Jump to content

Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Creation of a much needed page

I have created this article as the man hours spent skirting around this issue is, well (insert your own adjective).

I went by WP:BE BOLD, WP:COMMONNAMES (the UK government itself uses "countries within a country") and WP:COMMON (common sense).

I think that the problematic Subdivisions of the United Kingdom should be merged here, but the two articles could also coexist, each one being used where its most suitable.

It's just an intro really, but I've tried to focus on all the matters that have caused so much confusion (the ISO lists, dual citizenship, principality/province, devolution (esp regarding England) and the varying element to nationalism. I hope I did this well enough for the article to survive a speedy deletion. Nowhere else can describe the situation (or 'state of play' in the UK, however you see it) as neatly as it can be described here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why this article was created

The poll is under way, but I've added this as an attemp to cover all the main points, as it's occurred to me that some people may not know the background/reasoning/demand for this article. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

  • There is currently consensus amongst all four countries of the UK that they are 'countries' in the common sense of the word, and are best described as countries (the single term - although Northern Ireland currently uses constituent country). Clearly with the UK, this needs qualifying. At Wales recently a consensus was finally found as to how best to describe this: via a piped link.
  • At the moment Wales pipe-links to a Subdivisions of the United Kingdom to explain this matter, but that article is ambiguous and is currently in flux. 'Subdivisions' is not a commonname regarding the UK. This article has been suggested in the Subdivisions Talk page as a possible solution.
  • This article clearly presents the term "countries of the United Kingdom": it has no other purpose than to explain what that is, and what it isn't. All other UK articles have other purposes.
  • There is no ambiguity at all with this title: 'divisions' etc could mean localised authorities and overseas territories etc.
  • This can complement the other UK articles, be a good portal, and be short and sweet. The other UK countries could use it to link/pipe to if they wish to.
  • As this article includes the word "country" in the title, it will likely save hours of often-repeated debate on the 'UK countries issue', as it explains all the arguments that arise:
  • The ISO 'List of countries' situation (which uses the UK only).
  • Alternative terms and explanations of them, such as 'principality' (a courtesy title for Wales)
  • Northern Irish citizenship (ie. British, Irish and dual citizenships)
  • British/Britain as a nationality and country (an important addition)
  • Devolution - summary of the state of play
  • Nationalistic feeling - broad summary of demographics
  • What is not included in the UK (Channels islands, Ireland etc)
when merged:
  • The commonname example table.
  • Any relevant information that is finding difficulty acheiving stability on the Subdivisions article can now be here instead.

Merger proposal

Should Subdivisions of the United Kingdom be merged here? Please discuss. --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've explained why I think this is the most practical place for the 'UK countries' information in the section above. But an example of its use as a link could be something like this:
Wales is a country of the United Kingdom, bordering with England on its east, and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west.
The words "country of" the United Kingdom would directly link to "Countries of the United Kingdom". It may not gain consensus in Wales (as "country" is supported, and has only just recently found consensus), but its still a neat way of avoiding the current piped "part of" link as the necessary explainer. --Matt Lewis (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Fully agree with the merge (or better a MOVE of Sub-divisions), however I do not agree with the suggestion for reference. It has been agreed after long and difficult discussion that we need to acknowledge the "part of" and therefore the worrding would be Wales is a country which is a part of the United Kingdom, bordering with England on its east, and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. PLEASE lets not reopen that discussion under the guise or an otherwise sensible suggestion for a merge. --Snowded (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting it should be proposed in Wales immediately (see my caveat above), but it seems like a sensible thing for the future to me: and the example shows how neat this title is when describing the countries in relation to the UK. I only speak for my own country (Wales, as you know) - I tend not to favour cross examples. Who knows, someone may just naturally insert at some point and it could stick, you never know. The victory in the Wales debate wasn't so much in the wording we eventually chose (and we had a choice in the end), it was in the way it could be linked: and it opened the door to this.--Matt Lewis (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
It is true that some rationalisation of these articles (probably including more of them than have been mentioned here) is best. The problem comes with trying to make too many changes at the same time, which will confuse matters, mix up issues, and make it more essy for disruptive editors/sockpuppets who have been active in this entire area to wreak havoc again. My view is that the change to merge or move Subdivisions of the United Kingdom to Countries of the United Kingdom could be usefully done. However, that should be the only thing done at this stage. So, the wording of the individual countries' entries shouldn't be mixed in with this, for reasons I've just explained. Once any merger or move has been done, and a suitable period of time has elapsed, then further moves can be considered. I'm just concerned that too much may be attempted in one go, which would mean that nothing would be easily done which would "stick", because hard-fought consensus would be changed too quickly again. One final point: the case of Northern Ireland may be more tricky if the move/merger to Countries of the United Kingdom is made, because some editors will object on grounds that it isn't, and never was, a country. These grounds in this case may be more ressonable than they would be for the other bits of the United Kingdom we are concerned with here. So, it will need careful consideration and planning—all the more reason to avoid doing too much at one stage.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, we must move - but we must be fully aware of things too, and not try to achieve too much at once. We do have some momentum though. I'm not suggesting bringing changes to the first line in Wales soon. I certainly wouldn't make an edit to the first line of Wales on the strength of this merge (assuming it happens soon), though I wouldn't revert a good change by someone else: there were only a handful of people involved in the dispute. Who knows what will arise, or what the other UK countries will do? Maybe they will find this useful. One thing is for sure, we can't let the few who have held back things so far still influence our actions.
As for Northern Ireland - it's funny because I really am not that into encroaching into the other UK countries: I've argued since I started Wikipedia that we all see things differently (the mediating admin Keeper76 put this well in Wales). But I will say I have just recently argued for the NI flag template to extend its choices to the striking Assembly flag (as flag|NI currently defaults to the Ulster banner) - as it is effecting the List of national anthems article I'm currently trying to build up.
COMMONNAMES decrees that Northern Ireland is a country. It is not liked by some people, I do realise - but politics aside, COMMONNAMES to this degree is just life. An old partner of mine was the daughter of a patriotic and upstanding Irish protestant (a WW2 'hero' no less), and though she was an English herself, every year as a child she visited her families beautiful country, and went on the Orange march. I never myself agreed with her Dad's politics (she "hated" politics - possibly as a consequence), and I had to hold my tongue when she talked of the memories (though I gave he a little history, which she accepted) : but if anyone told her NI was not a country I would have put them straight before she did! It's a created country, yes, but many of them were. The British Empire was very good at renaming other people's lands. As a British Welshman, I choose to look at this with an historians eyes, rather than with any anti-empire, or anti/pro politics. Having had the experiences I have, I have realised that NI will never be totally re-assimilate into Ireland: too many of them are too passionately British. Not just 'stubbornly' and 'unfairly', but deeply and passionately, and as a cultural group (whatever you want to call them) they have been in the area for hundreds of years now and have grown over that time.
There is no millage for anyone in claiming that Northern Ireland isn't a "country" when the Northern Ireland Assembly continually refers to itself as one. Let's not be too over-cautious of what can happen on that count - and I don't think that the 'not a country' argument was ever as strongly argued as many of the other Irish/NI issues are. NI has a more settled parliament now, and there is certainly less ingrained prejudice against Catholics on the whole now, as undoubtedly for a long period there was (which has even been officially recognised). --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Poll on merge

