Talk:Britain/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Britain. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Historical States

I added United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and United Kingdom of Great Britain. I think these will be especially important for disambiguating links to this page. --Steven J. Anderson 03:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but removed other fluff. Entering "Britain" in the search box need to be disambiguated, but the word Britain in no way disambiguates to mean "Britain in the Middle Ages", "Iron Age Britain" etc. etc. They belong on the page called History of Britain (which strangely redirects to History of the British Isles ... but eh!). --sony-youth^pléigh 12:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguating Britain

I don't really want to throw any more fuel on the fire, but I think this question is worth asking. When disambiguating links to this page, should we replace "Britain" in the text with United Kingdom? I've been giving the benefit of the doubt to the editor who wrote the article and piping it. --Steven J. Anderson 04:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As in, for example "the United States was allied with Britain during the Second World War":

"the United States was allied with Britain during the Second World War"

or

"the United States was allied with the United Kingdom during the Second World War"

In that case I would keep it Britain as it was the common name during the period, or at least in discussion of the period (I believe). It tough case to call. Personally, I'd do it on a case by case basis. For example, "citizens of Britain" would probably better be "citizens of the United Kingdom." --sony-youth^pléigh 07:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

1922 or 1927?

The UK article says that the Republic of Ireland gained its independence in 1922, but the UK didn't change it's name from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland until 1927. Is the dab page right on its dates? --Steven J. Anderson 06:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Waited a few days and changed it. I've found the same information in more than one place. --Steven J. Anderson 19:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't seen the original post. Gotta say I'd be against the change. Its not exactly informative. The constitutional change was in '22, the name change was just cosmetic. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Name? Merge?

I understand that this has been voted on above, however, is this article not inappropriately named? NOAD defines the following:

'Britain: An island that consists of England, Wales and Scotland and included the small adjacent islands. The name is broadly synonymous with Great Britain, but the longer form is more usual for the political unit.

Great Britain: England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom.

I also fail to see the purpose of this article vis-�à-vis the Great Britain article. --sony-youth^talk 11:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly simple. This page explains usage of the word Britain. It is NOT an article about the island of Great Britain, not about the United Kingdom, although both can be and have been referred to as Britain. See also British Isles (terminology). Malcolm Starkey 18:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well that's nice, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary (not just a guideline, but official policy). On Wikipedia articles should be about "the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote. The article octopus is about the species of animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth." Articles should not be about "the actual words or idioms in their title. [In a dictionary the] article octopus is about the word 'octopus': its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth."

The last paragraph sums up the article (after discussing etymology and adjectival forms):

“

Geographically, the term can be used in various ways:

To describe someone from the island of Great Britain.
In the term British Isles (see supra), the traditional term for the entire archipelago of islands that lie off the north west coast of France, of which Great Britain and Ireland are the two biggest.
The term has historically been used to describe someone or something from the British Isles. Because of the above mentioned potential for offence, this rarely happens today. For example the British Lions, a rugby team which draws players from the United Kingdom and Ireland, has been renamed the British and Irish Lions.
Sometimes British applies to an area or territory currently or formerly governed by or a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, for example the British Virgin Islands, the British Indian Ocean Territory, or British Columbia which is now a province of Canada.

”

This is a dictionary article (discussing its part in speech and usage). Aside from the fact that it confuses the island (Britain, from Pritani via Britannia until the 8th century when it had replaced Albion as the name of the island) with the geopolitical unit (Great Britain, dating from 1604), where is the discussion of Britain? Its flora, its fauna? --sony-youth^talk 19:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, this should be cut right down to form a disambiguation page, reflecting the different uses of the term. But it should not simply be merged with Great Britain because the two are not synonymous, as the section at Modern Usage indicates. Malcolm Starkey 19:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so convinced. For sure, "Britain" is often used to mean the UK (for example the Economist does it all of the time), but when it is, don't you think that it is being used in a more euphemistic sense? I think it is also a mistake think of Britian and British as having a strict noun-adjective relationship, since one is an identity (and citizenship) as well as the adjective.

