Jump to content

Talk:Culture of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

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

Individual country articles

There is a problem with the individual country articles in as much as only the article on the Culture of Wales actually exists. There are more detais at United Kingdom. Andycjp 21st June 2004

I would move the Culture of England etc links to the see also section at the bottom, especially seeing as they're mostly red links. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

True, but hopefully they soon won't be. Part of the reasoning behind this article is that it will be the prelude to articles on each country within the UK. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

UK COTW

To give the overhaul of this article some kind of focus I recommend a look at some of the other "culture of" articles. Culture of the United States has sections like "regional variations" and is quite well organised unlike the current hotch-potch on this page. — Trilobite (Talk) 11:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On second thoughts Culture of Greece is a much better example. It was COTW recently and appears to have blossomed, creating several spin-off articles. It's heavily focussed on Ancient Greece, but in terms of organisation is very good. — Trilobite (Talk) 11:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well sections from the US article that we could do well by having here include: education, regional variations, names, clothing, housing, family arrangements and gender roles, external links, sport. Thinking about some of the differences between the UK and other countries and disspelling some of the stereotypes (bad teeth, football hooligans, roast beef) could also be worthwhile. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sections

I have started by chopping up the unwieldy overview section that comprised most of the content of the article. The resulting sections are fairly randomly placed for now. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We will quickly encounter the problem of whether by culture we mean the anthropological/sociological-type concept of how we organise our society, or the artistic concept of literature, music, etc. I'd like to hear people's opinions on what we are aiming for here, and hence which headings we retain and which we consider to be outside the scope of this article. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aren't the two interlinked? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think we mean both - Culture of Greece concentrates on artistic concepts mainly because (I suspect) there are not enough Greek contributotrs to tell us much about Greek society today, whereas Culture of the United States is about contemporary US culture (education, housing, etc) because the arts are in Arts and entertainment in the United States. I think we should try to do both, until we have enough material to spin out either arts or sociology or both.
I've started a restructure to make the layout a bit more logical, starting with the language, moving on to literature, performing arts, broadcasting, and then other topics. I'll add in some placeholders for the sociological topics. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regional variations

What is this section for? It has no explanatory text, just a seemingly arbitrary and incomplete selection of counties, historical counties and government regions... Joe D (t) 14:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I assume it to be regional variations in culture. I started to write something about the south east, how it's overpopulated and the whole commuter culture that is invading the rest of the country from this region, but I didn't know how to word it so reverted my own edit. Other than that I don't know what it's about and I wouldn't be too upset if that section were taken out for now. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 14:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I added a list the other day as a placeholder to give a structure in which others could add some content - there are clearly cultural variations between the regions, so it would be worth explaining them. Ditto the list of sociological issues as that need to be expanded. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've ben thinking about this, and I don't know how we're going to write about regional variations in culture, without relying too much on stereotypes. Perhaps that's too much of a big project for this COTW week? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Images

With my screen resolution the image of Shakespeare does not clash too much with that of the Beatles, though I can't alter my resolution to check it on other computers. Can someone with a larger resolution please check the placement of the image to make sure the text isn't all jiggered around those two images? If it's a problem either add more to the section or move the Shakespeare image up. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Shakespeare image covers the lower half of a line of text on my screen, at 1024x768. Not to make anything illegible, it just doesn't look ideal.--Bishonen (Talk) 23:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well the other alternative is to use a different image, such as that of the Globe Theatre, or make the Shakespeare one slightly smaller. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Theatre

Hi, limeys, I dropped over because I saw Graham on Giano's page. Excellent recent idea to mention Restoration comedy! But, while I appreciated the link to John Vanbrugh, he's not actually a major or famous writer. I took him out and put in William Wycherley and Aphra Behn instead. Their articles are poor :-( where Vanbrugh's is good (featured article), but they're more proportionate to mention here.--Bishonen (Talk) 23:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blame Giano for that one, he asked me to write it and stated in particular Vanbrugh in relation to the Restoration comedy. Knowing nothing about the subject myself I started the section off and don't really mind what gets edited out in the interests of accuracy. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Right, I know Giano told you to put it in, I'm sorry if we seemed to conspire to fuck with your head. It was totally not intentional.--Bishonen (Talk) 01:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not my fault John Vanbrugh was a useless writer! Giano 10:49, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, I note that the English Pantomime tradition, from Commedia Dell'Arte thru Grimaldi and on down to modern Panto, is completely omitted from the Theatre section. I'd write about it myself but I really know nothing but what I've read in other articles. Some info from Pantomime would really help out here. Steve Rapaport (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Literature