Extra note: Can people please specify which way any suggested 'redirect' should go. The acual Merge is for merging the relevent information. The Subdivisions article will still exists for the word's alternative uses, and can direct to here regarding country.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ive added a point on this to the 'reasons list' I've just made in the opening section above. There is no ambiguity at all with this title - which is part of the article's strength I think. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Either Merge or Redirect (roughly equal preference). Though I still suggest we prepare for the possibility of drama over Northern Ireland from some editors.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • None. I believe one article on the United Kingdom should be sufficient. One cohesive article would be more informative than several disparate articles. -- Maelor  17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    I see your point to a degree, but 'Countries of the United Kingdom' is a commonly used term used to describe just the four countries (see the section below). The United Kingdom is a lot more complex - and has overseas territories etc. United Kingdom is also a long article- can it be that multipurpose? --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it can. We already have separate articles on each of the countries. There is far too much duplication. 'Countries of the United Kingdom' should be a section of the United Kingdom article, with references made to the individual country article where necessary? -- Maelor  14:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean subdivions as a subpage of this? --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • None. I agree with Maelor; having looked at the articles in question, it seems to me that there should be a 'Subdivisions' or 'Countries' section (call it what you will) within the United Kingdom article, which could then link to the articles on the individual countries. There is no point in having a separate article for explaining the subdivisions, as it simply duplicates information that is already present in the UK article (or at least should be present).Cop 663 (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Combined reply to Maelor and reponse to Cop 663: Five points are raised here I think. Firstly, I honestly can't see both articles being redirected the the UK main article - if this merge doesn't happen, I'm sure the Subdivision article will remain with similar information, and the table especially. Would the main United Kingdom article really accept the table? At 144k (a very large page) I'm not too sure. What is great about this article is that it covers the information that is usually contested every 4 months or so in each of the UK articles in turn it seems (so it never ends). It does it by using "Countries of the United Kingdom" as a commonly used term: a term that is consistently used to focus on the countries as separate entities, rather than the UK as a whole. I’m sure that since devolution, the term is being used more and more. I'm also certain this article will save countless hours of repeated debate after edit wars, often with no great advancement at the end other that the removal of a couple of sock puppets and a bunch of demoralised editors, and a lot of wasted time attempting to prove the information that is available in here. Finally I’ll make the point that it is often forgotten (even by admins) that Wikipedia's guidelines often actively encourage duplicating certain information if it adds to clarity and saves linking: Wikipedia would be a unworkable maze of links if information was never duplicated.
So to sum up the five points – I’m not sure the UK article could/would absorb all of this information (so it will find a place elsewhere - probably either Subdivisions or here, as both won't be made redirects), this article is about a valid and important ‘common term’, and the amount of duplication is acceptable per guidelines. And also it will save countless hours of Wiki time in the future (assuming that United Kingdom won’t handle all of this).
Also – RE the argument that there are too many UK sub articles: certainly, these two duplicate (hence the merge) – but what are the others? The UK is a big subject and surely the UK main article can’t handle it all. Each article needs to be judged on its own merit, I feel. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is with the United Kingdom article, not with the 'countries' one. The 'countries' article is excellent and well-written. My point is, I cannot understand why this extremely useful information is not in the United Kingdom article. It's absurd that the political structure of these interlocking countries is not clearly explained in the UK article. It's not too long to be included, it's only four paragraphs! If the 'UK' page is too long to include those paragraphs, then the UK article needs some cutting, which would be easy, there's a lot of flab there. For example, the 'UK' article has five paragraphs on football; since there is already a 'football in the UK' article, it would be easy to remove all but the introductory paragraph in that section and then, hurrah, space for a subject that is fundamental to the structure of the UK.
I agree that the table would be too unwieldy, but it could have its own article called 'Names of the subdivisions of the UK or something.
Summary: the reason I think this article should be merged into UK is because it's important. Cop 663 (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read through all of the UK article - I'll give it another look. If it is lacking things it should have, I'll look at adding them to it. Then I'll look at this again - although it could still remain a case of positive duplication. I still think this is important as a term. That wasn't so important to me at first, but as I was adding in new refs to the table DDstretch brough over, I realised that it's become even more used lately due to devolution. Here is a perfect place for the table too, though I concede that it can go elsewhere. 'Subdivisions' was never quite right though (the word is ambiguous and not commonly used at all) - so I still think this is the perfect place fot the table, and the salient "UK country" facts. Maybe this article could be a title-relevant summary of the informaion that is in United Kingdom (i.e. when it is all in there)? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I wish you didn't bring this up. I can see I've never looked at the UK article properly at all: the intro is at odds with this, and lacking in many ways. It's got a bizarre "land border" line about 3 lines into the first parag, which falls apart after that into waffle. It only has 2 other parags (4 is recommended as a rule of thumb). I'll try and get some of this in. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I've ammended the United Kingdom intro - only the first parag was a bit off really, but I've added a couple of things from here to the other two (inc British and dual citizenship), and made the third 'people' paragraph here a new fourth one on there. I felt it needed to be done, and the proposal to merge there wasn't two-way I noticed. Let's see what will stick. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Matt, I'm not sure that the table is necessary any more? I think it appeared when we were in the middle of discussing the country status. It was most valuable at that point but, as the argument is now won, is it relevant any more? -- Maelor  13:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the table needs to be kept somewhere that can be easily accessed. What better place than on the new 'Countries' article. The arguement only stays won until someone comes along and edits. Then we would be back to square one. Surely, none of us want to go through all that again. Dai caregos (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Make it an archive page and link to that in a note at the start of the page so that people do not open question again? --Snowded TALK 13:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I am extremely strongly opposed to removing the table from this article or moving it to an archive page. Instead, it needs to have further entries added to it, and it needs to retain a prominent position on any article which discusses the different names for the bits of the United Kingdom. The solution that was adopted for Wales, only a week or so ago, depended strongly on the table being present in an article, and the arguments, edit-wars, and so on, need to be stopped in their track, which can be most easily done with the table where it is: in an appropriate article, not hidden away on some archive page or removed all together, which would allow greater scope for edit wars to proceed until someone can locate and refer to the table. We need more systematic depictions of reliable sources like the table in articles that are subject to edit wars, not less.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it will invaluable as a future ref. I think it's better easily found rather that hidden away too - that way people can think twice. I still think this article should survive as a commonname, and that this is the perfect place for it. Now some detail is in the main UK article, it might not need all the detail here - but then again, why not? The main thing is that subdivisions doesn't fork with it. It's sunny! --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Well if it belongs anywhere it is on this page, although I am less convinced that it was critical in resolving the debate as most of the citations had already been used. It was, as they say, the pipelink that donn it. However "extremely strongly opposed" is not to be argued with, so happy to support its presence on this page (which is now the location of the pipelinks on the country pages. --Snowded TALK 15:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I am also "extreamly strongly opposed" to removing the table. I had left these kinds of discussions months ago, but see that a concensus has developed. I very much like this page and this table, and have some sources myself that I can add to it.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 08:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ya'll should consider (again) merging this article with Subdivisions of the United Kingdom. The 2 articles have many similiarities. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Notified places