I, for one, would always use "Britain" and "Great Britain" synonymously, while at the same time understanding that sometimes it is used to mean the UK. I've attached some dictionary definitions below:

Oxford American:

Britain: an island that consists of England, Wales, and Scotland and includes the small adjacent islands. The name is broadly synonymous with Great Britain, but the longer form is more usual for the political unit.

Great Britain: England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom.

Merriam-Webster:

Britain: The island of Great Britain (Second definition: United Kingdom)

Great Britain: Island W Europe comprising England, Scotland, & Wales area 88,150 square miles (228,300 square kilometers), population 57,103,927 (Second definition: United Kingdom)

Encarta:

Britain: Island in the Atlantic Ocean off the northwestern coast of Europe, including England, Scotland, and Wales. See Great Britain.

Great Britain: The largest island of the British Isles in northwestern Europe. It includes England, Scotland, and Wales.

Random House:

Britain: See Great Britain

Great Britain: An island of NW Europe, separated from the mainland by the English Channel and the North Sea: since 1707 the name has applied politically to England, Scotland, and Wales.

American Heritage Dictionary:

Britain: The island of Great Britain during pre-Roman, Roman, and early Anglo-Saxon times before the reign of Alfred the Great (871-899). The name is derived from Brittania, which the Romans used for the portion of the island that they occupied.

Great Britain: An island off the western coast of Europe comprising England, Scotland, and Wales. It is separated from the mainland by the English Channel and from Ireland by the Irish Sea. See United Kingdom.

--sony-youth^talk 01:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Those definitions reflect the traditional definition, though a quite a few of them hint that term can also mean (rightly or wrongly - and that's been discussed ad infinitum by those who want to restrict how people are allowed to use language) United Kingdom.

More importantly, we need to recognise that the vast majority of incoming links to this page want to go to United Kingdom. A merger/redirect to Great Britain would cause so much confusion...

On the other hand, it has developed from the disambiguation page that it was into a dictionary definition (albeit a well developed one). I propose that we:

Move the content from here into the Wiktionary article on Britain. It would be a shame to lose it all.
Reduce this page to a disambiguation cosisting basically of the first paragraph of the page as it is now, looking vaguely like:

The word Britain is an informal term used when referring to;

the island of Great Britain
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the "United Kingdom" or the "UK"), a sovereign state
the Roman province called "Britain" or "Britannia".

For a discussion of the confusion between terms such as Britain, United Kindom and England, see British Isles (terminology).

I'd broadly agree with Robdurbar's suggestion of moving most of the content to the Wiktionary entry. I think perhaps the beginning of the article as it stands would work fine as a disambiguation page (we need, for example, to make it clear that the spelling Brittain is a surname).

I'd also be interested to see what the Chambers, the Collins or the NODE have to say about the word "Britain", since all of Sony Youth's examples are American dictionaries and may possibly reflect a subtle usage difference. Certainly, "Britain" is used to mean the UK by the Economist; it is also used by the BBC and other broadcasters, all British newspapers and the government itself. For example, the Guardian style guide says, under British: "Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Used as adjectives, therefore, British and UK mean the same." Please note: the official short form. It is NOT incorrect.

This has all been discussed at length above. By all means move the info to the Wiktionary, but please do not assume that the Britain page should automatically redirect to Great Britain. Malcolm Starkey 11:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems okay to me too. Would prefer a merge with Great Britain and a disambiguation link to United Kingdom on top of there - but Rob's suggestion looks fair enough. --sony-youth^talk 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OK; someone else will have to put the old content into Wiktionary because my unviresity's ip has been blocked (As it seems to have been from all Wikimedia sites except for Wikipedia) from wiktionary as an open proxy. --Robdurbar 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. --sony-youth^talk 09:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the (modern) definitions are:

- BRITAIN is a damp, foggy landmass off the northern coast of Europe. - GREAT BRITAIN is a political entity comprising the political entities of England, Scotland and Wales (the combined territory of which covers BRITAIN). Historically 'Great Britain' has been used to differentiate the physical entity from place(s) referred to as Little Britain (Brittany, Ireland, etc. have been called 'Little Britain' by various different groups at different times). - The UNITED KINGDOM of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a political entity comprising Great Britain (i.e., England, Scotland, Wales) AND Northern Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.171.177 (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

