UK, or else are unaware of its very existence other than marginally - there is no doubt that to many if not most Americans, "Great Britain" = UK. Also of course, to many around the world (and here still, even today, in England!) England = UK. Agree though with Snowded and others that provided it's clear that it's a mislabelling, the "Great Britain" term can be in the first para and explained. The GB misidentification is the commonest. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My mistake. Still, "Britain" doesn't always (or even most of the time) refer to the island anymore. — Jon C.ॐ 10:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Any reference in the lead should imo avoid making an overly explicit and unwavering assertion, in WP's voice, that it is an outright error. As noted, it's more of technical error and one that's to some extent muddled by the use of GB in official abbrevations; and one whose complexity and nuance is better explained in more detail, as it is currently, in the terminology section, rather than being tackled inadequately and too didactically in the lead. Perhaps it could be done not by adding it to the first sentence along with the other more correct short-forms but by appending a parenthetical note to the existing reference to Great Britain in the second sentence, ie: "The country includes the island of Great Britain—sometimes also used as shorthand for the whole country—the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands". That way we separate it from the (more correct) short forms noted earlier and also don't need to add any bold editorial judgment or statement about "error", since it's implied by the immediately prior (more correct) identification of the term with the island. N-HH talk/edits 10:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
To say that "Great Britain" is a valid equivalent to "United Kingdom" is wrong because "Great Britain" has a specific technical meaning (England + Scotland + Wales) which is not the same thing as the United Kingdom. That is why the full official title of the state is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". If "Great Britain" means the same thing as "United Kingdom", that would be like saying "United Kingdom of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland", which would be absurd.
Rangoon keeps saying that "Britain" is simply a contraction of "Great Britain" but it is not clear to me that that is the case. "Britain" is used officially to mean "United Kingdom". "Britain" and "Great Britain" are not the same thing. "Britain" is actually a larger entity than "Great Britain".
Of course you can cite a lot of (mostly overseas) sources for people misusing "Great Britain" to mean the whole state, but surely in most of those cases the writer is simply not thinking about whether or not Northern Ireland is included in what they are saying because it would not be relevant to the particular point they are making. I don't think you can seriously claim they are consciously including or excluding Northern Ireland, so their usage is neither here nor there.
Why has the all-lines railway timetable always been called "Great Britain timetable" and not "United Kingdom timetable"? Because it does not include Northern Ireland Railways (which operates as a completely separate system). This correctly illustrates the distinction that we should not lose. -- Alarics (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Alarics, but you are misunderstanding the purpose of common alternate names - we all know it's "technically" wrong, that's not the point - the point is that GB=UK is an extremely common worldwide alternate, regardless of accuracy. This discussion is about how we say that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I just had a look in my Oxford English Dictionary. It states as follows: "Great Britain - England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom.". Rangoon11 (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Its not disputed that it is used Rangoon, so that adds nothing. I like the solution proposed by N-HH ----Snowded TALK 11:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It has been disputed throughout this thread. And note that the OED does not even qualify it by saying something like "in the United States".
So, good enough for the Oxford English Dictionary, The New York Times, Der Spiegel and USA Today. But not for a handful of POV-pushing WP editors, some of whom can't even use "it's"/"its" properly, some of whom do not understand basic aspects of British history, and some of whom appear to not understand that the United States in an English speaking nation with a far greater population than the UK.
And not a single source has been provided to support the tediously repeated argument that Great Britain is "incorrect" - which of course it can't be, 'because there is no such thing as an incorrect common name, and a name can be used to describe more than one thing.

Rangoon11 (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That it is used has not been disputed, that it is incorrect is very very clear, if you really can't check those sources for yourself then I suppose you could be helped (if anyone else supports that position). Perhaps you would point me to some authority that says a common name is by definition correct? Otherwise stop attacking other editors you have been around long enough to know that is wrong and to understand the consequences. Lets focus on agreeing some form of wording here please ----Snowded TALK 12:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
That it is "incorrect" is very very strongly contested, it is pure POV, a politically correct opinion for which not a single cite has been provided in support. Not one.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Its called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", your own source says that Great Britain is sometimes loosely used as an equivalent, but its not the correct constitutional name. That is a simple matter of fact, not a POV. So two questions (i) Are you really disputing that is the proper name? (ii) what is your objection to referred to the fact in any use of the 'common name'? ----Snowded TALK 12:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
FFS, "Britain" is not the "proper" name either. We are discussing common names.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed Britain is not the proper name. The CIA Fact book is very clear on the proper name. So would you please answer my two questions. ----Snowded TALK 12:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Your questions are incoherent, perhaps you could rephrase.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Interesting use of the word 'incoherent" but I will attempt to clarify. (i) Are you disputing that the constitutional name is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? (ii) Assuming you are not then what is your objection to following what appears to be a majority view, namely that we reference Great Britain as a common name, but at the same time (in a form of words to be agreed) indicate that it is not the proper name and only properly refers to England, Scotland and Wales. ? ----Snowded TALK 12:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
(i) - You know I am not, and have not done so. (ii) I am very happy for the lead to state that "Great Britain" is the name of the largest island in the nation, as well as a loose common name for the whole nation. I have never opposed this, it has simply not been raised in the discussion. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I should add of course that such wording about the island is already in the lead.
A formulation such as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, Great Britain or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands." is crystal clear that (i) "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is the proper name, (ii) "Great Britain" merely a common name for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and (iii) "Great Britain" also the name of the island of Great Britain. For me this is more than clear enough, although the lead could be adjusted so that it is absolutely clear that the said island comprises England, Scotland and Wales.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to find sources to say what something in not. Banana is not the correct name for a giraffe; but try finding a source to confirm that. What is not in dispute is that “Great Britain” is the name of an island in the northeast Atlantic, comprising only part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Self evidently it is not analogous to the whole of the UK, which means that using “Great Britain” as an alternative name for the entire UK is incorrect. As James says, this discussion is about how we say that. My view is that the subject is already being handled correctly as an alternative name and in accordance with the relevant MOS guideline i.e. MOS:LEADALT. Daicaregos (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about common names not proper names. Banana is not commonly used as a name for the giraffe by the Oxford English Dictionary, The New York Times, Der Spiegel, USA Today or any other reliable sources.
"Great Britain" is commonly used as a name for the United Kingdom. It is also the proper name of the largest island of the nation. Names do not have to have a single meaning, neither do words.
In your opinion "Great Britain" is an "incorrect" common name for the United Kingdom. Clearly in the opinion of the Oxford English Dictionary, The New York Times, Der Spiegel, USA Today and innumerable other reliable sources it is perfectly correct, as an informal common name. In the face of that overwhelming weight of sourcing there needs to be some pretty spectacular sources which state that it is "incorrect". You have thus far provided none.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I really do not think it is needed, but it is how it is handled that matters. I strongly oppose simply putting GB in line with Britain and United Kingdom without any qualification. If there is a way to briefly make reference to GB whilst explaining its not strictly accurate, then id not oppose. But i think its going to be rather difficult to clarify briefly right in the first sentence. Especially when the next sentence goes on to talk about the island of Great Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I know these things get lost in the verbiage, but Ghmyrtle and I have both proposed, separately, similar solutions that in my view <ahem> elegantly and subtly deal with all those problems. N-HH talk/edits 08:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

