![]() | This 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. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 38 |
Okay, so there is much coverage on whether the U.K. is actually a democracy any longer since MP’s have openly refused to implement the result. With this in mind I recommend we edit the article to read that the U.K. was until very recently a democracy but now that status is in question. Not that the U.K. is no longer a democracy but that the status has a question mark attached. Roland Of Yew ( talk) 08:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Who did I disagreed with MP’s? You seem to be trying to assign an Venda where there is none, making assumptions about another editor based on nothing whatsoever, The current political status is in question and should be addressed, why are you so adamant that the issue which has been widely disseminated be hidden? Roland Of Yew ( talk) 08:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
There are clearly degrees of democracy. The Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe mostly styled themselves "democracies", as did other communist one-party states. I know this won't please Remain-inclined readers, but if the UK remains in the EU in spite of the 2016 referrendum result, then its democratic credentials must be compromised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 ( talk) 12:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
It’s a representative democracy, not a plebiscite democracy User:Regularuk ( talk)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This change refers to the start of the article where it is discussed what the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is commonly known as.
The sole change would be from Britain to Great Britain as the United Kingdom (UK) as a whole is commonly referred to as simply Great Britain. Although people may refer to the island as Britain meaning the UK this is not its full and proper name. In addition to this point, one would argue that the UK being referred to as Great Britain not just simply Britain is no less common or perhaps even more common that the whole of the UK is referred to as Great Britain. Clement Elliot ( talk) 11:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I just noticed that Wikipedia has two different articles, one for the United Kingdom and one for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Surely these need merging. Regularuk ( talk) 14:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I see, thanks for clearing that up. Regularuk ( talk) 14:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Recommend the 'edit spat' stop & a discussion commence. GoodDay ( talk) 16:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
“ | Four Celtic languages are spoken in the UK: Welsh, Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Cornish. | ” |
Cornish has crept in to this article and several others [1] as a normal living language on a par with Welsh. This has been caused by agenda pushing Celts, by a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on with the Cornish language, and by those wiki editors who like seeing how many languages they can cram into a wiki article. The ambiguity over how to refer to it on wp is about the word extinct and what constitutes a 'speaker'. I take the view that the default meaning of speaker is someone who speaks it as a mother tongue, an L1 speaker, and not someone who has learned it as a second language. L2, later, to a non-defined level. Otherwise, anybody who has been to school in the UK could claim to be a French or German speaker. Similarly, extinct should mean as a default position, when the last L1 speaker dies. However, extinct, or rather not extinct, can correctly be applied to a language undergoing revision or being used in some way, such as Latin. This is not defined, hence my preference to link extinct with the last L1 speaker. It is fallaciously misleading to compare Hebrew with Cornish. Hebrew is a genuine, and AFAIK only, revived language, with countless L1 speakers. This idea that the UK acknowledges officially that Cornish is a minority spoken language because it has confirmed the EU charter is wrong. Under the EU charter for regional or minority language, Cornish is a regional language that affects the culture in Cornwall. There is nothing that says it needs to be a minority living language like Scottish Gaelic. Hence the use of 'or', not 'and' in the Charter's name. The figures quoted for the number of 'speakers' of Cornish come from either census data (primary source) or from L2 speakers. As such, they are highly misleading. I agree that Cornish should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but it should not be treated in the same way that we treat Welsh or indeed Polish or Hindi. Why not insert Latin? My guess is there are more people in the UK that speak Latin to a high level of competency than Cornish. Or Norn, a UK language that became extinct after Cornish. (To answer myself, Norn has not had the same promotion or public profiling in the Shetlands as has Cornish in Cornwall.) Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 20:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Do we need to show the constituent country flags in the infobox? Note, that Northern Ireland doesn't have a flag of its own, while England, Scotland & Wales do. Thus the potential for edit squabbles. GoodDay ( talk) 15:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Seeing as this article is about the UK and the UK flag is not disputed, why not attach the flag icons from within the UK flag that represent the separate countries, eg St George's Cross for England. Then GoodDay would get the discussion he seems to want. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 22:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I checked over more sovereign state articles & so far, this article is the only one with a Membership section to its infobox. But again, I appreciate that the UK tends to be treated differently, so I'll leave it up to the rest of you. GoodDay ( talk) 22:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
They never used to be there, and I have no issue with them being there, as it does represent each countries flag. Kingdom of the Netherlands also has flags listed for each country. — Calvin999 14:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Northern Ireland to be removed from the Constituent Countries list as it is not a constituent country, it is a region. Golem08 ( talk) 11:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Not done: - Not done per multiple previous discussions - please check the archives.
Ghmyrtle (
talk)
12:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I summarized with this:
Those skilled with Template:distinguish-2 will immediately
Cheerio, old chaps!
--
JerzyA (
talk)
22:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I removed the mention of the outdated BBC policy for the use of "Britain" since it seems it is no longer used. See for example https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-49903759
Also, the policy was plain wrong when it said ( [2]):
British means 'belonging or relating to Great Britain'.
