![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
|
I thought "Great Britain" referred to the island of Britain as opposed to the political entity United Kingdom. The latter includes the Channel Islands (and the Isle of Man, and the Shetland Islands, and much else), but the former does not. -- LMS
Yes, you're right, I think (!) just did a quick search and found an abundance of information at CIA Jersey factbook (incidentally, ci.html is Chile, there doesn't appear to be a Channel Islands specific page), note the "Dependency status: British crown dependency" and the Independence. Certainly I know there is a lot of independence between mainland Britain and the Channel Islands, as demonstrated by the fact it is tax exempt (and the number of offshore banks shows this)..
Crown dependencies don't usually count in Great Britain. See [1]
But this does highlight that the United Kingdom page should be about that, and the Great Britain page should be about that (even if that does leave everyone a bit confused ;-) -- Neeklamy
OK, but do the Channel Islands deserve special mention as part of the U.K. that, for example, the Isle of Man or the British Virgin Islands would not? I don't know what the legal relationships are, but I would guess (just guess) that the Channel Islands are in the same relationship to the U.K. that the Isle of Man and the British Virgin Islands are. Of course, I wouldn't be at all surprised if I were totally wrong. -- LMS
You've caught me again, I can't say for sure tonight, but certainly I'll hit the library tomorrow and find some dead wood answer to this. -- Neeklamy --- Have we determined yet if the Channel Isles and the Isle of Man have a different legal standing than the British dependencies. If they don't they should be folded into that list, not kept separate. If they do -what is the difference? ---rmhermen
Just added list of monarchs if anyone would like to run over it.
Does anyone know if this Berwick-upon-Tweed thing is true or is it a wind-up? I'm from the UK and i've never heard anything about it, surely it should be on a new page anyway. p.s. I hope i've cleared up any American confusions between the terms Great Britain, United Kingdom and England :) - JamieTheFoool
I've heard the same thing said about war between the Kingdom of Fife and Russia. This needs to be checked. -- Derek Ross
Berwick-upon-Tweed had a weird status until 1885 when it was adminstratively made part of England. Apparently it was mentioned separate in many documents until then (such as the book of common prayer).
EricD Read the bit at the top of the United kingdom page about it being FROZEN! Mintguy 01:03 Sep 14, 2002 (UTC)
Found this: http://www.observer.co.uk/readerseditor/story/0,8224,515149,00.html
Another reader, who suspects that some of our contributors are 'either arrogant, ignorant or Celtic agents provocateurs' , pleads that we learn the difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain and the British Isles. So, here goes (deep breath): the United Kingdom is a contraction of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the official title of the political union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; Great Britain is the geographical name for England, Wales and Scotland, including those adjacent islands governed by the mainland (i.e. excluding the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands_ are you still with me?); the British Isles is a geographical name describing Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, the Shetland Isles and the Channel Islands; Britain is another name for Great Britain or the United Kingdom.
Phew.
PS: Between 1801 and 1922, the UK was actually called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Furthermore, as Irish people resent the use of the term 'British Isles' because it dates from a time when Ireland politically was associated with Britain but Ireland has not been so since 1922, a different term is gradually replacing the term British Isles. It is the IONA (Islands of the North Atlantic.
I'm not sure that the UK has a national motto at all. The Sovereign has a motto: "Dieu et mon droit", but that's not the national motto. I vote for the removal of the "national motto" line in this table, unless someone can discover a national motto for the UK.
Its possible. I have tried to find one, but couldn't. But Wales has a national motto. It seems odd for Wales to but not the UK.
OK hope you don't mind, just thought you would be interested in other information i've found out about the motto "Dieu et mon droit" actually means
Dieu et mon droit (French for ‘God and my right’) is the motto of the Sovereign and dates from the time of King Henry V (reigned 1413-1422). The motto appears in the shield on the Royal Coat of Arms.
Loosely translated Dieu Et Mon Droit is the Royal Family moto it means "God Is My Help" I hope this clears up any Discrepancies!!