On this date: --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Move

It is not a question of merging. It is a question moving. There is absolutely no justification for two articles. It is a simple question of what the title should be. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference - this article deals purely with England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, wheras the subdivisions article goes into local government below country level too. There are already other articles on those subdivisions, and this article seems to complement them to make up the full set. The subdivisions would probably work better as a summary article rather than trying to cover all the various administrative systems in one fell swoop. Waggers (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, did not read enough. Revised view above. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There is another alternative. Merge sub-divisions into the United Kingdom to handle the counties and leave this article for countries. It is anomalous to treat one conquest and two acts of union is the same way as an administrative sub-division. --Snowded (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding "Countries of the United Kingdom" to the table.

We should really add "Countries of the United Kingdom" to the common use table. Per this google result, and this one ("Countries of the UK"). They are full of '.gov' examples, and show this article's title to be the commonly used term, too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A "Countries of the United Kingdom/UK" row could be added above the "Country" row, keeping to the alphabetical order. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The examples to use first are the ones that say "the four countries of the United Kingdom", or "UK". There are from lots of good sources: medical journals, insitutions, university sites, gov sites, papers, news.
As Scotland has 36 refs for 'country', this could also stick to 36 examples, but I think the other countries need 36 under 'country' too. It will prove that country is the dominating term, and won't be so Scotland-heavy! (which could be seen as a bias towards Scottish nationalism, and is no-doubt down to more Scots supplying examples than anyone else).
Does anyone know how to make one long row for the "countries of the UK" row? (it won't need columns). Failing that it could be a separate table. -Matt Lewis (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Whilst I appreciate the amount of work done to get together references that refer to "countries of the United Kingdom", I think it is a mistake to attempt to fit them into the table as is being done at the moment. When I designed the table, I knew it would be a clear statement of country cross-classified with term used to describe it. As such it was designed with good expert advice about such matters from within the data-presentation literature and body of research into empirical research design and methods. The additions fall into a rather different category, as they are data which refer to the other columns as a collective group and wich do not simply aggregate the material together (as might happen in a "row and/or column sum" in standard data tables. I suggest instead that there is no need to force the design of the table to fit them in: instead have a simple list placed after the table which states that the references in that list refer collectively to the "Countries of the United Kingdom". Thus the clarity with which the boxes are shown, and the information is kept sensibly separate without the swathe of empty boxes in one row and column corresponding to the added row and column dealing with "Countries of the United Kingdom", as is the case currently. It really will look better. Minor changes to the introductory text will take the welcome additions put separate to the table into account. I feel quite strongly about this purely from the point of view of clarity, conceptual categorization, and presentation.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
RE the way it looks - the table needs to have two colours so we can easy discern the rows (this can be done but I havnet managed it yet, I'll do it when all the refs are in - I have enough good refs to complete "countries of"). The problem with the table as it stood was that all the refs were in Scotland - 36 compared to few elsewhere - Northern Ireland had 2!!! It simply looked like NI was not considered a country and that Scotland was expressly more of one - which could be seen as a bias towards Scottish nationalism. In adding the "Countries of" column (which I did say I'd do) doesn't it just add anther term? The "countries of" term is part of the reason for this article, and including it in the table backs it up as a "common term". As it happens, I've found as many good refs in "countries of" than I've found in "country". --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't use "All countries" for the first column to avoid confusion - some of the other links are 'combined use', but are in individual country columns (and this was the case before I found it, it's hard to avoid). Is there any confusion with the table as it stands? (apart from the colour issue.). As the table is (and was before) linked-to from Wales, I feel it certainly needs to be unimorm in reference-weight across all the countries (Wales not least). This is why I have been working on it so much. I've found the best refs possible, if any are not good enough, please delete them. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Needless to say, by the way, that the refs need work to be properly standardised. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) If the date has an imbalance in the representation in one row, then either that's the way it is, or other references can be found and added to the table: in other words, it is either a feature of the population of references that they are like that, or it is a sampling issue, which can be sorted out merely by finding other references that can be placed in the relevant pre-existing boxes. The fact remains that the extra row and column have only been added so that entries can be placed in the box that is common to the extra row and column. It really isn't a good use of the table, and, as I've said, results in a poor and clumsy design. It is better handled differently, as I suggested, and I think the changes should be made which I suggested.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the colours of the headings (the new column now corresponds with the rows). The title line is 'forced' bold it seems (I've removes the bold from the "countries of" column, but it is still coming out bold). Is it better now I've changed the colours a bit? (we still need to change the row colours too).
If it is really troublesome, the 'countty of' data could go in its own separate table - but it is a term, though. Also, the information it in could be duplicated in each country column (though I thnk that would look too much, and be confusing too): I'd prefer a either separate table, or to leave it similar to how it is now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the heading colours to this version. It's a lot clearer I think. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) You've done a lot of good work, but I really do think the table would be better organised with the extra row/column you added moved into a separate table of its own: the conceptual category of the displayed information is different, and it is better suited in a separate table. If this were done, extra classifications can be added to the additional table, such as "Parts of the United Kingdom" (where there is no separate mention of E/NI/S/W, but it is clear they are meant), "Home Nations" (similarly). As you can see, these kinds of references fall into slightly different classes of things than the ones which merely state, for example "Scotland is a X of the United Kingdom", etc.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind a separate table. We have some blazing sun for a change, so I'll do it later today if it isn't done first. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

