Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is way below standard

Now let me get this right: the section on 'Terminology' is almost as long as the section on 'History'. That says it all.

A concerted effort is required to make the language plainer and to clean up the mistakes in the prose.

Perhaps a clean-up notice should be posted at the top, like this:

{{cleanup}}

Tony 12:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


Agreed, especially when there is a British Isles (terminology) page. Robdurbar 13:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree too. The trouble is it gets worried at too much - it has "just growed". Why don't we just delete it from this page and refer to British Isles (terminology) (where the arguments can continue)? Mucky Duck 14:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

What is really objectionable about the Terminology section is the 'oh, these people are offended at this, and those people at that' thing. When there's a fabulously rich history to be summarising .... And the language is kinda ... quaint. Sub-Fowler, without the precision! Tony 15:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've reduced the terminology down to the skin and bones. I think it needs to be in there because it's something that is often misunderstood outside the UK (sometimes even inside). The cleanup tag is a bit excesive. This article has enough people working on it for suggestions on the talk page to be more effective than a cleanup tag. josh 19:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


I think the clean-up tag should go back, and I think you should have discussed removing it here before doing so. Unless you can present a convincing case that the tag will not benefit the article in the short-term, I'm restoring it.

The 'Terminology' section still needs pruning. The 'History' section needs a lot of work and should be twice as large, INV, to be in proportion. The 'Government and politics' section suffers from the same clumsy verbosity as the 'Terminology' section (which I've already had a go at before I inserted the notice). Take the first sentence of G and P:

'The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, with executive power exercised by the Government (formally Her (His) Majesty's Government) drawn from Parliament, headed by the Prime Minister. It is one of the few countries (and the most significant) that does not have a codified constitution.'

  • The government exercises more than executive power.
  • I think we can drop the formal name, given the pressing need to include more important information and the clumsy way it has to be worded.
  • The government is headed by the Queen, not the PM (cf. 'My Government' in her speeches opening Parliament).
  • The 'most significant' seems irrelevant and possibly POV here. Why blow trumpets? There's more authority to be gained from not doing that. Tony 01:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is indeed well below the standard needed for FA status; but it's well above "clean-up" quality. Have you seen other pages with that tag on them? In my experience it's reserved for the seriously scurvy-ridden. This page is in the vast middle area. Doops | talk 02:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

If the sign isn't there, no one will bother to make an effort to clean it up. The UK deserves to be a major topic that Wikipedians are proud of. There is probably a high hit-rate for the article. At the moment, it's seriously deficient. Before I had a go at it, the Terminology section at the top was, frankly, pompous and poorly written. It still needs work.

This is why I posted the clean-up notice at the top. Give me one good reason that it shouldn't be restored, other than that it might embarrass a few people. Tony 07:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it looks to me like your criteria would put a clean-up notice on practically every article. We all know that the wikipedia is a work in progress; and if you look at the edit history you'll see that this page has lots of edits every day. If you have problems with this article the best motto, as always, is "be bold." Along those lines: do you like what I did with the opening ¶ of the gov't §? (The rest of the § could still do with some trimming, in my view.) Doops | talk 08:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

History section

Shouldn't it start with the Celts, the Roman occupation, and the waves of migration during the first millennium? Just one paragraph might do it. Tony 08:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What for ? The UK has only existed for two or three hundred years depending on whether you pick 1707 or 1801 for its creation. The events that you are talking about are relevant to the History of Britain where they are already mentioned in the Ancient Britain article but they hardly form part of the History of the UK. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

My article hacking

I've managed to get the article down to 33Kb. The main ways iv'e done this is:-

  • Reduced lists down to three items unless they cover every instance. For example, i've prunded endless lists of bands from the UK to the 3 most important in each area. Same with inventions, sports, people etc.
  • Removed historical references that are outside the history section.
  • Removed references to current events in the history section.
  • Removed references to cornish independance and regional assemblies in the Government and Politics. These do not exist as actual governments in the UK.
  • Removed extranious descriptions such as when Tony has tea with Liz and the House of Lords reforms.

I think it's not a bad size considering the complexity of everything in the UK (probably the only country in the world that has to explain what it is first). I think the size of the info box needs to be reduced as well. The names could go in another article and then be referenced. josh 20:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Country or unitary state

Yes it's a Unitary state but the first sentance should use the most common desciption. It could also be called a kingdom, commonwealth realm, union, member of the UN security council etc. Every other country is called a country in the first sentance the UK shouldn't be any different.unsigned

The UK is different. Unlike other entities it is not a country but an amalgam of countries, all of which have retained a separate sense of national identity, unlike in Germany, for example, where a separate country identity does not exist in the lander, even though they once were themselves separate countries (pace Bavaria.) Indeed within Wales and in particular in England and Scotland there is a separate sense of national identity and separateness from the other countries in the UK that is not found in say US or German states, or in the regions of Italy. So to call the UK a country is at best POV. In the views of many in the various countries within the UK, it is factually wrong and demotes their countries to mere regions, something they clearly are not.

The UK is a state. It is standard where one is talking about federal or confederal states to refer to them as a federal state or a conferation. The UK however belongs to the third category in that definition tree: a unitary state, a single state governed from the centre but where the centre has given (ie, in home rule) or could give, certain governmental powers to subsidary units that owe their legal existence to the whims of the centre and can be abolished at will (ie, they have no constitutional right to exist in their own right). So just as it is normal to call a federal state by that name, especially if it is not a country but is a federation countries, so it is standard to refer to a single state containing countries but in which all power theoretically resides in the centre as a unitary state.

Calling the UK a "country" in this article makes the article a joke. For one thing a country cannot have countries in it. But then as this article shows, whomever defined the categories here doesn't seem to know such elementary facts as the difference between states, nations and countries. They are different things. Calling the UK a country is constitutionally illiterate. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

By your definition half wikipedia is wrong. Along with the UN[1], the EUhttp://europe.eu.int/abc/governments/index_en.htm, the IMF[2] and any other institution that seems to wrongly believe the UK is a country. In the country article it is given a definition of any independent political entity. It goes on to describe a state as a subdivision of the country. josh 00:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You have hit the nail on the head, Joshurtree. Half Wikipedia is wrong along with a whole bunch of the bureaucrats that put together websites for the UN, the IMF, etc. That is because they have been written by people with a hazy knowledge of political science. On the other hand this is JTD's area of expertise and I trust his opinion on the matter far more than any number of unqualified webmasters. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but look at what you've just said: that political scientists get to define the word "country." That's not how it works. Newly-invented words and phrases may have precise meanings; but you just can't pin down an ancient word like "country." Doops | talk 03:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
But that's the point. Political scientists are the only people who have truly defined the word "country". The rest of us just use it in the same vague ambiguous way that we always have. That may be good enough for day-to-day speech but when we're trying to write down an exact definition for an encyclopedia we should be aiming for precision. And "unitary state" is exactly what the UK is. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The UK is many things to many people. Your version, it seems to me, is politico-centric. There is more to life than governing and being governed. Here's a good example: imagine a wikipedia written during the many periods of history when there was no political entity for all of greater London, just a collection of independent cities and boroughs. The article at London would still be about the city as a whole, not just the square mile; and it wouldn't be ashamed to call London (as a whole) a "city." The article would go on to explain the precise governmental situation, of course — we're all nerds here and we like being accurate — but it wouldn't let details of government define what London is. Government and the English language are our servants — we aren't theirs. Doops | talk 04:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The UK is an oddity. Many people use "England" and "UK" interchangeably, even though England ceased to have any formal existence centuries ago. There is no Queen of England, for example, because that title was abolished. People use "nation", "country" and "state" in much the same way - interchangeably, and there are no precise definitions for each term. If you find one definition that seems authoritative and precise, then I can find another equally as good that says the opposite. --GrangeH 09:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The definition of a word isn't the sole domain of a set of people who know most about the subject. While I agree that the article should specify exactly what the UK is the first paragraph isn't the place to do it. It should create a frame of reference using a term that everyone knows. This article is designed for people without political science degrees who think of the world as a bunch of countries so to specify the UK using some obscure term confuses them straight off the bat. It also is incomplete. It only describes the style of govenment. This isn't a politics page. It's also about the people, the industry and the geography. So the most accurate title would be a western, industrialised, temperate uintary state/constitutional monarchy. BTW could you give us the definition of country that excludes the UK from that list.josh

Yes, some people have different understandings of the word country. But encyclopædias need to be precise. Accuracy is a fundamental requirement in an encyclopædia. That is why we don't call Queen Elizabeth the "Queen of England". An encylopædia's need for accuracy means that we have to define her title strictly and accurately. Similarly we don't call the Republic of Ireland the "Irish Republic", even though some elements of the media do, because it is not correct. The Irish Republic actually was the title of the 1919-1922 UDI Irish state. Accurately is a fundamental requirment is a project like this, not merely something that sounds kinda right-ish. Unitary state is the best option. It is

  • a standard term that can be used;
  • it is 100% accurate;
  • it has a clear umabiguous meaning, so we know what it is and as important, what it isn't.