I would just place the Royal Arms and Motto instead, as technically the UK has no National Flag either, The Union Flag is a Royal Flag that can be used by prvate persons. - fonzy
No, altought the govenment does execpet it as teh antional flag, but i ahve about 5 flag books that can back me up. -fonzy
If you look closely at the Royal coat of arms, it doesn't just say "Dieu et mon droit". It also says (written in a circle) "Honi soit qui mal y pense". As I understand it, this means roughly "May evil be done to he who thinks ill of it". "It" presumably meaning "my right". Incidentally, it is "honni" in modern French, but it is definitely "honi" in the Royal motto. 20:53 Jul 01, 2004 (UTC)
"Cymru am byth", to the best of my knowledge, is a de facto motto, I don't think it is officially recognized. FWIW, the Royal motto on HM Arms and Welsh Badge is "Y Ddraig Goch Ddyry Cychwyn" (The Red Dragon Leads The Way). - mynameismonkey
Scotland has slightly different bank holidays: January 2 (or a subsequent weekday) but not Easter Monday, and the first Monday in August instead of the last. See this list. I'll leave it to someone who understands the format of the page to put this in ;-) -- rbrwr
"Britain (England) has been described as a land without music" - who has described it as such and what does it mean? Mintguy 20:24 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
can you tell me what those animals mean on the shield
Surely in "Today, her role is mainly ceremonial, with the country's real political authority being delegated to the Prime Minister", it should be "power", not "authority"? The distinction is that the authority is the legitimate basis for the power - and the Prime Minister is merely exercising power vicariously, i.e. it doesn't actually belong to him as such but he gets the authority to exercise it from somewhere else (from "the Crown in Parliament", actually, under the system involved) - he is only a minister. PML.
A very good point, PML. He gets his constitutional power on the Monarch's authority. The article should be more careful with its use of language. FearÉIREANN 00:55 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Has BSL really become an official language? I know there were pressure groups to make it one, but I did not know it had become one yet. -fonzy
The UK does have official languages, but to my knowledge its only English, Welsh and Scottish Gaelic. - fonzy
Though they do not have the same recognition by UK law - e.g. new naturalised citizens of the UK are required by law to have knowledge of English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic. An Irish speaker with no English (or Welsh or Scottish Gaelic) could not be naturalised a British citizen. Andrew Yong 09:01, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Can we settle this thing about the official language once and for all? This section of the page keeps changing from one view to another. The following points need definitive verification.
I looked on Encarta World Atlas 2000. for languages it says English (official) then Welsh and Scottish Gaelic. I am shore that BSL is not an offical langauge mainly as their are pressure groups trying to make it one. - fonzy
I'm going to change the article to say there are no official languages. Mintguy 08:25, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I suddenly had an idea I will e-mail the govenment asking them, just to make shore. - fonzy
By UK law all government, local authority and welsh assembly documents must be in English and Welsh if available in Wales. Gaelic (Scottish nad Irish) is not recognised by law as it is not widely spoken. Cornish has only 200 speakers approx and therefore is not recognised by government bodies. Therefore I conclude by saying English is the only language that by law is recognised nation wide although in Wales, Welsh is also recognised by law. C.C. Aged 12
Will someone add the Scots name on the table in the article United Kingdom, please? -- Kaihsu Tai 22:07, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
That's difficult. It would be possible to add a Scots name for the UK (indeed this has already been done -- the last name on the list is a Scots name for the UK, an Ulster Scots name) but it would be a bit difficult to add the Scots name for the UK since, as far as I know, no such animal exists. Presumably the Ulster Scots name is the one used in the most recent NI agreement. If this is so, I would imagine that it has the best claim to be the Scots name for the UK since the UK government has accepted it. -- Derek Ross 05:29, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Norlin sounds very odd to me when used in this way. It's a noun, the Scots equivalent to Northland with the same meaning, being used to make a noun phrase. Now that sounds fine when used in phrases like norlin leid or norlin fowk but not in the phrase Norlin Airlann just as northland people sounds okay but Northland Ireland doesn't. This sounds more like an example of non-native speakers using a dictionary to translate a phrase without worrying about the grammar over much. Not too surprising if it's a title created by English speakers for political purposes, I suppose. The native Scots speakers that I know would talk about Ulster or the North o Irelan or just use the English phrase Northern Irelan. -- Derek Ross
I just found this article since someone's trying to translate it for cy.wikipedia, and I notice it's had the wrong Welsh title since the end of July! United = unedig in this context, not gyfunol. -- Arwel 01:58, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
"Welsh and Scottish Gaelic have equal status with English in Wales and Scotland respectively (see Languages in the United Kingdom). "
So English is not official... If Welsh and Scottish have equal status with English, that doesn't make it official either. Either it is official or it is not. Why are we listing this here?
