Jump to content

Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

First paragraph of lead

User:Rob984 rightly noted that previous revisons of the lead noted the Irish Sea's 'border' with the UK while excluding other water bodies, such as the Bristol Channel. I removed his term "Celtic Seas" because it's not a term I can find much usage of elsewhere - there's no article here on Wikipedia, for instance. Other sources, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, describe the Atlantic Ocean bordering the UK as such: "southwestern England, the northwestern coast of Northern Ireland, and western Scotland face the Atlantic Ocean." The Celtic Sea article describes it as a part of the Atlantic Ocean, in addition our current revision of the lead describes the UK as being surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, which would suggest it encompasses the Celtic Sea. You can see my own edits to the lead in the current revision; I've chosen to exclude the Celtic Sea because I think its already covered by noting the Atlantic Ocean. I do think it's important to detail the Irish Sea, without which we risk describing the geography of Great Britain only. Are other users in full agreement with the current text or are there any compelling reasons why the Celtic Sea be noted? If not I'm sure we can come up with an alternative wording here in the lead.
I'm raising this on the talk page because I want to be extra cautious in light of previous warnings I've received about 'edit warring'. - Hazhk Talk to me 22:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I have heard of the term Celtic Seas, I rarely see it anywhere and in all technicality it is a misnomer. Mabuska (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Talking about Great Britain and Ireland here is unusual. How about:
'Northern Ireland, separated from the rest of the UK by the North Channel, shares a land border with the Republic of Ireland. Apart from this land border, the UK is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, with the North Sea in the east and the English Channel in the south.'
Rob (talk | contribs) 16:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
That looks acceptable. Yes, I'd support that wording. -- Hazhk Talk to me 18:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Having said that, do you think also having Irish Sea in there would be possible? Northern Island also borders that sea. -- Hazhk Talk to me 18:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's resist the urge to explain more and more in the first para and not insert "separated from the rest of the UK by the North Channel". If the reader's interest is piqued, they'll find that information later in the article. This first para, as of early November 2013 (following that long discussion about mentioning Great Britain in the lead), does a good job of leading the reader through the main points swiftly but gently, without tripping them up.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,[nb 6] commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain (/ˈbrɪ.tən/), is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain (a term sometimes loosely applied to the whole state), the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands. Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another state: the Republic of Ireland.[nb 7] Apart from this land border, the UK is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, with the North Sea in the east, the English Channel in the south and the Irish Sea in the west.

NebY (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
'the Irish Sea in the west' is what is disputed. The Irish sea is not to the west of the United Kingdom. We could simply remove it. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
"In the west" is fine, and slightly better than "to the west". I suggest we don't try to drain the Irish Sea; engineering challenges aside, we would be left with a new land border between Wales and Ireland to insert into the lead. NebY (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the Irish Sea is not "in the west" of Northern Ireland - it's "in the west" in relation to Great Britain. I'd prefer "....the North Sea in the east, the English Channel in the south and the Irish Sea separating Great Britain and Ireland." Alternatively, as Rob984 says, simply remove the mention of the Irish Sea as in a sense it's internal to the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
"In the west" does not imply that it forms the entirety of the western frontier, only that it is part of it. The Irish would be surprised to be told the Irish Sea is internal to the UK. We could of course, if we can't agree on which side of the UK the Irish Sea lies, entirely omit any mention of orientation and simply say that the UK, apart from that land border, is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean and its marginal seas, the North Sea, the English Channel and the Irish Sea. Would that be more helpful to the readers? NebY (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Clearly I didn't suggest that the Irish Sea being "internal to the UK" be included in the text. Given that we have an article - marginal sea - I'd be happy with "... surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean and its marginal seas, the North Sea, the English Channel and the Irish Sea." 10:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2014

the english of the following sentence is odd, to correct it and clarify the meaning of the sentence. the sentence in question is [ London is one of the three "command centres" of the global economy (alongside New York City and Tokyo),[201] is the world's largest financial centre alongside New York,[202][203][204] and has the largest city GDP in Europe.] I would add an "it" after [201] and before is thus reading as follows [London is one of the three "command centres" of the global economy (alongside New York City and Tokyo),[201] it is the world's largest financial centre alongside New York,[202][203][204] and has the largest city GDP in Europe.] Andi Deane (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done. I don't think it was absolutely necessary as the sentence was grammatically correct as it stood, but I see no objection and if this aids readability then it's a worthwhile improvement. WaggersTALK 11:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Electricity supply

Two recent insertions by NickGrogan-UK (talk · contribs) have been copied verbatim or with the core text copied from the website of Energy Solutions, who describe themselves as "Commercial Energy Brokers".
Website text[1] (with bold-face added):"In 1997, following privatisation of the electricity industry there were fourteen Public Electricity Suppliers (PES) in UK which replaced the old area and Scottish electricity boards. Whilst the geographical areas of these former PESs remain unchanged the industry itself is somewhat different. Although distribution has been separated altogether from supply, the former PES areas are used as the basis of current day distribution areas."
Latest insertion[2] (with bold-face added):"From 1989 onwards, the electricity distribution was privatized, see Timeline of the UK electricity supply industry, resulting in the creation of the fourteen Public electricity suppliers(PES) in UK which replaced the old area electricity boards(AEBs) in England and Wales and the Scottish electricity boards. The geographical area covered by these PESs remain unchanged, but the industry itself is somewhat different. Although distribution has been separated altogether from supply, the former PES areas are used as the basis of current day distribution areas.[270]. The retail supply of electricity to both domestic and commercial customers has also been privatised, with the market dominated by the Big Six Energy Suppliers (UK)."
In his edit comment, Nick has asked "please talk before revising" but WP:COPYVIO requires immediate action, so rather than revise I now will simply revert. I note that the original version of User:NickGrogan-UK says that Energy Solutions, the source of the text, is his company.[3] This does not mean that previously published text, even if written by the contributing editor, can be freely copied into Wikipedia - see WP:DONATETEXT. It does mean that there is an apparent conflict of interest possible in referencing that site, and it is common in cases of referencing one's own work to question whether that work constitutes a reliable source. (I should also note that impersonation is common enough on Wikipedia that it's normal to retain an open mind on whether a contributor really is who they claim to be, even though I see no reason to doubt it in this case.)
If I was revising this text, I would link to Distribution network operator which describes the current situation and provides a brief history as well as a map and table, using Ofgem's website as its main source. NebY (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I will have another look at the wording, have taken on your comments, hopefully we can produce something which works, it is am important area which is missing. NickGrogan-UK (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. After writing the above, I stepped back and looked at the section again. It's an overview of the UK's energy sources. I'm not convinced our general article on the UK should start detailing the past and present organisation of one level of the market in electrical energy. This is a massive article already. Imagine if we did expand it in a balanced way by detailing the supply of other forms of energy too! NebY (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Kingdom article, not changes to the United Kingdom.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


New Union Jack

I created the possible new Union Jack. Just in case...possibly we have to change it in the article in some weeks.
File:Fahne des UK von England Wales und Nordirland.png
UK without Scotland
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flk-Brdrf (talk • contribs) 11:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, appears to be original research, I dont see any evidence or reason that the flag will change in the foreseable future. MilborneOne (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It has been suggested but I don't see it happening simply because I think that the right answer will win through on election day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It is worth noting the date of the suggestion which you linked. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I expect more suggestions will be available at the beginning of Q2 2015. --Boson (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
These have already been thought up. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) Other proposals exist. Any real proposals for change will become apparent in due course, and there is indeed no reason to give any credibility to any particular idea at present. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@MilborneOne: Oh, then I was not the 1st one with this thought. But in your reference there are little gaps between the St. Patricks Cross and the English cross. I think these gaps, necessary for the "Scottish part" so far will not more necessary for the new Union Jack.
Today I got from the German media that now exists a little majority for a "Yes", means a independence of Scotland (51 Yes, 49 No). This means that the independence in some weeks is likely and that me need to update the UK-articles.Flk-Brdrf (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Little Britain
And here a little map, just in case:Flk-Brdrf (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
We must alos think about the new name:
BTW: A new map of the new UK was published in the German Wiki hereFlk-Brdrf (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Flk-Brdrf the proposed date for Scottish independence (if the vote goes that way) is the 25 March 2016 so nothing will change for a while, no evidence that the name of the United Kingdom or the flag would need to change. As that is a least 18 months away then nothing is going to happen in the next few week other than a result of a ballot, nothing will change here for a while if at all so not much point in continuing this speculation, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that, in the case of Scots voting 'yes', independence would not happen with immediate effect; negotiations and planning will mean that independence will not come into effect for, at least, several months or, more probable, a couple of years! Preparing new maps and new flags at this time is not necessary. -- HazhkTalk 14:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Out of interest, where is the name "Little Britain" coming from? If Scotland became independent the rest of the state would still be called the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Likewise, the rest of the UK would be under no obligation to change its flag (a flag which predates the Acts of Union). -- HazhkTalk 14:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it comes from the the television programme. Either that or a mistranslation of something else. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It's probably a misunderstanding of the name "Great Britain", and it shouldn't be used anywhere on Wikipedia.
P.S. Thanks for sorting out the indentation! I overlooked MilborneOne's comments which are the same as mine. I didn't realise there was an official date for independence, but it is nearly two years away as I expected (so we shouldn't be worrying about maps and flags yet)-- HazhkTalk 14:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why User:Hazhk thinks that "the rest of the state would still be called the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". That seems unlikely - "Great Britain" refers to either the whole geographical island, or to the union of England and Wales with Scotland. If Scotland became independent, the term Great Britain in either sense would be clearly wrong. We don't know what the name might be, but it could be "United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland". The term "Little Britain", by the way, has various meanings including, historically, Brittany. User:Flk-Brdrf's map is also wrong in showing the Isle of Man as part of the UK - it isn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I suspect nothing will change in this area if Scotland becomes independent, and it will become a point of dispute between the new and continuing states. Cf "United States of America" and South Americans' complaints of the use of "American" and "America" meaning USian. DeCausa (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
To all: The term "Little Britain" is not only my idea. In the German media here they talked about "Klein Britannien" that I translated with "Little Britain". But possibly there is a better translation, "Small Britain" perhaps.
Isle of Man: Under which control this island will become? I think London and not Edinburgh. But of course I can remove the Isle of Man from the map as part of the future kingdomFlk-Brdrf (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I also wonder how small GB/ LB/ SB would become with less the 1/2 size of Germany onlyFlk-Brdrf (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Can we call a halt to this now please? All will become clear in good time, and we can amend the article then. Hypothesising about future arrangements may be interesting, but WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Europe

The UK is in Europe. This isn't clarified until the last sentence of the introduction. I propose:

The specific location and composition of the state can be covered nicely in the second sentence.
I think the continent that the UK is part of is significant, and as it only requires three additional words, I struggle to see how it is 'unnecessary elaboration'.
Rob (talk | contribs) 17:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've spent some time looking - but failing to find - a discussion here some time ago that concluded that the UK should not, primarily, be described as "off the coast" of anywhere. If anyone can point me to that discussion I'd be grateful. The UK is primarily a political entity that is within Europe. It's quite correct to state that the islands of Great Britain and Ireland are off the coast of continental Europe, but this article is about a political - not a geographical - entity, one which is within Europe. Rob's wording is a big improvement, and I support it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Alternatively we could state "sovereign state in Western Europe" to be more exact, although perhaps this is implicit in the description "off the northwestern coat of European mainland" -- HazhkTalk 21:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's already implicit. And the link to Europe is more important. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, there was a discussion on this & the consensus was to go with the political, rather the geographical, as this article is about a political entity. GoodDay (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Previous discussions have failed to gain consensus, leaving the current the status quo. I made this change, taking into account the concerns raised in previous discussions.
'...to go with the political, rather the geographical, as this article is about a political entity', I don't understand how my edit changes this? It only adds the fact that the UK is within Europe. We are still locating the state in the next sentence using near-identical wording.
Rob (talk | contribs) 11:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
And sorry, I was assuming three editors in agreement was consensus. Rob (talk | contribs) 11:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Not only that, but if GoodDay's view that " the consensus was to go with the political, rather the geographical" is correct, that is precisely what this wording does. There seems to me to be no coherent opposition to the new wording, and it should be adopted. Given GoodDay's past editing history, it is a shame that he is seeking to involve himself unnecessarily in matters like this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
My apologies (Rob984) for reverting your changes, yesterday. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

New Map

File:UK MapPNG.png
New PNG version

I've reverted the addition of this map because it's inaccurate in referring separately to (1) the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" and (2) Northern Ireland. There is no such term as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain". Great Britain comprises England, Scotland, and Wales (currently), but that is not the "United Kingdom". The correct term is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" - that is, it unites Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If the two need to be distinguished, just say "Great Britain" and "Northern Ireland". Or leave those names off entirely. And, without wishing to start a "my city is bigger/better than yours" argument, I think there is a stronger case for including Manchester than Leeds - though you could have both. But having said that, if those corrections are made, I think the map could be a useful addition. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

PS: And why does the map contain the OCHA logo? It needs to be removed, or the map's provenance made clear. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Note to other editors: the map now shown is a revised version of the one to which some of the comments above referred. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that UK of GB should just be GB and Manchester should replace Leeds. However, do you have any sources that it is not (UK of GB) &NI? I know that that it became called the UK when Ireland joined the union, but it became a union when the crowns of England and Scotland merged. TFD (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Historically, England(/Wales) + Scotland = united (small u, in most sources) Kingdom of GB. Plentiful discussion on that point, on other article talk pages as well as this one. Then, GB + Ireland = United K of GB + Ireland. Then, Ro Ireland separated, leaving UK of GB + NI. So, there was once a U/united "Kingdom of GB", but once Ireland became part of the country name, the "UK" applied to both GB and Ireland, now NI. Anyway, that's not relevant now that the map has been changed. More to the point is how editors in the North West will react to this map.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Manchester is not replacing leeds due to it's close proximity to birmingham on the map, sorry, also the website states that logo has to stay there to be legally on this website.WikiImproves 18:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiImprovment78 (talk • contribs)