UKCOUNTRYREFS

Woah! This section is written using backroom/internal Wikipedia phraselogy. I firmly believe the shortcut is disallowed and the mentions of "reliable sources" in article space is not inline with WP:MOS. May I suggest we move this in to Wiki-space or tone down the wiki-speak? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should not be in article space plus it violates WP:SELF--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't catch jza84's comment here and replied to him at UK talk. the shortcut's been up for about a month, I though it was seen and okayed by all the contributing admin. Not sure why we can't refer too 'Reliable Sources' - isn't that in the older version of the table at 'Subdivisions of the UK' too (which is still a forked table, btw, as the merge was never completed)? They both are incomplete tables basically, although this article is a bit clearer about it. I took out the intial 'WP:' part of the shortcut, per Waggers suggestion, but I'll move it tonight to somewhere less 'WP:SELF', as there doesn't seem to be consensus for it here now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Utterly non-neutral PoV

This article reads like a separatists' charter. The justification for this article is to clear up the confusing terminology but in reality it does the exact opposite. It begrudgingly states that "There is no term in UK law for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as a group of individual parts" but then goes on to dredge up hundreds of irrelevant links to support the phrase "Countries of the United Kingdom". Given that it lists other terms such as "Constituent country", "part", "province", "region", &c. there is no justification either in law or common parlance to name this article "Countries of the United Kingdom" or to push this PoV so heavily. "Subdivisions of the UK" is an absolutely fine, neutral-PoV equivalent. Choosing one of many alternative options to name this article is totally unacceptable. Owain (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I diasgree with you. This article is an attempt to explain the phrase 'Countries of the United Kingdom' to readers, many of whom may assume (wrongly) that 'countries' are always sovereign states. This article came out of a previous dispute over what the most appropriate term was to describe the 4 'entities' - some people were trying to push the phrase 'constituent countries' (which also exists as a separate article) but when sources were examined it became clear that the most common way in which the 'entities' were described was as 'countries' or 'countries of the UK'. To suggest 'This article reads like a separatists' charter' is way over the top - nowhere does it suggest that the countries of the UK should become separate, sovereign states, so in what way is it pushing a Point of View? It is merely trying to explain a phrase - countries of the UK - that is used repeated in all sorts of sources, and may be confusing to readers without explanation. The reason that no legal term exists to describe England, Nothern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is down to the UK having no written constitution as such, and every piece of legislation uses the actual names of the 'entities' as appropriate rather than a descriptive phrase that could be more open to legal interpretation. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
This is correct - and refs are given for the titular term. If I remember, a 'passing-by' editor added the section that you (Owain) call "begrudging" (you make it sound like the article is all the work of one man, or collective group!) - if you don't like it (I'm entirely sure about that part myself, but have tried to amend it in the past) - why don't you improve it? You could also help by filling out the refs so they are all more equal in number. The point is to show the variation - not to push any one POV. I created the article and I'm bang in the middle politically, a true Brit who knows that his country is Wales.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I completly agree with Owain. This page really is not needed, the "Constituent country" page which is almost the same as this one and far more accurate is better. The truth of the matter is this page was needed because some people decided to change the term "Constituent Country" on the 4 UK nations (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) pages to just "country" which ofcourse created a void and needed further explanation. If the term "Countries of the United Kingdom" needs to remain it should atleast be the term used on the actual nations wiki pages linking to it. "Scotland is a country of the United Kingdom", rather than "Scotland is a country" followed by lots of other text. "Scotland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom" sounds the best and its how it was at not so long ago. I hope soon this will be changed back so all the articles on the UK and home nations are more accurate BritishWatcher (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
So, the account that was created today finds itself here as well! What a surprise. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been following all these issues for some time and it is a matter very important to me. I have made a moderate suggestion on the Scotland page, could you take a look and see what you think as id be interested to know if you think its reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Owen and BritishWatcher - You need to produce some evidence that matches the table of citations and some new arguments that were not raised and debated with last time. At the moment you are just repeating the past. --Snowded TALK 05:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
"the "Constituent country" page which is almost the same as this one and far more accurate is better." This is an obviously false claim unless one is concerned with gross similarities only, such as "both written in English" and so on. Given BritishWatcher's moderate proposal on the Scotland discussion page is set to impose a rather rigorous application of consustency, I fail to see how BritishWatcher could even fleetingly entertain the idea that Constituent Country and this article are "almost the same". It needs to be explained more clearly why here.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry i meant to say this was almost the same as the "subdivision page", not the "Constituent countries" page and was only needed because of the decission to define the constituent countries of the United Kingdom as just "countries" which i disagree with. My mistake. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, my apologies. I agree that it is a bit unfortunate to use the term ("countries") in the title of the article given its content. It would be far better to have a neutral way of denoting the bits of the United Kingdom whose terminology are being discussed. However, I recall that there were some problems with the use of "Subdivisions" in the Subdivisions of the United Kingdom article. If my memory is correct, it may be an idea to think of a better term to use which incorporates the idea of it being "Terminology for the top-level component parts of the United Kingdom". But I don't recall any being put forward that are acceptable.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the title of the "SubDivisions" page having problems aswell. Despite having strong concerns about the use of "country" for all these parts of the United Kingdom, i accept the "countries of the United Kingdom" title is a more accurate and appropriate one than "SubDivisions". I prefered the term "Constiutent Country" but clearly there is not a lot of support for going down that path again. I would support the use of "Countries of the United Kingdom" if the merger does go ahead, but to avoid confusion and endless debate on here and the other UK wiki pages this term and the link should be right at the start of pages for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I know we are not meant to discuss other pages here, but once the future of this page is decided there will have to be edits on those other pages as they include link to the sub divisions page. If those pages read for example "England is a country of the United Kindgom" linking to this page it would be the best of both worlds. They would still be called countries as people want, but they will not be directed to the "country" page which doesnt define the current situation. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What is happening with this page

When i registered on wikipedia a day or two ago, i did not agree with the use of this term country to define England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but after reading alot of the sources linked and other research there is clearly not a firm alternative. The term "Countries of the United Kingdom" seems to be the best and most accurate title for such a page and is far more to the point than the Subdivision page / Constituent country page. I disagree with the idea that England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland should be listed on lists of countries pages, a link to this page seems reasonable to me (but thats a debate for the list page).