Country means everything and nothing. A historian, a political scientist, a school-kid, an academic, and ordinary person in the street, may well mean different things when they use the word. That some of ambiguity is not something an encyclopædia should have, certainly not in an article on the UK, when there are already nations within the UK that also describe themselves as countries. People should be able to read the article and know exactly what we mean, not read the article and be confused wondering "which definition do they mean", "what do they mean by that?" Or even worse, "but isn't Scotland a country too? How can you have a country in a country? I'm confused." FearÉIREANN\(caint) 16:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is while people still understand what Republic of Ireland means, the majority won't understand the meaning of unitary state. They will instantly percive it as some obscure political system. unitary state is:

  • not a standard term - most people haven't heard of it never mind use it
  • it may be 100% accurate but it isn't 100% complete it only refers to the political spectrum
  • is unambiguous but not clear unless you have a political science degree

Country is a standard term. Look at any UN, IMF, World Bank, EU website/document and the UK comes under the list of countries. Saying that country cannot contain another country is like saying a company cannot contain another company. It's the job of the England, Scotland, Wales articles to point out that they are not an officially reconised country (as they already do). Specifying exactly what the UK is is the job of the body of the article. The first sentance establishes the general category. Using the term unitary state it elitest and harks back to the days when scholers used obscure terms to keep knowledge away from the masses. josh 17:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

They are not writing encyclopædias. An encyclopædia is in effect a factual dictionary that has at its basis absolute factual accuracy. WB, IMF, UN documents are not definitionary but explorative and discursive. The explore and inform, with a presumption that definitions are contained in encyclopædias. If you think unitary state is elitist you clearly don't under what either a unitary state is or the term elitist means. It is a standard term understood by millions. Country is an ambiguous term with any number of meanings and lacks the specificality required in encyclopædias, particularly in the context of a state containing what many people believe are countries. Your claim that England, Scotland and Wales each are "not an officially reconised (sic) country" proves that you don't understand what a country is. A "country" is not "recognised" officially. A state is what requires recognition. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

If unitary state is a term reconised by millions then how come i've never heard of it before. Even from my best friend at uni who did a politics degree never used the term. The term country is only ambiguous because of a few cases where a country isn't a country. If you state that the UK is a unitary state at the top of the article then some people will reading the rest of the article trying to understand what you mean by unitary state. Definition is the job of an encyclopedia but that doesn't mean you have to try and do an exact definition within the first sentence. In the case of the UK that would be impossible. It should clearly define the subject area using terms that as many people as possible understand. If I didn't understand the meaning of unitary state despite living in one for 8 years then what chance has someone who has never been anywhere near one got of understanding that first sentance. josh 18:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

If your friend doesn't understand unitary state then he should sue his university. It is a bit like someone studying how to build a car not knowing what an engine is! You obviously don't know that Wikipedia uses thinks called links to bring people to other articles. Try hitting the link. You'll find there is an entire article there on unitary state. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Countries generally have a head of state, some sort of parliament (for democracies), representation in the UN, passports with the country's name on it, postage stamps, a judiciary and they are usually able to sign international treaties. I realise there are several exceptions that are missing one or two of these, but on the vast majority of countries have most of them. England doesn't but the UK does. Dmn € Դմն 18:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say she didn't understand it just that she never used the term. It's more like someone learning how to build a car but not refering to them as 2.5 litre V6 etc. The reader shouldn't be forced to use a link if there is a clearer way of defining something. Even if they use the link there may be some confusion over why we choose to use the term rather simply calling it a country. Pehaps we can leave the first sentence as it stands but add a second saying More specificly it is refered to as a unitary state or constitutional monarchy. That way there is no confusion over what the UK is but the reader may be aroused into finding out what these terms mean (if they don't already know) and get a better overall picture. josh 19:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't like the "or". It is both a unitary state and a constitutional monarchy. --JW1805 03:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm trying to imply that either terms could be used. Perhaps that isn't clear enough.

To quote Jtdirl: An encyclopædia is in effect a factual dictionary that has at its basis absolute factual accuracy. For an amusing thought-experiment, go through the any paragraph of this or any encyclopedia and try to bring it in line with that standard. Just as an example, here's a revised "unitary state" version of this article's first sentence: "The UK of GB and NI is the name given to a region of the world by the government under whose de facto control it is run — a government recognized by the UN and many other states as being the legitimate de jure authority there and which bears the characteristics of a unitary state — and to the collective polity formed by certain inhabitants thereof." Doops | talk 20:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Note Banned user Skyring has been waging an edit war on this page using IP. Once identity established edit reverted. Keep an eye out for suspicious edits. Having targeted other pages for edit wars he has obviously targeted this one now also. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


This is not a particularly balanced discussion. The UK is a country with three nations and one province. It's constitutional form is a constitutional monarchy with a unitary system. It's likely that Jtdirl is resisting the consensus here as a result of a (quite obvious) political POV. I've reviewed Wikipedia standards and provide a sample of opening sentences: "France is a Western European country, with a number of overseas possessions. ... The French Republic (French: République française) is a democracy organised as a unitary semi-presidential republic." "Germany, officially the Federal Republic of Germany (German: Deutschland or Bundesrepublik Deutschland listen ▶(?)) is one of the world's leading industrialised countries, located in Europe." "The United States of America is a federal democratic republic situated primarily in North America." "South Korea, officially the Republic of Korea, is a country located in East Asia, in the southern half of the Korean Peninsula. To the north, it is bordered by North Korea, with which it formed a single nation until 1948." "The Republic of Serbia (Serbian: Република Србија) is a republic in south-eastern Europe which is united with Montenegro in a loose commonwealth known as the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro." "The Republic of Kenya, or Kenya (IPA: /ˈkɛnjə/), is a country in East Africa." "The Union of Myanmar, (also known as the Union of Burma), is the largest country (in geographical area) in mainland Southeast Asia." "Barbados is an island nation located towards the east of the Caribbean Sea and in the west of the Atlantic Ocean".

Jtdirl would have each of these start, 'Such-and-such is a state in such-and-such a place'. That would obscure relevant detail and is just poor drafting. Were there a valid reason for do so, we would consider it. But there is not. We need to refer to the UK as either a country located off the north-western coast of continental Europe, and as a constitutional monarchy with a unitary state and four home nations (three consituent countries and the province of NI). I've amended the article and await a solid argument to revert should one appear. The better drafting also makes the terminology section redundant. I've also expaneded the sections on Welsh/Scottish devolution to encompass broader nationalist/unionist tendencies and pressures. All NPOV and I welcome sensible edits. JDancer 14:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

He's at it again. I'm just about to put 'country' and its nice socio-cultural connotations back in.

Rednaxela 23:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad he's at it again. He's right. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
He's not right. There is no doubt that the UK is politically a unitary state; no argument. But it is far more than that, and to restrict it to political technicalities in the intro is just plain wrong - these are discussed later. Mucky Duck 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Scotland Portal

The Scotland Portal is now up and running. It is a project in the early stages of development, but I think it could be a very useful resource indeed, perhaps more for general readers (the vast majority I presume), rather than committed editors, who may be more attracted by the great possibilities of the notice board format: Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board.

Give it a Watch, and lend a hand if you can. It is (hopefully) fairly low-maintenance, but if we run with the "News" section, that will take dedication: time which I cannot commit to presently myself. Most other boxes need replacment/update only weekly, fortnightly, or monthly, plus the occasional refreshment of the Scotland-related categories. Anyway, I assume this is how the other Portals are run, so we can follow their lead.

Please add the following code - {{portal|Scotland}} - to your own User page, and you will have the link to the portal right there for easy access. I will investigate how other portals use shortcuts too.

Assistance from Wikipedians in the rest of the UK, and indeed everywhere, would be greatly appreciated!--Mais oui! 08:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

London Portal

Well given that London is the greatest city on Earth and the most wikilinked city on Wikipedia, it seems ridiculous that Bucharest had its own portal and London did not. So I made one. And made a right hash of it too. But anyway after figuring out how the boxes worked and after having about 4 hours work evaporate when Wikipedia crashed as I clicked "Save", it looks half decent. I've got some people from WikiProject:London helping, but not many of us have worked portals before...