I fixed up the history bit on English literature some, I see it got a bit troubled in being shortened from English literature (also that English literature was a bit troubled to begin with, maybe I'll go interfere with that some other time). Middle English didn't become distinct in the 16th century, it's defined as lasting from the 12th through the 15th centrury. The question of when English literature "emerged" is a battlefield, and I did a kind of workaround. It's not because I want to quibble with saying that it happened in the 16th century and replace it with my own favourite theory, it's just that I think it very important to have Chaucer, a 14th-century writer, in this section.

The historical part is quite short (appropriately so), what on earth is the point of wasting two lines of it to say that Robinson Crusoe is erroneously thought to have been the first English novel? How is that supposed to be useful to the reader? I've used the same space to mention a few important 18th C novels instead. I actually thought the original was fine, if the "erroneously" could be left out, but I see from the History that there is contention about it. Perhaps the contributor who insists that calling RC the first novel is an error could say why? Do you say that RC is not a novel, or that it's not the first?

I inserted T. S. Eliot as an important poet, I don't know if there are any current edit wars raging as to whether he's to be reckoned non-UK (=American). I think he belongs in this list, and he sure tried to be English, but please remove if considered appropriate. (What, immigrants don't fit? If Eliot goes, Salman Rushdie should go too.) I also inserted G. B. Shaw, I'm guessing that's a faux pas, but he did spend most of his life and his entire dramatist life in London. All Americans, Irish and British out there, please remove any of these you wish, I'm not out to offend you.--Bishonen (Talk) 01:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Featured Article Status

I intend to put this forward as a Featured Article candidate - does anyone who has taken part in the recent collaboration have any comment on the article before I do that? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes, I have a problem, which is making my head hurt, with the literature section. I have refactored and added to it, keeping the references to "English literature", "English novel" etc, originally from, I think, ALoan, and added a couple of my own. There is in fact no mention of "UK" or "United Kingdom" anywhere in the section. That doesn't look good, and I think it needs to be addressed, I'm sure voters would jump on it on WP:FAC. Not sure what to do about it, though. I was hoping others would add sections about Scottish literature etc, that's why I said "English", even though the text does at the moment mention Lord Byron and Dylan Thomas (please remove them if separate Scottish and Welsh sections are created). Alternatively, I suppose I could instead refer to UK literature etc, thereby unfortunately creating redlinks, (and who ever heard of the UK novel?)--Bishonen (talk) 01:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • My biggest problem is that the art section is so small. My knowledge of art is next to nothing though, unfortunately, so I can't expand it. Rho 02:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Cnyborg has done a wonderful job on expanding it up to the English Renaissance, and I've started to fill in some cracks in more recent history. -- user:zanimum
Well, for a start, cuisine, education and sport are all a bit thin. There is also very little on differences between England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and sub-divisions of each of them (Cornwall, say, or Tyneside). It would be worth checking whether each section is a proper summary of the relevant "main articles" - I've been meaning to get around to it, but time is an abstract... -- ALoan (Talk) 18:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Art...

in keeping with the debate that is happening in the page art I am going to change the reference under the arts 'Art' to Visual Art. it is a more precise definition and doesnt conflict with anything under that heading as far as I can see.