Is Welsh and Scottish Gaelic de facto too? Does anyont speak these in the Welsh/Scottish parliaments? -- Jiang 02:37, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Monarchy - check your opinion polls
As a matter of interest I did.
http://www.mori.com/polls/trends/monarchy/republic.shtml
It seems that there is a petty constant 70%.
There are some indications that this may change long term; polls of young people show that only 54% of 15-25 year olds support the monarchy and 32% would vote for a republic. See
http://www.mori.com/polls/2001/rd010730-top.shtml
Is there a source for the claim that only three countries have a profitable recording industry? Tuf-Kat 07:38, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry - but we do not need to have all those blue boxes at the bottom of this page. A simple link to the larger bodies that the UK is in would be fine, but listing every member is getting silly now - when do we stop - which groups should we list at the bottom of this page? What about members of the UN? Or the WTO? Tompagenet 19:49, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I always think that the outstanding thing about the British is the number of inventions that we have brought to the world. What about adding a couple of sentences on this. We could mention Michael Faraday, Frank Whittle, Charles Babbage, Robert Baden-Powell Alexander Fleming, John Logie Baird, William Caxton, Richard Trevithick, Humphry Davy Robert Watson-Watt, John Logie Baird, Henry Bessemer, Tim Berners-Lee. There are even more here.
David Thrale 21:45, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Why does the United kingdom field a unified team for the Olympics, whereas seperate teams are fielded (viz. sco & eng) for football, cricket & rugby? Nichalp 19:59, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
It is wrong to talk of the nations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. First, Northern Ireland is not and never has been a nation. Secondly some believe that other nations also exist on the island, notably, Cornwall. Using more precise language avoids the proble,m. The first three were 'nation-states' at least to some extent. Northern Ireland has always been called a home governmental unit or province while Cornwall, whatever about its nationhood has never been a state r a province. FearÉIREANN
I would argue the first two paragraphs are in need of pruning. This whole nations making up a country (or countries making up a nation) thing is too complicated to go in the first paragraph. better simply to say "consisting of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". Morwen 20:09, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
I notice that in the Civil Contingencies Bill the technical term for the 4 entities is 'Part' [9] ;) Morwen 12:56, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
Countries might be a better term than nations, but that might confuse people even more. The UK is a state made up of countries, whereas the US is a country made up of states. (Of course, the UK is also a country, and the US a state - there are multiple definitions of all these terms.) Does anyone know why we say that the UK was founded in 1800 and renamed in 1927, rather than saying that it was founded in 1707 and renamed in both 1800 and 1927? (It changed its geographical boundaries - by a large amount - on both occasions.) 20:55, Jul 01, 2004 (UTC)
Should this include or not include:
I can't currently see any reason to remove them, but there may well be one...
-- EuroTom 22:30, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
No one is objecting the removal of the footers at wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. There is clear consensus on this issue. If you object, then go there and explain why. The structure is flexible only when there are logical reasons for changing the template. I don't see how this particular article is different from the rest. The template has no footers at all, and we can revert back to that format if you wish.
The poll below is invalid. Polls are only started when discussion has been exhausted. So far, you have provided no reason for keeping the footers there. -- Jia ng 21:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The footers are there because they look nice. Otherwise, I see no point in "highlighting" membership in marginal organizations such as APEC. The EU footer remains because it is a major organization, but elsewhere, a mention in the foreign relations/economy/etc section will do and the article of the org itself will contain a list needed for browsing. A search box exists. There is no need to burden readers with extra scrolling for little benefit.
