Talk:England (disambiguation)

UK position

I'd updated two lines to read:

England may be:

• England, a nation in Europe, and the largest and most populous part of the United Kingdom.
• The inaccurate use of the national name above to refer to the entire United Kingdom.

This was reverted to the current state of

England may be:

• England, a nation in Europe.

I changed it because I thought the England line was slightly misleading in that it implied that England was simply a nation in Europe, without reference to its context in the UK (through which it currently derives its political power).

The second line was there because it's a disambiguation page and, like it or not, there is a tendency for people to think of England when they are really discussing the United Kingdom; hence they may actually be looking for the United Kingdom.

Before I put these back in their current, or modified forms, I'd like to get some feedback on what you think.

Fourohfour 11:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Having that stuff there is silly. Nobody gets to this page except from clicking the link at the top of England. But that article already includes the misuse etc. This page is only for people who wanted to know about other uses of the term.

If this was a case where the disambiguation page was at England, then yes, your version would be preferred. Morwen - Talk 11:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You have a point, although I still feel the first entry would be better phrased as "part of the United Kingdom". Is England even technically a 'nation' (as opposed to country)?

Fourohfour 11:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no technical definition of "nation" or "country" (unless you can point me at one), therefore I would contend that nothing is technically a nation or a country. The choice is linguistic and political. Morwen - Talk 11:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Although I strongly agree with you there, I don't see any reason not to use the longer version. ("A country in Europe, the largest and most populous part of the United Kingdom") Might as well be clear. Doops | talk 17:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Be clear, yes, but be clear about disambiguating it from the other possible entries. If somebody was looking for Lynndie England or England, Arkansas, and the England (the country) link didn't include the extra text about relative size and population, would there be any chance of confusion? That, I think, is key to deciding what should be on a dab page. Not, "Is this extra information interesting", but "does this extra information help the user select which entry they were looking for"? --RoySmith 02:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, Morwen's right of course; pretty much the only way anybody will be reaching this page is via England. So arguably we don't need a link back there at all! :) But of course we do, if merely as a matter of principle. At any rate, whatever wording is adopted, I think there should be a mention of "UK" in it. A Massachusetts disambiguation page wouldn't say "a subnational entity in North America"; it would mention the US. So how about "a country in Europe, part of the UK" ?Doops | talk 02:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I have revised it to read

England, the largest constituent nation within the United Kingdom.

which I hope satisfies everyone. Perhaps the phrasing (as opposed to the factual content) could do with some tweaking; decide for yourselves.

BTW, perhaps 'Kingdom of England' (not my entry) should be in a sublist indicating that it refers (basically) to the same 'England' as the main one?

Fourohfour 17:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If there were more entries on this dab page, then I'd say it would be worth splitting into multiple sub-lists. But with only 4 total, it's probably not necessary. I did, however, get rid of the extraneous links, in accordance with the convention that there is only one link per entry on a dab page.

I thought that was a general recommendation with exceptions if they proved genuinely useful, not a hard and fast rule. But... it's not that big a deal to me personally. Fourohfour 17:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed only a recommendation. In fact, the Manual of Style even says that you can break the rules. But, what makes those extra links so special that they justify breaking the rules in this case? It is very tempting to try and cram all sorts of interesting information into a dab page, but the end result is usually a mess of links which just confuses the reader. Give them just enough information to figure out which link they wanted, and you've done the job. All that extra information belongs in the article itself. If you want to explore when it's appropriate to break the rules, I invite you to come join Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation; I would certainly welcome your input to the discussions there. --RoySmith 18:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Point taken.... I've just come across one user who seems hell-bent on contributing countless stupid acronyms to disambig pages, so I'm not too tolerant of excessive bloat myself now anyway (^_^) Fourohfour 23:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Modern vs. Historical

What bothers me about the first two entries is that the discriptions don't really emphasize the most significant difference the two -- that of time. Geographically, they refer to the same thing (I'm assuming their borders were roughly the same). What would people think about:

• England, part of the current-day United Kingdom.
• Kingdom of England, the historical state that existed from the 8th century until 1707.

--RoySmith 23:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems fine to me

Fourohfour 23:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

When I added Kingdom of England I was deliberately vague about when the nation was founded since there is no single agreed date. So I think my statement "founded during the 8th and 9th centuries" should remain.

Does the football team belong here?