DavidP 02:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Languages

What is the correct term for the regional languages? Man vyi wants to call them autochthonous, but this ignores the fact that the Celts (and we are surely talking mostly about the modern Celtic languages such as Gaelic and Welsh) themselves displaced previous inhabitants (e.g. Picts speaking Pictish). Of course the modern Celtic languages have developed in their present form in their present regions, but then so has Australian English. In any case, the UN prefers the word indigenous to the word autochthonous. --RichardVeryard 16:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

We can call them regional (per the European Charter), authochthonous or indigenous, as far as I am concerned. What we can't call them (and this was the reason for my revert) is Celtic, because not all of them are. Man vyi 18:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Contribution

"Considerable contributions to British culture have been made over the last half-century by immigrants from the Indian Subcontinent and the West Indies"

From the evidence presented in the article, I fail to see how this is the case. It's also quite unfair, i believe, to call the contributions "considerable".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.35.42 (talk • contribs) 12:38, May 23, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jeremy Brett.jpg

Image:Jeremy Brett.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

tea

tea is not mentioned once. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.89.208.135 (talk) 02:26:59, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted. I'm going to make myself a cup of tea then I'll add something.--Santahul 16:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
do you think alcohol should be mentioned too? Like, it's only us and the Germans who seem that focussed on the beverage. 82.3.175.242 (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

UK or England, Scotland etc

I've just realised that this article often confuses the UK with England, Scotland etc - by that I mean it writes about things as though something happened in the 'UK' when often the event happened before the UK existed. I've tried to fix some of this. It gives a false impression if we make it look that the UK has existed for more than the few hundred years it has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.3.70 (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The image File:Hirst-Shark.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

United States?

Does anyone else here think that American culture is not the same as British? The United States is not a Commonwealth country, has a unique dialect of English, and was not colonized by the modern United Kingdom. Basically, part of what became the United Kingdom colonized what became part of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eileen's Dream (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

??? - Richfife (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sociological issues

I've copy-edited the new material to sharpen it and give it an issue focus. The claim about recent research in the last para under Living arrangements needs a cite give the stength and novelty of the claim. Anyone?Icundell 11:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to edit it relentlessly, I just aded it to get the ball rolling. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Heh. Cool attitude. Do you have a cite for the research and the end? It sounds familiar, but I'm not sure were from/ how credible it is.Icundell 18:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No I can remember it being a feature on Sky News a few months ago, that's all. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


British behaviour in society. I, myself, have always been interested in the behaviour of people and how we act and react with one another. Every different country has form of social culture which they abide to. We don’t exchange gifts with the host at every social occasion we have been invited to or have a specific seating plan at the table which revolves around the person with the highest reputation such as our boss at work etc. Social occasions open up the chance for us to drink alcohol and relax after a hard week of work. We make casual conversation with our colleagues and light jokes with our bosses. Anyone who visits Britain couldn't prevent themselves from loving the way we behave. They would have a chance to interact with a variety of characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.91.193 (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge from Social structure of the United Kingdom

Refer Talk:Social structure of the United Kingdom#Merge. ClaretAsh (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Music

Horrified at the long list of names in rock and pop music, I've pruned it back to the truly notable. It seems that over time people have just added their favourite artists, which I guess is how the likes of Bonnie Tyler, Cher Lloyd, The Sweet and Kim Wilde are rubbing shoulders with The Beatles and the Stones. No doubt it will swell back up again.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Music samples

Just a little bit about my revision... I have added a (distinctly British) hymn that has been sung in Britain for a long time in place of Greensleeves - which is distinctly English. I have added a Handel piece because of his importance to Baroque music as a whole (not sure why he was missed out!), and I have added a Brian Eno (featured in the list of living composers) piece to provide 'electronic' contrast to the other pieces. Elgar's Pomp & Circumstance march (whilst a beautiful piece of music!) was removed to broaden the idea of "British music" beyond patriotic anthems.

Hopefully you will agree with my thoughts. Please let me know if you approve. :)

James Burnett22 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop edit warring, revert your last edit to show that you understand the process, and it will be discussed here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Scottish actors

I have replaced a photo of The Odeon in Leicester Square with a photo of Ewan McGregor. The previous photographs in "Cinema" were a tad England-centric.