Please tell me who in wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries has been opposing rm marginal orgnization footers. I warned and waited before removing. This should apply even more now that we've got a categories system in place. Which particular footers to include should be decided case-by-case, but once decided, this should apply to all countries. I don't see why not. -- Jia ng 22:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Given that I only received enouragement after threatening to remove them the second time on 8 May 2004, I assumed those opposed has changed their minds. Given Cantus's past conduct, I would have been auto-reverted if he was "strongly in favour", but he was only against removing all of them - he only asked to leave " at least one..." As for Jao, I never claimed the consensus was to rm all of the footers (EU and Europe remain here). I agree with Jao. Likewise, Timwi was only adding geographical footers, not the irrelevant mess that came out afterwards. I did, however, propose to revert to the previous fmt after the categories system was implemented a couple days ago. This leaves you the only one opposed to keeping only EU/Europe and removing the rest.
Consensus was never attained to add these footers in the first place, so I don't find fault in removing them. Making it inconsistent by country is not an option. Let's try to find agreement instead. Discuss at wikiproject countries which organizations are coherent/important enough to warrant keeping the footer. -- Jia ng 23:16, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I see now they've been completely removed and replaced with ugly redirects. NATO and others are still missing. I have said my bit at wikiproject countries, but clearly that isn't enough.
> "Making it inconsistent by country is not an option."
For the second time, let me remind you that these structures are advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. If, therefore, a consensus is reached on this page I hope you will accept that and re-add the footers and/or a summary box.
Given the views below, is it okay to re-add the NATO footer, but leave the rest off? No rush, if more time to discuss would be good. (Also from the below, someone could additionally remove the Europe footer at somepoint if desired) -- EuroTom 16:40, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Let's do it, but we need to find somewhere to preserve links to Countries of the World and Europe. -- Jia ng 05:22, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Discussion continued in Archive 2.
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
|
I thought "Great Britain" referred to the island of Britain as opposed to the political entity United Kingdom. The latter includes the Channel Islands (and the Isle of Man, and the Shetland Islands, and much else), but the former does not. -- LMS
Yes, you're right, I think (!) just did a quick search and found an abundance of information at CIA Jersey factbook (incidentally, ci.html is Chile, there doesn't appear to be a Channel Islands specific page), note the "Dependency status: British crown dependency" and the Independence. Certainly I know there is a lot of independence between mainland Britain and the Channel Islands, as demonstrated by the fact it is tax exempt (and the number of offshore banks shows this)..
Crown dependencies don't usually count in Great Britain. See [1]
But this does highlight that the United Kingdom page should be about that, and the Great Britain page should be about that (even if that does leave everyone a bit confused ;-) -- Neeklamy
OK, but do the Channel Islands deserve special mention as part of the U.K. that, for example, the Isle of Man or the British Virgin Islands would not? I don't know what the legal relationships are, but I would guess (just guess) that the Channel Islands are in the same relationship to the U.K. that the Isle of Man and the British Virgin Islands are. Of course, I wouldn't be at all surprised if I were totally wrong. -- LMS
You've caught me again, I can't say for sure tonight, but certainly I'll hit the library tomorrow and find some dead wood answer to this. -- Neeklamy --- Have we determined yet if the Channel Isles and the Isle of Man have a different legal standing than the British dependencies. If they don't they should be folded into that list, not kept separate. If they do -what is the difference? ---rmhermen
Just added list of monarchs if anyone would like to run over it.
Does anyone know if this Berwick-upon-Tweed thing is true or is it a wind-up? I'm from the UK and i've never heard anything about it, surely it should be on a new page anyway. p.s. I hope i've cleared up any American confusions between the terms Great Britain, United Kingdom and England :) - JamieTheFoool
I've heard the same thing said about war between the Kingdom of Fife and Russia. This needs to be checked. -- Derek Ross
Berwick-upon-Tweed had a weird status until 1885 when it was adminstratively made part of England. Apparently it was mentioned separate in many documents until then (such as the book of common prayer).