From reliefweb website
2. For use with alteration in print or online
ReliefWeb maps are free material and you can use them in your work. We request however that you delete the ReliefWeb logo upon any modification to the map. Content of your map will be your responsibility. All maps must be credited as follows: “Based on OCHA/ReliefWeb”
therefore if you change the map (say remove Leeds and add Manchester, or just mark Aberdeen on map, you will HAVE TO remove logo.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
If any map is to be used, it would be better if the WP map workshop redraw it, to remove the logo, and find a way of adding Manchester without over-cluttering it - for instance by moving the name "Birmingham" to the left of its dot rather than above it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
And make sure it is saved as a .PNG file! --HazhkTalk 20:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we use the location map and add labels using the template? Rob (talk | contribs) 20:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The OCHA map is substantially unaltered (a little text has been deleted) , so the applicable permission may be "No permission is required to publish our maps on your website provided that you link to the original ReliefWeb map page and credit as follows: “Source: OCHA/ReliefWeb”. We would appreciate a notification via email with a link to your webpage for our records."[4] I would take that to mean the credit and link should appear where the map is used. As it is, there's only a link on the Commons entry and it is not credited as “Source: OCHA/ReliefWeb” there either. There is an alert on the Commons page "The uploader did not provide sufficient information (a valid and suitable tag) on this media's copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the file could be deleted seven days after the upload (9 September 2014)".[5] I suggest WikiImprovment78 stops inserting the map into this article until these issues are resolved. NebY (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Alternatively...
[Removed] Rob (talk | contribs) 13:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Rob (talk | contribs) 21:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Obviously, you can add any labels you like. I just used United Kingdom administrative areas.svg to map the cities.
Rob (talk | contribs) 21:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The locations of Belfast and, particularly, Edinburgh, look wrong to me on that version. Edinburgh is out by 30 miles or so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Then the borders on this map are wrong...
[Removed] Rob (talk | contribs) 13:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Rob (talk | contribs) 21:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
And the data for Scotland on that map is from United States National Imagery and Mapping Agency data and World Data Base II data. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
This is about the best accuracy you can get from a pinpoint map:
[Removed] Rob (talk | contribs) 13:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Rob (talk | contribs) 22:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The locations on that set look much more accurate to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll try my best to resolve these massive issues guys, thanks, WikiImproves 15:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiImprovment78 (talk • contribs)
I think the message is that you don't have to do it. Rob's made a start and, for formatting purposes, it would probably be best if it were handed over to the map workshop people to complete. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I noticed but i did improvments here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_Map.jpg. Relief web's maps are used across wikipedia (e.g. South Africa) I think this map has potential.WikiImproves 19:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiImprovment78 (talk • contribs)
Liverpool and Wrexham...??!! Why??!! Seriously, if you want to contribute, you should take account of other editors' views. Please remove Liverpool, Wrexham, and Derry, and insert Manchester. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Removed Liverpool and Wrexham, added Manchester. Also just for people who don't know the metric system, I added a miles conversion. WikiImprovment78 (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The file should ideally be in a .PNG format which is more suited to graphic files. It will need to be recreated. -- HazhkTalk 12:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
You can just open the image in most image editing software and save it as a png. I think the only difference is when the image is rendered. Rob (talk | contribs) 13:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I have made a PNG version (as seen at top)WikiImprovment78 (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Have you looked at its appearance on this page? NebY (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand, what do you mean? WikiImprovment78 (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
At 250px (width of infobox) the text is difficult to read:
File:UK MapPNG.png
Rob (talk | contribs) 21:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
So, now I've gotta remove all the names and re-add them because you need glasses. I can read them fine, I need another editor to back this up until I make that big change. WikiImprovment78 (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The text is blurred. Even if you can read it, you should be able to see the difference between the two maps you uploaded at the top of this section. But please don't worry - nobody is insisting that you must create a map for this page. NebY (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Why has Derry been added back? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Both maps are illegible to me. If I didn't know that it said 'Birmingham', I wouldn't be able to tell what that it said. My vision is fine, and I'm looking at a 1280x800 13-inch display. I can't read that text. There are however many people with much poorer vision then myself, and there are already readers who have complained about the legibility of small text on Wikipedia. If a teen with perfectly good vision can't read the text on your map, it isn't good enough. Rob (talk | contribs) 22:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, and Ghmyrtle, I never removed Derry, why do you want me to? WikiImprovment78 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no good reason for including Derry, as I said at 20:51, 10 September 2014. I thought you had removed it in a previous version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok that's fine I agree, so I have enlarged the text and removed Derry. Will there ever be a time when this is ready for the article? WikiImprovment78 (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't the logo have to come off? I can't remember which policy mandates that, but it's certainly implicit in WP:LOGO (I.e it has a promotional purpose). DeCausa (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't see why wikiimprovemnets is pushing this map. there is nothing wrong with the maps that Rob produced halfway through this discussion. They conveyed the same information, without the silly obtrusive global view, unneeded bold header, or promotional logo. I suggest we bin OCHA map IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The only advantage I can see in the WikiImprovment map is that it shows a wider area - showing part of Norway, etc.. That provides a better geographical context than Rob's map and shows (refreshingly) that the UK is not part of an isolated island group. But the logo, header and globe need to be removed. If other editors agree and if Rob can easily make that adjustment to the area covered, I agree that his approach is preferable and more closely in line with the format used in other articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I can create a location map showing a wider area. Rob (talk | contribs) 12:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The reason I uploaded and edited this map is because most of the other articles on countries use the OCHA map. Why were people giving me edit suggestions if all along rob's map was going to be used? WikiImprovment78 (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The OCHA maps are a relatively new addition to Wikipedia and are impractical. Why are we using maps created, and belonging to, a third party, instead of creating our own vector maps using our own conventions? There's an ongoing project on commons creating tens of thousands of vector maps in a consistent style, for Wikipedia. We should never need to use third party maps. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
How is this location map:
?
Rob (talk | contribs) 17:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The OCHA maps were spammed acros a series of country articles by User:Unocha.visual, whose only contribs were to do this on the 26 Aug and 3 Sept. AFAIK, that's the only reason they're around and many of the country articles with active users have reverted them. It seems to be some sort of COI/promotional campaign. I think it's probably best to go with Rob's map. DeCausa (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Discussed at the COI noticeboard here and opinion seems to be to revert. (Oh and WP:WATERMARK is the guideline I couldn't remember earlier). DeCausa (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes Rob, thanks. That seems to cover a suitable area. I'd go with that.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Location map proposal

I've started adding labels, is this suitable? I don't want to add all the labels to then discover people want x, y and z changed. Don't worry too much about the accuracy of the pinpoints. They can be improved before it's added to the article, it just takes time.
Rob (talk | contribs) 13:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Rob. My suggestions:
Remove rivers (not really needed here)
Add Scotland and Wales boundaries
Label E/S/W/NI individually (with arrows)
Change Rep. of Ireland to Ireland (official name)
Add name Atlantic Ocean (perhaps in place of Celtic Sea)
Add Cardiff, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow (capital of Wales, and cities ranked 2-4 by population)
Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I will remove rivers add country borders. How does this look:
Edit: Slightly improved arrangement.
Using labels and arrows isn't really possible with only the labelling template. I tried having lines extending from the country labels but I don't think it looked great.
Rob (talk | contribs) 16:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
That looks too cramped to me. I think if you want country labels, you need to remove some cities:
or
Rob (talk | contribs) 17:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. It's a shame if we can't use this map to show the four countries/nations/parts in some way. I still see rivers on the map. And Liverpool? (Not that I have anything against Liverpool - it's my home city.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Ohh. I just assumed Liverpool was larger then Glasgow, which it isn't, necessarily. Hmmm. How does this look:
It's not too crowded I don't think.
Rob (talk | contribs) 12:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there an easy way to differentiate the country names from the city names more clearly without cluttering it - eg a heavier or different font? Looking good though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I've increased the font weight. You might have to hard refresh to see changes. Rob (talk | contribs) 13:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The flurry of comments that I was anticipating doesn't seem to have materialised. It looks OK to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The latest version doesn't work so well for me. So much text, all hyperlinked and therefore underlined (in my case anyway, but I think that's fairly normal) detracts from the actual map outlines. What's more, the underlining being black in all cases rather defeats the sensible subtler colouring of the text and the map. I fear it's trying to do too much in such a small space. Would it be possible to turn off hyperlinking for some elements, or even all? Without actually seeing the effect of e.g. hyperlinking just cities, I think my preference would be to remove it completely. NebY (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
There's various things we can do to that map to resolve those issues. For example, we could zoom in on the United Kingdom to create more space for labels. Or we could remove the country labels and borders entirely. Or alternatively we could also use different colours (this style) to highlight the countries of the UK, to outline them without labelling them. Or we could only label the countries.
However, you rightfully point out, do we need another map in the infobox? I think we definitely need an administrative map in the article, which I will look into, however I'm not set on the infobox.
Rob984 (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Did I question the need for another map? I've lost track. Thinking about it now, I fear it would push the infobox's text info too far down. But if we are to have one, well, I'm almost overwhelmed by the choices you've offered. I think using colours rather than text for UK countries would work; having text for both countries and cities is the biggest part of the jumble. If it's possible (it's not one of the options you offered) I'd scrap the text for seas too; I think outlines plus the names of neighbouring countries situate the UK well enough. That would cut the near-collisions of text down to two, Birmingham/Netherlands and Ireland/Manchester, which might be much easier on the reader's eye. That all seems better to me than zooming in, which could exaggerate the isolation of the UK. NebY (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Religion in the UK - update please ?

This section quotes the 2001 census statistics. Could anyone update it to the 2011 census please ?Pwimageglow (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Universities

Does anyone know how we got back to a situation when the only two named universities are Oxford and Cambridge? It would be nice to represent changes since the fifteenth century.--SabreBD (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Two people, including myself, have tried but our additions and citations have been removed Hayek79 (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Territories and dependencies

Given that there is at present a section in the article about Crown Dependencies and overseas territories, I do not see why the map is inappropriate, especially when you consider that the UK is sovereign over British Overseas Territories. Hayek79 (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is quite clear to me that the map should not be contained in the infobox, as the article (and infobox) is about the UK, and not its dependent territories. Unlike in France, Denmark, etc., the dependent territories are not part of the UK - they are separate. There is (quite appropriately) a section in the article explaining the UK's relationship with its dependent territories, and the map could be included there, were it not for the fact that there is already an image in that section (of the Cayman Islands). A map might, in my view, be of greater encyclopedic value, but including it there as a second image would squeeze the text unacceptably. Do other editors agree (1) that the map should be moved out of the infobox, and (2) be placed in the Dependencies section in place of the Cayman Islands image? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with your suggestions Ghmyrtle. In addition to the map being clearly unnecessary in the infobox, it also looks poor and out of place.Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes and Yes. I agree with both of your suggestions, Ghmyrtle. Move the map into the Dependencies section in place of the Cayman Islands image. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Further to Ghmyrtle's comments, it is quite excessive to insert such a map in the infobox. We already need to resist the urge to keep adding just one more item, just one more map, to the infobox. This large map, showing virtually invisible pink pixels and a distorted block for the contested slice of Antarctica, and representing as it does but a small part of the UK's external relations, merely prevents the infobox from functioning for the reader. We could include such a map in the relevant section of the article, but this particular one conveys very little and does that poorly. NebY (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear - I support the view that the inclusion of the map, as it stands, is unhelpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I included it in the relevent section, for which I was accused of edit warring, so I'm evidently wasting my time. It would appear from what's written here that most people do not "oppose inclusion of this map" Hayek79 (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
You were edit warring to include the map, regardless of which section it was in. There is no consensus to include the map at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the map is unneeded, and conveys little practical information: as NebY says almost invisible pink dots, and that's when you view the map at full scale: at thumbnail size it is impossible to see anything. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@Hayek79:, you were indeed edit-warring. You reverted three times against three different users. You should have stopped at the first revert and left it to discussion here per WP:BRD. As noted above, the map is inappropriate for the userbox - or for that matter for the whole article. Apart from anything else, it's not a helpful map: it leaves the casual reader with the impression it's a map of part of Antarctica. DeCausa (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm working in Brazil with intermittent and poor internet access so apologies for not responding earlier when my revert to the previous stable state was reverted by Hayek79 in violation of WP:BRD. I tried to comment twice but the line kept dropping! Just to be clear I agree with Ghmyrtle ----Snowded TALK 17:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Since they are not part of the UK they should be excluded. Incidentally, the UK is not sovereign over these territories, the sovereign is. And modern legal thinking is that she acts on the advice of her ministers for these territories, not on the advice of her ministers for the UK (although in the case of uninhabited territories they may be the same people). The UK is responsible for their defence and they have the right of self-determination. TFD (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
That's incorrect, please read page 24 of the 2012 White Paper https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/14929/ot-wp-0612.pdf "continue to ensure that our sovereignty over the Territories is defended" and also https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/protecting-and-developing-the-overseas-territories Hayek79 (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
If you consider that the status of British overseas territories is in fact little different to those of France for instance, which too are self-governing and not part of metropolitan France (it is, logically speaking, no better than arguing that British colonies were never part of British Empire due to pooled sovereignty), and that similar maps, of a similar size and legibility appear on similar pages, I cannot understand the resistance to this change. And if DeCausa is interested, I moved the picture elsewhere in the article which is not the same a reversion, but I guess it doesn't matter if the three-revert rule is flexible whilst WP:BRD is apparently not. @The Four Deuces: any territory can claim to have the right to "self-determination", it's not a legal status. They have "self-government", sure. Hayek79 (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Re sovereignty, if I understand it correctly, TFD is right about the Crown dependencies and Hayek79 about the Territories. Re inclusion of the map, it is used in the extensive article British Overseas Territories but we're not going to include everything in that article in this more general overview. Re similar maps, as the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS points out, there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales. Re edit-warring, as the policy document WP:EDITWAR points out, The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so, to which I'd add that it's much better to be warned in time than to cross the line and be blocked. NebY (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict), Hayek79, you're wrong on a couple of points. Firstly, 3RR is not as "flexible" as you think. For the purposes of that policy "a "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." Secondly, Metropolitan France has no equivalence with the "United Kingdom". It is closer to saying "mainland Britain". The key point is that the French Overseas departments and teritories are part of the French Republic, whereas the British overseas territories are not part of the united Kingdom. DeCausa (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
@DeCausa: I will concede that I was wrong about reversion, but I'd like to focus on dependencies and territories now. By Metropolitan France, I was referring to territory that is part of the French Republic, such as Algeria before 1962, whereas other colonies were not, perhaps I used the wrong word. For instance while French Guiana and Martinique are French territory with voting rights in the National Assembly etc, New Caledonia and collectivities such as French Polynesia have an entirely different status. Hayek79 (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
@NebY: I still think that it would be useful in the article somewhere, I equally would still argue that it's inclusion in the infobox does not increase it's length or complexity to too great a degree, and British sovereignty over these territories is still significant (given the presence of air and naval installations, and the enormous quantity of sterling held there). Is the difference between the inclusion of a territory within a country and the sovereignty of a country over a territory any more than a technicality? Hayek79 (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
No, this is your fundamental misunderstanding. French Guiana, Martinique and French Polynesia are all within the French Republic. Gibraltar, st Helena etc are not within the United Kingdom. DeCausa (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I suggested nothing else, please read again what I have written Hayek79 (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Well I see you suggesting the opposite. But if you say you understand that the French teritories are part of the state which is the subject of the article, whereas the British ones are not, then we can close this discussion. DeCausa (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Hayek79, the map does not indicate whatever economic significance the places marked have and it is far too indistinct to indicate their somewhat arguable strategic significance. But that's just part of the problem; many other arguments against that map's inclusion in the body of this article or in the infobox have been expressed here. There's a point at which it's not merely collegial but required on Wikipedia to stop saying "I still think" and "I would still argue" and accept consensus. I think we've reached it. NebY (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Hayek79, tertiary source are often unhelpful because they are unsourced and often inexact. See the 2005 Lords decision that explains the position.[6] The significance of the law is explained in the submission of the Gibraltar government in "Overseas Territories: Seventh Report of Session 2007-08, Vol. 2, pp. 296 ff.)"[7] Sources frequently refer to the UK when the more precise term would be the Crown. I dio not even think that the UK has legal personhood under UK law, unlike the U.S. under U.S. law, hence it could not legally have sovereignty over a territory, although in everyday non-pedantic speech we would say it did. TFD (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Formation

Constitutionally the United Kingdom is a direct continuation of the Kingdom of England, I do not see why the formation of it (and the Kingdom of Scotland) should not be included. The act of union 1707 didn't create a new nation, as in the United States.