Vpab15 ( talk) 16:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:TV#Nigel Mitchell. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
00:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Welsh and Scottish Gaelic do have some sort of explicit (limited) official status within the whole of the United Kingdom under UK law, not just in Wales, England and Wales or Scotland, unlike Scots, Ulster Scots, Cornish or Irish (the last of which definitely remains unofficial even in Northern Ireland, along with Ulster Scots), which are 'sort of' recognised (administratively, by HM Government (the executive)) but they remain legally-speaking 'unofficial'. 194.207.146.167 ( talk) 10:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the Literature section really makes no sense:
Wilde and Stoker, though Irish, were throughout their lives United Kingdom (as was) subjects and were certainly not Rep. of Ireland or Commonwealth nationals. Distinguishing Conrad and Eliot from Ishiguro and Rushdie makes no sense - they all became British nationals and the intro to the paragraph is equally inappropriate for all four. Shaw was born in the United Kingdom (as was) was a British citizen and only acquired Irish citizenship in the 1930s. Other than a couple of years in the 1690s, Swift lived his entire life in the kingdom of Ireland. As far as I can see, the intro to this paragraph only really applies to Pound.
Categorising British writers separately because of their origins seems verging on the offensive to me. However, because of the division into English, Welsh and Scottish sections (where’s Northern Irish e.g. louis MacNeice?) it seems difficult to integrate them into the existing structure. Hence this amendment. I’ve left out Swift and clarifying that Shaw lived in England after Irish independence doesn’t seem worth the text. I’ve also left out the two citations as they are irrelevant. DeCausa ( talk) 10:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Despite some attempts to sort it out, we still have a confused infobox when it comes to official languages. If we avoid the usual squabble and assume English as a de facto can be and is official, and that any de jure language is also official, then the UK has only three official languages, one national and two regional. The EU charter is a red herring beloved by the Cornish language revivalists and the wp crowd who love filling in templates. The EU charter is part of a treaty and as such has no standing in UK law. It does not bestow any official standing or acknowledgement on the languages mentioned in the Charter. As such, it is totally misleading to put Ulster Scots and the others in the same category as Welsh and Scottish Gaelic, both of which do have official status, if only at a UK regional level. I suggest removing the section about regional languages and moving Welsh and Scottish Gaelic into the official language section with English (noting their regional official status. Those other languages can be mentioned in the subsection on languages, but not in the infobox. Only three weeks to go though you might say. But why wait? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 09:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that. I am glad that you are as concerned about that as I am, with there being two other official languages within the UK. I randomly looked at the Netherlands and Sweden for a comparison, two countries in a similar situation to the UK. They adopt similar methods as my UK suggestion, describing Finnish, Sami, and Frisian as official minority languages and official regional languages. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 07:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I have reworded in infobox but more changes there are still needed. There are two seperate issues here. One, as mentioned by GoodDay is whether a language that is official in only part of the UK should be described as official in the UK. He thinks no, I think yes, with a side note. The second is the misuse of the EU charter to try to given some sort of official status to those other languages. I will try to finish off the alterations soon. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 11:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think the introduction's "land mass" should be changed to "landmass". I don't remember encountering "land mass" and think it's an error, but I don't know for sure that it's just a British versus US usage issue. 73.31.191.202 ( talk) 16:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
My additions were removed from the page despite been factually correct and adjusting for new laws that make it illegal to abolish devolution, and my information came from the legislation in question.
I also added that rightfully the Devolved Parliaments can take cases of constitution & devolved competence to the UK Supreme Court, which is again factually correct, has happened already and again is take from legislation. ChefBear01 ( talk) 17:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change the caption "Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister since 2019" to "Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister since 2020" One last sausage roll ( talk) 12:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Brexit has now taken place almost a week ago. How much longer will the current event template be on the article? I get why it was there for a couple of days, but surely it is no longer needed? Any changes related to it will have been made by now. RWB2020 ( talk) 00:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The article is correct that usage of the term 'Britain' is mixed, with some using it to mean 'Great Britain' and others 'United Kingdom', but note 11 isn't right to say the UK Government has come down in favour of 'Britain' meaning 'Great Britain'. The relevant entry carefully avoids saying anything either way explicitly, but if anything 'Use UK and United Kingdom in preference to Britain and British' implies the opposite - 'in preference to' is not the same as 'because this is different to'.
Given the sensitivities for some over explicitly decoupling 'Britain' (and therefore potentially 'British') from the UK as a state, Northern Ireland unionists in particular, it's not surprising that the style guide is to avoid the issue. Prime Ministers and other government ministers, of course, regularly use 'Britain' as a colloquialism for the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.18.235 ( talk) 11:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Section 10.2 of the reference [1] explicitly states that "The abbreviation is UK or U.K.", and until this edit by Rob984 the article stated that as well. I reverted that change (not what the ref says), but was reverted also (The source is titled "Toponymic guidelines for map and other editors". This is an Encyclopedic article, not a guideline on how to format place names. Maybe ask yourself, when is it ever NOT acceptable to use full stops for an initialism? Does every initialism on Wikipedia need to clarify both styles?). I've brought it to this Talk page, as is usual, for input from other editors. I believe the two formats are needed to reflect the reference given. Addressing Rob984's specific edit summary points: WP does offer guidance for the US; no, WP does not need to clarify every one, but as the reference for this article states that two styles are acceptable for this specific initialism it's reasonable for WP to also convey that specific piece of information. Bazza ( talk) 18:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The same old wrangle happens over
the pond
with U.S.