I notice that the poll on the merger of this page with the subdivision page was started many months ago. At the moment the current makeup of the different pages subdivisions/constituent countries/Countries of the United Kingdom is just leading to a lot of people being confused and some form of change would be better than nothing.

If the subdivision page was merged with this one and “Countries of the United Kingdom” remained the name then it could be included at the start on the England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland main page (If approved)

“England is Country of the United Kingdom and repeated for the other 3 countries. This would then end or prevent any future major disputes on the “country” issue which can only be a good thing. They would still clearly be listed as countries, but their relationship with the UK would not be confused, and a detailed explanation of the makeup of the UK is a click away for anyone who needs more detail. I apologise if any of my past comments have offended or i have seemed unwilling to accept previous consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to do other editors the courtesy at looking at prior discussions on this subject on the relevant pages, and then come back if you have some new insight or approach to offer. Are you really sure you have not edited these pages before by the way, this is sounding more and more familiar. --Snowded TALK 15:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not know how many times I have to tell you this but no I have not edited these pages before I registered as this name and I am certainly not the person you seem to think I am. This is the relevant page for what I posted. This is where the merger of the Countries of the United Kingdom and the Subdivisions page is meant to be debated. If this was sorted out then all those other pages would HAVE to be edited because they link to the subdivision page, I never said they should just be changed to the way I wanted, I clearly said If accepted (which meant an agreement on the talk pages of the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales, England, and Northern Ireland. That conversation can not talk place properly until this page is resolved. I made the post on here because the poll was started 5 months ago and the outcome has still yet to be agreed, What are your actual objections to the things I mentioned? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I`ve noticed this strange conversation over the past few days, surely this has got to the point if suspicions are there, then it should be taken up with Admin, or move on WP:AGF, but hey im just observing.--Rockybiggs (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking about raising it as a checkuser request. BritishWatcher, if you are so "new" how do you know who I think you are? --Snowded TALK 18:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I have moved my response to ur question to ur talk page snowded to keep this area more clear for the issues with this page. I would of thought considering your strong defence of the term "country" in relation to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland you would of welcomed my attempt to get this issue resolved (as im agreeing with your position). I am new to this and i understand time must be given to reach consensus, but i hope a further 6 months will not pass with the current problems / merger proposal still being unresolved leading to 10,000s of readers possibly being misinformed, on other pages which require this issue to be fixed. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, BritishWatcher, I'm glad you've changed your mind on this. 'England is a country of the United Kingdom', would be great I agree - but it surely a thing for the talk pages of each country - I don't think we can decide it universally here. Each country is different after all. I personally favour 'Wales is a country of the United Kingdom' too, but it's not easy even to get that done, given the crap that gone down in the past (always 90% sockpuppets and trolls, hence our obvious cynicism here). If you feel this much about it, why not just put a very simple request at England? ie "Shall we change the title to". It doesn't matter so much that we have these two articles, as Sudivisions will always exist in some form anyway - it's just a question of which to link to.