Spienderthal (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Composer Image

Seeking consensus for any possible composer image in article. Previously we had an issue with the article being too England centric which was rectified. In the music section, the opening part deals with music from the four parts of the UK and no image was used for any one partulcar country over the other. Personally I feel this is the best as it maintains a neutrality that we've tried to establish. Elgar (and Britten) are historically the two most renowned composers from the UK, and while I preferred to leave just the text to cover the four countries, I could in some way understand if an image of either was used. Ideally though I'd leave the section neutral. Chie one (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add the photo of Thomas Tallis because he is considered one of Britain's greatest composers. The fact that Elgar is more well-known by most does not mean the photo of Tallis isn't suitable. Furthermore, Elgar (and classical music) are already represented in the sound files, whereas church music (one of the great British traditions) isn't.
I'd like to request that the Tallis image be reinstated. 86.182.83.248 (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
There appears to be no opposition to this, so I'm going to go ahead and reinstate the photo. 86.182.82.153 (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

British comics to be included

The article does a wonderful job of listing many modern media and how they affect the culture entirely. But I was wondering, that in all the media, British comics seemed to be missing in this category. We all have to respect how big the impact this genre had. Why not make an entire section dedicated to the British comic genre, or maybe just add them in the literature section. Lots of British comic book writers and artist really need to be included in this article and their recognition in British culture, like legendary Alan Moore's V for Vendetta, From Hell, and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen; Hellblazer; the titles by 2000 AD and Warrior; Warren Ellis and his critically acclaimed Transmetropolitan and Planetary; Brian Azzarello and his 100 Bullets; Neil Gaiman and The Sandman and Books of Magic series; and others British comics. Note also that I think its better to just include the comics that takes place in Britain or had the British elements into it. Bulls123 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

U.S influence since the millennium / Globalization

I think info should be added about how U.S culture is influencing British culture. Since globalization in the late 1990's and especially since mid 2000 you can noticable see the influence of American culture on the U.K. The most noticeable is especially on TV, the amount to commercials voiced by a American / N.American accent, you also see it on how the shows are made and the content. One example is Court/Judge show (thought much toned down that American versions. there seems to be gelling of one Anglo culture mostly being forged by the U.S. An American/North american culture influencing the other english languish culture...U.K and AustraliaStarbwoy (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Culture of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Culture of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Culture of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Culture of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The popular music and cinema (under "currently-active" actors) sections currently have unnecessarily long lists of names. Walls of text like these are unhelpful and could turn off casual readers. I'm skeptical if some of these names "belong" - some don't seem to be on the same tier as the other listed names so to speak. Lists like this tend to attract fans to indiscriminately add their personal favorite artists/actors, and that may have happened here. So if no one objects, I may start pruning these two sections. Feel free to help. Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 32 external links on Culture of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Culture of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Culture of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

A good question...

Does this have to be 28,000 words long? !dave 17:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Culture of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Extensive and growing example farm

For the past 9 months or so, Saiph121 (sometimes logged in, but often under one of multiple IP addresses) has been adding multiple names to various lists of names in this article. They have been reverted repeatedly by multiple editors, only to return under a different IP address to restore the same names and add a few more.

Over that time frame, the list at "Other contemporary British film directors include..." has grown from an already long 17 names to 24.

"Well-known currently active performers include..." grew from an already unreasonable 52 names to 81.

Neither list was useful to begin with. Neither one needed to be expanded by 50%. Both are now pointless, indiscriminate lists where various editors can come and add their favorites to ever-growing lists that no one will ever read, which is fine because they certainly aren't encyclopedic.

This notice is fair warning. Unless there is a consensus to the contrary, I will be restoring the shorter versions of those lists (buried in this diff). After that, I intend to start a discussion as to what to do with the shorter lists.