Anyway, the Scots got their portal up and running so we Southerners were never going to be far behind. Ditto everything they said! Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Deano 21:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Cornwall Kernow Cornubia Cornwallia Cerny

I have added the following about Cornwall:

"In Cornwall, there is a movement that calls for devolution [3] (Cornish nationalism), and an academic debate over the Cornish identity and constitutional status of Cornwall." Bretagne 44 19:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Archive 3

The page was getting seriously large so I took the liberty of archiving a chunk. Hope I haven't annoyed anyone too much... I kept the most recent stuff... Deano 19:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


constitution

It is, I know, customary to regard the UK as lacking a constitution and, instead, muddling along on convention. (This approach incidentally makes calling the country a constitutional monarchy inappropriate.) However, is it not important to acknowledge (a) the position of the crown and (b) the significance of the UK's ratification of various European treaties?

In the UK, as I understand things, sovereignty lies not with the people but with the crown, and it is the crown which governs. This suggests something very concrete in terms of the country's very essence. Things may look messy if you expect its government to be vested in a document such as a constitution, but one cannot doubt the significance of the crown nor dismiss it as mere convention. Perhaps one may say that the UK has a constitution, but it is significantly manifested in flesh and blood rather than writing.

On the EU matter, I understand that some believe that the UK's base-law is actually the various EU treaties, such as those of Maastricht and Nice, and, indeed, that, on certain matters at least, its highest court is not the house of lords but a court in continental Europe. This is a different view from one which would portray the UK as a country which gets by on tradition, in which parliament is sovereign, and which is a democracy presided over by a monarch. Also, the human rights act is written in quasi-constitutional terms and recently-passed legislation would allow the crown to suspend all rights except that act.

www.danon.co.uk

Afraid its not that simple - the sovereign is the 'crown in parliament'? says it somewhere in the article i think.

It is also true that the EU court is, in many cases, the highest court. However, the article does not (I think) claim the UK has constitution; more that it does not have a 'codified constitution'Robdurbar 18:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

AH I must say I am surprised this hasn't come up before. The UK Constitution! I spent all of last year learning all about its intricacies in Government & Politics lessons - let me clarify this as simply as possible:
- The UK Constitution is uncodified - that is to say it is not contained in a single authoritative document.
- Its basis comes from 4 (or 5) specific areas, namely:-
  • statute - Acts of Parliament that have become law
  • common law - law by precendent - where judicial decisions have set a precedent that has remained through time.
  • conventions - self explanatory... such as the role of the Speaker
  • works of authority - literature that acts as a definitive source of information - links to conventions.
  • EU directives - have force of law in the UK since the Europeans Communities Act on 1973 - EU can overule UK sovereignty (first tested in Factor Tame)
  • royal prerogative - historic powers of the monarch that are now purely symbolic - no monarch has refused to sign an Act of Parliament since 1707.

N.B.

  • ECHR rules are standardised in the Human Rights Act.


These combine in a mish-mash of written laws and unwritten laws to form a "constitution". While all actions are done in the name of Her Majesty, sovereignty lies in Parliament - that is the fundemental basis of UK politics. No Parliament is bound by its predecessors - Parliament can make or unmake any law it so wants, and therefore can over-rule any of the constitutional areas listed above with an Act of Parliament that becomes Statute. The only possible exception is the Royal Prerogative, but no one likes to talk about the details of that because a dissenting monarch will basically cause a constitutional crisis. Since the UK joined the EU and signed up to the ECHR, rulings by both of these bodies have held force of law in the UK. HOWEVER, this does not technically mean that Parliament has lost sovereignty, as an Act of Parliament could remove the UK from either institution.
Seppe? Deano 19:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Quite right. The Queen-in-Parliament is sovereign in the United Kingdom. Thus Parliament is endowed with the sovereignty of the Monarch. And as the House of Commons is elected by the people, this leaves the people to decide (bar the House of Lords) who is to represent their sovereign will.
As for the UK's constitution, it is generally accepted that it possesses one, albeit uncodified. Thus there is now the Department for Constitutional Afairs. The advantage of such a situation is the organic adaptation of the constitution as time progresses. Compare this to the US constitution, which has very rarely been changed and then mostly to add the Bill of Rights. As mentioned avbove, the UK constitution consists of Royal Prerogative, EU legislation, consensus, statute and common law. So Habeas Corpus, the non-interference of the legislature in common law rulings, the 1707 Act of Union, the Maastricht Treaty and the right of the Monarch to advise the Prime Minister could all be seen as having constitutional status.
Rednaxela 19:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Cornubia

Mercator produced CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") in 1564:[4] [5]

Sebastian Munster produced maps depicting Cornwall as a distinct region of Britain in 1538, 1540, and 1550. [6]

George Lily produced a map showing Cornubia in 1556.

Girolamo Ruscelli did the same in 1561 portraying Cornubia alongside Anglia, Wallia and Scotia.

Johannes Honter followed this trend in 1561.

Humphrey Lhuyd and Abraham Ortelius produced Angliae Regni Florentissimi Nova Descripto in 1573, this showed Cornwall and Wales as distinct regions of England, however Cornwall was not portrayed as an English county. This map was re used in 1595 at about the same time that Norden produced the map of the Duchy (not county) of Cornwall.

From about 1600 things change the Mare Brittanica and the Celtic sea become the English Channel and Bristol/St Georges Channel respectively. At this time Cornwall also seems to become an English county. Why, there is no record of an act of union or annexation of Cornwall?

Bretagne 44 16:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

As I have told you about eight times, Local Government Act 1988 established Cornwall County Cornwall as an ENGLISH County Council. Legally, now Cornwall is part of England. It doesn't matter when it ceased to be "independent". How were Northumbria, Mercia etc incorporated into England? There is no record of an Act of Union if that's what you are after. If they don't need one, then neither does Cornwall. Britannica and Encarta call Cornwall an English county. I can tell that you haven't read Wikipedia:No original research yet. Here's the gist: it doesn't matter what you can prove or think you can prove on your own. Even if you were to spend ten years in the law library in the Houses of Parliament with Giovanni di Stefano and found some "loophole" in the law which said that Cornwall is an independent country, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, Cornwall is an English county. Rex(talk) 18:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

REX you really have trouble keeping up at times don't you? This is the start of an investigation into the change that occurred at this time (1600) which resulted in the general view of Cornwall being revised from country to county. It happened at the same time as a number of other changes in the way the British Isles where portrayed and I think this change is relevant to Cornish, English, British and UK pages on Wikipedia. It was a radical change that the establishment brought about in the way all Britons perceived their land.

Bretagne 44 20:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused - Bretagne 44, what exactly are you trying to prove/achieve? I'm fairly sure you're not suggesting that Cornwall is a country - that's just idiocy! Equally, I'm fairly sure you're not suggesting that Cornwall is not a county (excuse the double negative, but positive didn't read correct). So what are you suggesting? That Cornwall is a "region"? To me, that seems neither here nor there. Some clarification would be appreciated! Deano 23:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I fully appreciate your wish to campaign for Cornish rights, Bretagne, but Wikipedia is not the place to do that. Stop POVing articles as part of your campaign. There are plenty of places where POV campaigning is fine. Wikipedia is not one of them. FearÉIREANN 00:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Deano and FearÉIREANN do have a point, Bretagne 44. Do you have any actual sources? It probably is true that the perception of Cornwall changed at roughly that time from country to county. I'm guessing that it happened during the years of Cromwell's dictatorship. It's well known that he was of the opinion that the more English Britain (and Ireland) became, the better. Of course this is just my POV, as what you are saying is your POV. Your only sources are those maps; that this transition happened then is your own inference. Before adding things like that to Wikipedia, you need a reliable source which positively and unequivocally says that this transition actually took place and when. If we were able to add speculations like that to Wikipedia, then I would be able to add what I think happened in the Bermuda Triangle and what I think the real reasons for the war in Iraq were. Izehar 17:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The list of maps are completely pointless. Here's a more complete list. The majority list cornwall as part of england. The 1654 mercator map was actually produced by John Elder on the website it states that

Elder visited the continent in the 1550s and later supplied the well-known Mercator with his maps, in the hopes of aiding a Catholic invasion force. He invited Mercator to publish the maps under the Mercator name, which the latter did in 1564. Dr. Barber says, "What we have here is not a true map of Elizabethan England, but a map of how Elder saw a Catholic England under Mary Tudor."