One of the problems with this discussion is that there is a three way argument going on - and it makes the discussion quite opaque and highly unlikely to reach a coinclusion in that format. One set of editors thinks "Great Britain" is just wrong and shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. One set, although thinking it's incorrect, thinks it could be mentioned in the lead with an explanation that it is incorrect. One set thinks it should be mentioned and the "incorrect"/"correct" distinction is irrelevant (although within that there may or may not be an additional explanation of the extent of the usage. Would it simplify this thread if we simply establish whether there is a consensus to mention GB in the lead at all, and then subsequently work out how it should be described (if there is a consensus on that)? DeCausa (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a reasonable suggestion.
We must remember that in WP reliable sources are required though. That "Great Britain" is an incorrect common name for the UK is an opinion, not a fact, and one for which no adequate sources have thus far been provided. Mention of it being an incorrect common name, stated as fact, is therefore out of the question. It is a fact that "Great Britain" is a commonly used name for the UK (although some above have still made ludicrous attempts to deny this).Rangoon11 (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
What's wrong with the way it's handled at the moment? It's all there, in "terminology". — Jon C.ॐ 12:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Its an incorrect name, and its a common name. Pretty simply really and you are pushing the boundaries again. ----Snowded TALK 12:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It is fine how it is, handled in accordance with MOS:LEADALT. Daicaregos (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It is highly lead worthy as has been demonstrated by extensive highly authoritative useage. Exclusion from the lead for subjective "I don't like it" reasons is unacceptable. I can see that the only way of moving this forward is going to be an RfC.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Wider community scrutiny of content and behaviour issues is always welcome. Maybe you would help that along by answering by questions above?----Snowded TALK 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Now replied.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for that courtesy. I think that leaves us with two options. (i) leave it as it is (ii) add in the use as common name, but clarify that it is not a constitutional name. I read your reply as saying that you support the second subject of course to agreed wording. Maybe we should resolve which option, and if the second is agreed we can discuss wording. ----Snowded TALK 13:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The second option has always been my preference. The fly in the ointment has been the suggested use of words such as "incorrect".Rangoon11 (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, the only constitutional/legal short name is "United Kingdom", which is the short name given to the UN. Britain also lacks such standing. I agree we should use (ii), noting that it is less commonly used in some way. CMD (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I see no need to change the existing wording. But, if the wording is to be changed, it needs to differentiate between, on the one hand, the terms United Kingdom, UK, and Britain - all of which are officially sanctioned - and, on the other hand, Great Britain, which is not officially sanctioned and which can therefore be called less correct or inaccurate. I would support a wording such as: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes inaccurately applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands." Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with the above completely. — Jon C.ॐ 14:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd already suggested something like that here, which only one person seemed to pick up on ... Anyway, not being precious. However, my preference would be to avoid explicit claims of error or inaccuracy. It may be fair, but there is something of an academic and theoretical debate to be had (as seen above, at great length) about whether a common term - which also appears in some official terminology let's not forget - can be described explicitly and definitively as inaccurate; plus, as noted, it's redundant if we've only just said that actually it's the name of the island. Maybe "loosely" per the OED, or simply "sometimes" on its own? N-HH talk/edits 15:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It would be ok with me with the word "inaccurately" deleted. Britain isn't any less "accurate" than "Great Britain" and official sanction can't change it's accuracy. DeCausa (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Both the "sometimes" and "inaccurately" are uncited POV. The Oxford English Dictionary says often and loosely. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Where is Great Britain for the UK officially sanctioned, other than "Team GB" (a trading name of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Assoc.? — Jon C.ॐ 15:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll count Team GB, if that's OK, along with other sports teams. The IOC code as well? ISO GB/GBR codes? Car plates, which cover NI too as far as I know? David Cameron (I assume he was not excluding NI)? This is covered in the etymology section. I never said - nor did anyone else, I think - that it's an equivalent official name, but it does crop up on the sidelines, both in UK and international official and quasi-official references. Anyway, I think we've got beyond this now. The fact of its use, informally or otherwise, isn't really in doubt nor is it ignored in the main body, it's how to reflect that briefly in the lead, if at all. N-HH talk/edits 16:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Lets go with Ghmyrtle;s proposal but with the DeCausa variant, namely that Britain and Great Britain while common names are inaccurate ----Snowded TALK 17:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Uncited and unciteable opinion. Let's go with the Oxford English Dictionary. "Great Britain - England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom."Rangoon11 (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC);
What is "Uncited and unciteable opinion"? Are you challenging "sometimes", if so that seems unreasonable. DeCausa (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe Rangoon was challenging "that Britain and Great Britain while common names are inaccurate" (emphasis challenged). I feel Rangoon is right that "loosely" would be a useful descriptor, because it conveys the idea that the name is not perfectly accurate. CMD (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
e/c The Oxford English Dictionary says "often"; the very different "sometimes" is both uncited and suggests a far less frequent useage than is the reality as is clear from searches on Google archive.
"Inaccurate" is the same as "incorrect". Uncited and pure opinion.
We know that neither "Great Britain" or "Britain" are the proper name and that to state that either were the proper name would be inaccurate/incorrect. That has never been proposed. What is now suggested above (as I understand it) is that we state that "Great Britain" (and perhaps "Britain" too) are inaccurate/incorrect as common names. This is what I am challenging. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You are tilting at windows. To varying degrees they qualify as common names. However they are not accurate or correct names and that has to be noted. ----Snowded TALK 18:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No it is a very big difference. They are, of course, incorrect as the proper name. To state that they are incorrect as common names is to move over into the realms of pure subjective (and thus far uncited) opinion however. And opinion that directly conflicts with sources of the quality of the Oxford English Dictionary and the New York Times.
A formulation such as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, Great Britain or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands." is crystal clear that (i) "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is the proper name, (ii) "Great Britain" merely a common name for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and (iii) "Great Britain" also the name of the island of Great Britain. For me this is more than clear enough, although the lead could be adjusted so that it is absolutely clear that the said island comprises England, Scotland and Wales.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Good, they are incorrect as a common name, exactly what I and others have been saying. So if they are included as a common name, it has to be clear that they are not correct. Your formulation lists them as if they were proper short form names which they are not. ----Snowded TALK 18:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
No, they are incorrect as the proper name only. The formulation in no way suggests that they are the proper name and is completely standard in WP, with the proper name given first, and at the top of the infobox, and common names given after the proper name in brackets and prefaced by "commonly known as". Rangoon11 (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I am running out of ways to say this, but I think we are agreed they are incorrect as a proper name; please stop tilting at windmills The issue, and I think most are agreed on this, is that it must be clear that the common name British Isles is incorrect as a proper name or a short form of that proper name. ----Snowded TALK 19:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, it isn't as if there is a proposal to move the article to "Great Britain", which would demand a high standard of proof - this is an "also/often known as" which only requires two types of evidence - (1) that it's commonly also/often known as and (2) that it's common enough to merit inclusion in our first line. GB succeeds on both counts. The remaining issue, is it accurate, is marginal in this context. I'm not against a brief intro line mention though, on the grounds that Wikipedia is always a good chance to educate as well as reflect, esp. to our US audiences, no sarcasm intended. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think "correctness" or "incorrectness" really matters. The point is about whether the term is used or not to mean UK. I know there are some references, but to me the majority of sources appear to refer to sports, so I'd say leave it out of the lede. Might be an idea to change "commonly known as" to "also known as" too - I believe it reads better. --HighKing (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean a Google search right now only reveals Olympic references? That's hardly surprising, if so. I think there would be a very different story if the Google search is performed a few months after the Olympiad. It's actually a bit ridiculous to say it's just a sporting reference, GB is incredibly widely used in the States to mean (interchangeably and semi-randomly) either the UK, England or Britain. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

State of play

The beginning of the previous thread suggested we all note our preferences. Going back over this discussion I've noted which editors are in favour of changing the lead and which editors are in favour of the existing wording. Please change your entry if I've misunderstood your preference, or note your preference as applicable:

  • change lead ............. Rangoon11
  • keep current lead ...... John C
  • change lead............... De Causa
  • keep current lead ...... BitishWatcher
  • keep current lead ...... Daicaregos
  • keep current lead ...... Alarics
  • change lead ............. MilborneOne
  • ? ............................ Snowded
  • change lead ............. Jamesinderbyshire
  • change lead ............. CMD
  • keep current lead ...... Ghmyrtle
  • keep current lead ...... SabreBD
  • change lead .............. N-HH
  • keep current lead ...... HighKing

Daicaregos (talk)

I don't see any great reason to change it, but have no objection as long as it is very clear that the use of Great Britian, while common is incorrect----Snowded TALK 05:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I also don't see a huge need to make any changes (given that we have the etymology section second in, which has all the detail, and the space to explain) but equally wouldn't object to a note in the lead that the term is sometimes seen. I'd prefer to avoid explicit assertions that it is "inaccurate" or "wrong", which seems a bit didactic and simplistic; the error, such as it is, I think can be better explained by noting its use after the first mention of GB as the name of the island, rather than amid all the other slightly more correct alternative short-forms (per my and Ghmyrtle's proposals above). N-HH talk/edits 07:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Ditto, essentially. I don't think there's any need for change (and clearly there is no consensus for any change at present), but of course I'm not opposed to constructive improvements. If GB is to be mentioned in the lead, it must be clearly differentiated from the other - more correct - terms such as UK and Britain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Whilst I think the lead should be changed - usage of Great Britain being significant enough to be mentioned alongside the other common names - it's clear that there is no consensus to do so at the moment and this thread should be wrapped up as it will continue to go in circles with the potential to be disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not think it is needed, but it is how it is handled that matters. I strongly oppose simply putting GB in line with Britain and United Kingdom without any qualification. If there is a way to briefly make reference to GB whilst explaining its not strictly accurate, then id not oppose. But i think its going to be rather difficult to clarify briefly right in the first sentence that. Especially when the next sentence goes on to talk about the island of Great Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Once again, I think people need reminding about the purpose of the common alternates in the first line - they are NOT, repeat NOT, a declaration of accuracy, they are about what is commonly used! We are not defining, we are reporting. It is also a mild form of wikigaming to kick up a contentious apparent controversy about something that is fairly self-evident (because one's personal political views are opposed to it) and then claim that it cannot be added or discussed because it's contentious! Please. The facts are - (1) it is incredibly widely used as an alternate - the US media for example uses it all the time and so do US politicians, business leaders, cultural leaders, etc and (2) - we could give a mildly explanatory note about it, but we don't *have* to - because that isn't the point of "commonly known as" statements. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The whole "accurate" point is the result of a complete failure to understand the distinction between a proper and a common name - "Great Britain" is wholly accurate and correct as a common name in the opinion of the Oxford English Dictionary.
Consensus is also not established by vote. The arguments in favour of exclusion have been paper thin. I think what is needed here is some editors who are fresh to the article and the issue, via an RfC. We have seen the "usual faces" lining up in pre-set positions, and it was clear that whatever sources were provided and whatever arguments were made their views would remain the same. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec)::::Agree totally - the "contention" is the result of well-known POVs about the phrase "Great" rather than any objective view on the common-ness of the term. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I have seen nothing in any guidance that suggests that it helps readers of the encyclopaedia to give equal weight to both less accurate and more accurate information. We are here to be accurate, informative and educational, not to confuse readers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
You don't think US readers are already confused? They are probably wondering why "Great Britain" leads to that wierd Great Britain article at the moment. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
NOT A SINGLE CITATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED WHICH DESCRIBES "GREAT BRITAIN" AS AN INACCURATE COMMON NAME FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM.Rangoon11 (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
We're getting bogged down a little in semantics and abstract argument - it is accurate/correct in the sense that it is used as common name (and acknowledged as such by sources such as the OED); it is inaccurate/incorrect to the extent that its use is noted as being a bit confused and not 100% accurate (in plenty of other sources) in a way that does not apply to alternatives such as UK or Britain. There's no correct answer as to its, er, accuracy/correctness or otherwise (hence why I'm opposed to explicit, definitive statements about accuracy or otherwise). I accept and line up behind the "report the use" argument - the only issue is how to present that in the lead, if at all. And actually, there are plenty of non-pre-set and open-minded positions on display here; and if you want to open this to wider debate I suspect you'll mostly find people shrugging their shoulders at why such a tiny point should create such drama. N-HH talk/edits 10:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Stop shouting. No citation has been provided because no one has agued that it is not a common name. The issues have been if it needs to be included, and if so with what qualification. If you put some effort into reading and thinking about the contributions of other editors rather than varying forms of polemic we might get somewhere. I'm sure if you come up with well worded proposal that respects and responds to the concerns of other editors you might make progress. ----Snowded TALK 10:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Why can't we use the wording from the Oxford English Dictionary itself (if anyone can think of a more authoritative source, please say) - "often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom"?Rangoon11 (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle came up with a better phrasing some time ago - I suggest you read it. ----Snowded TALK 10:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Since my question has been ignored I will repeat it, why can't we use the wording from the Oxford English Dictionary itself (if anyone can think of a more authoritative source, please say) - "often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom"?Rangoon11 (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Because, verbatim, it wouldn't make sense when inserted into the prose context here? Because the OED is simply one source among others; and simply having a source, or a quote from a source, does not offer a definitive answer as to how to incorporate and weight that information on a page here? I would be happy with one of the two following options:
  • Insert directly after "commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain" in the first sentence: "or sometimes as Great Britain". The "or sometimes" gives some separation from the first two rather than simply adding it directly as a third option, but slightly jars with the following sentence about the island; or
  • As suggested a way back, several times and not just by me, insert directly after "The country includes the island of Great Britain" in that second sentence: "—a term sometimes/loosely used to refer to the country as a whole—", then continuing "the north-eastern part ..". That has a greater separation from the first two common names and introduces the more technically precise use of the term GB as the name for the island first, and then notes that it has come to be used for the whole place. It's slightly more clumsy overall perhaps though.
Now, I'm off for a lie down. N-HH talk/edits 10:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I just looked in the Cambridge Encyclopedia and the reference for Great Britian says "See United Kingdom". The reference for United Kingdom starts "United Kingdom (UK), also United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or Great Britain".
I am prepared to accept your second suggestion, i.e. "The country includes the island of Great Britain" in that second sentence —a term also loosely used to refer to the country as a whole—" as a compromise.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, any inclusion has to make it clear that the use of GB is incorrect as a proper short form for the UK (which is not to say it is incorrect to say it is a common name, it is). The purpose of Wikipedia is to education, not to perpetuate common beliefs at the expense of verifiable facts ----Snowded TALK 12:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
It isn't incorrect and you have no source which says that it is (and "proper short form" is a meaningless phrase and also uncited). RfC it is then.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that I'm not sure it's objectively clear what a "proper" short-form name is. Also, I'd say that using the word "loosely" and placing the observation straight after the identification of GB with the island does more than enough to identify and explain any "error", without the text having to instruct the readership that the term is "incorrect" - even if it is, in one sense of the word. Yes WP should inform, but it doesn't need to lead people by the nose, especially through oversimplified "right/wrong" labelling of an issue. N-HH talk/edits 13:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