EricD Read the bit at the top of the United kingdom page about it being FROZEN! Mintguy 01:03 Sep 14, 2002 (UTC)
Found this: http://www.observer.co.uk/readerseditor/story/0,8224,515149,00.html
Another reader, who suspects that some of our contributors are 'either arrogant, ignorant or Celtic agents provocateurs' , pleads that we learn the difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain and the British Isles. So, here goes (deep breath): the United Kingdom is a contraction of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the official title of the political union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; Great Britain is the geographical name for England, Wales and Scotland, including those adjacent islands governed by the mainland (i.e. excluding the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands_ are you still with me?); the British Isles is a geographical name describing Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, the Shetland Isles and the Channel Islands; Britain is another name for Great Britain or the United Kingdom.
Phew.
PS: Between 1801 and 1922, the UK was actually called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Furthermore, as Irish people resent the use of the term 'British Isles' because it dates from a time when Ireland politically was associated with Britain but Ireland has not been so since 1922, a different term is gradually replacing the term British Isles. It is the IONA (Islands of the North Atlantic.
I'm not sure that the UK has a national motto at all. The Sovereign has a motto: "Dieu et mon droit", but that's not the national motto. I vote for the removal of the "national motto" line in this table, unless someone can discover a national motto for the UK.
Its possible. I have tried to find one, but couldn't. But Wales has a national motto. It seems odd for Wales to but not the UK.
OK hope you don't mind, just thought you would be interested in other information i've found out about the motto "Dieu et mon droit" actually means
Dieu et mon droit (French for ‘God and my right’) is the motto of the Sovereign and dates from the time of King Henry V (reigned 1413-1422). The motto appears in the shield on the Royal Coat of Arms.
Loosely translated Dieu Et Mon Droit is the Royal Family moto it means "God Is My Help" I hope this clears up any Discrepancies!!
I would just place the Royal Arms and Motto instead, as technically the UK has no National Flag either, The Union Flag is a Royal Flag that can be used by prvate persons. - fonzy
No, altought the govenment does execpet it as teh antional flag, but i ahve about 5 flag books that can back me up. -fonzy
If you look closely at the Royal coat of arms, it doesn't just say "Dieu et mon droit". It also says (written in a circle) "Honi soit qui mal y pense". As I understand it, this means roughly "May evil be done to he who thinks ill of it". "It" presumably meaning "my right". Incidentally, it is "honni" in modern French, but it is definitely "honi" in the Royal motto. 20:53 Jul 01, 2004 (UTC)
"Cymru am byth", to the best of my knowledge, is a de facto motto, I don't think it is officially recognized. FWIW, the Royal motto on HM Arms and Welsh Badge is "Y Ddraig Goch Ddyry Cychwyn" (The Red Dragon Leads The Way). - mynameismonkey
Scotland has slightly different bank holidays: January 2 (or a subsequent weekday) but not Easter Monday, and the first Monday in August instead of the last. See this list. I'll leave it to someone who understands the format of the page to put this in ;-) -- rbrwr
"Britain (England) has been described as a land without music" - who has described it as such and what does it mean? Mintguy 20:24 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
can you tell me what those animals mean on the shield
Surely in "Today, her role is mainly ceremonial, with the country's real political authority being delegated to the Prime Minister", it should be "power", not "authority"? The distinction is that the authority is the legitimate basis for the power - and the Prime Minister is merely exercising power vicariously, i.e. it doesn't actually belong to him as such but he gets the authority to exercise it from somewhere else (from "the Crown in Parliament", actually, under the system involved) - he is only a minister. PML.