British Empire

Should this page include a link to British Empire? --Steven J. Anderson 20:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Britain as the British Isles

I'm not going to revert the edit that says Britain can mean Great Britain but I would like an explanation as to why "geographical" Ireland isn't included in "geographical" Britain since Ireland is included in the British Isles. Doesn't British mean it's of Britain? And what about "Great Britain"? There was a reason that British Cartographers added the "Great" term to refer to the larger isle and not just the rest of Britain including Ireland (the isle, not the republic). As I said I wont revert this for a week unless someone comes up with an sensible explanation as to why this isn't correct.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvidae682 (talk • contribs) on 22:44, 21 August 2006

The term "British Isles" has its origins in ancient Rome and the term was applied to all the islands under the control of the Roman Republic (and later Empire), including even Corsica. However, Ireland was never under Roman control (not even close) so Ireland was never one of the British Isles. Also, although Ireland was under British control at times, no part of Ireland was ever part of Britain (but was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland). The Irish Government has recently ruled that it is incorrect to refer to Ireland as one of the British Isles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.197.241 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 12 March 2008

Ah, there's that adorable British sense of humour once again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.148.177 (talk) on 13:04, 24 August 2006

I personally have never heard anyone refer to the British Isles as "Britain" or even "Great Britain". My understanding is that the term British Isles (or the precursor thereof) is actually older than the term Britain. The earliest name for the islands was the Pretannic Islands, and Britain itself was called Albion. The "Pretannic" bit started to apply to the largest island as well, and the Albion name was lost except as a poetic name. The 'P' started to be pronounced as a 'B' in some languages.

If Corvidae's suggestion to make the British Isles be called "Britain" is ever taken up, however, it will leave the island consisting of England, Scotland and Wales stuck without a name, unless there is a serious plan to revive the name Albion. Personally I think both etymological sense and current usage imply that Britain and the British Isles are different things, especially since the term "British Isles" is avoided in the Republic of Ireland and I imagine calling the republic part of "Britain" would be even more repugnant to them. Kaid100 23:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi first time here. Britain is described as England Scotland and Wales..... and as an island. Well we are part of the British isels, there's more than one island and Northern island is part of Great Britain. (in the game family fortunes one of the questions is name a group of islands, despite being a British game, none of the people surveyed mentioned the "British isles", ! This upset me a bit the the British were so ignorant about themselves) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyShakespear (talk • contribs) at 09:04, 4 October 2006

Ahem. Speaking about being "ignorant about themselves", how about this: 'Northern island is part of Great Britain'. I rest my case. El Gringo 23:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but is not part of Great Britain. If Northern Ireland was part of Great Britain then the full name of the United Kingdom would make no sense - how could it be the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland if Northern Ireland was part of Great Britain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.197.241 (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has a responsibility to describe correct usage of words, NOT misuse. Britain used as to mean United Kingdom is definitely misusage. The dictionary entry referred to gives several meanings, mostly historical, but does not provide any justification for this usage. Hence it is appropriate to delete the first entry, which is the misuse. Elroch (talk)

Revived interest in including all of the British Isles under the umbrella of Britain

Can the editors currently trying to press the word Britain upon all of the British Isles please consult a dictionary and return here if they find a reference to the British Isles and Britain being the same thing. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Something "British" would be therefore pertaining to Britain... e.g. the British Isles. In a secondary sense, "Britain" may be classified as the United Kingdom under an obscure regime which included the whole of Ireland. In a dictionary sense as you requested, "Britain" is a lexeme and British is something pertaining to Britain. The term Great Britain is of course an obvious reference to the "greater" (larger) isle. In that case there must be a "Lesser" Britain (i.e. the Isle of Man, Ireland, Jersey. There should at least be a mentioning of its reference to the British Isles. I have heard the use of "Britain" several times to refer to the British Isles as a whole.