In fact a later mercator map lists cornwall alongside the other counties. Maps are not offical documents but refect the opinion of the author. The only map authorised by Queen Elizibeth shows cornwall as part of England [7]. Please stop twisting the facts to fit your opinion. josh 20:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

In other words, Cornwall became part of England even before the 1600s. That radical change that the establishment brought about in the way all Britons perceived their land (sic) was brought about (assuming it actually did happen) much earlier. So much for the reliability of conclusions drawn from maps, eh? Now, Bretagne 44, can we get back to citing sources instead of setting up straw men please? Izehar 21:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

When did Cornwall become part of England and whre is the documentation, we are agreed that it was a country, when was it annexed? Why is it a straw man? Bretagne 44 16:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Who knows when it was annexed? It's another of those historical mysteries, like Atlantis. What is important that it was a seperate country (I think it was - no evidence of that has been provided yet) and now it is legally an English county (as per the evidence listed by Rex and josh). What's important is that you need to prove your claims about Cornwall, whatever they may be. Your original research isn't proof, reliable sources are proof. Izehar 17:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
With all due respect, this is the stupidest argument I have ever heard on Wikipedia. How can anyone possibly claim Cornwall is not an English county? It is written in statute law, it is accepted across the country, it is a fact. When/where/how it was "annexed" is completely irrelevant to this article - the history of Cornwall is of nominal significance in the main article of the United Kingdom.
The fact is that Cornwall is part of England, and that is unquestionable. There is no further argument for the purposes of this article - perhaps create a page about the history of Cornwall and question the authority of an Act of Parliament in that? Deano 17:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


All very fascinating. I've noted a resurgence in Cornish culture and language as part of an expanded para on nationalist/unionist tendencies. In an already packed section, no further reference to Cornwall is justified. JDancer 15:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Bring in content of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

This article could merge content from 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'.

There is not much to say about the distinction, it is mostly duplicated in both articles. The current arrangement of two articles adds little value and adds complexity i.e. instead of one permutation for linking a reference to United Kingdom, we have four (2 correct and 2 incorrect). In most cases where editors refer to events or history of the country, the distinction is not relevant.

The issues are not complicated. We don't make such a big deal out of it with other nations. Bobblewik 16:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The current United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is distinct from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Which two terms are you thinking are incorrect? The situation is more complicated than most nations. Depending on when the article is based historicly
Most articles just refer to United Kingdom (after 1707) or England (before 1707). There is loads of permuatations of which only one is technicly correct at any one time. This is further complicated if you are refering to legal maters. The overlap is caused because the United Kingdom article covers how we got to where we are today. josh 18:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Correct. Most states have one name, one set of boundaries and one set of laws. Not so here. England (+ Wales) and Scotland are different entities to Great Britain. GB is different to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. GB+Ireland is different to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The boundaries were different. The laws (eg, discrimination against RCs which existed in GB disappeared early in the UK of GB and I) were different. The make-up of parliament was different. Thus the policy was different, etc. FearÉIREANN 18:39pitcher, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. You ask me which two terms I think are incorrect. The answer is that I do not question the terms, merely the arrangement of articles. If United Kingdom contains a sufficient explanation of two of its historical parts, I question the need to duplicate one of the parts in a separate article. Bobblewik 18:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Currently both the main United Kingdom and History of the United Kingdom articles are over 30K. Merging would increase this problem. We could do the reverse by defering some of the information reguarding previous unions to the relevent articles. They could also do with information like what powers were defered to Westminster (Scotland always kept it's own court system). josh 00:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm in favour of this proposal. Outsource information about previous unions to articles about them. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If it is not a question of principle but of size, we can debate size. See:

  • United Kingdom Mostly duplicated section The Act of Union 1800 united the Kingdom of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland, which had been gradually brought under English control between 1169 and 1691, to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This was also an unpopular decision, taking place just after the unsuccessful Irish Rebellion of 1798 (see Society of the United Irishmen). The timing, when further Napoleonic intervention or an invasion was feared, was predominantly due to security concerns. In 1922, after bitter fighting which echoes down to the current political strife, the Anglo-Irish Treaty partitioned Ireland into the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland, with the latter remaining part of the United Kingdom. As provided for in the treaty, Northern Ireland, which consists of six of the nine counties of the Irish province of Ulster, immediately opted out of the Free State and to remain in the UK. The nomenclature of the UK was changed in 1927 to recognise the departure of most of Ireland, with the name United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland being adopted.
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Mostly duplicated section The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, was created on 1 January 1801 by the merger of the Kingdom of Great Britain (itself a merger of the former Kingdoms of Scotland and England in 1707) and the Kingdom of Ireland. The merger followed the Irish Rebellion of 1798, and was facilitated by the Act of Union, passed by both the Irish Parliament and the British Parliament. The British government awarded gifts of titles, land and money to Irish Members of Parliament to encourage their support for the merger, since most of them had previously been against union. Under the terms of the merger, the Irish Parliament was abolished, and Ireland was to be represented in the united parliament, meeting in the Palace of Westminster. Part of the trade-off for Irish Catholics was to be the granting of Catholic Emancipation, which had been fiercely resisted by the all-Anglican Irish Parliament. However, this was blocked by King George III who argued that emancipating Roman Catholics would breach his Coronation Oath. Whilst the Irish Free State became independent in 1922, after the Anglo-Irish War, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland continued in name until 1927 when it was renamed as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in accordance with the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927.
    Additional detail The Union was never very popular among the majority of the Irish population. Generations of Irish leaders campaigned to establish home government in Ireland. Daniel O'Connell successfully forced the British Government to grant Catholic Emancipation in 1829, by winning election to Westminster and refusing to take the Oath of Supremacy. However, his campaign to repeal the Act of Union failed. Later leaders, such as Charles Stewart Parnell, campaigned for a version of Irish self-government called Home Rule within the United Kingdom, which was nearly achieved in the 1880s under the (British) ministry of W.E. Gladstone. However, the measure was defeated in Parliament, and following the ascension of the Conservatives to the majority, the issue was buried as long as that party was in power. The constant delaying of Home Rule created the frustration that eventually led to political violence and independence. In 1919, Sinn Féin MPs elected to Westminster formed a unilaterally independent Irish parliament in Dublin, Dáil Éireann with an executive under the President of Dáil Éireann, Éamon de Valera. A War of Independence was fought between 1919 and 1921. Finally in December 1922, twenty-six of Ireland's counties seceded from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and formed the independent Irish Free State. Six counties, called Northern Ireland, remained in the United Kingdom, which was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927.