As noted by DeCausa above, there is no consensus to change the lead to include Great Britain as an alternative name. Unless any new argument is introduced, re-stating previously made argument is pointless; still less, shouting at at everyone. This discussion should be put out of its misery, and closed. Daicaregos (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus to close it either. It's important because it is a very common name for the UK, which, for POV reasons, is being excluded. I note that those opposed are pretty squarely within the Scottish/Welsh nationalist and Irish camps. Why is that then? It also holds no water that because the above seek to make it contentious, the wider editing community should pack bags and regretfully retire, unless you perhaps they subscribe to the notion that all English-language Wikipedia articles about the UK should be controlled by people who share those opinions only? Maybe not? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
To the extent that nationalism is a problem - and I'm not sure it is - it can of course cut both ways. Don't forget that there's politics - potentially - in overly focusing on "Great Britain" as well. It's a bit of a right-wing nationalist theme, eg "put the Great back into Great Britain" etc etc. N-HH talk/edits 17:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, I pointed this out in a comment early on in the thread. The point is that neither should be guiding thinking on this topic, but they do appear to be intruding. As per. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's RFC or time to wrap it up I think

This is what I posted earlier: Whilst I think the lead should be changed - usage of Great Britain being significant enough to be mentioned alongside the other common names - it's clear that there is no consensus to do so at the moment and this thread should be wrapped up as it will continue to go in circles with the potential to be disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC). Since then, what I said has come to pass. This is only going to get more rancorous. There isn't, IMO, consensus for change. I think those who feel strongly about changing it should open an RfC. But otherwise this discussion will only continue to go down hill without resolution. DeCausa (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If an RfC is raised then I suggest Rangoon pays careful attention to the various suggestions and issues raised by other editors. Persisting in the belief that people are saying its inaccurate to say its a common name when they clearly are not will just end up with another confused discussion. ----Snowded TALK 12:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
You may not think that's what some editors are saying Snowded, but self-evidently some are. And making some pretty unlikely statements in support of that contention. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
On balance, I'm neutral as to whether an RfC is worth it for this. But the participants in this thread are (1) mostly the usual ones for this talk page (2) apparently all UK/Ireland based. I think there's no harm in fresh, potentially more international, sets of eyes here. DeCausa (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Concur, happy to help phrase something if Rangoon wants ----Snowded TALK 13:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean phrase the RfC request, or phrase wording for the lead?Rangoon11 (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
either, although I think the Ghymrtle proposal is fine for the latter ----Snowded TALK 13:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The RfC request needs to be something like "There is currently a discussion ongoing as to whether reference to "Great Britain" as a common name for the topic should be added to the lead of the article. Comments are invited." Thoughts?
I understand that Ghymrtle's suggestion involved reference to "Great Britain" being "incorrect" or "inaccurate" as a common name, which I oppose on the basis of it being 1. uncited opinion, and 2. in contradiction to very authoritative sources such as the Oxford English Dictionary, Cambridge Encyclopedia, New York Times etc.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I have never used the word "incorrect", though I have said "less correct" and "inaccurate". Its use is not officially sanctioned, and is not supported by reputable style guides - unlike the terms UK and Britain. That is not opinion, it is fact supported by reliable sources. Additionally, it is my opinion that its inclusion is unnecessary and would create additional confusion if it is given the same status as the other terms. The term is, apparently, commonly and loosely used for the UK in some parts of the world - but that usage should not be given equivalence with the other, more correct, terms in the opening paragraph of the article. To do so would present incomplete information and create unnecessary confusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Your points have already all been dealt with ad nauseum. 1. there is no such thing as official sanction in the English language, the nearest we have to an official body for the language is the Oxford English Dictionary (which states "The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom"). However examples of usage in official situations do exist, e.g. for the Olympic team and other sports teams, and ISO GB/GBR codes. 2. the style guides of the BBC and the Guardian are the only two I have seen linked to here so I assume they are what you are referring to. Even those examples of extreme political correctness do not state that the use of "Great Britain" as a common name to describe the United Kingdom is "less correct" or "inaccurate", they merely do not include it in that useage. "Less correct" or "inaccurate" is your own uncited opinion and essentially has the same meaning as "incorrect". And they are style guides, not dictionaries or encyclopedias. 3. Useage of "Great Britain" as a common name to describe the United Kingdom is explicitly approved as correct by sources of the authority of the Oxford English Dictionary, Cambridge Encyclopedia, and The New York Times.[31].Rangoon11 (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
My reference to "official" was to the UK government, not to any linguistic body. I'm happy to agree that the term GB is sometimes used "loosely" for the UK - my point is that the other terms listed, such as Britain, are not used "loosely", but correctly. It's entirely your opinion that the BBC and Guardian's guides are governed by "extreme political correctness", whatever you think that might mean in this case, but anyway it's irrelevant - they are reliable sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The UK government (which of course changes every few years and is a transient and small part of the nation) does not govern the English language. And does the present British government have a policy on whether or not "Great Britain" is correct as a loose common name for the UK? It would be surprising and rather odd if it did, but no citations have been provided which support such a claim. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The official UK government site is here. "Great Britain" has a different meaning to "Britain", as has been pointed out repeatedly. We should not confuse readers by suggesting they are synonymous. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
All it does is explain the construction of the proper name, it does not state that the use of "Great Britain" as a common name for the country is "less correct"/ "inaccurate"/ "incorrect". And are you seriously claiming that a rather crappy page on the Direct gov website, probably written by a junior civil servant, is an expression of the policy of the British government? Oh dear. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Consider also, if the current administration in the United States announced that its policy was henceforth that "America" was no longer a valid common name for the country. Apart from being utterly ludicrous, do you really think that that would make "America" no longer thus?Rangoon11 (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not consider that the wording on the Direct.gov site "is an expression of the policy of the British government" - but it is an official statement of its position. If the US government took the view that you suggest, the lead of the US article would certainly need to state that its government considered that the term "America" was not seen as valid. But the point here is simply to differentiate between "Britain" and "Great Britain", which are not synonymous even if one is sometimes "loosely" used to mean the other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
That you consider that page on Direct gov an official statement of anything is rather tragic, but the page doesn't even state what you are trying to use in support of. That page does not state that the use of "Great Britain" as a common name for the country is "less correct"/ "inaccurate"/ "incorrect". In fact, still, not a single source has been provided which expresses that opinion. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
It states that "Great Britain" means one thing, and "Britain" means something different. You are claiming that they are synonymous. They aren't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
It does not state what you are attempting to use it as a citation for. We know that Great Britain is also the name of an island, that is not what this discussion about and is not in dispute. This discussion is about whether Great Britain is a common name for the topic of this article. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The term "Great Britain" is already used in the second sentence of this article. As I suggested, we could note in that sentence that the term is also sometimes used loosely (but inaccurately) to refer to the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Inaccurately according to the Ghmyrtle English Dictionary. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Imprecisely, then? WP:AGF, please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
All common names are imprecise in the sense that they are not the proper name. That's why they are called common names.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Ambiguous or inaccurate common names should be identified as such, to minimise confusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