I don't think it makes much sense to have the football team entry. Would anybody looking for an article about England's national football team type "England" into a search box? I don't think so. Doesn't the name "England" apply equally to any national sports team? Wouldn't you describe a cricket match as "England vs. South Africa", for example? --RoySmith 02:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to assume that someone will see that use of 'England' and type it in here. My rule of thumb is whether (in the vast majority of cases), this meaning will be seen in a context that makes it clear what is being referred to (which counts *against* inclusion in a disambig page). In addition, your argument about other sports is spot on.

OTOH, I don't think there's an "obvious" search title for (e.g.) the England football team, so the inclusion of teams may be warranted here; but perhaps that should be a list on another page, else this disambig page will get filled up with countless entries such as "The England Kabaddi team". Fourohfour 12:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

England and United Kingdom

Shouldn't mention be made of the fact that England is for many people around the world a synonym for the state known officially as the United Kingdom? It may be technically incorrect but it is widely used in many many languages and is also very commonly used in spoken English in the Republic of Ireland and the United States to name just two English-speaking states. An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the page to reflect the fact that referring to the UK as England is factually incorrect. This was brought to my attention recently when someone actually cited this page in a debate to prove that they were correct in doing so, therefore it is relevant to include it here as well as within the main article on England and the UK. Triune (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say it is factually inaccurate that England is a "general phrase for the United Kingdom". It is a fact that people do indeed use the term in that manner. Some may deem such usage inappropriate or mistaken, but you cannot say it is factually inaccurate that the term is used in that manner. older ≠ wiser 18:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Readded to state "though this is incorrect usage as England is a constituent part of the United Kingdom". Triune (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It is a figure of speech that is widely used. As a figure of speech, it is not a technically precise term and characterizing it as incorrect usage is prescriptivist pedantry. older ≠ wiser 10:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with calling this a figure of speech in the same way as I would if someone called Africa a country. People may say it, but it is still demonstrably wrong as used by the inhabitants of the countries in question. You've now reverted my suggested edits on many occasions because of your personal preference. Please stop unless you can actually demonstrate a reason why this usage is not in fact erroneous, as your actions at the moment appear to be an attempt to legitimise incorrect use of a word, which is not the task of wikipedia. Triune (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

And you reverted me several times now based on your personal preference. This is nothing more than a disambiguation page, it is not the place to correct perceptions of incorrect usage. older ≠ wiser 17:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The difference is that mine was the updated version of the article, and wikipedia guidelines state that the update should take priority over the status quo in such discussions. As such, if you and I can't agree, the update should take priority until consensus on your proposed changes can be reached. Again, please do not revert my changes any further without obtaining external views. Triune (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Um, no. There is no policy that allows an editor to hijack a page to insert personal preferences. the status quo should stand unless you can demonstrate a consensus for the change. older ≠ wiser 17:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Read here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling Policy is not "status quo stands" any more. I haven't hijacked this for personal preferences, I have added a word which shows that a certain usage is incorrect, which it demonstrably is. You have not put forward any defence other than "people use it" which is true but entirely irrelevant to the discussion as to whether the usage is erroneous. The fact is that the usage is incorrect (as the word "England" refers to a country bordered by Scotland and Wales, while "United Kingdom" includes all three of those countries plus Northern Ireland and various UK Overseas Territories), therefore undoing a change highlighting that it is incorrect is just stonewalling for your own personal preference. If you disagree further, please put this page up for comment rather than just continuing to revert edits because you don't like them. Triune (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling is an essay, not policy or even a guideline. By your reasoning, every instance of metonomy is incorrect in that a part is used to represent a larger entity. It is pointless to flag every such usage. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help readers navigate to the topic they are looking for, not to didactically tell them their usage is regarded as incorrect by some. So far you have presented nothing more than your personal preference in this regard with no other support. Please gain consensus for this change before reverting again. older ≠ wiser 18:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Triune, there is no policy that allows you to add or change material without consensus. The long-standing version is "A general phrase for the United Kingdom as a whole" (since July). I think "A metonym for the United Kingdom as a whole" is an improvement. If you don't think this is an improvement on the previous wording, you can revert it and argue why the previous wording is better, but you can't change it to how you want it without consensus. There is long-standing consensus for "A general phrase for the United Kingdom as a whole", and a reasonable argument and support for "A metonym for the United Kingdom as a whole". There is no support, aside from yourself, for your proposed wording. Rob984 (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Rob, the purpose of wikipedia is to present facts. The argument here is that the fact that this is incorrect is somehow not relevant to the definition. If you look back at the history of the article, the long-standing consensus is actually for this definition not to be included, as it was removed in 2005 and left alone until 2016, where it was added in July and then removed for the first time less than 2 months later. Numerous people throughout the history of this article have stated a preference for either not including an incorrect definition or stating that the definition is incorrect, and the reversions recently have flown in the face of that long-standing consensus.