A very good point, PML. He gets his constitutional power on the Monarch's authority. The article should be more careful with its use of language. FearÉIREANN 00:55 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Has BSL really become an official language? I know there were pressure groups to make it one, but I did not know it had become one yet. -fonzy
The UK does have official languages, but to my knowledge its only English, Welsh and Scottish Gaelic. - fonzy
Though they do not have the same recognition by UK law - e.g. new naturalised citizens of the UK are required by law to have knowledge of English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic. An Irish speaker with no English (or Welsh or Scottish Gaelic) could not be naturalised a British citizen. Andrew Yong 09:01, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Can we settle this thing about the official language once and for all? This section of the page keeps changing from one view to another. The following points need definitive verification.
I looked on Encarta World Atlas 2000. for languages it says English (official) then Welsh and Scottish Gaelic. I am shore that BSL is not an offical langauge mainly as their are pressure groups trying to make it one. - fonzy
I'm going to change the article to say there are no official languages. Mintguy 08:25, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I suddenly had an idea I will e-mail the govenment asking them, just to make shore. - fonzy
By UK law all government, local authority and welsh assembly documents must be in English and Welsh if available in Wales. Gaelic (Scottish nad Irish) is not recognised by law as it is not widely spoken. Cornish has only 200 speakers approx and therefore is not recognised by government bodies. Therefore I conclude by saying English is the only language that by law is recognised nation wide although in Wales, Welsh is also recognised by law. C.C. Aged 12
Will someone add the Scots name on the table in the article United Kingdom, please? -- Kaihsu Tai 22:07, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
That's difficult. It would be possible to add a Scots name for the UK (indeed this has already been done -- the last name on the list is a Scots name for the UK, an Ulster Scots name) but it would be a bit difficult to add the Scots name for the UK since, as far as I know, no such animal exists. Presumably the Ulster Scots name is the one used in the most recent NI agreement. If this is so, I would imagine that it has the best claim to be the Scots name for the UK since the UK government has accepted it. -- Derek Ross 05:29, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Norlin sounds very odd to me when used in this way. It's a noun, the Scots equivalent to Northland with the same meaning, being used to make a noun phrase. Now that sounds fine when used in phrases like norlin leid or norlin fowk but not in the phrase Norlin Airlann just as northland people sounds okay but Northland Ireland doesn't. This sounds more like an example of non-native speakers using a dictionary to translate a phrase without worrying about the grammar over much. Not too surprising if it's a title created by English speakers for political purposes, I suppose. The native Scots speakers that I know would talk about Ulster or the North o Irelan or just use the English phrase Northern Irelan. -- Derek Ross
I just found this article since someone's trying to translate it for cy.wikipedia, and I notice it's had the wrong Welsh title since the end of July! United = unedig in this context, not gyfunol. -- Arwel 01:58, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
"Welsh and Scottish Gaelic have equal status with English in Wales and Scotland respectively (see Languages in the United Kingdom). "
So English is not official... If Welsh and Scottish have equal status with English, that doesn't make it official either. Either it is official or it is not. Why are we listing this here?
Is Welsh and Scottish Gaelic de facto too? Does anyont speak these in the Welsh/Scottish parliaments? -- Jiang 02:37, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Monarchy - check your opinion polls
As a matter of interest I did.
http://www.mori.com/polls/trends/monarchy/republic.shtml
It seems that there is a petty constant 70%.
There are some indications that this may change long term; polls of young people show that only 54% of 15-25 year olds support the monarchy and 32% would vote for a republic. See
http://www.mori.com/polls/2001/rd010730-top.shtml
Is there a source for the claim that only three countries have a profitable recording industry? Tuf-Kat 07:38, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry - but we do not need to have all those blue boxes at the bottom of this page. A simple link to the larger bodies that the UK is in would be fine, but listing every member is getting silly now - when do we stop - which groups should we list at the bottom of this page? What about members of the UN? Or the WTO? Tompagenet 19:49, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I always think that the outstanding thing about the British is the number of inventions that we have brought to the world. What about adding a couple of sentences on this. We could mention Michael Faraday, Frank Whittle, Charles Babbage, Robert Baden-Powell Alexander Fleming, John Logie Baird, William Caxton, Richard Trevithick, Humphry Davy Robert Watson-Watt, John Logie Baird, Henry Bessemer, Tim Berners-Lee. There are even more here.