We need to be sure people aren't just pressing the RFC button as another way to kill this. RFCs rarely seem to end conclusively or with lots of new editors. The usual eyes on this page are seeing this discussion. Clearly many are bored of these points (as I feel most of the time) because of the gaming, but I persist because there is some hope that we might end up with something approaching objectivity. I suggest we instead compare sources for the two contentions - contention (1) that it's very, very common and should be included and contention (2) that it isn't - the former appears to be pretty widely agreed with, but there are still some naysayers - and then it's just a matter of comparing a few alternative phrasings. We are actually nearly there and don't really need an RFC other than if this is repeatedly claimed to be "too contentious", a position we should ignore. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll just point out that the only two people to suggest an RfC (I believe) is myself and Rangoon, and we have both advocated including GB in the lead. So I'm not sure where the reference to "pressing the RFC button as another way to kill this" comes from. DeCausa (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes I think that RfC is no more likely to kill the discussion than it is to take us to a consensus. It could do either, but since at present we have an effective deadlock it seems a sensible idea.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Should add that I completely agree that there needs to be a strong focus on quality sources in the discussion. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure. There isn't deadlock btw - the majority favour having something added, albeit with explanation. Therefore the point now is to consider alternative phrasings. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
And I repeat, lets go with Ghmyrtle's. Despite multiple explanations from several editors Rangoon11 evidently doesn't understand the difference between something being a common name, and it being incorrect as a proper name. There comes a point when further explanation is just a waste of time. He doesn't like DirectGov, the CIA site or any others. Pity really ----Snowded TALK 19:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
You are still continuing with this tedious attempt to confuse the common names and the proper name. Do you really think that the participants in this discussion are so dim that that they will be confused? Or are you just hoping everyone is going to get bored and go away.
You have rejected the position as found in the Oxford English Dictionary, Cambrige Encyclopedia, The New York Times and endless other highly authoritative sources including USA Today and Der Speigel. And you have rejected them despite not having a single source which supports your claims of the use of "Great Britain" as a common name for the country being "less correct"/ "inaccurate"/ "incorrect". Rangoon11 (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Please read, and if you read attempt to comprehend. I have been very clear that it is a common name and I have made no claim that it is less correct, inaccurate, incorrect as a common name. I have been very clear that it is an incorrect proper name and have pointed you (as have others) to sources to that effect. I have not rejected any source that I can see, please provide the diff. I am happy with the OED statement, I might question USA Today as "authoriative" but that is a minor point. Ignorance may be bliss, but obtuseness is not helpful. I am in fact making the same point as other editors and your inability to see the point is going to prevent progress. ----Snowded TALK 20:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
"I have been very clear that it is a common name and I have made no claim that it is less correct, inaccurate, incorrect as a common name." It is good that you have now stated this, I think that we are making some progress here. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I and others have said it time and time again, if you have now understood it then maybe we are making progress. The issue for me is very simple, if it is included as a common name then there has to be statement that it is incorrect as a proper name. ----Snowded TALK 21:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I have never wished, in any way, to imply in the article that "Great Britain" is the proper name for the topic. In WP we do have a pretty standard and well established approach for handling proper and common names though, with the proper name going at the top of the infobox, and common names being given in the lead prefaced by something like "commonly known as". We don't say "commonly known as ....NB these are not the proper name which is ......". The "commonly known as" is not set in stone though and I am open to alternatives, such as "informally known as".Rangoon11 (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
No need for that, it can be listed as a common name. However it needs to be clear (as in Ghmyrtle's version) that its not a correct proper name. I really can't understand why you are not going with his proposal ----Snowded TALK 22:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I meant to also add "informally or loosely known as" in my prior post.
My reasons against stating explicitly that Great Britain is not the proper name are two fold. Firstly, because "Britain", "United Kingdom" and "UK" are also not the proper name. Secondly, because it is not how we generally do it in WP (and I also personally agree with the usual WP approach, which I find clear enough).
A possibility is something like "The United Kingdom (formally (or officially) the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the UK, Great Britain or Britain) This would have the benefit of putting the article title at the front. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia is to educate, that means making things clear not avoiding them. My position is clear and you are wrong by the way. The United Kingdom and the UK are correct short names. I can't see agreement unless you are prepared to move, maybe best left as is. ----Snowded TALK 22:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
How about
"The United Kingdom (UK) (officially the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as Great Britain or Britain)" Rangoon11 (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
No, because that gives "Britain" and "Great Britain" equal weight and status. One is commonly used, and officially used. The other is commonly used, but is not officially used, and is confusing to readers - partly because the identical term is used in the next sentence to mean something completely different (the island). How about my suggestion, up above somewhere? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
It neither does nor does not give them equal status, it simply makes no comment. To give comment would amount to uncited opinion and value judgement. Please remind me of your proposal. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes loosely [or incorrectly] applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
It has to be "incorrectly" otherwise its misleading in this context ----Snowded TALK 08:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The suggested phrasing (without "incorrectly") is undoubtedly correct - ie that the term is used. Whether we wish to add "incorrectly" is a choice we make, it does not have to be added. Equally, as everyone has accepted, yourself included, it is not as simple as that - the use may be "incorrect" in one, technical sense, but it is not "incorrect" as a common name, since that concept is meaningless. A plain statement that its use is "incorrect" is hence explicitly misleading in a way that simply not passing comment at all is not. The suggestion of placing the note after GB has first properly been identified as referring to the island makes the imprecision point fairly clear to the averagely intelligent reader, one would have thought, without, as I have said, having to lead them by the nose in a didactic and simplistic fashion. N-HH talk/edits 08:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree. So long as the mention of GB is retained in the second sentence as I suggest, to differentiate it from the more precise and officially sanctioned common uses in the first sentence, I'd be comfortable with "loosely" rather than "incorrectly", for the reasons given by N-HH. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

But that isn't a useful proposal - I'm sorry, but you appear to be suggesting basically no change, as GB is already prominent in sentence 2 and this debate is about the common alternates, not second-sentence further definitions. That leaves the problem that despite GB being a very, very common alternate for UK, we won't say so - which is wrong. I propose we discuss the following change to the first sentence (refs only deleted here for copying brevity):

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain (also often Great Britain), is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe.