Either consensus is important, in which case the longer-standing consensus is not to include the incorrect definition at all, or correctness is important in which case reverting the page from showing more correct information to less correct information is the wrong action. Either way, adding the word "erroneous" adds correct information that is otherwise lacking, therefore it shouldn't just be reverted back without good justification, which is still lacking. Triune (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should England be referred to as an erroneous metonym for the United Kingdom?

The consensus is that England should not be referred to as an erroneous metonym for the United Kingdom. Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should England be referred to as an erroneous metonym for the United Kingdom? (bolded word is the proposal)

We have been unable to reach a consensus on this issue. I have attempted to add information to the effect that using the word "England" to refer to "the United Kingdom" is incorrect, hence the use of the word erroneous. This is based on the definition of England as a country which borders Scotland and Wales and which is a constituent, along with those two countries, Northern Ireland and numerous overseas territories, of the United Kingdom. Referring to a part of a country as the whole is incorrect, much like referring to New York and the whole of the USA. This may be a colloquialism used in some parts of the world, but minor usage does not imply correctness.

I believe that either this definition should be removed completely, or it should be highlighted here that the usage is incorrect, as including it here seems to be attempted approval of the misuse, which I understand is against the purpose of this website.Triune (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Factual accuracy is important to state even in disambiguation pages. Triune (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose By Triune's reasoning all metonyms are erroneous (at least to the extent they are inaccurate by using a part to represent something larger) That is the nature of figurative language. There is little point in marking such common figures of speech as erroneous on a disambiguation page. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help readers find the topic they were looking for. That some readers will think of "England" when they mean the UK is inevitable. Informing them that some persons find the usage objectionable does not help such a reader. It might be possible to come up with some more neutral phrasing, but not at the risk of making the entry longer than needed for disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 21:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose the use of "erroneous" in any descriptor here (unless it accurately summarizes the subject of an article). Dab pages are not articles, and nuances of meaning should be discussed in the linked article, not here. — Gorthian (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose . England is sometimes used to refer to the UK or the island of Great Britain. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help a reader determine a specific subject, or inform them a term has multiple meanings.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - if it's actually used as a figure of speech/synonym/metonyum/synecdoche, then that shouldn't be called "erroneous". And I would suggest using an exxplanation without the technical word because the word is not commonly understood. Folks easily understand that "England won the world cup" is short for "The English team won", or that England/Britain/UK are used synonymously ... Markbassett (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose It sounds very pedantic and so does "metonym." Do most people know what it means? I prefer the approach with Russia (disambiguation)#States: "Soviet Union (USSR), the socialist state that existed from 1922 to 1991, of which RSFSR is a part." Holland (disambiguation) says, "Informally (was previously formal in sports events), Holland may also be used to represent the whole country of The Netherlands." Also note Great Britain (disambiguation) ("United Kingdom, a sovereign state") and Britain ("Britain may refer to: United Kingdom, a sovereign state.") The UK of course includes both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, yet Great Britain and Britain are much more widely accepted as terms to refer to the sovereign state. In all cases, it is older names continuing to be used. TFD (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a disambiguation page. There should be no information added. Disambiguation pages are not a place for explanation or information, just for pointing, but I do have a suggestion (see below).--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Apart from the 'this is a dab' arguments, with which I agree, this wording is uninformative. Outside the UK, confusion about the distinction/s between Britain, GB, UK, UK+NI and the constituent countries is common, it's annoying to some in the UK, but we also do it to Holland and Russia. The proper place for correcting that is within articles. (side note, can a metonym be erroneous? Isn't a metonym by definition a metaphorical usage? Does the proposer mean 'sometimes used outside the UK to refer to the whole UK?'). Pincrete (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Our role is to describe significant usages, not prescribe which are 'correct' or 'incorrect'. Joe Roe (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose it's a dab page. Widefox; talk 15:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - my preference is the current revision of the page (without any reference to the whole United Kingdom other than in the See Also section). I don't see any need to explain an incorrect usage of 'England' on a disambiguation page. If someone is confused they can follow the link below - surely that's what the See Also section is for? It's not a particularly long page that's hard to navigate. However, I'm not opposed to Iloilo Wanderer's suggestion if that is a workable compromise. Jr8825 • Talk 17:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose going in depth on the correctness of the term, but support a more prominent placing than the See Also section, given how much this metonym is used. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not sure I understand what's being asked here. The current disamb page states "England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom" - what is the problem with this phrase? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I don't think it's fair to claim that it's worth rejecting because it's longer than necessary when I'm now proposing adding a single word to the description, or alternatively to removing the definition altogether, replacing it with a link in the "See Also" section. In any case, a factual description would be better than a shorter but less accurate one.