and US. Personally, I prefer UK and US
Gareth Griffith-Jones (
contribs) (
talk)
11:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Nobody's proposing changing "UK" to "U.K.", just whether both styles need listing in the lead because the "Toponymic guidelines" published by the government explicitly lists both styles. I still don't see a justification for why it's helpful to specify an alternative style for initials in the instance of "UK"? As I said, this applies to all initialisms, why do we need to clarify that it is acceptable to use "U.K."? Is a trivial grammatical clarification relevant to an encyclopedia article on the United Kingdom? United States does the reverse and specifies "US" is also acceptable when "U.S." is used throughout the article. Also equal silliness. If anything, it's inferring to the reader that initialisms can't all be styled both ways, which is misinforming. Rob984 ( talk) 14:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, I started this conversation only because the reference given in the article explicitly gives both UK and U.K. as abbreviations of the full name. If it hadn't, then I would support specifying UK only and have made Rob984's recent edit myself ages ago when both first appeared. Bazza ( talk) 14:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be best to just have UK there rather than include U.K. as well. Surely we should just include the most commonly used in the introduction, and that is UK, not U.K. No problems with the article also saying U.K. is also used with the relevant information, but its certainly not very common to justify inclusion in the intro. The U.S. article has been mentioned, but there is far more use of that method than the U.K. I dont think anyone here would advocate we use U.K. throughout this article rather than UK, so why is it needed in the intro anyway? RWB2020 ( talk) 17:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The Church of England is the state religion in England only, but considering that the Church of England retains a representation in the United Kingdom Parliament, and the monarch is obliged to "maintain and preserve the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government upon his or her accession" as the article says, why not categorize this article in the Category:Christian states?( The Sr Guy ( talk) 02:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)).
References
usually shortened to United Kingdom ... The abbreviation is UK or U.K.section 10.2
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Reino Unido. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Interstellarity ( talk) 16:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Regno Unito. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Interstellarity ( talk) 18:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Royaume Uni. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Interstellarity ( talk) 18:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Verenigd Koninkrijk. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Interstellarity ( talk) 18:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vereinigtes Königreich. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Interstellarity ( talk) 18:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Is there a reason why " Existing under its current name since 1927" has been put in the second sentence of the article? That seems to be a fairly recent inclusion. That surely belongs later on in the introduction after the sentence about Ireland leaving the United Kingdom? It makes no sense for the formal date of an official name change to be given such prominence? I really cannot see any justification for it being there, it would only be justified if it was a very recent change, not something almost 100 years ago. Other country articles do not seem to include such dates. RWB2020 ( talk) 18:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect UNited Kingdom. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesome Hwyh 22:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | |
---|---|
Anthem: " God Save the Queen" | |
Royal coats of arms:![]() ![]() Main variant; Scottish variant | |
ISO 3166 code | GB |
I am proposing using the "other_symbol" parameter so that both official variants of coat of arms can be included together in the infobox. While the non-Scottish version is more common, the Scottish one is equally official and used in Scotland and should probably be included visually in the infobox. Preview on the right. TrailBlzr ( talk) 04:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The Royal Coat of Arms for the whole of the United Kingdom is applicable throughout the nation. The version for Scotland could perhaps be used for Scotland's page, but really unsightly and out of place as it looks incredibly crammed, and especially on a Wikipedia page about the UK as a whole.
The Royal Coat of Arms is applied across the UK alone for many institutions and governments, e.g. on passports, in Scottish courts, embassies, consulates, and in many other official uses, so this dual version is confusing to say the least.
Why was this rushed through without consensus of any great measure? AlbusWulfricDumbledore ( talk) 17:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
"Placed at the heart of the identity system is the Royal Coat of Arms, designed by Reynolds Stone and approved by Her Majesty The Queen in 1956. The Royal Coat of Arms provides a clear and distinguishable visual reference for HM Government" "When applying the government identity system the majority of organisations will use the Royal Coat of Arms." "Organisations specific to Scotland should adopt the Royal Coat of Arms Scotland, a variant which is used by the Scotland Office." "The primary symbol for use with the government identity system is the Royal Coat of Arms." https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/362346/hmg_identity_system_guidelines_2012.pdf AlbusWulfricDumbledore ( talk) 11:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed a typo on your page. The UK is not a country but a sovereign state. Could this please be corrected? Samanthajaneh1 ( talk) 22:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
It was not the first country in the world to industrialise, many Asian and Middle-Eastern countries industrialised before that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardian101 ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I reverted today's change. A reason was given for its re-revert, namely: "As of today the Welsh legislature is known as Senedd Cymru/Welsh Parliament. https://nation.cymru/news/adieu-assembly-hello-welsh-parliament-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-senedds-name-change/". Common name applies? Opinion? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 08:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Although it relates to article titles, the princial does still apply here I think. That is: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. a source saying what it thinks the common name will be does not make it the common name, so those references are no good. Because it is so soon after the event we simply do not know whether this new name will become the commonly used name by a significant majority of reliable sources. We therefore need to work with what we've got, which is RSSs over the last ten years or so. We can mention the new official name, but that is not the same as using it. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 09:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I was surprised to see
this edit of mine
reverted by
RWB2020. That sentence needs to be neutrally worded, and currently fails in two respects. 1) "Although the United Kingdom is a sovereign country
" is
loaded to suggest or imply that because the UK is a sovereign country, its four constituent countries cannot be. 2) "England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also widely referred to as countries
implies that they nevertheless are not. I propose changing it again to "The United Kingdom is a sovereign country which is made up of the countries of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales
", or an alternative neutral wording if proposed, which is factually correct. --
DeFacto (
talk).
10:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Although the United Kingdom is a sovereign country, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also widely referred to as countries. I do not think that this loaded language is appropriate in an encyclopaedia, it implies that the four home countries are not real countries. -- DeFacto ( talk). 22:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory". [36] We should not be mealy-mouthed about is. We don't see other words couched this way: we don't say "although London is a city, Birmingham, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, and Manchester are also widely referred to as cities". They are cities like E, NI, S and W are countries. -- DeFacto ( talk). 09:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@
Snowded: this discussion was started to discuss the sentence "Although the United Kingdom is a sovereign country, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also widely referred to as countries.
", which still sits in the article. I'm not sure why it switched to that other sentence with "consists of" in it, which also still exists. --
DeFacto (
talk).
12:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
It has a government just as England has a government, just as Scotland and Wales had a government pre-1999 and just as NI has a government off and on depending how much they’ve fallen out with each other I.e. the UK government. DeCausa ( talk) 17:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that the "Formation" section should mention the founding of the European Economic Community and the U.K.'s withdrawal from the European Union. Since many political scientists are starting to consider the E.U. a sort of federation/confederation, I think that Brexit would warrant a mention in "Formation". -- RaiBrown1204 ( talk) 00:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
In this page it cites many places where a language has been given an official status of some kind, however, I see none for English while it's listed as official and national language. Why called it official and not de facto, unless there's some documentation for the status of "official". Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning it's everyday usage, just its legal status with this country. --
sion8
talk page
02:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change country to states. The United Kingdom isn’t a country 2001:8004:DC1:E695:341B:A8DE:7FB1:642D ( talk) 04:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Mutt Lunker undid my Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith edits in which I cleaned up a provocative and inflammatory phrase, which I can *only* imagine was written to either give validity to the illegal actions of T.May's Tory party, which is a longer story, *or* initially written to provoke a response by Nationalists. I edited it to reflect neutrality, which is required of every article, moreover the guidelines state 'Avoid stating opinions as facts.'.. no refs are provided however to my surprise Mutt Lunker has undone these edits, either risking an edit war, or more likely, leaving me with the impression he is bias, a Unionist and most likely doesn't really care for neutrality, only what he likes goes.
How can I say this? ; No message before he undid my revisions, just acted like he pleased and undid them.That's not how you treat other regular editors. Here's the hidden text I put to other warn other Wiki editors..
(removed hidden) Provocative and inflammatory phrasing 'altering or abolishing devolution', clearly aimed towards Nationalists and so breaking Wikipedia's neutrality policy: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone June 2020 (removed hidden)
Dava4444 ( talk) 22:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
A minor discussion has started on the Ruth Ellis talk page about the use of Wales/UK in the infobox. Comments welcome. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 04:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Reino Unido. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 11#Reino Unido until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
07:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Regno Unito. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 11#Regno Unito until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
07:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Royaume Uni. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 11#Royaume Uni until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
07:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Verenigd Koninkrijk. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 11#Verenigd Koninkrijk until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
07:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Vereinigtes Königreich. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 11#Vereinigtes Königreich until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
07:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Organisational chart of the UK political system" should be changed to "Organisational chart of the de jure UK political system" 129.67.117.171 ( talk) 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The area of the uk is 245,415 square km, if viewed as a flat surface. Including the topography (to a topographical resolution of 90x90m) it goes up to 247,719 Square km! Credit: Stand-up Maths (Matt Parker & Co.) See this his YouTube channel for reference! 2A00:23C8:2981:201:59CC:4622:77A5:1169 ( talk) 12:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Another acronym for the United Kingdom is "U.K.G.B.N.I.". I think the heading should reflect this, like: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UKGBNI or U.K.G.B.N.I.), commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK or U.K.) or Britain…". RaiBrown1204 ( talk) 22:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
saying "our" like you're a personal employee ..., I'm not an employee, but as with all editors I am a member of the community. The genitive expresses a relationship, not just possession. Consider the phrase "my country", it does not imply you are a civil servant or head of state. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 09:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. Just an observation. On looking through some of the economic section I was surprised that many of the claims are 15 years or more out of date. I've made a start to updating but there really is a lot to do. Regards Birtig ( talk) 20:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Disagreement about deletion of section and sources. Requesting third opinion per WP:3O
Bookku ( talk) 06:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, can we please add the Dutch Low Saxon page onto the language links?
https://nds-nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verienigd_Keuninkriek
-- Audi1merc2 ( talk) 20:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The section in 'History' under "After the Acts of Union of 1707", should mention that the King George I, and the House of Hanover were German, and he barely spoke English, and that the Scottish uprising was not just about Protestantism, but that the House of Hanover were not thought of as British by almost anyone in Britain. The uprising had a lot to do with British sovereignty, not just Catholicism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 ( talk) 15:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there really a need for a whole paragraph in the History section regarding COVID-19? Considering the scope of the history section, and how small this event is in comparison, is a three line explanation really required in such a brief historical overview? SmartyPants22 ( talk) 13:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
For some reason, editors of this page do not consider the United Kingdom a transcontinental country, despite the fact that the article for transcontinental countries explicitly has the United Kingdom as part of its list, even in map form. People point to the fact that Crown dependencies and territories are not part of the United Kingdom, but this means it is either an inconsistency or the editors of this page are wrong in reverting my additions.