Now Rob984 says: "Why England? Why not Wessex? Or Great Britain and Ireland? Undue weight on two predecessors" - Great Britain is there, Act of Union 1707 incase you hadn't noticed. Ireland constitutionally isn't that important - as it was a English client state. You say why 'England' - it was the direct predecessor state.... it existed for a great deal longer than either United Kingdoms have thus far. Undue weight would be including Act of Union 1707 and Act of Union 1801, or us joining the EU, and not the formation of the countries that formed the union, your logic makes no sense - and certainly does not constitute a reasonable argument for reverting my edit.

If you want to add Wessex - add it. The French article for example, has the Kingdom of France and it's various predecessor states - despite each constitutionally differing to a far greater degree than England/UK. Alexsau1991 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, you've been reverted by 2 different editors so please don't try to reinstate until you have consensus supporting your edit per WP:BRD. Secondly, your view that the UK is a continuation of England and 1707 didn't create a "new nation" is at best contentious and at worst plain wrong - either way you need to provide sources for it. Thirdly, the state was formed in 1707/1801, the infobox could be cluttered up with any number of predecessor states - it should be kept clear and straightforward. DeCausa (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Alexsau, my view is that the UK is, in reality, a continuation of the state established by the Saxons in the 6th century; however this is original research. Unless a very reliable source is provided that claims that the Acts of union are simply constitutional nonsense which in reality annexed Scotland and Ireland into the English kingdom, or similar, then you're wasting your time. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 23:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

6th century, Hengist and Horsa, or even Ida...an established state? You're having a laugh! Aethelstan was the first king of all the English in the 10th c. Now, onto the constitution, of which there is no such thing in the UK, how could you describe the Court of Session or the General Assembly (still very evidently on the go) as Saxon institutions? Brendandh (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. No such thing as the constitution of the United Kingdom? Of course there is one... how do you think this country has been governed so stably for so many centuries? As for the Court of Session and the General Assembly... these are Scottish institutions which exist only in Scotland, ie they are not institutions of the United Kingdom. Argovian (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear. Yes they certainly are, insofar that they are institutions of the Northern third of it, and enshrined in the acts of Union. Brendandh (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
"This country", says it all really....Which country? Would that happen to be England (with a bit of Wales thrown in) perchance? The spiritual or legal Lords of the English judiciary and church may sit in the Palace of Westminster, but they are certainly not the religious/legal omsbudsmen of the northern third of this island. "Centuries"?, s'pose 304 years could be counted as "centuries", not that 'many' and not particularly 'stable' either though! Brendandh (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
307 years, mea culpa. Brendandh (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
268 years really do not count as many centuries of being governed so stably. NebY (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we should add the unification of England, because it's an important event in the history of the United Kingdom. It's not necessarily constitutionally important event, but it's definitely important, as England is the largest part of the UK by far (population). If articles like Russia have informal events like the arrival of Rurik - what is definitely not a constitutional event - I don't see why we shouldn't add the unification of England as it is seriously important event for the later unification of UK. Ransewiki (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
English unification simply started the process of unification of the UK. Kingdom of England covered 2/3 of UK´s current area so it is a significant predecessor state. Most other WP articles of countries have multiple predecessor states, and you cannot argue that adding the unification of England would make the infobox too crowded. We currently have only three formation dates (2 Acts of Union and the Anglo-Irish Treaty), while most European countries have 6-7. Few examples are: Russia (they have actually 9), Spain (7), Portugal (11 really....), Poland (They have also 11), Germany (6).... I could go on with the list. Regards --Ransewiki (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Aye, but Athelstan's (very shaky) union of the heptarchy didn't create the United Kingdom, it created 'a' united kingdom of the English, but not 'the' United Kingdom. England, Ireland and especially Scotland were sovereign states for far longer than the period since 1707/1801, Ireland was admittedly at times subordinate to England, but also on occasion to the Scots. Wales was an earlier incorporation to the English state. We might as well put Kenneth MacAlpine's unification of the Picts and Scots, a couple of hundred years earlier than Athelstan in there. His descendant did become the first King of Scotland, England and Ireland after all. Read your books mun! Brendandh (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The United Kingdom isn't merely an expanded England but tracking only one part of the UK in the infobox would carry that message. We could go back and back in recording what existed before the UK, we could look to Roman unification of much of Great Britain and add a note that there followed a period of division before re-unification, but we don't. We keep to a much more straightforward scope in the infobox and touch on the complex earlier history of Britain in brief sections of the article. Of course such things will remain contentious - it's striking that your list began with Russia, a state which did dominate a wide territory as a nominal union of states and whose borders are in question once again. NebY (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Somewhat related...
If England, after Welsh incorporation, was merely an expanded England. But Great Britain isn't merely an expanded England. What is the United Kingdom? Merely an expanded Great Britain, or the result of a union of two states? This article is about a country, today made up of 4 countries. But when was this country founded? 1542? 1707? 1801? What is the difference between Welsh incorporation into England, and Irish incorporation into the British state? The union of a colony of Great Britain, with Great Britain, decided by Great Britain, is surely annexation? The Irish Parliament was not democratic. It was elected by powerful British people in Ireland.
My point? The 'country of countries' started in 1542, regardless of whether it was 'the British state'. Is this article about the 'country of countries' (founded in 1542), or 'the British state' (founded in 1707)? Because if the former, then we should mention the Laws in Wales Acts and Commonwealth in the infobox.
Rob (talk | contribs) 16:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Whatever happened in 1536 (I'm surprised at your choice of 1542) did not create anything that was then called a United Kingdom, nor do moderns apply that term to it. This article is about the United Kingdom. It's in a hyper-linked encyclopedia. That means we link to information about related subjects; we don't rehash those subjects in every article. We don't give the date of birth of Henry VII in our article on Henry VIII, or that of Henry VII's predecessor as King of England, or that of Henry VII's progenitor and predecessor as Earl of Richmond. We don't give them in the body of the article and we certainly don't give them in the infobox. We give them in their own articles and then we link. Same here. NebY (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
But the current British state was legally created in 1801, not 1707. Why do we not simply link to Kingdom of Great Britain? There's a blurry distinction being made between the 1707 and 1801 unions. Although Scotland decided to unify with England, it was still in reality Scotland joining an existing state. England's institutions were simply extended across the addition territory in most instances. Scotland retained some local institutions, but so did Wales and Ireland. Additionally, the infobox shows the 'formation' of the United Kingdom, the unification of two, of it's four parts is significant to this. I don't think the body of the article should be changed at all. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how this article has a clear 'scope'. It's a summary of the different aspects of the current state including its history, even before it's existence. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
As I said, most countries have their PREDECESSOR states listed in Wikipedia, and UK should have England at least, not because UK would be somehow an expanded England, but because England is a very very important predecessor state for the current UK and the formation of UK. --Ransewiki (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
'very very important predecessor state' is your POV. I agree, but it's still original research. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The distinction of 'before and after' 1707 is offensively idiotic. The UK is comprised of four nations, Wales and Ireland are two of them. It is POV to actually privilege the union with Scotland over that of Wales and Ireland. And make no mistake, the 'before and after' 1707 section does precisely that. And for that reason, this article is currently absurd and ahistorical. Indeed, as it currently stands, the 'before 1707' section doesn't even mention the Acts of Union with Wales. Put simply, this article is laughable.95.146.250.72 (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 did not create anything that was then called a United Kingdom, nor do moderns apply that term to it. NebY (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
By that logic, if the English state was named the 'United Kingdom of England', the scope of this article would cover that state too, simply based on the name. Are names really that significant? The argument is that this article should be about the country of countries, not the use of the term 'United Kingdom'. And the country of countries began with the English annexation of Wales. The Kingdom of England was a British state compromised of two countries. Great Britain was a British state compromised of three countries. Why include the unification of one but not the other? Rob (talk | contribs) 13:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The 1706 and 1707 Acts of Union did not create a polity called 'a United Kingdom' either, it created 'Great Britain'. This has already been mentioned above by others. I'm also unclear as to precisely what you mean by the word 'moderns'. On a broader note, I think it would be extremely difficult to find an historian today, following the emergence of the New British History school of historiographical discourse, who would anchor discussion of the emergence of the modern United Kingdom polity around 1707 at the expense of the other Acts of Union from 1535 onwards.
In fact, it makes more sense, if there is to be a chronological 'before and after' break down to frame that discussion around the first act of union between two of the four constituant nations in the modern United Kingdom. That actually has a chronological, as opposed to entirely arbitrary, basis. As it stands the article implicity devalues the position of Wales and Northern Ireland.95.146.250.72 (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the text of the 1706 Act here and the 1707 Act here you'll find it is repeatedly called the United Kingdom of Great Britain or simply the United Kingdom. NebY (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
That is as maybe, but it remains a fact that there was no polity with the title 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' until 1801, and there has not been one since 1927. The 1706 document also states, explicity, 'That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the First day of May which shall be in the year One thousand seven hundred and seven and for ever after be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain'. So the argument that it is the name which is significant here is clearly without foundation. If that is to be your argument then surely the division, if there is to be one, should focus on 1801. 95.146.250.72 (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The Acts of Union 1707 created the United Kingdom. Wales was assimilated into, not united with, the Kingdom of England. The formal union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and England created the modern sovereign state. Ireland was added on a century later. The fact that Scotland has always had distinct institutions and a separate legal system from England and Wales (or "England" before the 1950s) shows the special importance of the 1707 union. So tell me how the 1707 date is arbitrary? Out of curiosity, how do editors propose we divide the history section, if not "pre- and post- 1707"? --HazhkTalk 16:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
When you state that Wales was 'assimilated into' as opposed to 'united with', the 1535 Act explicity states that England and Wales were 'united, annexed and joined' together. Annexed in late-middle English meaning to be 'connected'. But this is all a semantic dispute obfuscating the central issue, which is that if you want to trace the history of the current United Kingdom, which now consists of four acknowledged constituent countries, it is rather more than faintly ridiculous to frame the unification, annexation or joining (which ever term you prefer) of one of those constituent countries into/with England as mere prologue. 95.146.250.72 (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe I created the 1707 split in 2011 when I expanded the pre-UK material. Until then it was just a history of the UK, literally. FWIW, in my mind it was a fairly arbitrary split to divide up the history section. Since then I have found it to be justified on the basis that the balance of legal opinion is that the UK was created in 1707 (and Ireland joined the state in 1801). I can post a good legal source of that if anyone's interested. But it's incorrect to say thatthat is because of the name. (It's for other reasons of substance). The UK name was officially put in place by the 1801 Act not the 1706/7 Acts. This has been debated here many times before. The capitalisation of the "U" in the 1707/6 Acts is not significant - that's the way 18th century orthography works (or doesn't work). The "united" is descriptive" rather than a matter of nomenclature. The sections 1 of both acts are quite clear: the 1707 act created a kingdom called simply "Great Britain". The 1801 act named that kingdom "United Kingdom of Great... etc" DeCausa (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I suppose this boils down to what the purpose of an historical entry into a modern encyclopedia should be. If it is to be grounded purely in a legal, as opposed to being formulated in the current reigning historiographical consensus, then sure. However, since the 1970s the historiographical consensus has indeed shifted away from a 'three kingdoms' view of the collective 'British' past. I would direct you to J.G.A. Pocock's seminal 1975 article 'British History: A Plea for a New Subject' in which the problems of taking the tack you seem to be employing are outlined in the opening page. 95.146.250.72 (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think Pocock's article contradicts what I've said. Pocock posits simply the interconnectedness of British history and that it forms a single strand. That's what the history section aims to do (though no doubt it could always be improved). An "anti-Pocock" section would have separate sections for each country. The 1707 divide merely signals probably the single most significant development of that single strand of history in the last 1000 years (I.e. the legal establishment of the current state, which also happens to be the subject of this article). DeCausa (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Seriously if you think logically it tells something that this country was founded by Acts of Union in two different parliaments, Parliament of England and Parliament of Scotland. It means that those parliaments are responsible for the creation of UK and therefor they are clearly predecessor states. The fact that you cant find an official source about UK´s predecessors is because there is no constitution in the UK. And that makes almost everything unofficial. Even the existence of UK is dependent on two acts of two different parliaments, which can be any time repealed by the current UK parliament. The only stable part keeping this country together is the monarchy, and the Union of the Crowns in 1603 united us under a single monarch. In 1603 the monarch was still almost absolute ruler, so therefor we we in 1603 de facto united. We also adopted the first design of the Union Flag after the Union of the Crowns. James VI of Scotland/James I of England & Ireland quartered the arms of England with those of Scotland. There was no position of a prime minister back then, and the monarch was clearly the most important person in the his/her governments. So the policies of our government were directed by a single person and therefor the policies of both kingdom were nearly same. And how about the Tender of Union and the Protectorate era?? Then all of these isles were united under a single government. Regards --Ransewiki (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
What a lot of...WP:OR. Not sure exactly what the edit you want to make is, but I would point out that lack of a written constitution (or more acurately a wholly written constitution, since some of it is in fact written) doesn't make "everything unofficial", whatever that may mean. What we look for is a reliable source and there are shelf loads of that for tye constution and constitutional history. DeCausa (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, seriously the constitution part wasn't the most important in my post. And you understood it completely wrong! Seriously don't you understand that when I put some text in bold, that means that part is the most important part of the post? And what original research?? Do you claim the fact that the Acts of Union 1707 were two Acts of Parliament passed by the English Parliament and Scottish Parliament is my original research?? Do you claim that the fact that there was no position of a Prime Minister in neither Scotland or England, is my original research?? Do you claim that the fact that the first design of the Union flag was adopted in 1606 is my original research?? Please specify what is my "original research" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ransewiki (talk • contribs) 20:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:SHOUT, I ignored your overuse of bolding. I have no idea what edit you propose making to the article. DeCausa (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
You're original research is your use of various verifiable information to come to a conclusion. De jure, personal unions ≠ states. Rob984 (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I never meant to say that personal union of England and Scotland is the same as if they were a united country. What I mean is that the Acts of Union being passed by the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland clearly mean that England and Scotland were predecessor states of the Kingdom of Great Britain (and currently the UK), and all countries list their predecessor states in Wikipedia (some of them say it indirectly if they say that country X gained independence from country Z). Ransewiki (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean in the infobox? No they don't. I've just looked through several of the other European country articles and none of them do. DeCausa (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, what countries have you been looking at? Because I don't have time to look at every single country in the world, but for example in Germany-article they mention Holy Roman Empire, which is clearly a predecessor, or Italy, France, and Austria, which include the predecessor monarchies, empires and republics (France as an example includes the Ancien Regime/Kingdom of France), or Spain which includes the personal union of Castile and Aragon as a date (the Dynastic union), or Iceland page which traces all the predecessor states from the current republic through the unions with Norway and Denmark, back to the Viking settlement. Or Russia which has even the older predecessor states Kievan Rus and Duchy of Moscow in the foundation infobox, or Serbia which has its medieval state and its comquest by Ottoman Empire, or Bulgaria which has the Bulgarian Empires and its occupation by the Ottoman Empire. So there are lots of predecessor states in Europe mentioned, but so are in outside Europe: for example Mexico which includes all of its constitutions (some of them Empires), or Egypt which has its unification in 3150 BC and the Muhammad Ali Dynasty, and its independence (as a kingdom) from the UK, and the foundation of the Republic. So there are many pages with predecessor states, so I'm curious which ones you looked?? Of course for some states there doesn't even exist predecessor states, because they can trace their roots back to tribes, and some states became independent from an other states rule (well you could say the occupation/being part of the other state period is indirectly the predecessor state). Regards Ransewiki (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I looked at most of the European ones you mentioned, and you have misreprsented what they say. They have a "Formation" parameter and mark the major formation events, not predecessor states, just as this article does. The first formation event mentioned in this infobox is the Act of Union. What's the problem with that? What is the edit you want to make? DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Nope, they include the formation of their predecessors. You can't argue that Holy Roman Empire is the same state as Germany, or even its direct continuation. I want to add the formation of the UK's predecessors as that is important for forming the UK. Ransewiki (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
No they don't. Does the the Formation parameter in the infobox of the Germany article refer to Kingdom of Bavaria, Kingdom of Prussia etc.? No. It's a linear list of what the editors working on that article regard as the main formation events. It's a chronology not a list of predecessor states. The point raised in this thread was that the chronology of Formation events should extend to events prior to the union of England and Scotland and include the formation events of the UK's constituent parts. Consensus is not to do that. One of the reasons not to do that is where do you stop? Formation of Wessex, Kingdom of Strathclyde etc? DeCausa (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes its a chronology, but it also includes the formation of the Holy Roman Empire, and that is a predecessor state. --Ransewiki (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
But why is that relevant? The equivalent of what you want for this article would be a list of the pre-unification of Germany states (Kingdom of Bavaria, Kingdom of Prussia etc) and they're not there. As far as the HRE is concerned (I think it's dubious that that should be in the chronology in that way, but leaving that observation aside for the sake of argument), the equivalent of what you want to do there would be for that article to list the German Stem duchies, and they're not there either. DeCausa (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
As I earlier said there would be no UK if England and Scotland wouldn't have formed in the first place. No acts of Union without the Parliaments of England and Scotland. Could Germany have been formed without some of the German stem duchies, the answer is yes. Could UK have been formed without either England or Scotland, the answer is NO. English parliament couldn't have passed the acts of union if there was no Scotland. And vice versa. Ransewiki (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Formation dates for UK