Bkonrad has also opposed this on the grounds that "some persons find the usage objectionable", which is not a fair statement of my position. It isn't that the usage is objectionable, it is that it is incorrect, pure and simple. As I have stated on a number of occasions (and have not been contradicted on, I might add) England is a country bordered by Scotland and Wales, whilst the UK includes all three of those separate countries and some additional territories. As such, someone can be in Scotland, in the UK but NOT in England. The use of England to mean the UK can only be erroneous as it leaves no word which can be used to uniquely describe the land area of Great Britain excluding Scotland and Wales.Triune (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Must add here that I believe the status quo for this article is very clearly that England is not referred to as an alternative way of stating the United Kingdom at all, therefore the status quo is hard to determine (this statement was only added in July this year and has been the subject of controversy since early September). My view is that as the status quo is either no statement that England is a word for the UK as a whole or that it is incorrect, the current version (i.e. stating "erroneous") is more reflective of the long term status quo, therefore this should be the version left up for disucssion until further notice.Triune (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I've no problem with placing an undescribed link to the UK in the see also section as it was before July. older ≠ wiser 22:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That to me is absolutely fine. Thank you for coming up with an alternative to the argument! Triune (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

No objection from myself either.

However, what you are claiming regarding the "status quo" is bollocks. Policy doesn't refer to the status quo. When an editor refers to a revision as being the status quo, they are referring to it having consensus. Consensus can result simply from no object being made for a prolonged period, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. See WP:Silence and consensus for explanation. The addition was added in July, and remained uncontested for two months. So that has consensus and as such is the status quo. You could possibly have reverted the change that occurred in July (as you have now done), but adding your own material is certain not the "status quo". You can ignore what I am telling you if you like, but I assure you, you were a second away from being listed at WP:AN/3 and temporarily blocked from editing. You are fortunate you were arguing with someone who has a greater tolerance of edit warring than myself.

Regards.

Rob984 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the edit war here, but I have a suggestion of my own below. think the current version of the dab page is completely acceptable. — Gorthian (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

What's your objection to the current version? (I personally prefer it.) Would you support Iloilo Wanderer's suggestion? Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 18:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think Iloilo Wanderer's suggestion is spot-on, reasoning and all. I have another suggestion myself, below.— Gorthian (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• See my vote above. I think an improvement on the current page would be to add links to both "United Kingdom" and "Great Britain" after the sentence fragment "England may also refer to:" either right after the reference to the sports teams or after the "Places" subheading. Why? Because "England may refer to" either as well as to England proper. No further information or explanation should be given on a disambiguation page. If people do not understand the difference, they can click through to the article. Disamb pages are not for information or discussion. No adjectives or adverbs unless entirely unavoidable. It is for pointing to any and all articles that people might be looking for when they search for the term, in this case "England". Since by "England" the ignorant (say a 8 year old Filipino learning English in school) may mean the UK or GB, they should be listed above the "See also" section. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• I already opined on the RFC; the current version of the page PLUS Iloilo Wanderer's modification is excellent. One change I would make to the page is to put the entry for National sports teams of England under one of the sections (Culture or Other); the only entry that should be outside a section is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (But I just realized that this is somewhat off-topic.) — Gorthian (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Primary meanings (other than the primary topic) can be listed at the top per MOS:DABORDER: "In cases where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below"."England" is very often used to refer to the football or cricket team without qualification. This is probably the most common usage of the term in general conversation, since the country has become gradually more abstract. Rob984 (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Also you would have to put it in its own section or at the bottom in "Other uses" (I don't think sports really falls under "Culture"), neither of which seem preferential. Rob984 (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Rob984, I'm American and non-sport-oriented; it didn't occur to me that that was a main topic. I'm striking my suggestion. — Gorthian (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.