I've opened a debate on what could be wrong with this article over on Talk:Subdivisions_of_the_United_Kingdom#Detailing_issues (as debate was over there at the time), but plenty of other things are going on at the moment for all the people who currently tend to be involved. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Matt, i accept each country page and the UK country page would have to agree to such a change on those pages, but i think its going to complicate things more if that happens whilst there is a debate over the future of the subdiv / Countries page. Once these two pages are agreed there will have to be some change made to each of the country pages, it seems logical to me that each would start "Is a Country of the United Kingdom but i accept it will be up to the people there.
Whilst the trouble makers of the past may still seek to oppose it and cause dispute, if it read "England is a Country of the United Kingdom" there is no grounds for anyone to be confused like the current versions where country is listed on its own. If they object strongly to the term it will end up being debated on this page, rather than discussions going on about the same issue on the UK/W/NI/E/S pages which will save alot of time. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are going to be disappointed if you believe people will agree to change the current versions. The Scotland article says "Scotland is a country in northwest Europe that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England." That is absolutely accurate and clear, so there is absolutely no reason to change it. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I can think of a very long list of reasons why it should be changed, but i will save that until this page is actually sorted out. I understand there will be opposition from some, especially on the Scotland page which in my opinion has the version with the biggest problem of all 4 parts of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I'll be interested to see if you can come up with any new ones and (again) I would recommend that you look at the previous discussions first. You might also avoid phrases like "the trouble makers of the past". Its not likely to endear you to other editors. --Snowded TALK 18:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My comment about trouble makers of the past was about the very person and others like him you seem to think i am. It was not about editors who disagree with what i or others think. Also there is bound to be a new argument that you have not yet heard of. I am not going to request a change on those pages until this merger is sorted. That is a big enough change in circumstances for people to relook over the current version. Again i am not going to try and stop "country" from being used on those other pages, i simply want Countries of the United Kingdom instead of country which i think is reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What you think is reasonable may not find favour with others. Try reading past discussions and provide evidence not opinions. Considerable effort went into the wording of the ledes of the UK pages and it behoves you to at least read it. You are prolific with your opinions, less prolific with citation or new argument. As to who you are, I have no idea. For the moment I am suspending judgement, but your inability to remember the IDs under which you used to edit is difficult to believe. --Snowded TALK 19:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
on the ids, i could of lied and said i had never registered on this site before, which would of been alot easier to do than tell the truth by saying i did register several years ago but only used it a few times. My reasonable suggestion will not be welcomed by those who have already formed an opinion of someone or something and refuse to accept change but i would hope not all wikipedia editors are so against debate or people making suggestions. I will indeed read all of the arguments on this issue posted on the Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England pages to ensure i know what has been covered. But again you seem to ignore the fact that if this merger takes place (which you seemed to support not that long ago) then there is a clear need for some form of change to the opening paragraphs on all those pages. Such a change will have to be agreed by all the people on that page at the time, rather than one or two people deciding how it should start. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the purpose of Countries of the United Kingdom is to explain a phrase that is frequently used when describing aspects of the UK. So for example, if an article were to state, "Each of the countries of the United Kingdom has ...", the link to Countries of the United Kingdom would help explain to readers the unique nature of the United Kingdom. That does not mean it would be appropriate to replace country with Countries of the United Kingdom - infact, the opposite. It is important for readers to be aware that not all countries in the world are independent, sovereign states. Anyway, I've spent more than enough time on such discussions and intend to not become involved in future discussions unless new points are presented. Unless new points are presented (and not just the same arguments being rephrased), I remain opposed to any change of the sort being proposed, and I am sure that the vast majority of editors who spent time discussing such points will take a similar position. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Well said --Snowded TALK 20:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a great shame because saying "Scotland is a Country of the United Kingdom is far more understandable to many people than Scotland is a country, followed by 2 lines of geography, before mentioning the fact Scotland is part of the United Kingdom (which it is). It would still be described as country on the page, instead of going to a general page about "countries" which gives no real detail on the UK situation, they would be able to come to this page and have a clearer understanding of the term. But anyway, that will be for the debate on the other pages after the issue of this pages merger has been agreed which i am sure will be fun. At which time there will be a new point because "is part of" will no longer be directing to the subdivision page and a new rephrasing will have to be agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the constituent country terminology is better than "country of" or "country in" etc. E, S, W, and NI are not "countries" - where would that leave the UK, would it not be a country? - they are constituent countries at most - There is no law defining them as "countries" whereas the UK is a country. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Please read prior discussions, evidence table and other material. If you have a new argument, or new evidence then raise it. --Snowded TALK 04:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Calling E,S, W and NI "countries" does not stand up. No legal basis whatsoever. It is also inaccurate because the UK is a country. Whatever is decided on headcounts etc, these remain the facts. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Please look at the evidence table on this article If you have new data then raise it. --Snowded TALK 11:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The UK does not define in legal terms how a 'country' is defined at all - any more bullshit like that and I'll take this to arbcom. Redking7 - you know full when well what you are doing - comments like "no legal basis whatsoever" is tantamount as saying "unlawful" - which is simply unacceptable. It's just too much free and easy bullshit - on a serious subject. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
"Scotland is a Country of the United Kingdom is far more understandable to many people than Scotland is a country, followed by 2 lines of geography, before mentioning the fact Scotland is part of the United Kingdom (which it is) I've been harping about this for ages. I'll back you on changing that BritishWatcher. Though I don't have as much time as I used to to get involved with the discussions as I have in the past, let me know if my voice is needed :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
All edits should be based on evidence from reliable sources rather than the personal preferences of editors. There is no doubt that Scotland is routinely described as 'a country' and hardly ever, if at all, as 'a country of the United Kingdom'. That should be the determining factor. There really is no debate here unless some new and compelling point is presented. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Scotland may often be described as a country by people but it is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and this should be recognised in the first sentence of the article as alot of people assume country = Sovereign State which in Scotlands case it does not. Opening with Scotland is a Country of the United Kingdom would do away with this problem whilst still clearly calling Scotland a country. There is plenty of evidence and arguments in favour of such a change, but that can wait till the issue of merger between SubDivision and Countries of the UK is decided. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the crux of the problem here: When you say "Scotland may often be described as a country by people but it is part of the United Kingdom..." the fact that you say 'but' makes clear that you seem to think that the fact Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom means that it can not also be a country! Sorry, but articles are not going to be changed because you can not accept that Scotland is a country that is part of the country known as the United Kingdom. It makes little difference whether you try to hold that debate now, or at some future point - if that is where you are coming from, I suggest you save yourself and everyone else a lot of time and trouble by using your talents to actually improve articles in ways that are not likely to lead to objection and conflict. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
We will have this debate on the Scotland page when the time comes. However i do not intend to simply walk away from an article i believe is misleading and confusing to many people, which in part is based on a political view point. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
At least you are aware that your belief that the article is misleading may be 'in part' based on your political view point. We all are perfectly entitled to political viewpoints but they should play no part in how we edit articles. We can all avoid letting political viewpoints affect our editing if we ensure that we always argue for changes that are based on reliable sources rather than personal opinions. If you can do that, your contributions will be valued - if you merely argue based on your beliefs and opinions, you will achieve nothing. That's all from me on this for now...I'm off to try to improve some other articles. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about some peoples political views in part influencing the current wording of that page, making it rather misleading. Again i am not trying to argue anything about the Scotland page here, i have just stated my opinion on it as it is linked with this page. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well lets look and see what the US does. It also uses a name for its subdivisions that can be taken to mean an independent and fully fledged independent country they call theirs a state.

California (/kælɪˈfɔrnjə/ⓘ) is a state on the West Coast of the United States, along the Pacific Ocean. It is bordered by Oregon to the north, Nevada to the east, Arizona to the southeast, and to the south the Mexican state of Baja California.
Texas (/ˈtɛksəs/ⓘ) is a state located in the South Central United States nicknamed the Lone Star State. Austin is the state capital.
New Jersey (/nuːˈdʒɝːzi/ⓘ) is a state in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern regions of the United States. It is bordered on the north by New York, on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the southwest by Delaware, and on the west by Pennsylvania. Parts of New Jersey lie within the sprawling metropolitan areas of New York and Philadelphia.

looks like they use this formula (sub entity name) is a state (geographic location in the) United States, (other). That looks like a good standard. -- Phoenix (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