Something like this in sentence one is really where we need to get to. Definition happens in sentence two anyway, so the moderately intelligent reader sees what this is about. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles need to abide by MOS. If this debate is about the common alternates, not second-sentence further definitions, the relevant guideline applicable here is MOS:LEADALT, which notes “if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.”, as has been applied correctly already. What is proposed here, to have several alternative names in the first line, directly contradicts established style guides. Daicaregos (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
At the top of that MOS it is stated: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus."
And the guideline itself in respect of this point merely says "it is recommended", not "they must". It also say "at least three", which can be taken to mean four (an interpretion strengthened by the prior sentence saying "if there are more than two alternative names" - that sentence would be meaningless if the next one also meant three or more rather than more than three. It is also questionable whether UK and United Kingdom should count as separate names. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
We also of course have clear precedent from arguably the most high profile article in the whole of WP, United States. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
High profile or not, United States isn't even a WP:GA, let alone FA, very likely becasue it doesn't follow MOS. So if it is a precedent, it is for how not to do it. Daicaregos (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Lots of big-country articles aren't GA, we can't read much into that and you really have no idea what the main cause is Dai, maybe because it's not been proposed until recently? It's now up for GA review anyhow, so we'll see. You're reaching. A guideline is precisely that - a guideline. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Whatever. It is not an article of the sort of quality to be used as a precedent, whatever the reason. Guidelines are there to be followed. Daicaregos (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
"Great Britain" shouldn't be given equal prominence to Britain. The latter isn't erroneous, is much more common and is officially-sanctioned. I still support the lead remaining as it is, but would still support something along the lines of Ghmyrtle's proposal if it had to go in. American use of "Great Britain" to mean the UK is adequately covered in terminology. — Jon C.ॐ 12:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
If we're using the leadalt guidelines to justify having Great Britain only in terminology, the same would surely apply to the other alternative names? CMD (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly where I've been coming from. The "correctness"/"accuracy" or even "officialness" (ugh!) of Great Britain and Britain is the same. The only difference is usage: eg Britain is used in governmental circles whereas Great Britain is not generally. Looking at page 7 of the Government's citizenship guide (published in 2007), which is cited in the terminology section of the article, "Britain" and "Great Britain" are defined and treated in exactly the same way i.e. meaning only E/W/S. But then Great Britain has greater currency in North America (IMO). DeCausa (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
It's more frequently used by North American media than British, for sure, but we must not forget that British sources of the authority of the Oxford English Dictionary and Cambridge Encyclopdia also confirm the correctness of "Great Britain" as a common name for the topic. We should also rememember that Great Britain is very widely used in this meaning by English language media in other parts of the world. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
"Britain is used in governmental circles whereas Great Britain is not generally" -- yes, but it is not by any means _only_ in governmental circles that Britain is used to mean the UK, while Great Britain is not thus used. That is the general practice in all *well-informed* circles, most of which are not, in fact, governmental. See the various style guides that have been mentioned.
I completely disagree with the statement that 'the "correctness"/"accuracy" or even "officialness" of Great Britain and Britain is the same'.
I am in favour of leaving the article is it now stands. -- Alarics (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The evidence just isn't there for that. There is only one accurate name for the state: that is laid down by statute. Everything else is by definition "inaccurate". Governmental usage can't change that. What you can say is that UK governmental usage is to generally use "Britain" and not "Great Britain" but that is nothing to do with it being correct. Equally, as pointed out above, the Government is specifically and formally telling new citizens in a Home Office publication that "Britain" only refers to E/S/W and not the UK as a whole. DeCausa (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
If they are telling people that they are simply wrong, and entirely inconsistent with normal official usage. Some ignorant young bureaucrat probably wrote it, and under a more competent administration the error would have been caught before publication. Governments themselves are not always wholly reliable sources. "Britain" undoubtedly means the UK. -- Alarics (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you aware that in the US, "Great Britain" also typically means the UK, Alaric? Or do you deny that? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I was not aware that that was particularly a US thing, though it may well be. I regard it as a "usage by the ill-informed" thing. There is no reason why Americans generally, or any other foreigners for that matter, should be expected to be intimately familiar with these niceties, so I don't regard their usage as very relevant one way or the other, any more than we should be influenced by the fact that the French routinely use "Angleterre" to mean Britain/UK. -- Alarics (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
You patronise not just the writers of The New York Times, USA Today, Der Speigel, and countless other prestigious outlets, but also your own country's esteemed Oxford English Dictionary and Cambridge Encyclopedia. We are all entitled to our opinions, and you are entitled to think that Great Britain as a common name for the topic is incorrect/only for the stupid/grotesque or even sacrilegious but WP requires reliable third party sources. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, Alaric is welcome to his opinion that the US common usage doesn't matter, but it is just an opinion - here in Wikipedia-land, what a substantial proportion of the English-speaking world commonly calls something does, sadly, matter. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I spend the day on the South Downs Way and this is still going on with the same misunderstandings. Great Britain is a common name, lets list it, but lets also make it clear that its an error as it excludes Northern Ireland. That way we respect multiple sources, and at the same time the truth. ----Snowded TALK 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And what about the even more common "error" of "Britain" being used in the same way? DeCausa (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That's not an error. Is it just me, or is this discussion getting more surreal by the minute? I'm starting to get existential despair just reading it. — Jon C.ॐ 20:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
If there isn't a source saying that it is an official short form then yes. We simply list both as common names but say that the use while common is in error as they exclude Northern Ireland. ----Snowded TALK 20:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Guardian style guide? — Jon C.ॐ 20:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC);
The Home Office official publication for the British citizenship test "Life in the United Kingdom: a journey to citizenship", p.7: the name Britain or Great Britain refers only to England, Scotland and Wales. DeCausa (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
e/c They absolutely do not exclude Northern Ireland when used to describe the United Kingdom, just as "America" does not include the rest of the continent when used to describe the United States. Great Britain when used as a name for the island excludes Northern Ireland.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
There isn't any question that the "official" sources all back up the norms we are all aware of, eg, that officially GB is not equal to UK and all the other terms. That's not in doubt, so we really don't need to debate the sources on it. It's accepted. The only question here is how to refer to the common usage "Great Britain", where it is popularly taken to refer to what officially (and most media sources and public sources on the Brit side of the Pond call) is known as the "UK". Snowded's analysis is basically correct, the only remaining issue is the precise phrasing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Adapting how a similar issue is handled in the Netherlands lead, how about: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or, as pars pro toto, Britain or Great Britain). DeCausa (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No, because that would imply that "Britain" and "Great Britain" are interchangeable terms. That is emphatically not the case. "Britain" means the UK as a whole, not as pars pro toto but in all educated usage. Northern Ireland is part of Britain. It is not part of Great Britain. -- Alarics (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Amongst the many sources that disagree with you is the Home Office. You keep asserting it as an act of faith - but that's all it is: an act of faith with no objective basis or conclusive source. DeCausa (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe the Home Office disagrees with me. As I have already pointed out above, the document to which you refer is obviously in error if it says what you claim it says. The usage to which I refer has been very clearly established for many decades. It cannot be undone by one erroneous document. -- Alarics (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Reliable Sources which contradict you are "obviously in error"! "if it says what you claim it says", "The usage to which I refer has been very clearly established for many decades", "one erroneous document". Your quasi-mystical belief in the "true" meaning of "Britain" has left you with a very great blind spot (and a lack of awareness of the content of this thread). DeCausa (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
"Lack of awareness of the content of this thread"? No, I have read every contribution carefully. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them all. -- Alarics (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, if we are to take that Home Office document at face value it must mean that the Home Office does not now think that Northern Ireland is part of Britain. That cannot possibly be right. It's plainly a mistake in the wording -- quite an astonishing one, I agree, but then who was it said the Home Office was "not fit for purpose"? -- Alarics (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Extraordinary! "at face value it must mean that the Home Office does not now think that Northern Ireland is part of Britain". That is only the conclusion if one shares your quasi-mystical belief in the "true" meaning. The alternative is that it & the many other like sources mentioned in this thread do not have "plainly a mistake in the wording" & you are in fact wrong - or more accurately have grossly over-simplified the position. DeCausa (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that words and names can have multiple meanings, and calling one the "true" or "definitive" meaning is meaningless. The exception to this where something has an offical legal name. "Britain" can be used to mean Great Britain the island (therefore excluding Northern Ireland) or to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, therefore including Northern Ireland. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
True. That Citizenship guide sentence about Britain not covering NI is however in line with many confusions at the state level with regard to the precise status of NI - not least in the official publications and websites of the NI government and assembly, which studiously avoid precise terms. NI at the governmental level is apparently floating in a no-known-status bubble! Compare the Home Office guide with the well-known DirectGov definition (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/LivingintheUK/DG_10012517):
UK' or 'Britain'?
The full title of this country is 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland':
Great Britain is made up of England, Scotland and Wales
The United Kingdom (UK) is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
'Britain' is used informally, usually meaning the United Kingdom.
The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK. The geographical term 'British Isles' covers the UK, all of Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I was just pointing out that the rock hard certainty that "Britain" means X in all contexts is very misplaced. IMO, it's very like the absolutist belief that the split infinitive is ungrammatical. It's hard to take that it' a relatively modern artificial construct if you were taught since the age of 5 that it's the worst crime imaginable! DeCausa (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The DirectGov list of definitions under the heading "UK or Britain"? that Jamesinderbyshire has cited above is exactly correct, and that is what we should say in the lead. -- Alarics (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... just to state yet again, this is about COMMON NAMES for things, not authoritative definitions. Can we stop messing about now please and go on to the main point, the revision format of the first sentence to include GB as a common alternate? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Cut the Crap proposal