David Thrale 21:45, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Why does the United kingdom field a unified team for the Olympics, whereas seperate teams are fielded (viz. sco & eng) for football, cricket & rugby? Nichalp 19:59, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
It is wrong to talk of the nations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. First, Northern Ireland is not and never has been a nation. Secondly some believe that other nations also exist on the island, notably, Cornwall. Using more precise language avoids the proble,m. The first three were 'nation-states' at least to some extent. Northern Ireland has always been called a home governmental unit or province while Cornwall, whatever about its nationhood has never been a state r a province. FearÉIREANN
I would argue the first two paragraphs are in need of pruning. This whole nations making up a country (or countries making up a nation) thing is too complicated to go in the first paragraph. better simply to say "consisting of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". Morwen 20:09, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
I notice that in the Civil Contingencies Bill the technical term for the 4 entities is 'Part' [9] ;) Morwen 12:56, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
Countries might be a better term than nations, but that might confuse people even more. The UK is a state made up of countries, whereas the US is a country made up of states. (Of course, the UK is also a country, and the US a state - there are multiple definitions of all these terms.) Does anyone know why we say that the UK was founded in 1800 and renamed in 1927, rather than saying that it was founded in 1707 and renamed in both 1800 and 1927? (It changed its geographical boundaries - by a large amount - on both occasions.) 20:55, Jul 01, 2004 (UTC)
Should this include or not include:
I can't currently see any reason to remove them, but there may well be one...
-- EuroTom 22:30, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
No one is objecting the removal of the footers at wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. There is clear consensus on this issue. If you object, then go there and explain why. The structure is flexible only when there are logical reasons for changing the template. I don't see how this particular article is different from the rest. The template has no footers at all, and we can revert back to that format if you wish.
The poll below is invalid. Polls are only started when discussion has been exhausted. So far, you have provided no reason for keeping the footers there. -- Jia ng 21:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The footers are there because they look nice. Otherwise, I see no point in "highlighting" membership in marginal organizations such as APEC. The EU footer remains because it is a major organization, but elsewhere, a mention in the foreign relations/economy/etc section will do and the article of the org itself will contain a list needed for browsing. A search box exists. There is no need to burden readers with extra scrolling for little benefit.
Please tell me who in wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries has been opposing rm marginal orgnization footers. I warned and waited before removing. This should apply even more now that we've got a categories system in place. Which particular footers to include should be decided case-by-case, but once decided, this should apply to all countries. I don't see why not. -- Jia ng 22:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Given that I only received enouragement after threatening to remove them the second time on 8 May 2004, I assumed those opposed has changed their minds. Given Cantus's past conduct, I would have been auto-reverted if he was "strongly in favour", but he was only against removing all of them - he only asked to leave " at least one..." As for Jao, I never claimed the consensus was to rm all of the footers (EU and Europe remain here). I agree with Jao. Likewise, Timwi was only adding geographical footers, not the irrelevant mess that came out afterwards. I did, however, propose to revert to the previous fmt after the categories system was implemented a couple days ago. This leaves you the only one opposed to keeping only EU/Europe and removing the rest.
Consensus was never attained to add these footers in the first place, so I don't find fault in removing them. Making it inconsistent by country is not an option. Let's try to find agreement instead. Discuss at wikiproject countries which organizations are coherent/important enough to warrant keeping the footer. -- Jia ng 23:16, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I see now they've been completely removed and replaced with ugly redirects. NATO and others are still missing. I have said my bit at wikiproject countries, but clearly that isn't enough.
> "Making it inconsistent by country is not an option."
For the second time, let me remind you that these structures are advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. If, therefore, a consensus is reached on this page I hope you will accept that and re-add the footers and/or a summary box.
Given the views below, is it okay to re-add the NATO footer, but leave the rest off? No rush, if more time to discuss would be good. (Also from the below, someone could additionally remove the Europe footer at somepoint if desired) -- EuroTom 16:40, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Let's do it, but we need to find somewhere to preserve links to Countries of the World and Europe. -- Jia ng 05:22, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Discussion continued in Archive 2.