Currently the article's info box lists several dates as the formation dates for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. These include the England Scotland Act of Union, the Britain Ireland Act of Union and the Anglo Irish Treaty. I added in the Government of Ireland Act because that is how Northern Ireland was established. This was deleted. See my edit: [8]. Shouldn't the establishment of Northern Ireland, one of the 3 UK jurisdictions be marked on the list of dates? Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's better to only list events which changed the territorial extent of the state. I don't think we should start listing events concerning devolution within the UK. Rob984 (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
We do not want too much detail in the info-box. Currently it shows the union between England and Wales and Scotland, the subsequent union with Ireland and the later independence of Southern Ireland. I suppose all these dates are useful because each substantially altered the territory led to a name change. OTOH, some opinion holds that the UK was not a new country, merely a continuation of England and Wales. TFD (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The GoI Act 1920's only significance is that it set up the devolved institutions of Northern Ireland from 1921 to 1972. It didn't alter the UK's territory. It's not relevant to the "Formation" parameter and actually not significant enough for the Infobox at all. We don't for instance include the legislation setting up the current NI devolved institutions, or those for Scotland and Wales. DeCausa (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I accept that Rob has made a coherent argument - He feels that only events which changed the territorial extent of the state should be listed. It is not the approach I would take because I think when listing dates relevant to the formation of UKGBNI, the creation of NI is an integral part of that story. But I accept Rob's is at least coherent and a defensible editorial take.
I think DeCausa's views are confused and not persuasive at all. The "legislation setting up the current NI devolved institutions, or those for Scotland and Wales" did not, in any of those cases, involve the formation of a new jurisdiction. The Government of Ireland Act did. It established Northern Ireland. That establishment is even reflected in the full name of the UK (UKGBNI) today.
Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Even if true (citation needed) it's nothing to do with "formation". I think this can be closed. DeCausa (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, how you can say it has nothing to do with formation! It "formed" NI. Without it, NI which is 1 of the 3 remainingf UK jurisdictions would not exist! You seem to have a doubt about about the truth of all this too. I suggest you read the Government of Ireland Act. For the exact date it was and thereby NI "formed", you can see it is referenced with the source on the NI page. Obviously, I would like it to be referenced on the UK page too but it isn't at present which is what this discussion was basically about, albeit it could be referenced elsewhere in the article but isn't. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

All the Government of Ireland Act 1920 did was divide Ireland into two parts. Neither part had sovereignty and their administrations were no different from various municipalities - we would not mention creation of the GLC as a milestone in this article. The event significant event was the departure of Southern Ireland from the UK. TFD (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. DeCausa (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Not exactly. Prior to the act, there were two jurisdictions in the UK: *England, Wales and Ireland*, and *Scotland*. After there were four: *England and Wales*, *Scotland*, *Northern Ireland*, and *Southern Ireland*. Undoubtedly more significant then devolution. That said, I stand by my first comment. Rob984 (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide a source that?DeCausa (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
AFAICT, Ireland remained a division of the UK, but it was sub-divided. The act declared that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would continue to represent the king and there would be a Council of Ireland. Each division of Ireland would in addition have its own house of commons.
But other divisions of the UK were subdivided as well. England for example had counties, each with a lord lieutenant. Yorkshire was divided into three ridings. Counties were divided into municipalities. TFD (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

England's annexation of Wales

The amendment of “The Principality of Wales was incorporated into the Kingdom of England in 1536.” to “Wales was annexed by the Kingdom of England under the Acts of Union of 1536 and 1543.” in the Lead was reverted with the edit summary “Powys was annexed in the 13th century”, which is news to me. Following the defeat of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, the Kingdom of Powys became one of the Marcher Lordships - until the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542. To single out the Principality of Wales, which comprised only about 2/3 of Wales, as being incorporated into England is misleading. The Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 state: “That his said Country or Dominion of Wales shall be, stand and continue for ever from henceforth incorporated, united and annexed to and with this his Realm of England” i.e. “Wales was annexed by the Kingdom of England under the Acts of Union of 1536 and 1543”, whether or not any other parts of Wales were under English control before the Acts. I have re-instated the statement. Daicaregos (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm with you. I guess we can forgive people's confusion over this, as the story is a little complicated. As you say, 2/3 of Wales was more or less annexed to England in 1284. But small parts of Wales had already become direct possessions of the Crown earlier in the same century, and the Marcher Lordships remained as semi-independent entities (which were not by any means unambiguously Norman or English in law or custom). In fact, John Davies points out that the Laws in Wales Acts were really more about incorporating the Welsh Marches into England than the Principality, although they also smoothed out some wrinkles in the incorporation of the Principality too. To complicate things further, it's not even the case that the Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284 exactly annexed the Principality to England. It was an annexation to the English Crown, which is not quite the same thing. And while it did introduce English Common Law into the Principality, the introduction wasn't complete. The annexation of Wales to England is indeed much better described as occurring with the Laws in Wales Acts 1532–1542. That might have been the culmination of a long process, but if we want to go back to the origins of that process, we might as well start with the oath of fealty of the Prince of Wales to the King of England (and then we'd have to say that Scotland joined England in the Middle Ages too). Garik (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
It may be even more complex. Wales remained a separate entity, with its own courts, which were considered "foreign" to English courts even as late as the end of the 18th century. See for example Otway v. Ramsay (1736), Walker v. Witter (1778), and Galbraith v. Neville (1789). TFD (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
As Garik says, the Laws in Wales Acts were the culmination of a process. "Annexed" slightly gives the wrong impression of a single dramatic event. It may be better to use a phrase such as "finally incorporated into the Kingdom of England" rather than "annexed". DeCausa (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Wales was incorporated into England and Wales. Both remained separate but within the same country, which was the continuator state of England, while Wales as a separate country was extinguished. At some point parliament said that "England" meant England and Wales. TFD (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Normans Invited to Settle on Scotland?

The sentence "In 1066, the Normans invaded England from France and after its conquest, seized large parts of Wales, conquered much of Ireland and were invited to settle in Scotland," seems to perptuate a common myth that the Norman's didn't conquer Scotland. It's true that King David invited many of his Norman followers to Scotland and parcelled out land to them. But David had been brought up as a Norman and was parachuted into his post as King of the Soots. The Scots had earlier been defeated by the Normans following the latter's invasion of Britain, and the then King of the Scots had sworn fealty to William thus making the Scots king a sub regulus or Low King owing allegiance to the Norman High King. David in turn seems to have remained loyal and content with that status until the accident of the civil war between Matilda and Stephen left him semi-independent and holding land which he would otherwise never have expected to hold outright. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

But nothing you say contradicts the statement that they were invited to settle in Scotland, which is, in any case, sourced. The Davidian Revolution is different in nature to the Norman invasions of England, Wales and Ireland and it would be misleading to present it otherwise. DeCausa (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"Etymology and terminology" section edit

Having just myself checked the recent edit by @MissionFix in the "Etymology and terminology" section, it does appear to be supported by the existing source which states "The earlier Act of Union, of 1707, states merely that England and Scotland shall 'be united into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain'.". Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I may or may not have completely read what MissionFix wrote wrongly. I had misread the date he stated so yes, the edit was correct. I'm going to add the source of the actual article 1 of the act of union 1707 as well, which specifically states "That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN". Sorry for the revert. SamWilson989 (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Year for United Kingdom have been a country since

Why did they never put "Category:States and territories established in "<any year>"" for United Kingdom?

I do not know how long United Kingdom have been a country for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.200.26 (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You asked the same question for Spain and Sweden. The answer is we do not know. All three existed before the modern concept of a country was developed. TFD (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the UK a country?

When you type into Google "IS the UK a country," Google returns with this answer: "The United Kingdom is the 22nd-most populous country" which is a direct quote from this article. And yet other sources say the UK is not a country. This is very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.89.130.10 (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What sources say it is not a country? TFD (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The FAQs at the top of this page (you'll need to click "Show") explain a bit. NebY (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The word country is synonymous with sovereign state in everyday speech so the UK is a country in this sense of the word. Tk420 (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Demographics request

I'm not sure where one could find this information, but I request that the ethnic groups portion of the demographics section be updated to the most recent data possible. Thank you.--Jacksoncw (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the data in ethnic groups section is based on the 2011 census, which is the most recent census round. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Although, see my comments below. While the table is for 2011, some of the section is indeed pretty dated. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

It might have been a good idea to canvas opinion and help before going to a GA Review. Honestly this article cannot pass at the moment, if only due to the many unsourced statements currently in the text.--SabreBD (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I looked down the history and spotted five very recent non-vandalism reverts. Didn't even get as far as the unsourced statements. Anyway, in no way does this pass the "stability" part of the GA criteria, let alone anything else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jaguar: please stop deleting content and links in a hasty attempt to meet GA targets, and instead engage with the discussion here. NebY (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The broken references were what mostly failed the GAR back in 2010 and it's logical to have no dead links rather than 30 broken links. Having these 30 dead links remain in the article would be a fail as it is. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This would have a been a reachable GA if the 30 dead links were not added back in the article. I removed them to replace them with more reliable sources myself and hopefully the GA review would have came out with comments to help the article further. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Jaguar, please don't let your enthusiasm for a high GA count lead you into ignoring the normal processes of Wikipedia. Please don't delete content just to reduce the number of blue links, please don't delete dead links en masse on a promise that at some time you'll figure out where they were and replace them, please don't ignore WP:BRD and please do engage with your fellow editors when considering nominating an article of which you are not a major contributor. In short, please don't do what you just did here. NebY (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jaguar: - If you leave the links there and replace them when you find live ones, the diffs of those changes will give other editors the ability to see whether they are reasonable replacements. If you can't find a live link, the detail of the dead link will be there for other editors to look for replacements. Don't forget WP:There is no deadline. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)--David Biddulph (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am a regular GA reviewer and had I reviewed this I would have been concerned with the use of WP:OVERLINK that this article has - I cut down a couple of composers in the Culture section that was too list-y and non-significant to a reader. I was very enthusiastic of getting this up to a GA standard but now everybody has made that impossible for me. The 30 dead links in the article are a serious problem but now they're all still there I can't find it likely for me to replace them anymore. It would have been some time before this GAN would have been reviewed and during that time I would have given this article a copyedit and more references. It's unfair how all initial attempts I have made of improving this article have been hushed and now due to this I'm afraid can no longer contribute. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Please don't feel disheartened and by all means keep up the enthusiasm, but we haven't made it impossible for you. As has been said, stick to policy and keep the dead links until you can replace or fix them, in the mean time you can copyedit and add additional references, nobody is here to stop you doing that.Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, don't be disheartened Jaguar. I don't see how it's more difficult to fix broken links one-by-one than to remove them all and then replace them all (in fact, I would think the former is easier). There's no reason why you can't make substantial progress improving the article, and then nominate it for GA. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not particularly hard or onerous to fix citations to dead links if you have access to the Wayback Machine or are knowledgable enough about the topic to have other sources (including offline or subscription-only ones). In any case, just blindly removing content just because it does not have a working URL is frowned upon - a newspaper citation, for example, can still be verified by going to the British Library and searching through their newspaper archive - and that is absolutely fine. And FWIW I've been slowly going through Katie Hopkins fixing all the dead links and content that does't actually correlate with the source which per WP:BLP is rather important.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You'll see from the section #One outstanding "dead link" below that all of the deadlinks have now been replaced by live links. A distinct improvement on removing the links without replacement. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

One outstanding "dead link"

I have been through most of the "dead links" in this article and added archiveurls where possible and replaced a couple with new references which support the claims made. There is one outstanding one I can not fix. The claim "Agriculture is intensive, highly mechanised and efficient by European standards, producing about 60% of food needs with less than 1.6% of the labour force (535,000 workers)" is supported by a (badly formed) link to a DEFRA page which no longer exists and I'm unable to find a previous copy or anything else which supports this claim. Can anyone help?— Rod talk 13:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