Lets just go with The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes incorrectly applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands. per the original Ghymrtle proposal and per MOS and per other guidelines about avoiding confusion. It acknowledges that GB is a common name, but educates the reader that it is not a proper short form. Failing that lets just leave it as it is. If someone wants to make this into a poll to test the water fine. Otherwise I can't see any progress being made above. ----Snowded TALK 06:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you must know it won't fly if you position it as GB is "incorrect" & Britain implicitly "correct". What about The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, Britain or Great Britain, with official UK government usage limited to first three). DeCausa (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
No, because that doesn't adequately convey the difference between Britain and Great Britain. It's not just or even mainly a question of "official UK government usage". I propose the following amended version of Snowded's proposal, substituting "loosely" for "incorrectly":
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes loosely applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands.
-- Alarics (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no way to objectively distinguish between GB and Britain, other than governmental usage - the rest is your personal preference. If you get into other usage eg media usage, then it's an impossible task because the evidence (through WP:RS) is different (& mixed) usages in eg UK & US. DeCausa (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Alarics' suggested text above has been floating around for a while now but amid all the heat and light, no one has seemed willing to pick up on it and say what seems rather obvious to me - that it provides the perfect solution in terms of explaining without instructing, or without having to go into too much detail. Yes, some of us might insist on GB being flagged as "incorrect" usage or say it should simply be listed alongside the other common names already there - or not there at all - but that wording seems to sit happily in the middle of that. N-HH talk/edits 08:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. It's supported by a specific RS, avoids "correctness" & is a good compromise. I support it on reflection. DeCausa (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
"Loose" is too loose, we need to be explicit either that is incorrect( (or if more than one person is hung up on that) be clear that its loose 'cause it doesn't include Northern Ireland or that it only properly applies to England, Scotland and Wales. ----Snowded TALK 19:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Then the same qualification is needed for "Britain". Alarics has put forward a reasonable compromise. DeCausa (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't hate either of the proposed sentences, but they both suffer from the problem that they aren't adding this very common name in the place where common names usually go, the opening sentence - instead, they are different expansions on the second sentence. As we've established that it is a common usage and that the "limit to three" is a widely-flouted guidance, why are we not going to include it in the first sentence? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Disagree I'm afraid, its actually not a compromise, the loosely v incorrectly debate has been around here for I bit. I'm suggesting a wording that moves away from "evaluative words) to a factual statement which should also be educational. Failing that I am inclined to no change. Also Alarics wording privileges Britain (which is not qualified) over Great Britain (which is) so not sure where you are coming from here. ----Snowded TALK 19:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Explain what you mean by "privileges Britain (which is not qualified) over Great Britain (which is)" - do you mean that if we accept his sentence, Britain is regarded as a common name but GB isn't? Or something else? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
(e/c)Where I'm coming from is a compromise, which means no one gets exactly what they want (which is the case for me in Alarics' proposal). But if you're determined on exactly what you want, as is Jamesinderbyshire apparently, then this rather tedious discussion will continue for the forseable future DeCausa (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Disagree, I am suggesting moving away from evaluative words (in my case the correct "incorrect") to something that simply says how the term is limited in proper use. Trying to help here. And the point I hade about Britain and GB stands, you seem to be saying that is no longer important to you?----Snowded TALK 20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you suggesting (in terms) The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, Britain or Great Britain, although the latter two terms exclude Northern Ireland). Ok with me, but unlikely to have general acceptance DeCausa (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

But "Britain" most emphatically **_DOES NOT_** exclude Northern Ireland. It is only "Great Britain" that, strictly speaking, DOES exclude Northern Ireland, though less strictly speaking, or "loosely" speaking, some people use GB to mean the whole state. I put forward the "loosely" proposal which falls short of what I think would be most ideal (because, while some editors agree with me as to what would be most ideal, other editors disagree), in a spirit of constructive compromise so that we could make progress. Now Snowded, who I thought agreed with me in the first place, doesn't accept my compromise proposal, while DeCausa, with whom I disagreed, does! It's a good job I am such a patient and even-tempered chap, or I would be losing my cool by now. -- Alarics (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, Britain doesn't exclude Northern Ireland. As I've said before, I'm okay with including Great Britain, but as long as it's made clear it's not a straightforward synonym like the UK or Britain. Great Britain and Britain aren't the same thing. — Jon C.ॐ 22:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Ironically I made my first edit in this place on this day in 2006 from Singapore, and 7 years on not much has changed, including location after 13 hours on a A380! If there is evidence (which people say there is) that Britain is now an official short name for the UK then much as I am appalled by it I will happily accept it. In that case it is listed up there with UK etc. Otherwise, for "Great Britain" I'm happy with DeCausa's wording but it might be better to say "although properly used this term excludes Northern Ireland" ----Snowded TALK 11:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
"Britain" has been used as a short form for the UK, in government publications as well in much mainstream journalism, for a long time. I am mystified as to why you find that appalling. On your suggested wording, I think "strictly speaking" would be better than "properly used". -- Alarics (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
...because it's an inaccurate abreviation of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that has gained currency! lol DeCausa (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there any evidence for that? I think it is more likely a back-formation from "British". At all events, it's been around a very long time. -- Alarics (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Its sloppy use of language and misleading - hence my being appalled. Britain and Ireland are islands, to use one to cover part of another is wrong to my mind. But that is my opinion and UK Government use would override it - although I would like to see the links. Great Britain on the other hand is clearly wrong as it is only part of the full name and is not properly used as an abbreviation - strickly speaking is too weak. ----Snowded TALK 22:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
No, there is an "island of Ireland" but there is not an "island of Britain". The island is Great Britain, which is not the same thing as Britain. Britain is the state. These usages are long-standing and well-documented. -- Alarics (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
"Britain and Ireland" is a common geographical use. Got any refs? ----Snowded TALK 22:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
"Britain and Ireland" is common political usage, meaning the UK and RoI. — Jon C.ॐ 08:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
And geographical - a lot of Atlas's now use it ----Snowded TALK 08:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Central Office of Information, a government agency, used to publish every year (not sure if it still does) "Britain: An Official Handbook" which covers the whole UK. Here is an extract from page 1 of the 1975 edition:

Britain, formally known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, forms the greater part of the British Isles, a group of islands lying off the north-west coast of Europe. The largest islands are Great Britain (comprising the mainlands of England, Scotland and Wales) and Ireland (comprising Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic)."

-- Alarics (talk) 08:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Good enough for me and makes the phrasing easier as only one term has to be qualified ----Snowded TALK 08:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Absolute nonsense. There's a ton of references that the big island is Britain or Great Britain eg, at random this or this. DeCausa (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

What was wrong with "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes loosely applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands."? This would be a step forward on the current text, although "often" would in my view be more accurate per the Oxford English Dictionary and the surfeit of sources available. We don't require unanimity here, just a consensus. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