Comments? - SummerPhDv2.0 02:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The typical pattern is:
1) Saiph121 makes changes and is reverted several times by several editors.
2) Multiple IPs (Saiph121 logged out) repeatedly restore the changes, reverted several times by several editors.
3) I start a discussion on the talk page, pinging Saiph121.
4) Saiph121 ignores the discussion.
5) I revert Saiph121's changes.
6) Saiph121 restores the changes (either logged in or logged out).
7) I revert the change and warn Saiph121 for edit warring and/or disruptive editing.
8) Saiph121 comes to the talk page demanding discussion.
9) The discussion occurs, without much input from Saiph121, other than vague insistences contrary to simple facts.
10) This is where the pattern breaks down. Sometimes we end up at AN/I before I revert the change again, other times it's DRN. Sometimes Saiph121 ends up with another block, other times it's another warning.
Right now, I'm about to make the revert discussed above, which puts us through step 5. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Saiph121 has reverted the removal. That's step 6. Bennv3771 reverted Saiph121s edit with the summary "Stop edit warring." (Bennv3771 had previously warned Saiph121 on their talk page. That's step 7. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
It seems that SummerPhDv2.0 has been committing witch-hunt editing reversal against me and for a very long period of time, he kept denying my substantial and detailed edits from being published. Saiph121 (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
If you are asking for discussion of the lists, please clearly state why you feel the longer lists are better.
If you wish to discuss my editing, you will need to raise the issue on my talk page or, if you feel administrator attention is required, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Saiph121:: The list of notable directors/performers is just an unreadable wall of text and unhelpful for readers with so many names in it. Yes, the names you added are rather "well-known", but given how influential and popular British cinema/TV is internationally, we can't just add every British director/performer who is merely "well-known" or the list of names will take over this whole article. Bennv3771 (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
If that's the case, how about that you can just make a list of every British director/performer in another article Cinema of the United Kingdom that had to follow with the same format in Cinema of Australia? Try to take a look of personality list in Cinema of Australia. You'll know what i mean. Saiph121 (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Saiph121: Are you saying you want to add a list to Cinema of the United Kingdom? If so, take it up at Talk:Cinema of the United Kingdom not here. This article is a summary of British culture and shouldn't go as in-dept as more specific articles. Also, please consider that Australian cinema is no where near as big or influential as British cinema. Thus, the level of notability for inclusion in the British cinema article should be commensurately higher. So while it may be feasible to list all internationally "well-known" Australian actors/directors, it is certainly not feasible in the case of British cinema (same for American cinema, see Cinema of the United States). Bennv3771 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Saiph121 is currently blocked from editing for editing against a clear consensus on another article. Just before that happened, they restored their list here.

At the moment, there is a narrow consensus (2 to 1) to revert to the shorter list. While this ignores the multiple editors who have reverted Saiph121's additions (most while logged out) over the past 6 months, I'm sure we can easily document a clear consensus for a shorter list here.

I'll start an RfC. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on lists of examples