How about http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/foodfarm/general/auk/documents/AUK-2009.pdf ? From its name, that looks like the document that was quoted. I'm not sure whether some OR and/or SYNTH was applied in drawing the original conclusions. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Oops, edit conflict! You beat me to it. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Good work. I think it's this. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks both - reference now changed, both the 1.6% and 535,000 figures are supported by it. The article is now identified deadlink free (for now), but there may be some which haven't been tagged.— Rod talk 14:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I've now been going through the deadlinks identified by checklinks & not tagged. A couple more need help:

Any help with fix or identifying alternatives would be helpful.— Rod talk 16:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

For 138, http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/what-can-i-vote-for/national-assembly-for-wales seems to be the new URL. For ref 300 the existing https://web.archive.org/web/20060926181227/http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7817 seems to be working fine (wasn't that part of you amazing work?). NebY (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks 300 works but checklinks is still pulling it up as an error (don't know why) - not one I did. Ref 138 seems to be used to support the claim that the 22 unitary authorities are held every four years by the first past the post system & I can't see where it says that on http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/what-can-i-vote-for/national-assembly-for-wales which is talking about elections to the Welsh Assembly.— Rod talk 17:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I focused on the 4-years mention. Nothing on the 22 unitary authorities yet.... NebY (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Oh - there's http://gov.wales/topics/localgovernment/local-authorities/?lang=en :"All local authorities are democratically accountable through elections held every 4 years." NebY (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps this could be of some use: http://gov.wales/topics/localgovernment/local-authorities/?lang=en - I'll try and find the actual legislation though. SamWilson989 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Also found this article in the Guardian, mentioning the number of authorities being cut from 22 to 10 or 12: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/20/welsh-local-authorities-reduced-half-report - SamWilson989 (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Also this from the ONS: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/beginner-s-guide/administrative/wales/unitary-authorities/index.html - SamWilson989 (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Also http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn07104.pdf has the 4-years and FPTP statements for Wales - despite its title! NebY (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
OK I've replaced 138 with one you found from the Welsh Government, so I believe all web references are now live. Obviously some of them which support statistics are a bit out of date but that is a separate issue. While I'm here can I ask whether there would be room for a mention of Magna Carta, which I've been doing some editing on, as the basis for some UK laws 800 years after it was first sealed?— Rod talk 17:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
If you were going to mention it, and I think you definitely should, I'd say it belongs in the History section, not the law section. SamWilson989 (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, and the History section mentions the introduction of feudalism without a balancing mention of the move away from feudalism signalled by Magna Carta. NebY (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Provisional Government of Southern Ireland

A discussion about moving this article to Provisional Government of the Irish Free State was started. Very limited participation so far and more input would be appreciated. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic groups section and GA

I don't have time to read the whole article and contribute to the GA review, but I wanted to mention some issues with the ethnic groups section, since that's something I have some expertise on. Firstly, I'm not sure if starting the section with a table rather than text is a good idea presentationally. Second, most scholars of ethnicity don't recognise the "ethnic group" categories used in the British census as reflecting their understanding of what constitute ethnic groups. The census categories mix race and ethnicity. Perhaps this could briefly be noted? I've recently added some material on this to the Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom article, which could be borrowed for this purpose. Then there's the issue that the labels in the table don't match those of the source. For example, "Gypsy/Traveller/Irish Traveller" in the source has become "White: Irish Traveller" in the table. Finally, the sentence "In 2011, 86% of the population identified themselves as White, meaning 12.9% of the UK population identify themselves as of mixed ethnic minority" doesn't match the figures in table. The word "meaning" is also misused, because the second part of the sentence isn't a consequence of the first. I don't know what "of mixed ethnic minority" means. I presume it should read "of an ethnic minority"? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ouch - and there's more. "The fastest-growing group was the mixed-ethnicity population, which doubled from 672,000 in 2001 to 986,600 in 2009."(!) contradicts the source "The fastest growing ethnic minority group, in percentage terms, was Chinese, which jumped from 233,000 to 451,000 over the period." We're comparing the 2001 census with 2005 and 2009 estimates rather than the 2011 census (an estimate too, of course, but at least a more recent one and largely comparable with the 2001 census). Some text assumes that "White" means "British White", whereas (at least in the census's terms) it includes ethnic minorities. I think that last phrasing you queried, "of mixed ethnic minority" may be a scrambling of something like "of one or more of a variety of ethnic minorities" (not the first time someone's misunderstood what the census meant by "mixed"). Much to do. NebY (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't mention that most of the text from "Ethnic diversity varies significantly across the UK..." could probably be replaced by more recent data. Also, "In 1950 there were probably fewer than 20,000 non-white residents in Britain, almost all born overseas" could do with more than one source. I actually suspect that there might be a variety of estimates for that figure. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I also forgot "Migration from new EU member states in Central and Eastern Europe since 2004 has resulted in growth in these population groups but, as of 2008, the trend is reversing". 2008 is seven years ago! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Arguably the section should also mention the history of British Jews. It discusses historical migration of other groups to the UK, but there is no mention of this very well established ethnic/religious group. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I have now started to deal with some of these issues. Help would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've started to work through the article. The "Climate" section ought be sourceable from the Met Office reports - I would assume they're the best source to use. In terms of missing content, I don't want to add too much more as the article's quite large as it is. One thing I think is missing is Queen Victoria - the Victorian era has a passing mention but there is no explicit coverage of Britain's longest reigning monarch who saw the rise of the British Empire spread over the globe and whose influence on British culture is recognised over 110 years after her death ... so she needs to go in. In terms of ethnic minorities, I think Italians might be worth a mention, as there have been communities in London (the mod movement took their fashion cues from the Italian community), Glasgow (eg: Armando Iannucci) and elsewhere (eg: vandalism of Italian restaurants at the start of the Second World War after Italy joined the Axis). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The ethnic groups section currently starts with a discussion of a few genetic studies. This (link to full study in the references, for those with access) was in the news today. I'm no expert on genetics (and given that ethnicity is at least partly subjective and social, not genetically determined, it's perhaps not relevant), but does this change what we should say in the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw that as well on the BBC News app. It should be in the article as it is on about the genetic diversity in the UK which is not what many thought it would have been. It also shows that certain genetic groupings reflect certain areas which can form the basis of an ethnic grouping. Mabuska (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I agree, although we need to consider the wording carefully so as not to suggest that ethnicity is determined solely by genetics (note that the study doesn't actually make reference to ethnicity). There was a good feature on this with the lead author on last night's Inside Science on BBC Radio 4, which you can listen to here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles#Leslie, S. et al. Nature. It has been suggested that any changes to articles that this paper affects starts with Genetic history of the British Isles and that those changes if any are then reflected in other less detailed articles. -- PBS (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That was my suggestion, so I agree (!). There's another discussion of Leslie at the bottom of Talk:Celts#Definition_of_Celts_at_start_of_article this section at Talk:Celts. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan, PBS and Johnbod. I'll post something there later. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Discussion on this seems to have stalled on that page. It would be good to make some progress. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Southern Ireland (1921-1922) - unwieldy new title for former UK country

Are UK page editors aware that the title page for the above former UK country has been changed from plain old "Southern Ireland" which it was for years. "Southern Ireland" is now a dab page as if that was needed. To properly reference this former UK country now, you will have to type "Southern Ireland (1921-1922)|Southern Ireland". Am I the only one who thinks this is nuts? I've re-opened the discussion on the Talk:Southern Ireland (1921–22) if editors wish to contribute. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Moving Southern Ireland (1921-1922) back to its original title

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Southern Ireland (1921-1922) should be moved back to "Southern Ireland" as it was for years. You can contribute to the discussion at Talk:Southern Ireland (1921–22).Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sovereign state

The very first claim in the article is inaccurate. The United Kingdom is not a sovereign state it is part of the European Union and the parliament of England can be overruled legally by the larger union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_%28European_Union_law%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.131.31 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 15 April 2015

All sovereign states enter into treaties that affect domestic law. The UK remains sovereign because its parliament may stop the enforcement of EU "laws", or withdraw from the EU altogether. Nor does the EU have any means of enforcing its laws, that is left to each member nation. TFD (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

England as name for the country

Though England would certainly not be the right term for the UK, it still has been the most used name in the country's history. I think in the initial description a "sometimes only referred as England" should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weltarchiv (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Please sign your posts, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
It certainly is not the most used name in the country's history that would probably be Great Britain (which tends to be used in a geographic sense now but was once widely used particulary in the Victorian era for the name of the country), England is normally only used by non-Brits who dont understand the difference. So I dont think it needs to be in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with MilborneOne. A complete non-starter. -- Alarics (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2015

2.216.36.119 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC) A separation required between Great and Britain currently as GreatBritain Top Right column

Question: I cannot replicate this, where about in the column is the error? Jamietw (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: I found no problem either. Daicaregos (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Not done: No error that I can see. Searching for "greatbritain" in the article reveals no hits. Probably a browser issue on the requesting IP's end Cannolis (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

I missed out on the discussion where a consensus was apparently reached to include non-english versions of the UK's name, at the top of the infobox :( If they're going to remain, may I suggest they be made 'collapsable', so that the infobox isn't so elongated at the top & thus 'odd' looking? GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how you are viewing it but it is collapsed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, somethin' wrong with my computer. I've just noticed the same problem at Elizabeth II, concerning the Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Problem solved. I've switched over to Google Crome :) GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2015

Can you plz add "Telugu" language to the section 7.2 as shown below Present Text:

South Asian languages, including Bengali, Tamil, Punjabi, Hindi and Gujarati, are the largest grouping and are spoken by 2.7% of the UK population

After adding "Telugu" it should look as below:

South Asian languages, including Bengali, Tamil, Punjabi, Hindi, Telugu and Gujarati, are the largest grouping and are spoken by 2.7% of the UK population

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The citation for the current entry does not mention Telugu at all, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2015

Under Politics, Government - the page still says that the PM "heads a coalition with the Liberal Democrats", however, since the 2015 election there is a new government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PepperMintTea1967 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I've addressed this. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
This has highlighted that other parts of the section also need updating, such as the 2010 election results. I'll try to address this later today. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I've attempted a basic update. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, it says that elections are called by the monarch, and are subject to the Parliament Acts. However this is no longer the case since the introduction of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. PepperMintTea1967 (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

G7 & G8

When people click on G7 and G8 in UK article ( like also in United States ,France ,Germany ,Italy ,Canada and Japan articles) it appears the same article that is G7 (forum).Clicking on G7 should appear not G7 (forum) because it has no sense but it should appear G7 (finance ministers).In this form article isn't correct otherwise and doesn't present UK in the correct form and with the right prestige.UK is member also of the G7 (finance ministers) and this must be corrected also in the article of the other 6 states i mentioned.Thanks.151.40.78.43 (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be a problem caused when G7 (finance ministers) was moved from G7. Now G7 redirects to G7 (forum), which was previously G8. No one has corrected all the links to G7 meant for G7 (finance ministers). Whoever moved that page is responsible. I'll correct it here at least. Thanks. Rob984 (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I've redirected G7 back to G7 (finance ministers) also. Rob984 (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.People must know that net national wealth on which is based the G7 finance ministers is more important than the G7 (former G8) based on policy (Russia that has a very small national wealth in fact wasn't in the finance G7).Finance ministers met always before the G8 (today G7 forum),in fact without money people can't set policy in the world.The G7 finance ministers rapresents around the 2/3 of the national net wealth in the world.Net national wealth is like the wealth of a family that can't be compared to the nominal GDP that is just the annual wage of a family.There's a lot of confusion about it,because GDP is widely overvalued in Wikipedia english compared to the more important net national wealth.This because many developing countries are using propaganda about GDP meaning that is easier to boost in the short starting from low positions and with high inflations.The prestige of the sates that are in the G7 finance ministers and governors must be respected in all their related articles.Thanks again for you work.151.40.78.43 (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Updating the population figures

I would like to update the popualtion density figure in the second paragraph under Demographics section - it uses data from mid-2003 and mid-2014 data are available. Might also update sentence in first paragraph starting '2010 was the....'. I will update number of last sentence in paragraph three under migration. I will also update the percentage of people reading newspapers - latest data is only 2010 but this is better than 2009. Any problems with this please let me know, thanks Greensl7 (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I have carried out the updates but in doing so seem to have affected reference 292 - even though I did not amend this reference. I amended ref 291, of which there were 2 and they were the same. So now there is only one but it has affected ref 292. Can anybody help? Thanks Greensl7 (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Greensl7. I've fixed the reference issue. This help page section explains how multiple references to the same source work, if you're interested to know why that happened. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Re-written article....

I noticed that this article has been extensively re-written recently and erroneously at that. I would like to point out that this article cites Northern Ireland as a country. It isnt. Northern Ireland is an annexed province of the United Kingdom, a Monarchic Kingdom overseeing three separate countries; Wales, England and Scotland. To suggest that England is not a country in its own right is erroneous. Several other items *now* contained in this article are also highly questionable. I have noticed this article is now 'locked' for some reason. Unfortunately it has been locked with a host of inaccuracies attached to it. Please correct these. Britain is a Geographic Location. The Uk is a Monarchy with a central Government in London, England. England is a country. Wales is a country. Scotland is a country. North Ireland is an annexed territory. Please have your team look at this article which is now *very* inaccurate. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobGordon35 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but we have been over all these issues many times before. Incidentally "UK" and "Britain" are the same thing, a state, but not the same thing as "Great Britain", which is a geographical description of an area smaller than "Britain". The present consensus after a great deal of debate on here is that, for constitutional purposes, the UK ("Britain") is a state consisting of four countries, one of which is Northern Ireland. -- Alarics (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Where does the article suggest that England isn't a country, RobGordon35? The introduction states "The UK consists of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland", and that is sourced to the British government. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
That said, ISO 3166-2 suggests describing England, Wales and Scotland as countries and Northern Ireland as a province. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
You can describe Northern Ireland as a Province if you want, just as you can describe Wales as a Principality. None of this means anything in terms of the UK constitution. -- Alarics (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting changes - this has been discussed to death in any case - and since posting the comment above, I've seen that this is all covered in detail in the etymology and terminology section of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
As the term "province" for Northern Ireland is mention with the justification that the word country is controversial/political, it is also shown by ISO 3166-2 that principality is also controversial (at least for Welsh Nats), so I think ought to be mentioned. In the case of Wales the issue for Welsh Nats is more to do with the concept that a principality is a subservient entity to a kingdom, rather than an issue of the territorial integrity of Wales as country.
"Country" has two mixed up meanings and this a article does not make it clear what it means. This is highlighted by the quote "countries within a country" (PM office) Country can mean state, and country can mean the territory of the state (or a nation). "England" and "English", and "Scotland" "Scottish" make this division clearer than this article does. England is a territory in which the English nation reside and Scotland is the territory in which the Scottish reside. When a member of one nation crosses the border the they enter a territory of a different nation, but the same state--The reason why province and principality are controversial is because it blurs the distinction between politics and territory. If one means only territory then "England Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland make up [most] of the territory of the United Kingdom" is a statement of fact. As soon as one blurs the meaning of country then one end up with ambiguity (something that any PM needs to be good at doing).
There is a similar problem to the use of the term "nation" either to mean a ethic group or a state. Unless country is defined somewhere in the article, using country within the article is just confusing, particularly for those who are not aware of the different meanings of the term.
-- PBS (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Some observations on the history sections.