Ddum5347 ( talk) 00:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
The paragraph beginning "During the 18th century, Britain was involved in the Atlantic slave trade." is biased in that it underplays the UKs major role in the slave trade.
The UK traded slaves from the 17th to the 19th centuries and was the major trader during much of that time. To say that the UK "was involved", "during the 18th century" substantially misrepresents the scale and duration of the UK's role. This can be confirmed in detail in other Wikipedia articles, e.g. see Atlantic slave trade, Royal African Company, South Sea Company.
The paragraph should be rewritten to accurately represent the actual scale and duration of the UK's role in slave trading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.21.211 ( talk) 05:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I think that in all the pages about countries, including this page, should be some environmental information. At least 1 paragraph in the main body of the article and at least 2 lines in the lead section. For example, the place of the country in the Environmental Performance Index, if the country is part of the Paris Agreement, if she pledged to shut down GHG emission by 2050. It will help bring information about environment to people and to leaders decide what is better. For example not all people in the world know that the overhelming majority of countries is part of the paris agreement and most of them pledged to cut GHG emission to zero by 2050. I think that if we will do it together we can add such information to every country very fast. Imagine, how it will improve the knowladge about environmental issues in the world
After we finish with countries we can write about cities etc.
Who is in?
Pinging here members of the Wiki Project Climate change.
-- Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה ( talk) 11:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
@ Stephan Schulz: @ Clayoquot: @ Phoebe: @ C-randles: @ C.J. Griffin: @ HMasundire: @ Daniel Mietchen: @ Ainali: @ UnitedStatesian: @ Daylen: @ EMsmile: @ Adumoul: @ TMLutas: @ Bluerasberry: @ Discott: @ KevinShore19: @ Jirka Dl: @ Goldsztajn: @ Chidgk1: @ Peaceray: @ CaptainEek: @ Emjackson42: @ Shanluan: @ Guettarda: @ MaynardClark: @ Laniedufour: @ Sadads: @ Hedgehoque: @ Jlevi: @ Sm8900: @ Abdullah Al Manjur: @ Ebenwilliams: @ RCraig09: @ Tym2412: @ Ebweav: @ Rwebogora: @ Gbadegesin Muhammed: |
How about NO.
1. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing or advocacy of any kind. "It will help bring information about environment to people and to leaders decide what is better." That is totally one example of advocacy.
2. There is 100s of index rankings and they don't go especially into lead of countries, if some ranking is personaly important for some user, user should make own blog or so.
3. 2050, maybe yes maybe not gonna happen, this is not a place for a wish lists, and events what could happen or no, not a crystal ball. 93.86.97.64 ( talk) 14:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
This is probably the same person who has being 'spamming' articles with a lead edit and copy and pasting it into a category as well. I have spent a lot of my time unpicking the mess. I have also kept in your edits within the categories. I just totally disagree with duplication in the lead, otherwise at that rate you may as well remove the categories completely.
AussieWikiDan ( talk) 15:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
At the moment I think there are 2 sentences on the environment in this article? In general for large and medium sized countries I think it would be reasonable to expand that to 2 shortish paragraphs, whereas for small countries one paragraph might be enough. But it depends on the importance for the country - for some large countries one para might be enough whereas, for example, low lying Pacific Islands might need a lot more. Also some structured data could be put in Wikidata - for example %forest cover, air pollution levels, ICE vehicle phase-out date, net zero target year etc and pulled into appropriate infoboxes from there - some of that data would not be important enough for country articles. Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Alexander, thanks for your efforts but in this instance it is not appropriate to add details to the lead section. Adding information as a preemptive to more work by other editors is unnecessary.
Cheers,
AussieWikiDan ( talk) 04:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Migration watch UK is cited as a source but this is a highly political think-tank questioning benefits of UK migration at every turn and should not be cited as if it were an objective source. Leendert123 ( talk) 10:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Is it not best to add Dominic Raab, the First Secretary of State to the infobox, below Boris Johnson? Mike Pence, John Swinney and Michael McCormack are listed in the American, Scottish and Australian articles, so why not here? And The First Secretary of State is the second most powerful political office in the United Kingdom, below the Prime Minister. So we should definitely think about adding it. Ciaran.london ( talk) 15:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
When Boris Johnson contracted COVID-19, Dominic Raab as as First Secretary deputised for Johnson. It’s a fairly significant position in the UK Government. Ciaran.london ( talk) 21:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Still should be the same for the First Secretary of State, it’s practically the same role. Ciaran.london ( talk) 21:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Ciaran.london is correct, we should add Dominic Raab as First Secretary to the infobox. Politicsnerd123 ( talk) 23:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I also disagree. It is not a significant enough position to be added alongside PM. AussieWikiDan ( talk) 16:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The responsibilities for the FSoS include: Supporting the Prime Minister in the running of the Government of the United Kingdom. Deputising for the Prime Minister. Advising the Prime Minister on developing and implementing government policy. Answering the questions at PMQs in absence of the Prime Minister. It’s significant we should add it to the infobox.