So the question of size is about whether a merged article can be a few sentences longer. Bobblewik 10:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The articles should be separate. As josh said, it's a complicated situation. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yup. Should be kept separate. It is a very complicated subject. FearÉIREANN 02:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
If you are saying that the explanation is complicated then why do the articles only differ by a few sentences? "It is complicated" does not help me understand your reasoning. Please can you be more specific? Bobblewik 09:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Removing duplicate material is desirable, but not at all costs, so I also think they should be kept separate. My reasons for this are (1) the article United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has scope for growth, Anglo-Irish political interaction being a huge subject itself, and (2) would someone specifically typing in 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' expect to be redirected to this UK article? I think they wouldn't. Josh's 6 bullet points at the top of this section could well be put into the history section of the main article as a clear summary so that people coming here can easily go to a more appropriate article if they didn't realise the aggregation/de-aggregation history was so complex. --Squiddy 10:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - the two articles should be kept separate - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is a distinct historical entity. (noticed this on WP:RfC). Thanks/wangi 12:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the important distinctions are:
  • Change in territory over time. Almost all other countries have varied in territory. The United States link is regarded as acceptable for the 13 states, the 50 states, and any of the 35 (?) numbers of states during its history. It is a similar case with other countries.
  • Change in name over time. The UK is not unique in this respect. It has happened with lots of countries. People (including me) find it acceptable to say that the United States was created after a war with the British in the 1770s and that the British fought France in the 1800s. People seem to expect United States to link to United States and France to France but there is no agreement about where British would go. If we merged United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and United Kingdom then two incorrect permutations would instantly become correct at least between 1801 and now.
  • Different terms for different geography. I find it remarkable that people insist on generic references to Great Britain. See section below for an example where there was the bizarre construction that Jane Seymour was Great Britain-born. We do not say Tony Blair visited the contiguous United States. It may be just habit, or the convenience that the term Britain is contained within the term Great Britain. It may also be that the addition of the word Great makes it sound more formal or historic.
In summary, this distinction is usually not relevant. We have far too many articles on this geopolitical arrangement and it looks like they are increasing as people try new ways to explain it. We should look top-down at this and decrease the number of articles. Yes, a person might type 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' in and get to United Kingdom. I think that is how it should be, it is not at all remarkable to me. The more common scenarios are where a user follows the many incorrect links to Great Britain or fails to reach United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland because the link is to United Kingdom.
I would also like to add that I like Josh's bullet points too. In summary, I think the issue is not complicated. It is simple. People get a little pedantic about it, but it is not as big a deal we have made it on Wikipedia. The incorporation of a mere 10 sentences or so into the 'parent' article will end a whole category of needless complexity. Bobblewik 16:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
While I absolutely support simplification of Wikipedia, the examples of other articles you have used are not appropriate. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland split into two different countries - United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Thus, it is not justifiable to link it to United Kingdom alone. On that basis, USSR would link to Russia. Which is ludicrous. But that is a similar situation - a country splitting up. It is completely the opposite of the United States, which was expanding. Deano 17:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Good points. Although right or wrong, the UK is not characterised as having split. It is characterised as having continuous existence and the Republic of Ireland is characterised as having obtained independence for its former part of the UK. Other examples will be useful. Germany 1945 perhaps? I appreciate the Russia example and agree that linking USSR to Russia would be wrong. However, there are no legitimate references to USSR today and that makes it dissimilar to the UK. Many people regard references to Britain and the British as legitimate between 1707 and today. I am not sure whether 1707 or 1801 is the start of legitimate references to United Kingdom but they are certainly legitimate today. Bobblewik 18:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The UK didn't exist before Ireland joined with Britain in 1801, so the fact that most of Ireland left in 1922 makes it difficult to claim that the UK had "continuous existence" between these two phases. If the pre-1801 state had been known as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain", you could argue that Ireland joining and leaving was just a territorial adjustment, but to the best of my knowledge there was no "United Kingdom" before 1801. Given that the term is so closely related to the relationship between Britain and Ireland, it seems clear to me that the pre-1922 and post-1922 UKs are very different entities, both in name and nature. --Ryano 22:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The expansion and subsequent contraction of the United Kingdom is not as simple as the expansion of the United States. Each new country required a specific act of union. This is equivalent to a constitutional admendment in the United States. Other national parliaments were abolished to make way for Westminster. Wars were fought to establish the new states. These changes represent far more than a simple name change and a bit of new territory. The fact you underestimate the magnitude of these changes perhaps shows that we need to improve the articles. The british empire also went under radical changes in structure during the same period but did not require acts of parliment at every stage.

Another problem is that abandoning the UK of GB & I article suggests that it has less precedence than the current UK of GB & NI or the precceding Kingdom of Great Britain (got the name wrong in my earlier post). In political terms these entities are all equivalent. josh 18:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose The two topics are distinct. An encyclopaedia should strive for clarity, not the lowest common denominator.--Mais oui! 17:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
As I said above, I agree the topics are distinct. We have no need to argue about distinction. We can measure the distinction. It is 10 sentences or so. Bobblewik 18:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The fact that it is only 10 sentences is a problem that needs to be resolved by expanding the other articles. There was probably a few thousand sentences that went into the acts of union alone. The difference between the current UK and UK of GB & I is not a marginal one. josh 19:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
As you suggest, I may underestimate the magnitude of the issue. My ignorance is infinite. But the issue is so important that readers should get a good service. I think they currently get a bad service. The service quality is not just about ensuring that each section of an article also has a completely separate article. Good service demands a coherent approach across several articles and a good approach to the error permutations that reasonable editors can make. As you say, appropriate significance is a consideration. If significance is measured by unique articles, then we need a separate article for UKGB&NI. It seems perverse to have a parent (UK) article describing the children (UKGB&I, UKGB&NI etc) and then one of the children (UKGB&I) has a separate article that is almost entirely a duplication. The question is whether a difference of 10 sentences is worth the added error permuations. Bobblewik 20:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose The present system is quite simple and workable: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a long, detailed, and diverse article about the PRESENT COUNTRY. All the other named articles are short little snippets which simply describe the constitutional status of the various predecessors. If we made United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland redirect here it would behoove us to explain that phrase in the opening ¶ or two (that should nearly always be done with redirects); and doing that would just ADD to the confusion, not reduce it. People are talking about "simplifying" the wikipedia; I don't see why deleting short articles makes it simpler. Short articles never hurt anyone. Doops | talk 19:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You made my point better than I did. There is no such article as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Should there be? Bobblewik 20:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong For 20:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Completely Oppose Bob doesn't understand the complexity of UK constitutional evolution. It can't be compacted into one article. The comparison with the US is irrelevant. The US didn't change in name, identity, and realign power between countries within a multi-national state. The US was one state that grew. What is now the UK emerged in the 20th century following a serious of mergers of other states. Each article has to contextualise what led to each Act of Union and each new state as it emerged. It is a unique case. Trying to put it all into one is unworkable, illogical, and would produce a massive section far larger than is allowed in country articles. The idea is a complete nonrunner. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Completely Oppose For the same reasons as FearEIREANN. To merge the United Kingdom of Great Britan and Ireland with what the UK is now would be like merging the History of the Kingdom of Umberland with the same article. It's folly to merge the article of a nation-state that no longer exists with the article of a current nation-state. There is a precidence for them being seperate and apart, see Kingdom of the Netherlands and Netherlands.Soldan 19:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just because the names are similar, does not hide the fact that UKofGB&I was a completely different entity to UKofGB&NI, and that the former split into two separate sovereign nations. When a country splits up, its original form is nullified, and therefore has to remain as a historical article. The new countries that form as a consequence of the split are current countries, and therefore have a separate article. This contrasts to a country expanding, whereby the parent country eats up all of the history of the territory over which it has sovereign power. Deano 20:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The pre-1922 and post-1922 states are clearly not the same thing. --Ryano 22:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Let us be clear. I agree that UKGBI and UKGBNI are different. I am not debating that. I seek change to Wikipedia articles because I think there are far too many articles about this. They overlap a lot. They contradict each other. Please do not assume that because I want to change to Wikipedia articles means that I do not understand the geopolitics of the region sufficiently. I assure you that the opposite is true, I care so much that I want to reduce error permutations and make link routes by reasonable editors/readers more successful. I hope we can avoid ad hominem suggestions. There are some questions that I think are relevant but have not asked:

  • 1. I thought perhaps the abbreviated article title was because it is intended as a parent article. The United Kingdom being sufficiently ambigous to contain children of UKGBI and UKGBNI. If it is a parent article, where is the UKGBNI child article?
  • 2. If it is not a parent article and is UKGBNI only, why has it got the wrong name for the nation?
  • 3. Why is there so much content predating the formation of UKGBNI? There is much more than the immediately relevant content. I think it is because the article and the topic has inherent scope creep.

There are *lots* of articles surrounding this issue. Multiple error permutations means that reasonable readers can't access it and reasonable editors cannot link it correctly. I am trying to persuade people to look beyond just one or two articles. Either articles should be trimmed to their own business or we should reduce error permutations by a few merges. Merge some here or elsewhere, I don't mind. Bobblewik 23:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As everyone has been saying clearly no merge. Re "If it is a parent article, where is the UKGBNI child article?" This is it. There is no parent article because there is no parent. This is the live existing state and so it gets the general information that features in a life state article. As is normal no longer existing states have articles on them focusing on their history and structures. I don't see what you think the UK series should be different to everywhere else. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I did not understand that. Let me try again. Are you saying that this is an article about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Bobblewik 00:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Obviously no support for a merge- therefore the template should be removed. Astrotrain 00:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