Celtic Emperor 22:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's begin with some facts then. Great Britain refers to the larger of the two Britains during the middle ages: the island of Britain and the province of Brittany (see here or here or here or ...). Its not named so because it is the larger island in the group. (Incidentally in Irish, Wales is known as 'Little Britain' for the same reason.)

The "obscure regime" of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is already linked from the page, so no trouble there.

I can see you put back in the "For a discussion of the confusion between terms ..." part. Thanks! That had been taken out 'to conform with the manual of style' or some other such reason. I agree that there is confusion between the terms and so its useful to have there. The British Isles are linked to from there, so I don't see the need to have it linked from above.

As for "Something 'British' would be therefore pertaining to Britain ..." - we could use someone like you on the British Isles-related pages!! For some light reading (you've probably seen it before) see British Isles naming dispute. Of course, that British does not mean "pertaining to Britain" in that context (as a unique exception!) is the main argument of the "pro-British Isles" camp in that debate.

I've no problem linking to the British Isles from this page, but saying that "Britain" may refer to the British Isles is simply incorrect (but that people may think it is a good reason to have to the "For a discussion of the confusion between terms ..." part in there). From the Oxford Dictionary: "Britain: an island that consists of England, Wales, and Scotland and includes the small adjacent islands. The name if broadly synonymous with Great Britain, but the longer form si more usual for the political unit."

If you don't mind, I'm going to take it out again, but leaving the "For a discussion ..." part. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's rather unusual that the adjetive came before the noun... I'll take you up on that but in the case of the "obscurse regime", which basically covered the entire British Isles. In this case, they may be considered synonomous (in instances which I have encountered). I think at least they "British Isles" should be linked under the historical contexts if that's OK with you.

Celtic Emperor 01:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"For a discussion of the confusion ..."

Many people, as we all know, are unsure about what exactly "Britain" refers to: whether it means the whole of the British Isles, if is it the same as Great Britain, or is it the UK, or England, or what? Its very like, then, that somebody entering "Britain" in the search box would in fact mean a related thing, but something not quite the same. For that reason, and since the MoS for dab pages allow it, I think its a good case to have an extra sentence pointing to the British Isles (terminology) page. This shouldn't be in the "See also" section as it would not be simply a related topic, but an inherent part of disambiguation what our reader meant by "Britain". --sony-youth^pléigh 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Conventional methodology is perfectly adequate in this case, there is absolutely no need to be referred to another article; I disagree with your argument. There are not sufficient for disregarding convention. (Sarah777 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

OK, so I know your conclusion - could I hear your reasoning? --sony-youth^pléigh 22:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Many people, as we all know, are unsure about what exactly "Britain" refers to: whether it means is it the same as Great Britain, or is it the UK, or England, or what? Its very like, then, that somebody entering "Britain" in the search box would in fact mean a related thing, but something not quite the same. As could anyone entering a rather more ambiguous terms, such as, for example, "British Isles". For that reason, I think it's a good case to have the British Isles (terminology) in the "See also" section as it is a related topic, not an inherent part of the the disambiguation based on what our (imaginary) reader might have meant by "Britain". OK? Insufficient grounds for exceptionalism in this case. (Sarah777 01:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

The UK govenment has defined it all. In the forward of Britain 2001-The Official Yearbook fo the United Kingdom published by Her Majesty's Stationary Office the definition is given

"The term ‘Britain’ is sometimes used as a short way of expressing the full title of the country: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (or, more simply again, the United Kingdom or the UK). ‘Great Britain’ comprises England, Wales and Scotland only. The adjectives ‘British’ and ‘UK’ are used interchangeably and cover the whole of the United Kingdom. Brixtonboy (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a disambiguation page - for resolving ambiguity. Regardless of what some may consider to be "correct", the fact is that many readers will come to this page ("Britain") looking for "Great Britain", the island. The page needs to reflect that, by including a link to Great Britain. Unfortunately, Brixtonboy's edits - I assume inadvertently - deleted any mention of Great Britain, which it is essential to retain on this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ghmyrtle. That was indeed an oops! Brixtonboy (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