Politicsnerd123 ( talk) 17:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
At the end of January 2020, the UK (and with it, Gibraltar) left the European Union. On 31 December 2020, the BBC reported that the UK and Spain had reached an agreement in principle that Gibraltar would join the Schengen Area, to avoid a hard border with Spain and fluidity of movement at the border. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4b00:9008:9200:d51b:62e7:3c26:db4c ( talk) 11:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
References
You might want to add information on that matter to the pages for Brexit and\or the Effect of Brexit on Gibraltar if it isn't already covered there. Llewee ( talk) 15:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Concocting a changing rationale to list Newcastle as a major city of the UK, then a "significant" one, if that is somehow more convincing, seems arbitrary and, based on edits, possibly due to close ties of the user in question. You have chosen to add a couple of other cities with similarly slighter claim than the original list and you could list umpteen others with no less a claim. The list is always going to be somewhat subjective but it was more appropriate, convincing and of appropriate length before. WP:BRD. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 19:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The first paragraph can easily and non-contetntiously be further clarified, as in reverted edit [39], by adding a few words in the second sentence, to read
Qexigator ( talk) 10:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not agree with a change. It makes the sentence bulky without providing any pertinent information. AussieWikiDan ( talk) 11:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Notng RWB's well reasoned and unemotive remarks, the proposal is withdrawn. Qexigator ( talk) 11:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
FrozenDairy178 ( talk) 02:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Fix grammar
Please don’t! It’s ruining the wiki article! IslesandIrajamaf ( talk) 12:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 38 |
Okay, so there is much coverage on whether the U.K. is actually a democracy any longer since MP’s have openly refused to implement the result. With this in mind I recommend we edit the article to read that the U.K. was until very recently a democracy but now that status is in question. Not that the U.K. is no longer a democracy but that the status has a question mark attached. Roland Of Yew ( talk) 08:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Who did I disagreed with MP’s? You seem to be trying to assign an Venda where there is none, making assumptions about another editor based on nothing whatsoever, The current political status is in question and should be addressed, why are you so adamant that the issue which has been widely disseminated be hidden? Roland Of Yew ( talk) 08:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
There are clearly degrees of democracy. The Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe mostly styled themselves "democracies", as did other communist one-party states. I know this won't please Remain-inclined readers, but if the UK remains in the EU in spite of the 2016 referrendum result, then its democratic credentials must be compromised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 ( talk) 12:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
It’s a representative democracy, not a plebiscite democracy User:Regularuk ( talk)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This change refers to the start of the article where it is discussed what the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is commonly known as.
The sole change would be from Britain to Great Britain as the United Kingdom (UK) as a whole is commonly referred to as simply Great Britain. Although people may refer to the island as Britain meaning the UK this is not its full and proper name. In addition to this point, one would argue that the UK being referred to as Great Britain not just simply Britain is no less common or perhaps even more common that the whole of the UK is referred to as Great Britain. Clement Elliot ( talk) 11:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I just noticed that Wikipedia has two different articles, one for the United Kingdom and one for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Surely these need merging. Regularuk ( talk) 14:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I see, thanks for clearing that up. Regularuk ( talk) 14:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Recommend the 'edit spat' stop & a discussion commence. GoodDay ( talk) 16:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
“ | Four Celtic languages are spoken in the UK: Welsh, Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Cornish. | ” |
Cornish has crept in to this article and several others [1] as a normal living language on a par with Welsh. This has been caused by agenda pushing Celts, by a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on with the Cornish language, and by those wiki editors who like seeing how many languages they can cram into a wiki article. The ambiguity over how to refer to it on wp is about the word extinct and what constitutes a 'speaker'. I take the view that the default meaning of speaker is someone who speaks it as a mother tongue, an L1 speaker, and not someone who has learned it as a second language. L2, later, to a non-defined level. Otherwise, anybody who has been to school in the UK could claim to be a French or German speaker. Similarly, extinct should mean as a default position, when the last L1 speaker dies. However, extinct, or rather not extinct, can correctly be applied to a language undergoing revision or being used in some way, such as Latin. This is not defined, hence my preference to link extinct with the last L1 speaker. It is fallaciously misleading to compare Hebrew with Cornish. Hebrew is a genuine, and AFAIK only, revived language, with countless L1 speakers. This idea that the UK acknowledges officially that Cornish is a minority spoken language because it has confirmed the EU charter is wrong. Under the EU charter for regional or minority language, Cornish is a regional language that affects the culture in Cornwall. There is nothing that says it needs to be a minority living language like Scottish Gaelic. Hence the use of 'or', not 'and' in the Charter's name. The figures quoted for the number of 'speakers' of Cornish come from either census data (primary source) or from L2 speakers. As such, they are highly misleading. I agree that Cornish should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but it should not be treated in the same way that we treat Welsh or indeed Polish or Hindi. Why not insert Latin? My guess is there are more people in the UK that speak Latin to a high level of competency than Cornish. Or Norn, a UK language that became extinct after Cornish. (To answer myself, Norn has not had the same promotion or public profiling in the Shetlands as has Cornish in Cornwall.) Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 20:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Do we need to show the constituent country flags in the infobox? Note, that Northern Ireland doesn't have a flag of its own, while England, Scotland & Wales do. Thus the potential for edit squabbles. GoodDay ( talk) 15:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Seeing as this article is about the UK and the UK flag is not disputed, why not attach the flag icons from within the UK flag that represent the separate countries, eg St George's Cross for England. Then GoodDay would get the discussion he seems to want. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 22:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I checked over more sovereign state articles & so far, this article is the only one with a Membership section to its infobox. But again, I appreciate that the UK tends to be treated differently, so I'll leave it up to the rest of you. GoodDay ( talk) 22:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
They never used to be there, and I have no issue with them being there, as it does represent each countries flag. Kingdom of the Netherlands also has flags listed for each country. — Calvin999 14:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Northern Ireland to be removed from the Constituent Countries list as it is not a constituent country, it is a region. Golem08 ( talk) 11:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Not done: - Not done per multiple previous discussions - please check the archives.