With such a broad article complex issues need to be summed up in one sentence. But the danger of that is that the oversimplification may distort a neutral summation of the issues:

  • "The early modern period saw religious conflict resulting from the Reformation and the introduction of Protestant state churches in each country" — While this is a fair summary of what happened in England and Wales it distorts what happened in Scotland and more so in Ireland. Also what does "country" here mean for Ireland does it mean the whole island or the province of Ulster and also if one is using "state church" then does one mean that Wales and England are one country?
  • "that, unlike much of the rest of Europe, royal absolutism would not prevail," -- this is an Anglo-centric view. While that was true for England and Wales, it is not such a good description for Scotland or for Ireland. Acts of state repression carried out in Ireland was done in the name of the monarch, and most Irish Catholics, no matter what their rank, during most the early modern period did not have any parliamentary representation. Also "much of the rest of Europe" is derived from the old Whig idea, and conveniently ignores, those states which where not absolute monarchies.
  • "With the constitutional rights of Parliament legally established in 1689" mixes up the English Parliament and the UK Parliament. This view is reinforced with the inclusion of "and the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 as some of the basic documents of the uncodified constitution."
  • "State Opening of Parliament by the British monarch " -- why "British monarch" and not just "monarch"?
  • "During this period ... the development of naval power" which period? This section covers the period from "Before 1707".
  • "Robert Walpole, in practice the first prime minister" until very recently prime misters were only prime misters in practice. So was he prime minster or not?
  • "The British colonies in North America" Not all British colonies, so "The" is incorrect. It would be better to change it to "Thirteen British colonies in North America"
  • "During the 18th century, Britain was involved in the Atlantic slave trade." while this is true it is disingenuous as the precursor states, particularly England were involved in the slave trade before 18the century.
  • "disputes within Ireland over the terms of Irish Home Rule" -- dispute is an interesting term for a war, and it was not just within Ireland but within the United Kingdom of which Ireland of course was constituent part.

-- PBS (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Some comments in response:
  • Your first bullet - the only problematic one is Scotland. The CofE was the state church in Wales until 1914 and the CofI in Ireland incl. Ulster (no distinction) until 1869. The CofS never has been a formally a state church although of course closely linked to the state.
  • Your second bullet - whilst you're right in specifics, I don't think this is misleading. The limitations on the crown in England had knock on limitations in how it acted in the other countries. I think the text would get overly bulky if we tried to get into too much precision. "Much of the rest of Europe" is a reasonable summation, and it's not just "whig history" to make that distinction, which is an important one.
  • Your third and fourth bullets - I had already taken out these sentences earlier today for the reasons in my edit summaries.
DeCausa (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

UNOCHA map

I've reverted the addition of the UNOCHA map to the infobox - see right - because I think it's wrong and misleading. The error, I think, is in referring to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain"... and, separately, to "Northern Ireland". My understanding is that the "United Kingdom" is of "Great Britain and Northern Ireland". In my view, the map should not be included unless it is corrected (and, even then, I'm not convinced it's necessary). Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it really won't do as it stands. -- Alarics (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Even if corrected I don't think it should be added. What does it add to have it in the article given the other maps we already have? These UNOCHA maps seem to have been spammed across WP which makes me uneasy about them. DeCausa (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I added the image as it's informative. It shows many of the major cities of the UK as well as other neighbouring countries. With regards to Northern Ireland, I don't think it is misleading as it clearly states in the blue heading the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. SantiagoFrancoRamos (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The reference to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" is incorrect. Such an entity does not exist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but the map also includes the text "United Kingdom of Great Britain", which doesn't exist. The map in the administrative divisions section does the job of showing where major cities are. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This map looks better and the map showing cities in administrative divisions looks comparable to the ones made in the 1990s. I see the error in the labelling of the island and would be able to change it to Great Britain instead. SantiagoFrancoRamos (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't look better; it's poor quality and is not wanted. In the face of three editors posting here that your map is not wanted you still added back in. That's disruptive. Don't do it again. DeCausa (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined the agree that the administrative divisions map isn't the best - it's a bit crowded, for one - but I don't think this new map is the one to replace it. We can find better, I'm sure. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a location map so it can be easily modified. Problem is it is trying to do too much. It was intended to go in the infobox and therefore:
  • be small enough to go in the infobox
  • show the UK in respect to nearby countries
  • show the largest cities in the UK
  • show the countries of the UK
  • show the capitals of the countries of the UK
As far as I can tell, most editors don't want another map in the infobox. I added it to the body because there wasn't one previously.
Anyway, to replace it we could have two maps: one showing the four countries and their capitals in the Administrative divisions section; and another showing the largest cities in the Demographics section.
Rob984 (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
That would be great, Rob984. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

English is NOT Official

The United Kingdom, like the United States, does not have an official language. It has only a national language. Notwithstanding English is the common language of the British government, certain actions must still performed in the Norman language in order for them to be official - as when the Queen gives rubber stamp approval to an act of Parliament with the words, "La Reine le Veult." She doesn't do that for fun; she does it because it's required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.218.153 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 April 2015‎ (UTC)

yes, this needs changing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.220.1.206 (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The article states that "The UK's de facto official language is English". The key term here is de facto; the article's not saying that English is the official language according to law. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
In the article itself yes, but the infobox says the official language is English. This needs changing. Ljgua124 (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Why? It's not incorrect. Rob984 (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It *IS* incorrect. The UK has never established an official language. If members of Parliament from Wales wish to address Parliament in Welsh, they have every legal right to do so AND to be heard (notwithstanding most of the other members will not understand them). The infobox should simply say "National Language." 2601:645:C300:16DD:2D99:63E1:D6EB:9718 (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes because Welsh (as well as English) is an official language in Wales. The infobox correctly states English is the only official language of the whole UK. Welsh is an official regional language, while Scots, Ulster Scots, Cornish, Scottish Gaelic and Irish are recognised regional languages. Currently, the fact that Welsh is an official regional language is not stated in the infobox, so maybe it could be changed to:
Official national languageEnglish
Official regional languageWelsh
Recognised regional languages


Scots, Ulster Scots,
Cornish,
Scottish Gaelic, Irish
or
National languageEnglish
Official languagesEnglish, Welsh
Recognised regional languages


Scots, Ulster Scots,
Cornish,
Scottish Gaelic, Irish
I don't really care. Wales covers only 5% of the population so possibly would be undue weight. However there is no reason to remove English as an official language.
Rob984 (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2015

Under Politics - Government it says that elections are called by the monarch, and are subject to the Parliament Acts. However this is no longer the case since the introduction of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. PepperMintTea1967 (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Note though that the monarch may still be able to call elections. In Canada, which had a similar law, the governor-general called an early election in 2011. Also, the next sentence says, "a new election must be called no later than five years after the previous general election." But I do not think that is true. Parliament dissolves 5 years following an election, but there was nothing mandating elections, although typically they would be called promptly near or at the end of Parliament's mandate. TFD (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, section 1 of the 2011 Act says that the election has to happen on the 1st Thursday in May in the 5th year after the last election (although the prime minister can alter the electiin date by 2 months) Section 3 says that disolution has to happen 17 days earlier than the election day mandated by section 1. DeCausa (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Oxbridge in the education section

I think it's enough to leave just information of history there as this is far less controversial than rankings'. THE (comprising both global main and reputation league tables) doesn't represent all the major rankings we have (ARWU, QS, US News). To me, it's a bit biased to just mention one of them. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 12:55, 11 September 2015‎ (UTC)

My problem is that we had a previous discussion here about avoiding just mentioning Oxford and Cambridge. Is there any way we can use these rankings to indicate there is more to UK universities than the ones we have had since the thirteenth century?--SabreBD (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Oxbridge has significance as they're the two oldest universities in English-speaking world. I personally don't prefer mentioning rankings, which can vary dramatically from publisher to publisher. If they're really required, we can add something like "UK has the second most tertiary institutions ranked among the top 100 on a number of league tables" which is pretty consistent in the ones I cited above. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 15:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Including the First Ministers of their respective devolved legislatures on the Infobox

I believe that the First Ministers of the devolved nations (Scotland, NI, and Wales) should be included in the infobox below Prime Minister.

See Infobox right:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Cornish:Rywvaneth Unys Breten Veur ha Kledhbarth Iwerdhon
    Irish:Ríocht Aontaithe na Breataine Móire agus Thuaisceart Éireann
    Scots:Unitit Kinrick o Great Breetain an Northren Ireland
    Ulster Scots:[Claught Kängrick o Docht Brätain an Norlin Airlann] Error: {{Lang}}: unrecognized language tag: sco-UKN (help)
    Scottish Gaelic:Rìoghachd Aonaichte Bhreatainn is Èireann a Tuath
    Welsh:Teyrnas Unedig Prydain Fawr a Gogledd Iwerddon
Anthem: "God Save the Queen"[nb 2]
Two islands to the north-west of continental Europe. Highlighted are the larger island and the north-eastern fifth of the smaller island to the west.
Location of the United Kingdom (dark green)

– in Europe (green & dark grey)
– in the European Union (green)

Capital
and largest city
London
51°30′N 0°7′W / 51.500°N 0.117°W / 51.500; -0.117
Official language
and national language		English
Recognised regional
languages[nb 3]
Ethnic groups
(2011)
Demonym(s)
GovernmentUnitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• Monarch
Elizabeth II
David Cameron
• First Ministers:
(in Scotland)
(in Northern Ireland)

(in Wales)

Nicola Sturgeon
Arlene Foster
Martin McGuinness
Carwyn Jones
LegislatureParliament
• Upper house
House of Lords
• Lower house
House of Commons
History
1 May 1707
1 January 1801
5 December 1922
1 January 1973
Area
• Total
242,495 km2 (93,628 sq mi)[3] (80th)
• Water (%)
1.34
Population
• 2014 estimate
64,511,000[4] (22nd)
• 2011 census
63,181,775[5] (22nd)
• Density
255.6/km2 (662.0/sq mi) (51st)
GDP (PPP)2014 estimate
• Total
$2.549 trillion (10th)
• Per capita
$39,510[4] (28th)
GDP (nominal)2014 estimate
• Total
$2.945 trillion (5th)
• Per capita
$45,653[4] (19th)
Gini (2012)Positive decrease 32.8[6]
medium inequality (33rd)
HDI (2013)Steady 0.892[7]
very high (14th)
CurrencyPound sterling (£) (GBP)
Time zoneUTC​ (GMT)
• Summer (DST)
UTC+1 (BST)
Date formatdd/mm/yyyy (AD)
Drives onleft
Calling code+44
ISO 3166 codeGB
Internet TLD.uk

Thunderstorm008 (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Do any comparable country articles include this kind of material in their infoboxes, do you know? I ask because I've edited the Bosnia and Herzegovina article a lot and it doesn't list sub-national leaders despite the country being highly decentralised, but I'm unaware of what the norm is. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I've just checked Canada, which is a featured article, and it doesn't list the premier of Quebec. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we should - infobox bloat. Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Unnecessary, per MOS:INFOBOX - the infobox only exists to "summarise.. key features of the page's subject.." The subject of the article is the UK as a whole, not the devolved legislatures. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Speaking of which, it is surely highly misleading to include languages like Cornish and Ulster Scots so prominently as "officially recognised". This may be technically correct, but will give (for example) Indians and Spaniards completely the wrong idea. Try using them in legal proceedings. Only Welsh should be mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Well it's not "highly misleading". Loads of people in Scotland report they speak Scots (more than any foreign language). It also says "recognised", not "official", although Welsh could have it's own section "Official regional languages". While Scottish Gaelic is spoken by a very small minority of the population, it is widely spoken across a large area. The Western Isles alone are pretty significant. Cornish, Irish and Ulster-Scots are almost extinct in the UK, but it would be difficult to exclude them while including the others as they are recognised. Rob984 (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
So it is highly misleading and WP:UNDUE to have them so prominently placed here then. Obviously they can go in the text somewhere way down where they belong, but to have information about the Cornish language halfway down the first screen of the article is wildly undue. It's not difficult to exclude them at all. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
True. I just mean there's no clear cut off. It would be difficult to exclude Scots but include Welsh. Or include Scots and Welsh, but not Scottish Gaelic. Or include Scots, Welsh, and Scottish Gaelic, but not Irish. Another option would be using a collapsible list for regional languages. Rob984 (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Are there Scots language schools? Are all locally relevant government publications produced in Scots versions? It really isn't difficult at all. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
We could also add the percentages like for ethnic groups. Rob984 (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
More bloat. In a note maybe. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Now I see from the link below (to the discussion above) that we have only had this nonsense for a couple of weeks, after one ISP proposed it. Time to remove it. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Remove what? The regional languages have been listed in the infobox, quite correctly, for many years. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I misread the section above. But this is not correct, it is UNDUE infobox bloat. Also, if your machine is running slowly, the ludicrous show/hide box with the name in all the languages displays for several seconds. Anyone from the UK knows that this is all nonsense, as the real actual speakers of non-native languages such as Urdu and Polish outnumber the speakers of all but Welsh many times - many thousands of times in the case of Cornish, and government policy in terms of the translation of notices etc rightly reflects this. The infobox treatment seems blatently discriminatory against non-native minority languages. Johnbod (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Whatever the arguments for inclusion or otherwise in the infobox, unless you are implying that the stats are wrong about your "real actual speakers of non-native languages" your assertions above are incorrect and you might have checked them. Polish and Welsh are similar in number, both significantly more than Urdu with Scots outnumbering these three put together. Having no schools using a tongue as the main language and few official documents says something about lack of status, not existence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Well if you count a few minor dialectal differences, fewer than in most English regional dialects, as making the Scots most Scots speak a different language, then I suppose they might. It is precisely official status we are talking about here. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, quite probably most Scots (outside the Highlands, though many in) speak Scots only to such a limited extent, hence 70% of them reporting in the census that they don't understand, speak, read or write it, despite that knowledge. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe they should not. Rob984 (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Adding the Scottish premier etc. is excessive. Incidentally, is English the "official" language of the UK or the unofficial one? TFD (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Huh? English is official according the the Government. Welsh and English are official in Wales according to Welsh law. Other are recognised regional languages under the Council of Europe's European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which the Government signed. Rob984 (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion on this issue above. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Article 2 of the French constitution (translated into English) says, "The language of the Republic shall be French." What is the equivalent legislation in the United Kingdom? When did it come into effect in Cornwall, Wales, Ireland and Scotland. TFD (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
There isn't any, nor is there a written British constitution. Deal with it. You could look at the Act of Uniformity 1549, which provoked a rebellion in Cornwall, and similar moments, but there's no one easy answer. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't add them. By comparison, can you image what the Canadian infobox would be like, if the 10 provincial premiers & 3 territorial premiers were added. What about the American infobox, with 50 state governors included. GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ National Anthem, British Monarchy official website. Retrieved 16 November 2013.
  2. ^ "List of declarations made with respect to treaty No. 148". Council of Europe. Retrieved 12 December 2013.
  3. ^ "Demographic Yearbook – Table 3: Population by sex, rate of population increase, surface area and density" (PDF). United Nations Statistics Division. 2012. Retrieved 9 August 2015. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  4. ^ a b c "United Kingdom". International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 15 April 2015.
  5. ^ "2011 UK censuses". Office for National Statistics. Retrieved 17 December 2012.
  6. ^ "Gini coefficient of equivalised disposable income (source: SILC)". Eurostat Data Explorer. Retrieved 13 August 2013.
  7. ^ "2014 Human Development Report" (PDF). 14 March 2013. pp. 22–25. Retrieved 27 July 2014.