British Isles - incorrect use here

The first line read:

the British Isles, an archipelago off the northwest coast of Europe

Nobody calls the British Isles British unless in error. And why the first line? Is to prove a point, or to make one? --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone shouts out - if its in historical terms - then put it there (with some explanation), not first in the list. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Typical. A logical consequence of claiming that the Irish people live in an entity termed the "British Isles" by British nationalists. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

British nationalism has little to do with it. The name "British Isles" predates the UK as a political entity by centuries. It is obviously useful at times to refer to the island group including Great Britain and the Island of Ireland. The British Isles is the only term in common useage for this group, although the objections to its use regarding the unusual use of "British" are clearly legitimate. So far as I'm aware, the Irish have yet to suggest a viable alternative. Nessy76 (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue is whether British is likely to be a search term to find the British Isles. Dab pages don't usually give references, but some evidence in this discussion of that usage might be helpful on the issue of whether British Isles should be included.--SabreBD (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Britain ≠ UK, according to the UK government

The claim in the UK article ('The United Kingdom is often referred to by the short-form name of Britain') that Britain is a short form of the UK offers no evidence for it. In fact, the official UK Home Office reference further down states directly the opposite: 'The name "Britain" or "Great Britain" specifically refers only to England, Scotland and Wales, not to Northern Ireland.' (Life in the UK: a journey to citizenship). UK should therefore be removed from this page as a synonym for Britain. 86.42.16.248 (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not referring to the UK as 'Britain' or not is correct is a matter of debate, and I do understand your point, but the purpose of a disambiguation page like this one is to direct users to the page they were looking for. Seeing as there are some people who use 'Britain' to refer to the UK (the Prime Minister himself has done so), there will be people who will end up on this page, maybe having typed 'Britain' into the search box, who were looking for an article on the country. The link is therefore appropriate here. -- TheLewisRepublic (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

~~The result of this discussion was to merge. Regards, Rob (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)~~ I have struck through the close. I am closing it as no consensus. If someone would like to run a new merge proposal (to be closed by an uninvolved admin, then please do so -- PBS (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I propose merging Great Britain (disambiguation) to this page as all content is already present. Regards, Rob (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't Merge - Great Britain is a WP:Disambiguation page and serves a valid purpose and should not be merged.Blethering Scot 12:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This is also a disambiguation page, and currently all entries listed at Great Britain (disambiguation) are also listed here. I don't see the point in disambiguating a term when there is already a disambiguation page with all the entries and more that may be relevant to the reader. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge Makes sense to me. WaggersTALK 11:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Why on earth would anyone choose to do that?
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- See above. Regards, Rob (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is it normal practice to close your own merge proposal, and furthermore to close it as "merge" when two out of the three people who subsequently commented in fact opposed the proposal, and the only one who supported it offered no detailed reasoning? N-HH talk/edits 17:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Apologies, Rob (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes to definitions

On 7 July, before User:WheelerRob's series of edits, the definitions used here included:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a sovereign state in western Europe
Great Britain, the largest island in the British Isles and the largest island in Europe

I don't have any problem with the subsequent reordering of the page. However, I disagree fundamentally with Rob's proposed changes to the definitions, which would read:

United Kingdom, a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe
Great Britain, an island situated off the north-western coast of continental Europe

I have proposed an alternative, which Rob has reverted:

United Kingdom, a sovereign state in north-west Europe comprising Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Great Britain, an island situated off the north-western coast of continental Europe