Ghmyrtle (
talk)
12:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I summarized with this:
Those skilled with Template:distinguish-2 will immediately
Cheerio, old chaps!
--
JerzyA (
talk)
22:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I removed the mention of the outdated BBC policy for the use of "Britain" since it seems it is no longer used. See for example https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-49903759
Also, the policy was plain wrong when it said ( [2]):
British means 'belonging or relating to Great Britain'.
Vpab15 ( talk) 16:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:TV#Nigel Mitchell. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
00:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Welsh and Scottish Gaelic do have some sort of explicit (limited) official status within the whole of the United Kingdom under UK law, not just in Wales, England and Wales or Scotland, unlike Scots, Ulster Scots, Cornish or Irish (the last of which definitely remains unofficial even in Northern Ireland, along with Ulster Scots), which are 'sort of' recognised (administratively, by HM Government (the executive)) but they remain legally-speaking 'unofficial'. 194.207.146.167 ( talk) 10:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the Literature section really makes no sense:
Wilde and Stoker, though Irish, were throughout their lives United Kingdom (as was) subjects and were certainly not Rep. of Ireland or Commonwealth nationals. Distinguishing Conrad and Eliot from Ishiguro and Rushdie makes no sense - they all became British nationals and the intro to the paragraph is equally inappropriate for all four. Shaw was born in the United Kingdom (as was) was a British citizen and only acquired Irish citizenship in the 1930s. Other than a couple of years in the 1690s, Swift lived his entire life in the kingdom of Ireland. As far as I can see, the intro to this paragraph only really applies to Pound.
Categorising British writers separately because of their origins seems verging on the offensive to me. However, because of the division into English, Welsh and Scottish sections (where’s Northern Irish e.g. louis MacNeice?) it seems difficult to integrate them into the existing structure. Hence this amendment. I’ve left out Swift and clarifying that Shaw lived in England after Irish independence doesn’t seem worth the text. I’ve also left out the two citations as they are irrelevant. DeCausa ( talk) 10:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Despite some attempts to sort it out, we still have a confused infobox when it comes to official languages. If we avoid the usual squabble and assume English as a de facto can be and is official, and that any de jure language is also official, then the UK has only three official languages, one national and two regional. The EU charter is a red herring beloved by the Cornish language revivalists and the wp crowd who love filling in templates. The EU charter is part of a treaty and as such has no standing in UK law. It does not bestow any official standing or acknowledgement on the languages mentioned in the Charter. As such, it is totally misleading to put Ulster Scots and the others in the same category as Welsh and Scottish Gaelic, both of which do have official status, if only at a UK regional level. I suggest removing the section about regional languages and moving Welsh and Scottish Gaelic into the official language section with English (noting their regional official status. Those other languages can be mentioned in the subsection on languages, but not in the infobox. Only three weeks to go though you might say. But why wait? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 09:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that. I am glad that you are as concerned about that as I am, with there being two other official languages within the UK. I randomly looked at the Netherlands and Sweden for a comparison, two countries in a similar situation to the UK. They adopt similar methods as my UK suggestion, describing Finnish, Sami, and Frisian as official minority languages and official regional languages. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 07:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I have reworded in infobox but more changes there are still needed. There are two seperate issues here. One, as mentioned by GoodDay is whether a language that is official in only part of the UK should be described as official in the UK. He thinks no, I think yes, with a side note. The second is the misuse of the EU charter to try to given some sort of official status to those other languages. I will try to finish off the alterations soon. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 11:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think the introduction's "land mass" should be changed to "landmass". I don't remember encountering "land mass" and think it's an error, but I don't know for sure that it's just a British versus US usage issue. 73.31.191.202 ( talk) 16:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
My additions were removed from the page despite been factually correct and adjusting for new laws that make it illegal to abolish devolution, and my information came from the legislation in question.