In answer to your points :-

  • 1. United Kingdom is used because it is the most common name for current country (same way the United States article is shortened from United States of America. If there was another change and another new United Kingdom was formed then that would be called simply United Kingdom and the current state moved to UK of GB & NI.
  • 2. Most european articles predate the actual state described. If you apply the same logic to the Germany article then it should only mention events after 1990 or West/East/Nazi Germany articles should all be scraped. This article deals with a general overview of the entire history of the region. This could probably called the 'parent' article to all UK based topics but also acts as the main article for the current state.
  • 3. It was formed in 1922 but the name UK of GB & NI wasn't adopted until 1927
  • 4. It doubles up as both the article for the current state and the parent article for all countries that exist/existed within it.
  • 5. As I explained it's a abreviation
  • 6. We need a central article to explain the country called the UK of GB & NI but there is no way that it can be used to cover the entire history of the country. As you'll see by the diagrams below there has been 8-11 countries that have made up what is called the UK (depending on definition and not including mercia etc). Most of these have substantial articles themselves. You just happened to find the smallest one and decided it needs merging.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has been expanded since this debate started and there isn't as much overlap. So to merge in the article (which still needs improvement) would create more problems than solve. I don't see what your problem is, are the servers struggling to hold that extra article. We need to increase the number of articles the History of the United Kingdom is 78K this one struggles to stay a reasonable size. josh 01:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose - WLD 12:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Now I think we are getting somewhere. Fear ÉIREANN states there is no parent. Josh states This could probably called the 'parent' article to all UK based topics but also acts as the main article for the current state. It is not possible for me to regard both statements as true at the same time. If I regard it as a parent plus one child, it makes more sense. It seems remarkable to me that we all agree that Britain is in particular need of terminology explanation but we do not agree that this includes the assumptions in the article title.
As far as the tag is concerned, Wikipedia readers are entitled to a reasonable period to access an ongoing debate. I think removal of the tag without comment and the suggesting that the debate had petered out was wrong. I know that challenges to groupthink are sometimes frustrating and some people would prefer not to debate even with experienced editors but open debate is our strength. Following a comment on Village pump, I suggest that the tag should persist for 7 days from when it was put there, or for 24 hours from when the debate ends, whichever is the longer. I hope that is reasonable for Wikipedia readers. Bobblewik 13:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, thank you Josh for replying to my specific questions. The answers are helpful. Bobblewik 14:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Deano summed up one major point above, is describing the difference between a breakup and an expansion, but its even more general than that. Let the discussion stand for a week, but unless there's a major change it's not going anywhere. Gene Nygaard 20:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'll just add my tuppence. Lose the merge tag. The United Kingdom article should link to previous states with the same name, but the UK of GB and NI is the most relevant today and merits standing alone. Rednaxela 21:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

COMMENT: Let me clarify the situation. There is clearly opposition to the merger. HOWEVER, it was agreed that the tag would remain for 7 days after its creation, which is two days away. Several people have forced the issue on the main article - basically ignoring this agreement - and so in order to avoid a revert war the tag has been removed there. I should make it clear from my POV that the premature removal of the tag for the mail article was not necessary and broke with the agreement here on the discussion page. Nonetheless, the tag WILL remain here on the discussion page until the 7-day period has elapsed. Before that, however, please refrain from removing it, even if most of us disagree with it. Deano 21:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Deano 22:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention, Deano. Sorry for descending to a revert war. My talk page is available if anyone wants to read more or discuss more. Bobblewik 23:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Mais oui! 22:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Compromise: The preceeding comments says it all: in international law Serbia and MOntenegro is the successor state to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and can be seen as identical, though not to the Tito-era Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. As is clear from the note on the 'founding date' of the UK as 1801, the UK(GB&I) is an historical subset of the broader UK which is now styled UK(GB&NI): the independence of the (now) Republic of Ireland was a seccession and not a divorce. A sub page for UK(GB&I) is required to understand the politics and structure of that period, but not a full article such as the the UK(GB&NI) master. JDancer 16:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Should "British" link to "Great Britain"?

The following example shows the confusion of terminology out there. Jane Seymour was described as 'British'-born and that was linked to Great Britain. Her father is described as 'British' and that was also linked to Great Britain. I edited both links to point to Britain. Although I probably should have linked them to United Kingdom.

However, another editor asserts that these are references to geography not nationality. Please see: Jane Seymour

I think they are both references to nationality. Even if they were references to geography, routine references to people born in England, Scotland or Wales should not be linked to Great Britain. I think it is similar to irrelevant ommissions of Hawaii and/or Alaska. We don't say "President Bush is contiguous United States-born". It may be true but it is bizarre.

Comments welcome. Bobblewik 18:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

British usually is meant to apply the whole of the United Kingdom. People in Northern Ireland are still British Citizens. Great Britain refers to the island. By the other editiors logic American should link to the American continent. I don't no if there's an official policy but bio articles usually start with nationality. josh 21:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree - I have edited all band-pages that read "British" to link to their constituent country, unless cross-border. For example, Franz Ferdinand is referred as Scottish. However, in terms of historical documents... well I'm not sure. I'd be inclined to link them to the nation as it was at the time... Deano 22:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I do not want a revert war. So would somebody please make the change at Jane Seymour (actress)? Bobblewik 09:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's strange that, just like the Americans, the name for a UK national doesn't have a precise term, and instead "British" is used. I think British refers to the UK in general, not just Great Britain. As to disambiguation on constituent nations, I think that's a good idea. At the Romanian Wikipedia, there was the same problem - should cities be placed in "Scottish cities" or "United Kingdom cities"? We decided that the lower administrative level is the most appropriate - i.e. Scotland rather than UK, but that the country should always be mentioned (i.e. XYZ is a city in Scotland, United Kingdom). In the case of bands, however, I think it's more controversial. Saying Franz Ferdinand is Scottish suggests that Scotland is a sovereign country on par with, say, Germany (i.e. we say Kraftwerk is a German band). If there was a band from Bilbao, would we call it Basque or Spanish? How about one from Oradea, would we call it Transylvanian or Romanian? Or should Scotland be considered more separate due to its distinct culture and underlying identification as a country? Ronline 10:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
However, there is a fierce sense of loyality to one's home Country, similar to one's state in the United States. For instance, I am a Kentuckian, which is more specific than saying I am an American. Same situation in the UK, and telling a Scot that he is Brittish born can cause a bit of an uproar, and possibly a shiner ;)
Soldan 21:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it is intended as controversial, but for musical bands the template title is "origin". All American bands say purely "Los Angeles, California" or "Palm Springs, Florida" etc., and so on that basis we link all UK bands as "Battle, England" or "Edinburgh, Scotland" etc. The term "origin" does not imply nationality, and the link in the location name provides suitable explanation. Deano 17:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest you have a disambiguation page at that point. There are different uses of the term British depending on whether you're tlaking about nationality, geography or culture. A person could have been born in Hong Kong of Chinese-Canadian parents with a British passport and consider themselves Chinese, Cantonese, Canadian or British, or all of the above. The adjective British applies in different ways for different references. JDancer 16:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Timeline of British Isles Nations

Timeline of states in the British Isles
 Kingdom of England (936–1284) Principality of Wales (1220–1284)  Kingdom of Scotland (843–1707)  Lordship of Ireland (1171–1541)
Kingdom of England (England and Wales) (1284–1707)  Kingdom of Ireland (1541–1801)
 Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1801)
 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801–1922)
 United Kingdom (1922–present day)  Irish Free State (1922–1937)
 Ireland (1937–present day)
In Detail

I've created this infobox. Does anyone have any comments on improvements and articles/sections it could go in? I have made some compromises to simplify the box. The names used are the common terms rather than exact titles. For example, i've used Great Britain rather than Kingdom of Great Britain. I've done this to make it more obvious where the term comes from and reduce the size of the box. josh 21:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • What you have initiated is a "Timeline of states of the British Isles", unless of course you are making the (rather innovative) proposition that the English nation ceased to exist in 1284?--Mais oui! 22:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC) That looks much better now. Although I think that you are making the early Irish situation (perhaps necessarily) too simplistic. Plus it is worth pointing out that the term "British Isles" is widely considered to be insulting to Ireland.--Mais oui! 05:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a good idea....but maybe would be better in the form of a diagram? With each kingdom having its own start/end dates. Also, I don't think England and Wales was created in 1284, but by the Acts of Union 1536-1543. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
There's a slight problem. I understand the strong disinclination to clutter up this box with needless verbiage; but as it stands now the law of least astonishment suggests that "England" should link to England, "Great Britain" to Great Britain, and so forth. I think the full names need to come back in, alas. (Flags might be nice too, by the way.) Doops | talk 22:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I was thinking of something like this: Image:Nations of the UK.jpg (This is just a first draft....I'm not sure I really have the Wales situation properly explained). --JW1805 (Talk) 22:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Diagram (version 2)
  • That's pretty good, nice one - much improved over the idea of a table. However I'd loose the wee bit of France at the bottom right of the maps... And could there be a map for the Lordship of Ireland, i.e. The Pale? Thanks/wangi 22:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed, I can easily get rid of the bit of France. And also give each map a consistent coloring. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I prefer the diagram, somehow manages to expand and simplify at the same time. Although i'm sure England and Wales dates back to the Statute of Rhuddlan. The 1536/1543 acts were actully for tidying up the way laws were applied to Wales. They became known as acts of union in 1801 when Owen Edwards introduced the term.In the preamble to the Statute it states
England, hath now of its favour, wholly and entirely transferred under our proper dominion, the land of Wales, with its inhabitants, heretofore subject unto us, in feudal right, all obstacles whatsoever ceasing; and hath annexed and united the same unto the crown of the aforesaid realm, as a member of the same body.[8]