Introduction should make clear UK is a country

I am not able to edit the page but the introduction should better state the UK is a country to avoid confusion due to it also saying it is made up of four countries and starting the article only saying it is a sovereign state. A few days ago the second sentence said "the country includes" but it now just says "it". Why was that change needed? why can the article not say the uk is a country more clearly when England, Wales, Scotland articles say they are countries clearly. Red Reef (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The article refers to the subject as a country once in the hatnote, twice in the first paragraph of the lede, once in the second and third and twice in the fourth paragraph. That ought to flag up the notion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence says the UK is a "sovereign state." Since all sovereign states are countries, it would be redundant and confusing to state that it is a country. Of course it is reasonable to refer to the UK as a country throughout the article. TFD (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
In order to change from sovereign state to country for the UK, you'd have to list E/S/W/NI as constituent countries, to avoid confusion. The latter attempt would likely be met with strong resistance. It's best to not go down that road. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Soft Power

Interestingly, the UK frequently ranks top of the Soft Power 30 index: http://softpower30.portland-communications.com/ranking Would including this somewhere be useful in highlighting the UK's soft power position in the world? 80.193.25.91 (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Significance of Europe

Two editors have taken the position that the accession to the EU is not a significant event in the constitutional history of the UK. Given that it involved considerable constitutional change I would take the position that it should remain there. What do other editors think? ----Snowded TALK 10:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Concur Brendandh (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Likewise, though I'd be interested to know why the other editors do not. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree. UK's EU accession is easily significant enough for inclusion in the infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. British accession to the EEC on 1 January 1973 did not alter the constitutional structure of the United Kingdom. What happened on that date is nothing more than a treaty about British membership of an economic bloc coming to effect. --Ransewiki (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    • European Court? ----Snowded TALK 13:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    • EU membership does not change the parliamentary supremacy of the British Parliament. The EU membership of the UK just transfers powers of the British Parliament to the EU just like powers are devolved into Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, and these powers could be brought back to the British Parliament if the Parliament wished so. The ability of European law in the UK depends entirely on British Parliaments decisions to give some of its powers to the EU. Of course matters are complicated by the fact that the UK has an "unwritten" constitution, but the accession to the EEC on 1 January 1973 does not change the abilities of the British Parliament or the UK's principle of parliamentary supremacy, it just transfers powers to another of level of government with the British Parliament retaining the ability to transfer these powers back any day. --Ransewiki (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Transfer of power is a substantive constitutional issue. Also note the evidence is inclusion of this in other EU Member articles ----Snowded TALK 15:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Then we should also add the Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish devolution dates and local government reforms as these are also transfers of power. Also what is included in articles of other members states is not relevant as each EU member has their own distinct forms of government and different constitutional procedures--Ransewiki (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Possible, but joining the EU is far more substantial in its implications. Either way lets see how it develops. I think you are currently on your own here ----Snowded TALK 16:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes I seem to be on my on at the moment, but I would like to note that these very controversial edits to add EEC/EU accession dates to infoboxes have been done without any proper discussion. Also could you please explain, how is the transfer of powers to the EEC on 1 January 1973 more substantial than the Scotland Act 1998 for example. Even if the 1973 transfer of power would be very substantial, you have to notice that it is still not enough substantial that the British parliament can't change, develop, or revoke it. In fact the powers transferred in 1973 bear almost no resemblance to the relationship of the UK with the EU nowadays, for example these powers are not transferred to the EEC but the modern EU nowadays. Again all these changes made to this relationship have been done by the British Parliament as treaties with other member states. The fact that the powers of the EU institutions are decided by member states and the institutions themselves have no say in it (well of course they propose them but they cant decide whether these proposals become reality) means that the fundamental constitutional structure of the UK is not changed: the supremacy of the British Parliament. This is in contrast to the other dates in the infobox. The UK cannot bring back Ireland even if it repealed the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922. The English parliament and the (historic) Scottish parliament cant obviously repeal the Acts of Union since they dont exist anymore as a result of the Acts. The British Parliament could vote to dissolve itself but that just proves what kind of supremacy it has over British law. --Ransewiki (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
      • What about the Statute of Westminster 1931 that was the largest transfer of power from the UK in the 20th century? Eckerslike (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, I think that the Statute of Westminster 1931 is much much more relevant to the infobox than the EEC accession as it gave power away to the dominions permanently from the British Parliament (unlike the EEC accession which just sort of "lent" power away to the EEC/EU as, the EU is entirely dependent on the British Parliament for its powers. However I think that we cannot add the Statute of Westminster 1931 to the infobox as these dominions were not part of the UK proper, even though they were part of the British Empire. --Ransewiki (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree. The accession date is an important part of the development of the modern UK state. Notwithstanding Other Stuff Exists I thought it might be worth checking other EU member article infoboxes to see how it has been handled elsewhere. 17 countries do show the date of accession in Infobox: Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and UK. 11 countries do not show the date of accession in Infobox: Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Malta, Netherlands, Romania and Sweden. So there is disagreement but the UK is by no means an outlier in showing the date in the infobox. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree. And the field in the info-box does not mention the constitution, just history. TFD (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Disagree with putting accession to the EEC in the infobox as another "established_event" field along with Acts of Union of England and Scotland, Acts of Union of Great Britain and Ireland and Irish Free State Constitution Act. It did not create, expand or contract the United Kingdom, or dissolve it or render it no longer a kingdom by abolishing the monarchy. Of course it has some significance - talk of editors claiming it has none looks terribly like a straw man argument - but listing it with the above three is a clear statement of comparable significance that breaches WP:NPOV. NebY (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Exactly. The EEC accession is definitely not comparable to the Acts of Union. This is supposed to be an infobox, which means that its purpose is only to give a quick look into the most important facts regarding the UK. The EEC date is no way on the same significance level as the other dates in the infobox, and that means that it's not a highest importance level event, which in turn means that we should not have it there, because only the most important events should be on the infobox. --Ransewiki (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    • The sovereignty_type field should be also be returned to "Formation" as it was before this edit changed it to justify shoe horning in the EEC accession into the infobox. Eckerslike (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Phrase

Hi Ghmyrtle. This edit here was reverted on the counts that it was incorrect grammar, and unnecessary in any case. The remaining grammatical errors were fixed by Absolutelypuremilk in here who also agrees with the edit. But again you said there's a grammatical error and that it's not supported by the texts [9] when it's actual history that Britain reached it's territorial apogee after WWI, when Britain was in decline. The sentence also serves to separate two facts, Britain's early imperial political apogee and Britain's later territorial apogee around the 1920's at the time Britain wasn't as powerful as it used to be. If there is a grammatical problem, I would like to fix it. But I don't think it's unnecessary to mention an important detail about the article and leave it out. Again, if there is anything I can do, don't hesitate to advise me. (N0n3up (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

Your edit added commentary and didn't read well or make sense. If you have something from a third party source we can look at it.----Snowded TALK 17:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
What about this as a compromise:
These are the remnants of the British Empire which at its apogee was the foremost world power. As the largest empire in history at its peak in the 1920s, it encompassed almost a quarter of the world's land mass. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I really don't see how this adds value to the article. Its personal commentary by an editor(s). We have the British Empire referenced that is enough ----Snowded TALK 17:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Absolutelypuremilk Disregarding Snowded since I very-well know his intentions, I think a compromise would be great. (N0n3up (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC))
Stop the personal attacks, your block record is not a good one and I suggest you address content issues and stop commenting on other editors or it could easily be extended. If it carries on I will raise it to your last blocking admin ----Snowded TALK 17:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The established wording - These are the remnants of the British Empire which, at its height in the 1920s, encompassed almost a quarter of the world's land mass and was the largest empire in history. - is clear, unambiguous, and supported by the article text. Including the words "apogee" and "foremost world power" - even if done in a grammatically correct way - would add nothing of substance, would introduce an unnecessary metaphor ("apogee") and debatable commentary ("foremost world power"), and would weaken rather than improve the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle Perhaps but still doubtful, but we gotta mention that Britain was once a Global Hegemon in history, something widely accepted, it's like asking if Britain ever fought in WWI or WWII just to show the obvious. Something matrix to Britain's history. And the established text doesn't mention that but only about Britain's territorial height, not it's World Hegemony when it was a world power. (N0n3up (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC))
In the subsequent paragraph in the lead it states that "[The UK] was the world's first industrialised country and the world's foremost power during the 19th and early 20th centuries". That doesn't seem to me to be just a statement about territory. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why an article on the United Kingdom needs to say that ' Britain was once Global Hegemony in history", there is a clear reference to the Imperial history and it is sufficient to purpose ----Snowded TALK 18:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
PaleCloudedWhite Perhaps since it's on the last paragraphs along with the current infos of Britain's current status (fifth economy, developed nation, etc) along with the fact that Britain was the world's first industrialized nation seems kind of historic to be placed in that paragraph instead of the third paragraph where they give the historic overview. What do you think? (N0n3up (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC))
Thank you for pointing that out PaleCloudedWhite, apparently the phrase will no longer be needed. (N0n3up (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC))
Regarding your previous question, it seems to me that the third paragraph deals with territory and territorial history, whereas the fourth paragraph's focus is more on global economic and political standing, including an historical aspect. Thus the statement about being the world's foremost power, although related to empire and territorial influence, is probably better suited to remain in the fourth paragraph. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Perfect! Problem solved. :) (N0n3up (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

Recent Edits

User User:Wiki-Ed deliberately changes the wording without explanation. It was fine as it was. What is the reason for your revert. (N0n3up (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

Well I suppose it's better than doing it accidentally. And no it wasn't "fine as it was" - for the same reasons as discussed at the BE article and for the same reasons as discussed in the section above. Can't you go back to being blocked? Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Wiki-Ed That last line doesn't sound too civilized. Again concentrate on the edit, not editor. And Again, the word Superpower is used in different context. (N0n3up (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC))
Wiki-Ed [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] (N0n3up (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC))
User:Wiki-Ed Stop edit-warring. You still haven't presented a proper case. I've already brought sources to prove the point. (N0n3up (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC))
Apart from being grammatically wrong, one of your sources explicitly states "Because there can be more than one superpower, this concept must be distinguished from that of “hegemon,” which designates the dominance of one state over all others, in one region or in the world at large." (my emphasis) Thank you for making my case for me. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that WP:BRD be applied to this current dispute. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Y'know what, I don't want to waste more time in this. I grant you permission to do what you want for now, I'll discuss when I have more time. Outtie. (N0n3up (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC))
You're welcome Wiki-Ed. (N0n3up (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

Disappearance of the largest cities map

In the edit by User:Sabrebd just now, the largest-cities map in the "Demographics" section just disappeared. Was that intentional? Maybe the intention was just to move it from the left to the right. But it totally disappeared!
--Alan U. Kennington (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It was intentional. It created sandwiching of text between it and the population density map. I have no strong feelings as to which map of the two is kept, but, without some major rearrangement, it is basically one or the other.--SabreBD (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2016

139.216.235.151 (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

UK external debt

The last but one sentence of the 'Economy' section reads,

'The UK has an external debt of $9.6 trillion dollars which is second highest in the world after the US which has an external debt of 18.5 trillion dollars.'

I know almost nothing about economics, but question if this $9.6 trillion dollar figure, and it being the second highest in the world after the US is correct?

Wikipedia's 'List of countries by external debt' page at,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

gives the UK external debt figure as $1.5 trillion dollars, and puts the UK tenth after the US debt of $18.7 trillion, which sounds nearer to what I have heard of my countries indebtedness.

Many thanks.

Zebl3785 (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not sure where the figure of 9.6 has come from. Perhaps one is net debt and one is total debt? It is really not very clear - the most recent CIA World Factbook has total UK debt as $100 billion, which is much less than even the public debt of around 1.5 trillion Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Public Sector debt is debt owed by a government of a country, often to its own taxpayers who buy government bonds as a form of investment. In the UK, this is well over 1.4 trillion pounds now. External debt is money owed to non residents (ie people from other countries. This is a totally different figure from the Public Sector debt figure. Isuspect that people who have been editing do not understand the difference. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the UK among 3, 4 or 5 powers that shaped the post-war world? Does it matter?

Hello,

There has been reverts between several versions of the initial phrase of the Since 1945 section.

Granted, there were an obvious "Big Three" (US/UK/USSR) in WWII, leading a much larger alliance. It is also quite uncontroversial that China, and France, had to fight to see their status as a a great power, although the situations were much different. I am uneasy with the "Big Four" version because I don't think that there was an operational alliance called the "Big Four" that was active either before or after the end of the war. Granted, "Big Four" was an expression used in the press, sometimes including China, sometimes including France. In a nutshell, Roosevelt pushed for the inclusion of China in the club, which the Soviet Union, and somehow the UK, resisted, while Churchill pushed for the recognition of de Gaulle as the representative of France, something Roosevelt resisted, having recognized Vichy France and later supporting rival Giraud.