US States have a different history to that of the various countries in the UK. As Fishiehelper2 has said above its not a political issue its about common use and citation. A massive effort went into this some time ago and the evidence is available for inspection. The pair of you (UKPhoenix79 & our newby BW) need to deal with that evidence and/or present new cited material. --Snowded TALK 05:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
1) Why do people have to use my full user name when they disagree with me with UK related topics... Its like having my mother use my middle name :-p Try Phoenix, it would be more appreciated.
2) Have we said anything other than the UK's subdivisions are called countries? From what I can tell the argument to change this
Scotland /ˈskɒtlənd/ⓘ (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in northwest Europe that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west,...
to
Scotland /ˈskɒtlənd/ⓘ (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain, and shares a land border to the south with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west,...
or
Scotland /ˈskɒtlənd/ⓘ (Gaelic: Alba) is a country of the United Kingdom that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain, and shares a land border to the south with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west,...
if the argument is otherwise I believe I have misinterpreted the conversation. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: I've changed the above to the small 'c' redirect (made for this purpose) - capitals wouldn't be accepted here, and it avoids piping. They have to be proposed on the article talk pages, and either accepted or not - this article exists regardless. (this particular 'country of the uk' route hasn't been tried, but the history of this warns us to do it wisely).--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
You have to make that argument on the relevant page. A few of made an attempt to get a common form of words sometime ago (its more or less there on Wales, England, Northern Ireland) but it wasn't possible. The wording on Scotland does not misrepresent its status however so I think it falls within the reasonable diversity that is a part of WIkipedia. As to your full name - sorry there are just too many misrepresentations on WIkipedia (people using other names with different numbers etc) so I tend to play safe but will try and pipelink in future if it matters to you. --Snowded TALK 16:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
You are indeed correct this is not the place for this specific conversation as it is outside this articles mandate. As for the second part about my user name. I hope you realize that I was not upset I only found it fascinating that anyone who disagrees with me on wikipedia and they believe that my nationality has something to do with our disagreement they uses my full user name. Any other time they just use my shown user name. Its just weird :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Map colours discussion

We're trying to get consensus not only on what four colours should be used for the 4 constituent countries of the UK, but in particular to ensure that the colour chosen for Northern Ireland also looks good on maps of Ireland showing both jurisdictions. Please see Talk:Subdivisions of the United Kingdom#Northern Ireland.27s colour and comment. Thanks! -- Evertype·✆ 12:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bogus introduction

This article begins with the sentence:

  • "Countries of the United Kingdom is a term sometimes used... "

This is utterly bogus, and totally unsupported by reliable external refs, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY.

None of the refs support this statement - it is not the term "Countries of the United Kingdom" that is used, it is the word "country/countries".

We must clarify that it is the word country/countries that is used, NOT the term "Countries of the United Kingdom" - which is a Wikipedia neologism - turning up Wikipedia and wiki mirrors (Google it). Please ead all 35 references: they all refer specifically to "country", NOT "Countries of the United Kingdom". --Mais oui! (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article itself? There is an individual table listing 36 sources for the term Countries of the United Kingdom. Considering thats the actual title of this article as well i think the current wording is the correct and most accurate one. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. All 36 sources name the word country or countries. Not a single one of them names the neologism "Countries of the United Kingdom". Please read the ext refs.
In line with Wikipedia's policy requiring that statements be supported by external refs, I applied the following lead:

'''Countries''' is a term used to describe the constituent parts '''of the United Kingdom''': [[England]], [[Northern Ireland]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]]. While ''[[country|countries]]'' is the most common term used to describe them (especially England and Scotland), they are also described as ''[[nation]]s'', ''[[constituent country|constituent countries]]'' and ''countries within a country''.<ref name="number10">[http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp Number 10]</ref> [[English people|English]], [[Northern Irish people|Northern Irish]], [[Scottish people|Scottish]] and [[Welsh people|Welsh]] nationals are all entitled to [[British citizenship]]. (The [[Irish nationality law|nationality laws]] of the [[Republic of Ireland]] entitle those born in Northern Ireland also to citizenship of the Republic.)

This was immediately reverted by UKPhoenix79. Plus ça change. We cannot go around inventing new terms and presenting them as pseudo fact. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
All of the sources in the separate table describing the term "countries of the UK" use that term which appears above the main table listing the different terms and is the actual article title as well. It makes very clear in the opening paragraph that "country" is used to describe the 4 parts of the United Kingdom. The current version had been like that for a day or two and wasnt changed by phoenix originally. The current wording should remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually looking back the opening has always been worded Countries of the United Kingdom. There is no justification for changing that. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
So you are saying that if something incorrect is present on Wikipedia, we should never change it? Ho hum. Your statement "All of the sources in the separate table describing the term "countries of the UK" use that term" is simply factually wrong. Show us the refs that use the term "Countries of the United Kingdom". There are none. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but what i have said is not wrong. Please look at the article, please go to 3.2 and look at the table showing sources for the term "countries of the United Kingdom". Then take a look at those sources, they all use the term. I am very glad that you think something incorrect shouldnt remain on wiki just because its been that way for some time, i totally agree with you on that. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that Mais oui! is right; the article is about the constituent countries, not about a formal term, since there are no reliable sources that the phrase "countries of the United Kingdom" is a term used qua term. I have edited the introductory sentence in what should be an acceptable way. I would not like to see this formulation summarily reverted without further discussion here. -- Evertype·✆ 11:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that better than I managed! My point is this: it is not a term of art, ie. it has no defined legal/formal meaning. Wikipedia should not try to go around presenting flimsy neologisms as if they were God's word handed down from Mount Sinai. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Your edit is ok with me evertype, although ill be honest and admit i prefered the original wording but this version is good for now. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
My edit has the merit of not having "countries" capitalized. I am not sure about "constituent" which is also there in the next sentence. -- Evertype·✆ 12:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) But yes! have you even tried to search on wikipedia as you asked me? Google Books The first book listed is from the Cambridge University Press called British Government and the Constitution By Colin Turpin, Adam Tomkins; another is from the Parliament itself The Parliamentary Debates By Great Britain Parliament, Parliament, Great Britain. There are more but I must ask if you have done a Google search and found just tons of Wikipedia and wiki mirrors Did you really look? And since it is in Academic research and spoken in parliament before the internet (29 May 1895 to be specific) is it really a Wikipedia neologism like you suggest? And lets not try to re-write MOS:BEGIN and keep to the MOS used before the recent re-edit. -- Phoenix (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I see the phrase "countries of the United Kingdom" used there, but not, it seems to me, as a formal term. But folks? Can we not be so emotive about this? Words like "bogus" aren't civil. I'm changing the title of this section, accordingly. -- Evertype·✆ 12:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
"Countries of the UK" is verifiable here - so Mais oui!'s term of art claim is bogus and nullified. There's even a table which shows this has real world practice, so it's not a nelogism. There are other articles that don't appear in law too (of course!). Whether it is suitable to take the lead and article title is another issue though. My problem is that it is one of many terms used for the four entities, so why this one in particular has preference I do not know. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this - nobody has every actually counted every single source, or every time somebody has made an utterance about England, Scotland etc. Come on, it's a ridiculous claim to publish without doing any research; This are basic editoral principles of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Sure, if we can find a source that says "countries is the most common" then fine (I happen to agree it probably is), but let's not leave in unsourced weasel words for future editors to war over. This is a bad enough article as it is. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. It would be helpful if the merger took place between this page and the subdivisions page and this page be used to explain all the different terms rather than just an argument for using the term "country". I think this title is the best and fairest though. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Eng, Scot, Irl and Wales are not subdivisions of the United Kingdom ("A publication submitted by the UK to the United Nations Economic and Social Council states the four are "constituent parts" and "countries", but "should not be considered as first-order administrative divisions""), they are constituent part of the political union. Each country has its own system of subdivisions.--Mais oui! (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Which is a reason why the merger proposed some time ago should go ahead. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Err... so we should merge the countries article into the subdivisions article because the countries are not subdivisions?!? Words fail me. A rare occurrence.--Mais oui! (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry you misunderstand me, i support redirecting subdivisions to this page, and simply having an explanation that its sometimes called subdivisions on this article. When i said this is the best title i meant this articles title not that other page. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Country is the commonest term