Another minor point is that Northern Ireland seems to be divided on the Kingdom of England map. josh 23:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm no expert, but looking at the various Wikipedia articles, they say that the 1284 Statute of Rhuddlan brought in Wales under the English monarch (which isn't quite the same as merging the kingdoms, since for example the Kingdom of Ireland shared a monarch with England, but they were still separate kingdoms), while the Acts of Union 1536-1543 annexed Wales to England and created the legal entity of England and Wales. Actually, I'm not sure what the start date for the Principality of Wales should be....should it be 1218 (i.e., Llywelyn the Great)? --JW1805 (Talk) 02:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to rain on the parade — it's certainly pretty; but it's not clickable. Isn't that a problem? Doops | talk 00:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't know. I think the diagram with arrows gives a better picture of what is happening over time (kingdoms being joined and split). But, if clickability is important, maybe we could try to come up with a version that accomplishes the same thing in a table? I'm not sure how that would be done. (Or is it possible to do image maps in Wikipedia?)--JW1805 (Talk) 02:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added some improvements (although it may be a bit large and cluttered now). As to the early Ireland situation, the main use of this table would be to explain changes in the makeup of the states. The change from lordship to kingdom is less significant than the unions that it is trying to get across. I've also ignored the change of Scotland from an independant monarchy to a joint one with england. The only alternative to using British Isle would be to use Great Britain & Ireland which are also names of states possibly leading to more confusion about terms. josh 06:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Hmmmm, I'm not sure about this template. The Ireland situation just isn't quite right. Also, you have "Scotland" and "Ireland", which may cause confusion. Also, I don't quite like linking the years to the various parlamentry acts (there is already a template listing those: UKFormation).--JW1805 (Talk) 18:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent diagram which makes the whole situation quite clear (the second one being better, methinks). Dates can be ironed out at a later stage, this should come into the relevant articles. Robdurbar 00:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Improved the table a bit more (I hope). Coming back to the issue of when wales ceased to be a principality. I think the key difference between Wales (post 1284) and Scotland (post 1606) was that Wales didn't have a independent pariliment. When it was conqured the king still had absolute power so a joint crown meant and joint rule were one and the same. By the time the England/Scotland/Ireland crowns were united the power had shifted to pariliment which meant it was more difficult to annex them politically. Wales (1284-1536) had some independent law making powers but that isn't too different to the Scotish legal system today. josh 01:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


Deano's version!

This is a very good idea - I like the table. However, it seems a little cluttered and I would be inclined to prefer a simpler table that doesn't necessarily follow time (i.e. Scotland is below England), but appears similar. I fiddled around with yours a bit and came up with this... I couldn't really manage the arrows but it gives the general idea. Deano 17:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Administratively the "Principality of Wales" was actually about 5 counties of Wales, the rest was in the Welsh Marches, along with bits of what is now England. The 1536 thingy wasn't an annexation of the "Principality of Wales" by the "Kingdom of England" but something a lot more complicated! Morwen - Talk 17:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Very useful but relevant to a British Isles poltics/government page and not so vital to a packed UK page. JDancer 16:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Olympic 2012 Football Team

Why has my edit on clarifying the 2012 Olympics UK Football Team been re-edited to be far more vague? I originally wrote that though the English and N.I. FA's were for, the Scottish FA were dead-set against, and Wales having previously agreed, have stated their intention to revaluate their position.

Now it says "To which the England and Northern Ireland Football Associations have given their backing". Why has it been changed, as this seems less informative?

I edited it out completely because it seemed too long-winded. Somebody else added the concise version, which says explicitly that England and NI are in and it is implicit by omission that Scotland and Wales aren't. -Rednaxela 03:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree - The POV of every Home Nation is on record concerning this Olympics team - implication by omission might be actually correct, but why? Why not put the viewpoints of the four nations as they are, in? Surely the purpose of any Wiki article, or any article of encyclopedic origin should be to educate without having to rely on someone to assume something they aren't told. Just seems you've left it up to the reader to assume Scotland has outright rejected the proposal, and not incorrectly assume they've yet to make up their mind, or are still deciding.

Kaenei 21:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that many readers may not be familiar with the idea that each Home Nation has its own football association, I think including the fact that the other two are not involved is reasonable.Robdurbar 09:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I've just realised that it explains this in this very article. However, I still don't feel there is any harm in adding that sentence. Robdurbar 09:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I added the concise version after Rednaxela had removed the original - the POVs of each of the home nations' football associations are fact, and therefore need to be included. Given that Rednaxela had just removed the direct POVs, I did not want to start a revert war so I just left it as implication by omission. All in all, however, I'd suggest that the full explanation should be somewhere, if not here. A link to that somewhere would be good though. Deano 17:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Introduction/Other uses

The "other" parts of this page; those in italics at the beginning of this article - are fairly biased. Where it says: "If you mean England, (Great) Britain..." - I believe that they are forgetting that there are three - yes three - other countries that make up the United Kingdom; and are blatantly ignoring them. Becuase of this, I have "hidden" the England part --Kilo-Lima 21:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

England is mentioned, because in non English speaking countries, the UK as a whole is referred to as "England". The purpose of entering England is to disambiguate terms which in other languages mean the same thing. I will restore the England notice. Izehar (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Izehar is right, though I've redrafted the heading section to make the policial/geographical complexities clear. I suggest thay anyone searching Wikipedia who heads for England will pretty soon realise their mistake if they were really looking for the UK, and perhaps learn a lesson in doing so. JDancer 16:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What's with the date of establishment?

This date seems a little late to me, what about after the Hundred Years War? 66.205.108.8 02:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

1801 is perfectly correct. What about "after the Hundred Years War"? That ended c.1450, England and Scotland didn't even share the same king until 1603, or the same parliament and government until 1707. 1801 is the union of parliaments of GB and Ireland (i.e. abolition of the old Irish Parliament and formal union of the Kingdom of Irelad with the Kingdom of Great Britain to form the United Kingdom). -- Arwel (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

State Religion?

  • The House of Lords has 724 members (though this number is not fixed): hereditary peers, life peers, and bishops of the Church of England. The Church of England is the established church of the state...

I'm not entirely sure on this, but if we're referring to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, surely there is no overall established state Church. Anglicanism (Church of England) for the constituent country of England, and Presbyterianism (Church of Scotland) for the constitutent country of Scotland.

Whilst I realise the Queen is Supreme Governor of the CoE, she is also a member of the CoS, and the Act of Union 1707 secures the place of the Church of Scotland in British politics and law. Shouldn't that final sentence be amended?


Kaenei 03:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. It's a common source of humor that the queen changes religion when she crosses the Anglo-Scottish border. - Calgacus 19:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Also her name and title, as when she goes to Australia, but not her allegiances. JDancer 16:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

UK ties templates

Currently there is a template at the foot of the article - {{UK ties2}} - which links to templates of various organisations the UK is party to:

{{UK ties2}}

This template is only used on this article (other than talk pages). Additionally there are two further templates which are totally unused and would appear to be test versions of this template:

Earlier this week I edited {{UK ties2}} so it linked instead to articles rather than templates[9]. I also put {{UK ties}} put for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:UK_ties. Doops has since removed the tfd notices and reverted my changes on {{UK ties2}} with the comment:

this template was the result of collaboration at Talk:United Kingdom. Please discuss any changes there; otherwise they're "silent changes" which won't show up in interested editors' watchlists
Earlier discussion: Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 3#Infoboxes at bottom

Personally think the template should link to articles rather than templates and we should put all three templates up for deletion since they are either unused or single use (this article, subst content into the article).