From what seems to be uncontroversial from Wikipedia articles covering the main events in this era :

  • The main summits of WWII were Tehran Conference (1943), Yalta Conference (Jan 1945) and Potsdam Conference (Aug 1945) were Big Three summits between the leaders of the UK, the US and the USSR only
  • The original 1942 Declaration by United Nations was signed by 26 countries, among them UK, US, USSR, China, Canada, Poland, Belgium etc. but not France, which was a non-player in 1942 (unlike 1945, the subject of the discussed sentence)
  • The Moscow Conference (1943) of foreign ministers is peculiar: China was not invited to sit at the table (neither was France), did not sign 3 of the 4 Moscow Declarations but the Chinese ambassador to Moscow was invited to sign the Declaration of the Four Nations
  • The Cairo Conference (1943) with Roosevelt, Churchill and China's Chiang Kai-shek was therefore not a "Big Four" summit and was about the organization of post-war Asia. Also notice the Casablanca Conference (January 1943) with Roosevelt, Churchill and Free French leaders de Gaulle and Giraud, or the Second Cairo Conference (December 1943) with Roosevelt, Churchill and Turkey's Ismet Inönü
  • The Dumbarton Oaks Conference was actually two conferences, due to the refusal of the Soviets to sit with the Chinese: US/UK/USSR from 21 August to 28 September, and US/UK/China from 29 September to 7 October (hardly the mark of a "Big Four" alliance)
  • The post-war world (the subject of the discussed sentence) was actually shaped at the Yalta, and maybe more, Potsdam Conferences, where China, and France, were not invited, but were recognised a seat as a permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Examples of the difficulty for China to be recognized by the Big Three as a great power are found, for instance, in the book V.K. Wellington Koo and the Emergence of Modern China by Stephen G. Craft, such as p. 171: "The Chinese delegates did not get a seat at the [Dumbarton Oaks] meetings held between the other three great powers because the Soviet Union refused to meet with the Chinese as they had when Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin met at Tehran a year earlier. [...] The Chinese felt angry over their treatment by other great powers. Before the Dumbarton Oaks Conference commenced, Churchill made another speech referring to only three great powers and stressing the need to elevate France to major power status." Page 199, specific to the situation in the fall of 1945: "From September to October 1945, the [five] powers gathered in London for the Foreign Ministers' Conference to deal with European questions. The whole notion of a council of the Foreign Ministers representing the Five Great Powers originated at the Potsdam Conference of July. [...] China and France participate[d] on an equal basis in drawing up peace treaties, though neither had a final vote or say on the finished product."

I am not sure that this is the place to discuss this in length, or that the main article for the United Kingdom should be the one where this situation has to be the most detailed. Therefore, I would personally be in favour of concision, and either formulations "UK among the Big Three" or "UK among the 5 permanent members..." would be perfectly fine with me. I think that the "Big Four" is anecdotal at best and does not deserve mention here. Let's read other opinions on the matter. Place Clichy (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


I involve this discussion because of the dispute in redirection Big Four (World War II). Place Clichy link this discussion to that dispute. Hence, I will talk more about Big Four (World War II). Actually whatever the result of this page, there is no doubt to redirect the Big Four (World War II) to page Four Policemen. I think the dispute here and the dispute in Big Four (World War II) totally two unrelated topic. I don't know why you put them together.
1.If you read the description in official website of the United Nations, you will see "On New Year’s Day 1942, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, Maxim Litvinov, of the USSR, and T. V. Soong, of China, signed a short document which later came to be known as the United Nations Declaration. The next day the representatives of twenty-two other nations added their signatures. This important document pledged the signatory governments to the maximum war effort and bound them against making a separate peace." I add the link here [19].
2. The Moscow Declaration on General Security stated "The Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and China: United in their determination, in accordance with the Declaration by the United Nations of January 1, 1942, and subsequent declarations, to continue hostilities against those Axis powers with which they respec- tively are at war until such powers have laid down their arms on the basis of unconditional surrender;" See the link [20]
3. Except USA, UK, USSR and China, you will also notice the remaining nations are listed alphabetically in this Declaration.
4. The Governments signatory hereto,...." Also note this handwritten note on the draft; (2) A handwritten marginal note on the attachment reads: "CH 0K. It is approved now by Russia and WSC but not yet by China. FDR. Let's get it out on Jan. 1. That means speed. FDR". For a facsimile of Roosevelt redraft of the declaration incorporating the Russian amendments, see Sherwood, pp. 450-452.
1. Soviet Union may not want to meet China. The reason may be Stalin had a reluctance to recognize China as a Great Power but the official reason is " Joseph Stalin did not attend the conference because his meeting with Chiang could have caused friction between the Soviet Union and Japan. (The Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact of 1941 was a five-year agreement of neutrality between the two nations; in 1943 the Soviet Union was not at war with Japan, whereas China, the U.K. and the U.S. were.)"
2. The Cairo Conference issued the Cairo Declaration which is the plan for the post-war East Asia and Pacific. The Potsdam Declaration even cited the Cairo Declaration. Then you will see the Potsdam Declaration was issued by the UK, the USA and China, and the Soviet Union later signed this declaration which become a new four power declaration.
3. Potsdam Declaration: "We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war. The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced by their armies and air fleets from the west, are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist."
4. The United Nations was formulated and negotiated at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference. Even Russian did not meet Chinese at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, China was also one of the four countries which attended Dumbarton Oaks Conference and joined the talk in that conference. At least, the USA and the UK directly meet with China in this conference.
  • In 1945: The San Francisco Conference. The UK, the USA, the Soviet Union and China were the only sponsoring countries: "The heads of the delegations of the sponsoring countries took turns as chairman of the plenary meetings : Anthony Eden, of Britain, Edward Stettinius, of the United States, T. V. Soong, of China, and Vyacheslav Molotov, of the Soviet Union. At the later meetings, Lord Halifax deputized for Mr. Eden, V. K. Wellington Koo for T. V. Soong, and Mr Gromyko for Mr. Molotov." See the link the official website of the United Nations [21]
  • Casablanca Conference
1.Stalin and Chiang Kai-shek (Chinese president) did not attend this conference. However, see the Logistical issues of Casablanca Conference:"Josef Stalin and Chiang Kai-shek would be fully apprised of the conference agenda and resulting accords".
2. Also notice even though Casablanca Conference was held in French colony Morocco, no Frenchmen were allowed to attend the military planning sessions.(Source: Jonathan Fenby, The General: Charles De Gaulle and the France he saved (2010) pp 195-201). The contents of this conference was even noticed to Stalin and Chiang but no French leaders got the permission to know.
1.In original plan, countries other than the Four Policemen were to be disarmed. Only the Four Policemen would be allowed to possess any weapons more powerful than a rifle."The president told Molotov that he visualized the enforced disarmament of our enemies and, indeed, some of our friends after the war; that he thought that the United States, England, Russia and perhaps China should police the world and enforce disarmament by inspection. The President said that he visualized Germany, Italy, Japan, France, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and other nations would not be permitted to have military forces. He stated that other nations might join the first four mentioned after experience proved they could be trusted." (United States Department of State (1942). "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers, 1942. Europe Volume III. U.S. Government Printing Office. pp. 406–771.)
2.Read the Yearbook of the United Nations [22] "The Security Council should consist of one representative of. each of eleven members of the Organization. Representatives of the United States of America, the United King- dom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Republic of China and, in due course, France, should have permanent seats." The US, the UK, the Soviet Union and China got the permanent seats at the planning stage of the United Nations during the war but France got this after the end of the war. Churchill wanted to make sure that he had another European country that would have his back, afraid that the United States wouldn't always look out for the interests of Europe. He pestered everyone to add France but that's in middle of 1945. Based on this, FDR suggest to add two permanent seats (except 4 original seats), one for France and the other for Brazil. Stalin opposite to add Brazil. At last, France was accepted after the death of FDR. However, all this happened at the end of the war not in the middle of the war. The concept of Four Policemen was even created in late 1941 or early 1942. Also notice France was not the original original signatory to the Declaration of the United Nations, but Brazil and eight governments-in-exile was. LelouchEdward (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • San Francisco Conference:
I copied the contents from Encyclopedia Britannica[23]: The conference was attended by delegations from 46 nations—26 of which had signed the 1942 Declaration of the United Nations, which set forth the Allied aims in World War II—but the leading roles were taken by the foreign ministers of the so-called Big Four nations: U.S. Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, Anthony Eden of Great Britain, V.M. Molotov of the U.S.S.R., and T.V. Soong of China. ......The conference was dominated by discussions of the extent of the Big Four’s powers as permanent members of the United Nations’ Security Council. LelouchEdward (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2016

References

  1. ^ Brinkley, Douglas. The New York Times Living History: World War II, 1942-1945: The Allied Counteroffensive. Retrieved 25 August 2015.
  2. ^ Kelly, Brian. "The Four Policemen and. Postwar Planning, 1943-1945: The Collision of Realist and. Idealist Perspectives". Retrieved 25 August 2015. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Languages

"It is estimated that 95% of the UK's population are monolingual English speakers." "5.5% of the population are estimated to speak languages brought to the UK as a result of relatively recent immigration."

These sentences, from the same source, clearly contradict one another (if it's not obvious, 95% + 5.5% = 100.5%). They also contradict the truth, as those percentages do not account for the number of people speaking regional languages, as well as the millions who speak foreign languages other than those brought by immigration.

I'd argue that the 5.5% referred to in the source ("There are also large numbers of community languages, brought into the country and sustained by recent immigrant communities, which account for more than 5.5% of the population.") relates to immigrant communities as a percentage of the UK population, not the percentage who speak so-called "community languages". --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The BBC source also gives no indication of the date the statistics refer to. It might be better to replace this with data from the census, if comparable figures have been published. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The census data is difficult to work with because the ONS decided to include Welsh speakers in "Main language is English" for Wales. See http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/QS205EW/view/2092957703?cols=measures
So you can get data for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but not Wales. I don't understand why.
Rob984 (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what you're asking for but if you are looking for 2011 census figures for Welsh speakers, they're here [[24]]. As Thundering Typhoons points out, the 5.5% of the population in the source refers to the proportion of recent immigrant communities. Also the 95% of monolingual English speakers is an estimate and if you use estimates, you will always have trouble getting the figures to stack up.--Ykraps (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
What we need is a figure for the number of English speakers in Wales, so we have a total for the UK as a whole, but the appropriate tick box on the 2011 census form for Wales was "English or Welsh". There was a separate question on Welsh-language ability, but we have no way of separating out the English speakers (although I presume all Welsh speakers will also speak English). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that as this is an article about the United Kingdom, all that is required is the total for the UK so why do you need to separate England and Wales? Why can you not add the number of English speakers in England and Wales[[25]] to the number of English speakers in Scotland[[26]] and Northern Ireland[[27]]?--Ykraps (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Scrap that. I see what you're saying.--Ykraps (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
We could report how many people speak English in England, English or Welsh in Wales, English in Scotland and English in Northern Ireland (perhaps with a footnote to explain why Welsh is included in the Wales figure). Statistics on other minority languages could then be detailed. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
That would be my preferred option; rather than ignore the issue as other articles appear to have done.--Ykraps (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
That article is rounding to the nearest million. Including Welsh speakers in Wales, there are 59,824,194 speakers of English. So it's accurate since there aren't going to be 324,194 people in Wales unable to speak English.
Similarly, at Languages of the United Kingdom, I cited "98%". Including Welsh speakers in Wales, the total number of English speakers is 98.37% of the population over the age of three. 0.87% of the population is 529,094 people, and again, there isn't going to be anywhere near 529,094 Welsh people unable to speak English, so 98% is also accurate.
According to the census, there are only 562,016 people in Wales able to speak Welsh.
They are not directly supported by the source, however we are always going to have to combine data from the three censuses which is synthesis to some extent.
That said, I don't have a problem with just specifying four separate figures.
Rob984 (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rob, I'm sure you are right and that I am being over cautious, but I think care needs to be taken about what can be verified if there are aspirations to make this a good article. Regards --Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hitchcock the biggest cheese in the cosmos

One article from 20 years ago listing Hitchcock as the greatest director, one from 9 years ago as the best British director and one from 14 years ago as the most influential director (not at all the same thing) is impressive praise but it is stretching it to characterise it as "often (being) ranked the greatest and most influential filmmaker of all time". Each of these sources say somewhat different things, the current wording conflating two of them and misrepresenting another. If they said what the caption says, you might just about get away with calling three times, between 9 and 20 years as often but even that would be pushing it. Hence my more accurate wording "has been ranked by some the greatest or most influential filmmaker of all time", since reverted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I certainly don't think we should be using the word "often" unless that is said in a source, because it is original research otherwise. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Mutt Lunker, Cordless Larry But Hitchcock is often recognized as "the greatest filmmaker" (of course that's a matter of debate and not a personal opinion), but I think that we should mention Hitchcock's common notability as the greatest filmmaker, don't you guys agree? I first provided 3 new sources to support this (all of which happen to be equally as credible/reliable as the first original), Snowded reverted saying that the third source was unreliable, yet deleted the entire thing and not the indicated flawed source. I reinstated the two remaining sources, but now with the new excuse that it's "far too wordy". Unless I'm missing something here, what do you guys think? [28] [29] (N0n3up (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC))
You apparently are missing something, yes. To repeat myself, one source from 20 years ago noting him at the top of a list of greatest directors is not "often". Influential is not the same thing as great. Britain is not the world. Unreliable sources don't count. You have one source expressing the view in 20 years. The current wording is more accurate and expressed more succinctly. And as Larry points out, we should only say he is often listed greatest if a WP:RS says so, not by amassing any sources which have him at the top and concluding ourselves that this constitutes "often": that is WP:OR. We don't know how many other such lists are out there, expressing this ranking or otherwise. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Mutt Lunker Although I was trying to refer to Hitchcock's global notability (like some national wiki-articles might have figures refer to something or someone), since Hitchcock is generally considered to be the "best" unrestricted to Britain. But if the point you want is to keep it to a national level, then I agree with you that the current wording might be best. (N0n3up (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC))
The point is nothing whatsoever to do with keeping this to a national level. If the sources supported a statement that he was a greatest then we would include it, they don't ----Snowded TALK 05:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I was talking to Mutt Lunker bud, and either way the topic's settled. (N0n3up (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC))
Talking here is talking to us all, "bud", and Snowded is spot on. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Mutt Lunker Again, even though the sources I provided might not seem as fully credible as you explained, it still equally as credible as the longstanding source that was in Hitchcock's image caption. But I agree you and Cordless Larry have a point in such sources, though, again, equally as credible as the longstanding one. I am very welcome to anyone, as long as they're come in good faith. That's my final statement on the subject. (N0n3up (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC))
I don't think it's so much that the sources aren't credible, but rather that if we're going to say he's often considered the best, we need a source that says he's often considered the best (i.e. not just that he's been voted the best in a poll). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Cordless Larry Though these sources ([30], [31]) don't seem to be poll, I could try finding something with a bit more juice if ya know what I mean. Or I can just let the current long-standing version in place since it seems to be fine and everyone seems satisfied with it. I'm fine with either. (N0n3up (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC))
It was a bad choice of wording on my part. The issue isn't whether it's a poll or not, but the lack of the word "often" or an equivalent in the source. For us to say that he is often considered the best, based on a sample of sources that say he is the best, is original research. The only way we can say that he is often considered is if a source actually says that. Does that make sense? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Cordless Larry Agreed. (N0n3up (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC))

Wait a minute, why is this discussion's title "Hitchcock the biggest cheese in the cosmos"? (N0n3up (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC))

It's humour. Cordless Larry (talk)
Gotta admit, the title did crack me up :) (N0n3up (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC))

fiscal metering

How much meter factor deviation acceptable between master meter and duty meter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.245.5 (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a question for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, not here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=nb> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom/Archive_29&oldid=1109446578"