OK with me. Only Snowded was against. It's certainly the proposal with the most & broadest support DeCausa (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
And with me (to restate that). As for the COI, I'm not sure it'll be publishing much in the future. Anyway, that publication quoted above is fine as far as it goes of course, but I'm not sure we should either be copying it verbatim or assuming that it on its own is enough - not least because, for example, it doesn't mention the current "UK" abbreviation that our lead correctly notes. Also, as argued ad nauseam, there is surely logic in also noting the use of GB for UK in some way - whatever we personally think of it - simply because it will be seen by people. And if we merely tell them in the lead that GB is the island, they're going to be left a little confused. If they can see immediately that it is sometimes loosely or casually used for the UK as a whole, they will get the point that Obama and Cameron, or the Olympic team et al, are not necessarily excluding NI when they refer to "Great Britain". N-HH talk/edits 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Change "loosely' to "incorrectly" or "inaccurately" or "mistakenly" and I'm happy too - but there are several editors who don't see any reason for any change so don't assume agreement yet----Snowded TALK 20:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
You are well aware that that is completely unacceptable to a number of the partipants in the discussion. Why are you repeatedly proposing it?Rangoon11 (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
And your proposal is completely unacceptable to a number of participants to. I've suggested a factual statement and some alternative words to "incorrectly" in an attempt to compromise. Perhaps you might reciprocate?----Snowded TALK 20:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Only to you thus far. You know words like "incorrectly"/"inaccurately"/"mistakenly" are never going to fly, and rightly so.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
And BTW, 'loosely' already represents a considerable compromise by some here, as does 'sometimes'. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Check out the summary of editor positions above, this section was my attempt to create something that would allow us to move forwards. I really can't see why you object to a some form of words (I am open) that make it clear that the use of Great Britain excludes Northern Ireland. Without that I will join those arguing for no change ----Snowded TALK 20:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
You know that it does not exclude Northern Ireland when used in this manner. I think that it's now time to gauge opinion on this proposal, which has significant support. Perhaps an RfC will be the best way to do it. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell there is only one person insisting on an explicit and simplistic insistence, in WP's narrative voice, that such use of GB is "incorrect" or "mistaken". Can you tell us who else agrees with you on that? Can you also explain how following an explicit assertion that GB refers to the island with the phrasing "also loosely [sometimes] used to refer to the state" does not convey the point that said is technically inaccurate at one level? N-HH talk/edits 20:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Loosely is too loose and it fails to educate (my primary motivation here). I accept its a common name but I think we owe the reader information about the error of fact made if GB is used. As I say I am not hung up on "incorrect", but I think we need to provide information Otherwise you are of course entitled to think my views are "simplistic", I consider them simple, educational and useful. A majority of editors the last time it was checked were for no change, I'm happy to work with others to find a form of words that allows for change, but if that is not possible I will join those arguing for the status quo. ----Snowded TALK 20:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Alarics & Rangoon11 probably have the MOST polar-opposite views expressed in this discussion. If they can agree on this wording, surely everyone else can DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm very flexible on actual wording, but sorry I don't agree with the current proposal for the reasons stated. I really can't see what is the problem with making a factual position clear for the reader----Snowded TALK 21:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, we're going round in circles here. You haven't answered my questions - the second of which focuses on the education point and very specifically asks in what way the suggested wording does not provide information or make the "factual position" very clear. It's not just through the use of the word "loosely", but through the fact that it follows the explicit and unqualified identification of GB with the island. Nor have you responded to the point made previously: that you yourself accepted "inaccurate" was misleading, since the use of GB cannot be said to be that, at least as a common term. N-HH talk/edits 09:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, if we're talking about education or misleading readers, the lead is in effect currently informing people that if Barack Obama or David Cameron, or the New York Times, refer to GB doing something or other - as they regularly do - they are excluding NI when they say that. Now that's misleading. N-HH talk/edits 09:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"Loosely" proposal

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes loosely applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands. was supported at one time or another by myself, N-HH, Rangoon11, Alarics, & Ghmyrtle but opposed by Snowded. I think this is the best opportunity of resolving this. Let's leave it open for others who haven't commented to do so & see if that remains the balance of opinion DeCausa (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The alternative (given a lack of willingness to work out a compromise) is to go with Ghmyrtle's original proposal, namely The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes incorrectly applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands. ----Snowded TALK 08:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I support the latter, if there has to be a change at all. I'm still of the opinion that the article is fine the way it is. Also, the intro currently says 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain..., which I also much prefer, as it makes it clear UK is an abbreviation for United Kingdom specifically and does away with those ugly brackets. — Jon C.ॐ 09:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Can we keep this sub-thread to commenting on this proposal:
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK, or Britain) is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes loosely applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland and many smaller islands
& preferably by those who have not commented on it before. Drifting off in general opining & "alternatives" has contributed to the endless circles. Thanks DeCausa (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Jon C., could you just be explicit as to whether you can or can not live with this proposal. Thanks DeCausa (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hang on DeCausa, its perfectly legitimate to give people a choice between proposals. Its equally legitimate to ask if you (and others) can live with the alternative ----Snowded TALK 22:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Also valid, is that some editors' opinions have not been swayed by any of these proposals. The intro, as it stands, is fine just as it is. There remains no consensus for change. Daicaregos (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, and my preference is (i) Ghymrtle original (ii) Leave it as is. I think that is what it is down to and its not legitimate to try and restrict people's responses to a "can you live with this one" ----Snowded TALK 23:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, my preferences in descending order of choice are (i) Ghmyrtle, (ii) Leave it as is, (iii) the "loosely" compromise. The one option that I absolutely cannot live with is Jamesinderbyshire's version which baldly asserts, wholly incorrectly as shown by the source that I cited earlier, that GB = UK. -- Alarics (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I opened this sub-thread to test the support for this proposal: if it has insufficient support, fine, let's move on to another. (So far, it has the broadest support, incl. the status quo.) This thread has plenty of meandering discussion and alternatives. There is no shortage of giving "people a choice between proposals". It's time to put some structure into this, rather than continuing aimlessly in circles. DeCausa (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
So we give people alternatives and let them choose. It is against all WIkipedia practice to try and force a discussion on one proposal only ----Snowded TALK 10:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

OK well if you would like to spell out the 3 or 4 proposals that are "on the table" and give them numbers, we can all rate them in order of preference, as Snowded and I have done just above. -- Alarics (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, if I have to support or oppose, I oppose it. I don't think it's necessary, but it's the best of a bad bunch. "Loosely" isn't the best word to use, and I prefer the de-bracketing that we have now rather than going back to (commonly known as the United Kingdom, UK or Britain). — Jon C.ॐ 08:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you on the debracketing, but that is a separate and subsidiary point. We can have the "loosely" version, if that is what people want, and still do the debracketing. -- Alarics (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we need a table like this. Maybe it would help the ill-feeling and improve the article? With a link near to the article top?

Etymology and terminology: Summary

The United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: is the full name for the UK. Its name reflects the union of the island of Great Britain with Northern Ireland.

United Kingdom and UK: is a standard name and abbreviation for the UK.

GB and GBR: are the ISO 3166 codes for the UK, used by e.g. the International Olympic Committee (IOC), UK passports, and the UK licence plate country code.[1] GB is occasionally used as an abbreviation for the island of Great Britain [4]

Britain: is an name for the UK, which is also used for the island of Great Britain, so it is ambiguous.[2]

Great Britain: is name for the UK, whose use is discouraged as it can easily be confused with the island of Great Britain.[3]

[1] See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Olympic_Committees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uk_passport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_GB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_vehicle_registration_codes

[2] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain

[3] See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_Davis_Cup_team http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_national_rugby_league_team

[4] See e.g. http://www.gbboxing.org.uk/page-how-can-i-become-a-gb-boxer.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjulesd (talk • contribs) 00:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "2011 Census - Built-up areas". ONS. Retrieved 1 July 2013.
  2. ^ "NRS – Background Information Settlements and Localities" (PDF). National Records of Scotland. Retrieved 29 September 2020.
  3. ^ The UK's major urban areas Office for National Statistics (Urban area of Belfast and connected settlements, Table 3.1, page 47)
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference superficy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ "Scotland's Parliament – powers and structures". BBC News. 8 April 1999. Retrieved 21 October 2008.
  6. ^ "Scottish election: SNP wins election". BBC News. 6 May 2011.
  7. ^ "Structure and powers of the Assembly". BBC News. 9 April 1999. Retrieved 21 October 2008.
  8. ^ "Scotland's Parliament – powers and structures". BBC News. 8 April 1999. Retrieved 21 October 2008.
  9. ^ "Salmond elected as first minister". BBC News. 16 May 2007. Retrieved 21 October 2008.
  10. ^ "Scottish election: SNP wins election". BBC News. 6 May 2011.
  11. ^ "Structure and powers of the Assembly". BBC News. 9 April 1999. Retrieved 21 October 2008.
  12. ^ "Carwyn Jones clinches leadership in Wales". WalesOnline. Media Wales Ltd. 1 December 2009. Retrieved 1 December 2009.
  13. ^ "Devolved Government – Ministers and their departments". Northern Ireland Executive. Archived from the original on 22 August 2007. Retrieved 17 October 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom/Archive_26&oldid=1149220383"