The problem here seems to be Rob's insistence (here) that it is "debatable" whether the UK is "part of Europe", and therefore his insistence that wording that suggests such a thing should be removed. No, it isn't "debatable" - or, at least, it is only "debatable" to those pushing a specific political POV. All sources that I have seen locate the UK as within Europe. Of course, it is located on islands which are separated by sea from continental Europe. But that is not the point. The UK is a political entity, located in Europe. Great Britain is an island, located off the coast of continental Europe. The two should not be confused in the way that Rob suggests. I would prefer to revert to the status quo ante, and the wording of 7 July, rather than Rob's proposal, if others disagree with my suggested wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to wait to see the outcome of the discussion at United Kingdom. Although the description on this page doesn't have to be identical as the one there, it should be based on it. I don't mind the inclusion of 'comprising Great Britain and Northern Ireland' as this helps in the absence of the map however whether its described as being off the north-western coast of continental Europe, or within western or north-western Europe should be decided by what article reads. Regards, Rob (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The UK is geographically and politically within Europe per any source other than a UKIP or BNP manifesto. Why are we wasting time on this nonsense? ----Snowded ^TALK 19:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no point in discussing this here. You are just spreading the discussion across articles. Definitions across Wikipedia should be consistent. Regards, Rob (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, settle where you want to have it. I am just responding to a thread on a watched article. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to have the discussion in one place, and no need to have identical definitions in different articles. This page is a disambiguation page, where there should be absolute total clarity in how terms are disambiguated. Clarity is still needed on other pages, but there is less need to spell out very specific detailed variations in definitions on article pages. Rob has made edits on numerous pages, which may be watched by different editors, and it is useful to bring as many editors as possible into these discussions so as to help achieve a broad consensus in each case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I began with saying that 'Although the description on this page doesn't have to be identical as the one there, it should be based on it'. Until the discussion is finished at United Kingdom, I would advise editors not to discuss the terminology used on disambiguation pages. Rather then starting discussions, providing a link to the discussion at United Kingdom would help to centralise the discussion. Also terminology used across different disambiguation pages to describe the United Kingdom and Great Britain should be identical, so having that discussion at United Kingdom would probably be most ideal. Regards, Rob (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of the term Britain

Editors should be aware that it is against Wikipedia policy to include inaccurate information in the encyclopedia.

I understand that there are quite a few people who have managed to never learn that Britain does not mean the United Kingdom. There are many other things that people fail to learn as well, but that does not mean that they should be included in Wikipedia.

To pander to those who feel that readers will be incapable of going to the article on Great Britain and to read that Great Britain is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I have added an section that describes the common abuse of language in the disambiguation page. It is important NOT to include this misuse in the first section, as it would be misleading people about the meaning of the term, contrary to Wikipedia policy.

Please do not revert to suit your own misunderstanding of the meaning of the term Britain: rather accept that you have learnt something today. Elroch (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yet another person ignorant of the meaning of the term Britain has edited the article. As such people probably don't discuss anything in talk pages as well as never referring to notable sources to support their edits, I can only appeal to competent Wikipedia editors to correct the abomination of the first use of the term Britain in the disambiguation page being one which deliberately misinforms people about the use of the term. I suppose this just happens to be one of those topics that attracts more than the usual proportion of ignorant people. Elroch (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not prescriptive with regards to language use. There is abundant evidence that many people commonly use Britain to refer to the UK, regardless of what you might think of it. older ≠ wiser 01:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As MOS:DAB puts it; " Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the specific article they want quickly and easily." NebY (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Bogus 'Breton' entry

In the first section with the basic senses of 'Britain', somebody a while ago added this line: "Breton, a region in France that gave origin to the word Britain during the Roman time." I'm sorry, that is egregiously bogus and I'm deleting it. I'm sad that the intervening editors did not realise this needed to be removed ASAP (even if it isn't common knowledge it's contradicted by the information on the 'Britain (placename)' page). For the record: 1. 'Breton' is not the name of a region in France in either English or French - Brittany/Bretagne is. 2. 'Breton' is the name of the people of the region. In that spelling it's never been a name for the inhabitants of the island of Britain. 3. The names Bretagne (Brittany) and Breton come from the words for Britain and its peoples due to migration by south-western Britons to Brittany during the Anglo-Saxon invasion period. 4. That was after the Roman period - therefore that region was not called Brittany/Bretagne, and certainly not 'Breton', or even 'Britannia' during Roman times. Instead it was part of 'Armorica'. 5. The origin of the word 'Britain' is explained exhaustively on the 'Britain (placename)' page. It comes from a native Celtic name for the island and its inhabitants that was recorded in Greek and Roman forms. Nothing to do with any part of France! Sorted 2A00:23C4:C402:6E00:297F:5AD6:42A8:F65C (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)