Two lists of examples starting at "Other contemporary British film directors include..." and "Well-known currently active performers include..." have grown to considerable length (105 examples total). Should the lists be shortened or left at that length? 22:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Shorten, possibly working toward elimination. The changes can be seen in this long diff[1]. We are discussing only the lists of names after "Other contemporary British film directors include..." and "Well-known currently active performers include..." While there is no objective way to decide which directors and actors to include, long lists become nothing more than a wall of text that no one will read, serving no encyclopedic purpose. IMO, we should start with reverting to the shorter versions (69 names, rather than 105) then discuss eliminating the lists entirely in favor of well-sourced general statements and links to relevant articles. Example farms are seldom useful. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Pinging currently involved editors Saiph121 and Bennv3771. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Speaking generally, the article has many long lists of notable people. I can't see the purpose of these lists, myself; they could be replaced with (e.g.) "Other prominent novelists from the UK can be found at Category:British novelists". Eman235/talk 04:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Longer is acceptable - I do not see a policy that would be against this length and there are after all a lot of notables, even the rest of the section is an yet longer naming of movies. I also see this needs to state some criteria for inclusion, or else the just blank 'shorter' then comes off as just whimsy for personal preference on length and intent to be cutting by personal faves. While the people putting in names also did not put forward a criteria, that they have already done the effort and the general desire for stability leads me to lean towards status quo and inclusion. So I'll suggest do not undo others work and risk starting edit wars without a better and clearly written criteria that people will then see. I do think the top line of the section could add a couple more see Also pointers, one to List of British film directors and one to List of British actors and actresses. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Markbassett: FYI, the "people" putting in names is just one person who has been reverted by at least 3 other editors. Hence that is not the "status quo". Bennv3771 (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the "people" is one person, editing logged in and logged out, reverting (without comment) anyone who challenged their additions over a 6 month period. The lists are completely indiscriminate. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
[User:Bennv3771]], User:SummerPhDv2.0 - so the threat of a slow edit war is already ongoing? Then definitely let the longer list stand and stop warring -- turn it into a criteria matter or else let it go. It is WP:NOTVOTE, it is supposed to be about consensus building based on rationales. Cheers and good luck. Markbassett (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Markbassett: Are you saying we should let the one editor continue adding more content that has been reverted by others, just so the one editor stops edit warring? That contradicts your second sentence: "it is supposed to be about consensus building based on rationales." And yes it should be "consensus building based on rationales" which is what the RfC is for. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Bennv3771 I'm saying that contributions of others should be handled with care, to revert only when necessary, and that the discussion here is supposed to be about consensus building with rationales of policy and explicit crafted criteria plus cites to support what edits belong. WP:AVOIDEDITWAR; if already in edit war, then stop it and step back. Generally I'd give preference to over-inclusion and to a longer-standing status quo and to staying WP:NOTVOTE. At the moment any and all choices that had no stated criteria seem equally whimsical and unsustainable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Markbassett: "if already in edit war, then stop it and step back" Again, yes, that is what this RfC is about. Once Saiph121 is back from their block, hopefully they will participate. "any and all choices that had no stated criteria seem equally whimsical and unsustainable." Agreed. Whether we keep the list as it is now or shorten it, it will be unsustainable with no stated criteria. Hence my vote to just remove this list if it serves no actual purpose. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Had the other editor stayed logged in, they would have been repeatedly blocked for edit warring and the shorter list would currently be here. Their repeated logging in and out fueled an edit war for 6 months. I started discussion here, tagging them for their opinion. They did not respond. I restored the earlier list. They reverted. Another editor restored the earlier list and commented. They reverted and were blocked. Their only comments here have not discussed the issue, instead accusing me of "witch-hunt editing" and "denying {their) substantial and detailed edits". Their three blocks are for editing against consensus. I started this RfC because they refused to discuss the issue. They've ignored the ping for this discussion. Calling this a simple edit war is similar to the proud mom at the parade who beams that "Everyone is out of step except for my Johnny!" I am suggesting restoring the consensus version and discussing whether to expand, shorten, eliminate or reconfigure the list. Essentially, they were bold, they were reverted, they did not discuss, they logged out and started to edit war. I'm trying to bring this back to WP:BRD. They were bold, they will have been reverted, we can all discuss. End of edit war, build a consenus, implement the consensus. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Changed my mind about the selection criteria. Per Eman235, what is the purpose of this name-dropping list? Just replace it entirely with a link to the relevant standalone lists. Any British director/performer who has actually made a great impact on British culture would already have been mentioned, along with their notable achievements and impact, somewhere else in the article anyway. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is far too long

The culture of the UK is a large topic and a small article cannot be expected to cover it. Nevertheless, the editing guidelines suggest breaking out parts of articles over 100kB. This page is currently at 364kB, or 194,695 characters.

There are several sections that could probably be condensed quite easily without affecting their quality. 'Regional accents', for instance, does not necessarily two paragraphs of examples when a link to Regional accents of English could direct readers to a much more comprehensive article, leaving only a summary on this page. Eleanor_of_Aquitaine 23:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Regards 100kB size, that doesn’t include references. Cat Hudson (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
It would still be far too long even without them. As a rough comparison, Culture of France is 80kb, Culture of Germany is 52kB, and Culture of the United States is 126kB. That's not to say they're better articles, but it does indicate this one does not need to be as long as it is. There may well be justifiable reasons for this article to be over 100kB, but we can't assess that until a thorough edit has been completed. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2019
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Culture_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1&oldid=1246526176"