What's everyone elses thoughts? Thanks/wangi 14:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly for housekeeping reasons the templates should go; you're absolutely right there. And I'm sorry for removing the tfd notice; that was an inadvertent error, the result of stupidity not malice.
As for the question of whether the template should link to articles or other templates — if I recall correctly I offered both options back when I was creating the templates; and other editors of this page preferred the link-to-templates version. Basically, the notion was that since this template was a space-saving alternative to including each of the various templates in the page it should replicate the functionality of those templates as much as possible. Doops | talk 16:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
reference1, reference2
No problem. I'm still a bit unsure why pointing to templates is a good idea - if somebody sees the UK is a member of the G8 then surely they want to know about the G8, and not a list of other countries/topics related to or in the G8 which linking to Template:G8 gives them?
But then again I do see your point re including the content of those templates. Maybe just getting rid of this and including the essential templates themself is the way forward? I'll have to see what is done on other country pages but I know for sure that the NATO template isn't normally included on the country page but rather on the armed forces article. And digging deeper I now notice {{China ties}}, {{France ties}}, {{Romania tie}} and {{Russiantie}}... Fun!
Thanks/wangi 16:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I think I'm right in saying that this is the granddaddy of all other individual single-nation ties templates. Formerly several of the included templates appeared in this page and there was a great deal of disagreement over which belonged and which were superfluous. My creation of UK_ties was designed to cure this edit warring; and it did — which is why other editors borrowed the idea for use in other country pages. So I don't think going back to the old situation is wise. Doops | talk 16:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think a number of people will be concerned that you denote Commonwealth ties as 'historical and cultural'. Arguably, sharing the same Head of State is highly political, membership of a grouping larger than the EU or NATO very geopolitical, and the shared and diverse cultures of many UK citizens from many backgrounds more than purely historical... JDancer 16:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

over 23...

Over twenty three nations around the world celebrate independence days from British rule.

What does "over 23" mean? 24?, 25?, 50?, 250? This needs to be reworded to give the actual number. MRSC 13:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The Official Language

According to the government's website...

see here

English is the official language of the United Kingdom. David 22:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well if a website says so it must be true.
But seriously, the whole "official language", "offical national anthem", etc. business really bothers me. English is something much MORE than an official language so enacted by a legislature. It's a "by common consent since time immemorial" language, which is much cooler. I sure hope that organically-grown-from-ancient-sources countries like the UK don't jump on the bandwagon and start passing laws to name official languages, official capital cities, official national anthems. Doops | talk 22:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Damn right. If you need to make something official for people to know it then you know you've got a problem. Deano (Talk) 15:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Huh. Well that page also says Modern Welsh is the direct descendant of the Celtic language that was spoken throughout Britain at the time of the Anglo-Saxon invasions in the 5th century which isn't true - it wasn't spoken in the Pictish-speaking area of Scotland, so if they can get one thing wrong on that page, they can get another. -- Arwel (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This is 'the Government's' website. It's just a site run by a small part of the Cabinet Office to provide a database of links to other sites. Unless a source of consitutional law rules that English is 'official' it isn't. JDancer 17:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Your right. There isn't a single piece of the consitution that states 'English is official'. The fact that the entire thing is writtern in English might give people a clue though. It's just convention to do things in English though. josh (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly - we have common law and conventions rather that letigious nonsense! Deano (Talk) 21:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

Do we have to have the footnotes in the infobox. There are eight of them there and IMO make the box look ugly. Can't they be moved to the bottom of the page? Izehar 16:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Hving reverted an IP editing about the power of the empire in the first paragraph several times, they now seem to have decided to add a few sentences to the end of the intro instead. I've not reverted again as it would be my 5th (allowed for anti-vandalism by 3RR) and the added section seems to be in order having checked with other pages on wiki. It's also 2am here so I might be jumping a little quick thus I'll leave for someone with a clearer head.

However I am unsure about whether the IP will keep as current. I also suspect that Ouip is a new account for the person using that IP given that the revert back to the IP's version was that persons first. The IP seems to have vandalised in the past (see IP's talk page) so keep an eye out. - JVG 02:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Having read the added content again, almost all of it is repeated later in the article... - JVG 02:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

State/Country

Text moved to subpage -Robdurbar 10:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to continue the discussions here (Country, kingdom or State) as it is a dedicated page for this issue
-Rednaxela 11:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC) -Although things there are far from animated at the moment. 14:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

External links - rationalisation

This article had many external links, and using WP:EL as a guide I could not find basis for the vast majority of them - most are more suited to other articles (where they are already listed).

I have removed them all, leaving in place links to the UK gov portal and the main tourist site.

Can I ask that any other links be discussed here before they are added. Thanks/wangi 17:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As you wish. I intend putting back the link to The Official Yearbook of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland published by the Office for National Statistics. It is accurately described as The definitive overview of the United Kingdom and is highly relevant to this page. zzuuzz (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Economy Size

I have a suggestion. Rather than edit-warring over it, why don't some people provided sources for their claims as to whether this is the 4t/5th biggest economy Robdurbar 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Cricket

Just a quick thought, but would it not be an idea to mention cricket in the Sports section?

It's already there: ' Cricket is also popular; although the popularity of the game is dramatically greater in England than the remainder of the UK, all four constituent nations as of 2006 compete at the One-Day International level - Scotland independently, Wales as part of the English team, and Northern Ireland as part of All-Ireland.' Robdurbar 19:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Flag

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg - shouldn't the red lines on the left be at the top not the bottom?

No. The broader diagonal white stripe should be at the top left hand side of the flag nearest the flagpole. [10] -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Universities

I was wondering what the consensus was for unviersity inclusion on this page? Personally I would only included Oxbridge (and poissibly the Unviersity of London) as these stand head nad shoulders above the others, in quality and world renoun. When other unis are include I think it starts to go too pov, as to decide between which to included and which not to. Robdurbar 13:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks a bit anglocentric - St Andrews, Glasgow, and Aberdeen rival Oxbridge in age, being founded in the 15th century... -- Arwel (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Remember Wikipedia:No original research, thus we need have a source for the top universities in the UK and cite that... For starters here are two sources:
If these results look English-centric then that's not our concern. Thanks/wangi 16:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
According to both the leading university guides above, only Oxbridge and University of London (ICL, UCL, & LSE) are consistently in the top five. So, how about: ... including the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge and the University of London (which incorporates, amongst others, Imperial College London, University College London, and The London School of Economics). -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
"... including the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge and the University of London"" looks good to me, the extra buff re the London institutions doesn't really belong on this article though. And we really need to add a reference too - It's shocking this article doesn't cite a single reference... /wangi 17:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
That would work for me, however the problem is that the London institutions are always listed separately in any (UK) rankings. There are other implications too, as the wording currently stands - the UK contains the world's leading universities, including those rated top within the UK :) Maybe some global rankings like these would be better -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought it looked anglocentric too, but I have used the list on this page: http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2004/top500(1-100).htm for reference. We have 5 universities in the top 50 and considering the phrasing of the paragraph, I thought this was relevant.- Rednaxela 18:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a 2005 version of the Shanghai list http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005Main.htm. Also, contrary to the belief that there are many such rankings, there are in fact only 2 global rankings - the Shanghai one and the Times HES one. Bwithh 18:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The only problem about every list is that they are subejctive. The conditions on which they are based vairy highly. However, if we do a survey of the various results it is Oxford and Cambridge which come about above the others. I am tempted to think that these would always be in the top 50/100, whereas Edingbrugh and others are more likely to move in and out. The London one as a whole could list alongside these, but the problem there is that these are often consdiered separtely.

As for references as a whole - this could be a future project on this page... Robdurbar 18:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It may be true that there are only two global ones, but there are plenty of ones that rank within the UK. Robdurbar 09:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


2005 In the United Kingdom infobox?

Why is there an entry for 2005-06 in English football, whilst there is no equivalent entry for Scotland or Northern Ireland, or Wales? Doesn't seem very British -- Wouldn't it be better to adapt one entry for British Football which further breaks down into the respective national leagues of the home nations?

Kaenei 04:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably not - the home countries are run entirely independently of each other - the relationship between football in Scotland and football in England, for example, is the same as that between football in the Faroe Isles and football in Armenia. However, links to the Scottish football season could possibly be added; the others (no offence) are nowhere near as nationally important. Robdurbar 10:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I've just noticed - its 2006 now isn't it? Better update that one! Robdurbar 10:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you could look at it like that -- Adding a Scots entry would definitley balance things out properly. Kaenei 13:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Population

Someone revert the population figure I added - presumably because it was from the CIA? If you note, the other version is a compeltely uncited one; so either I think it should be reverted to the 2001 census population or to the 2005 CIA estimate. Robdurbar 09:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The CIA population number is a disaster (discussed here before). The source for the 2004 ONS estimate is in the infobox (#7) -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Apologies; I was suspicious as the editor who altered the population to agree with this also cliamed that we'd passed France population wise, which the ONS doesn't claim. Robdurbar 09:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by User: Kevin Hanse

I apologize for my brother's vandalism in my name of the United Kingdom page. --Kevin Hanse (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that did seem a bit out of character. Plus, the edit summary of "VANDALISM!!!!..." was a bit of a tip off that it might have been a temporarily-hijacked-account. :) Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 23:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
If only all vandals were so helpful as to summise their vandalism so. Dmn € Դմն 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom/Archive_4&oldid=1091995614"