A User has removed the statement that countries is the commonest term, citing WP:VERIFY.

Funnily enough 70 different refs using the word country or countries seem insufficient. Just how many refs would be required to prove that country is the commonest term (at least for Scotland and England)?--Mais oui! (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposals getting stale

I believe those merge proposals have died out, folks. Recommend archiving them & removing the merge proposal tags from the article. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, they have been there for months and there apears to be no consensus for any merger. The merge with the UK page is certainly never going to happen, it clear this issue needs a page of its own. I would support the merger of SUb divisions to this page but as theres no consensus, i agree both tags should be removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the merge tags. 4 months of inactivity & lack of consensus, is my reason for doing so. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Expanding detail in table?

Hi all. I think it would be helpful if the detail in the table were expanded so that the organisation using the term could be clearly identified. I wanted to add an example from a UN body but found it difficult to find whether it had already been included. I'm not sure if I can manage, but I'll have a go if no one objects (unless someone else fancies it?) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Countries of the United Kingdom#"Countries of the United Kingdom"

Im sorry but this section is a complete joke it seems to be half way between a WP:MOS guideline and an article and would come under WP:NOT#FAQ the entire section should be moved out of article space. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 02:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it has worth as an encyclopaedia article, but it almost certainly needs more work doing to it to make it read more like an article one would expect in an encyclopaedia. At the moment, it seems a bit akin to a "List of ...." article, where the "..." would be something like "terms used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales in the context of the United Kingdom", but it is perhaps even deficient as that kind of wikipedia article. Do you see any way in which it could be redeemed, or is it, in your opinion, unsalvageable? For my own point of view, I think it needs more background, sourced and well-described, establishing the context of the tables and why they are of interest and importance. For this to work, there needs to be a balance of the kinds of sources given in the tables with other ones which specifically argue that E/NI/S/W are not instances of "countries" or the other terms used in the tables.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
A possibility is that this is moved to Wikipedia space rather than article space, at least to highlight the situation to future... um... editors (!). I too think the topic has value on WP. Whether or not the content and how it is presented does is another matter. And of course, prose is always prefered to lists. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Part of the problem is the name of the article as it now is: I wonder whether a change to something more like "England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales in the context of the United Kingdom" would be better, if rather long. It does need more prose, and a critical evaluation of each of the labels, which is where the arguments both in favour and against each of them need to be described and sourced better.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you're onto the issue I picked up on a while back, that "Countries" or even "Countries of the UK" is but one term in many and so shouldn't really have preference as the article's title (that is, unless there's consensus to?). I suggested England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales a while back (simillar to your suggestion) as an admittedly unsightly odd-looking title, but one which is neutral. However, on reflection it doesn't give context to what the article is about (if we're to call it that, then it may as well be called "United Kingdom"!).
We could have "Countries (United Kingdom)", or even merge the content to Home Nations. A radical approach would be for a List of terms used for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, with the benefit of keeping things in tabluar form then too??? I don't know. On the flipside of using tables we get the benefit of not having as many edit wars course. It's all quite a mess. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
-- P.S. Another title could be "Terminology of England, Northern Ireland Scotland and Wales", with reference to Terminology of the British Isles. Or else even merge into Terminology of the British Isles itself. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  02:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The more I think about this, the more I suspect that to do a proper job of converting it into a more standard wikipedia article would involve a lot of synthesis that would be unacceptable.

My view of an ideal form for the article would be to introduce, briefly, how the 4 bits of the UK came to be lumped together as the UK, and then to describe why there is a problem in knowing what to call them. This would then lead into a succession of sections in which each term is introduced, together with arguments in favour and against using each term. The tables would then be merely a restricted summary of reliable sources in favour of eac term.

Now, if such an article were written, it would probably fall foul of the synthesis, or even the original research, prohibitions. This then leads me to think that the way forward would be to attempt to write the article and publish it elsewhere as a proper piece of research.

Then others can do the job of writing any article or section within United Kingdom that summarizes the arguments, thus keeping all aspects of what we try to do and what we try to avoid in wikipedia fulfilled.

Any comments about this?  DDStretch  (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(Additional comments) I don't like the idea of merging it with Home Nations, as I think that term is itself open to disagreement (I thought it mainly applied to rugby or oter sporting events). I do, however, like the name of "Terminology of England, Northern Ireland Scotland and Wales".  DDStretch  (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I came round to "Terminology of..." when I was thinking of articles where this content could go, or is related to. Infact I think it has my preference now. :S!
I agree with your sentiments about the article's content, and I like your suggested layout. It's all a very fine line though as you say, to avoid WP:SYNTH and other such codes of practice. We could tackle this (important) page like you suggest, and even (if we wanted) still have a "List of terms of..." page with the tables too. I'm not sure. --Jza84 |  Talk  03:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I understand your objections to the title of this article. Since countries is by far the most common term used, it would seem sensible to have a title such as "Terms used for the countries of the United Kingdom" to which 'countries of the United Kingdom' could then link. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this articles title is acceptable although i would like to see the article itself explain more about the different terms used rather than most of the content simply focus on justification for using the term "country". Saying that after reading some of the above suggestions if this article is to have a more general focus on different terms used then id quite like to see the title changed to something like Terminology of the United Kingdom rather than listing, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. If this title is changed, it wouldnt have an impact on any of the country pages as they all use the word country on its own, and just pipelink on "part of". But like i say, im ok with the current title its the content that needs a bit of changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1&oldid=1142437352"