I also added that rightfully the Devolved Parliaments can take cases of constitution & devolved competence to the UK Supreme Court, which is again factually correct, has happened already and again is take from legislation. ChefBear01 ( talk) 17:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change the caption "Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister since 2019" to "Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister since 2020" One last sausage roll ( talk) 12:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Brexit has now taken place almost a week ago. How much longer will the current event template be on the article? I get why it was there for a couple of days, but surely it is no longer needed? Any changes related to it will have been made by now. RWB2020 ( talk) 00:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The article is correct that usage of the term 'Britain' is mixed, with some using it to mean 'Great Britain' and others 'United Kingdom', but note 11 isn't right to say the UK Government has come down in favour of 'Britain' meaning 'Great Britain'. The relevant entry carefully avoids saying anything either way explicitly, but if anything 'Use UK and United Kingdom in preference to Britain and British' implies the opposite - 'in preference to' is not the same as 'because this is different to'.
Given the sensitivities for some over explicitly decoupling 'Britain' (and therefore potentially 'British') from the UK as a state, Northern Ireland unionists in particular, it's not surprising that the style guide is to avoid the issue. Prime Ministers and other government ministers, of course, regularly use 'Britain' as a colloquialism for the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.18.235 ( talk) 11:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Section 10.2 of the reference [1] explicitly states that "The abbreviation is UK or U.K.", and until this edit by Rob984 the article stated that as well. I reverted that change (not what the ref says), but was reverted also (The source is titled "Toponymic guidelines for map and other editors". This is an Encyclopedic article, not a guideline on how to format place names. Maybe ask yourself, when is it ever NOT acceptable to use full stops for an initialism? Does every initialism on Wikipedia need to clarify both styles?). I've brought it to this Talk page, as is usual, for input from other editors. I believe the two formats are needed to reflect the reference given. Addressing Rob984's specific edit summary points: WP does offer guidance for the US; no, WP does not need to clarify every one, but as the reference for this article states that two styles are acceptable for this specific initialism it's reasonable for WP to also convey that specific piece of information. Bazza ( talk) 18:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The same old wrangle happens over
the pond
with U.S.
and US. Personally, I prefer UK and US
Gareth Griffith-Jones (
contribs) (
talk)
11:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Nobody's proposing changing "UK" to "U.K.", just whether both styles need listing in the lead because the "Toponymic guidelines" published by the government explicitly lists both styles. I still don't see a justification for why it's helpful to specify an alternative style for initials in the instance of "UK"? As I said, this applies to all initialisms, why do we need to clarify that it is acceptable to use "U.K."? Is a trivial grammatical clarification relevant to an encyclopedia article on the United Kingdom? United States does the reverse and specifies "US" is also acceptable when "U.S." is used throughout the article. Also equal silliness. If anything, it's inferring to the reader that initialisms can't all be styled both ways, which is misinforming. Rob984 ( talk) 14:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, I started this conversation only because the reference given in the article explicitly gives both UK and U.K. as abbreviations of the full name. If it hadn't, then I would support specifying UK only and have made Rob984's recent edit myself ages ago when both first appeared. Bazza ( talk) 14:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be best to just have UK there rather than include U.K. as well. Surely we should just include the most commonly used in the introduction, and that is UK, not U.K. No problems with the article also saying U.K. is also used with the relevant information, but its certainly not very common to justify inclusion in the intro. The U.S. article has been mentioned, but there is far more use of that method than the U.K. I dont think anyone here would advocate we use U.K. throughout this article rather than UK, so why is it needed in the intro anyway? RWB2020 ( talk) 17:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The Church of England is the state religion in England only, but considering that the Church of England retains a representation in the United Kingdom Parliament, and the monarch is obliged to "maintain and preserve the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government upon his or her accession" as the article says, why not categorize this article in the Category:Christian states?( The Sr Guy ( talk) 02:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)).
References
usually shortened to United Kingdom ... The abbreviation is UK or U.K.section 10.2
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Reino Unido. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Interstellarity ( talk) 16:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Regno Unito. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Interstellarity ( talk) 18:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Royaume Uni. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Interstellarity ( talk) 18:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Verenigd Koninkrijk. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Interstellarity ( talk) 18:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vereinigtes Königreich. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Interstellarity ( talk) 18:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Is there a reason why " Existing under its current name since 1927" has been put in the second sentence of the article? That seems to be a fairly recent inclusion. That surely belongs later on in the introduction after the sentence about Ireland leaving the United Kingdom? It makes no sense for the formal date of an official name change to be given such prominence? I really cannot see any justification for it being there, it would only be justified if it was a very recent change, not something almost 100 years ago. Other country articles do not seem to include such dates. RWB2020 ( talk) 18:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect UNited Kingdom. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesome Hwyh 22:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | |
---|---|
Anthem: " God Save the Queen" | |
Royal coats of arms:![]() ![]() Main variant; Scottish variant | |
ISO 3166 code | GB |
I am proposing using the "other_symbol" parameter so that both official variants of coat of arms can be included together in the infobox. While the non-Scottish version is more common, the Scottish one is equally official and used in Scotland and should probably be included visually in the infobox. Preview on the right. TrailBlzr ( talk) 04:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The Royal Coat of Arms for the whole of the United Kingdom is applicable throughout the nation. The version for Scotland could perhaps be used for Scotland's page, but really unsightly and out of place as it looks incredibly crammed, and especially on a Wikipedia page about the UK as a whole.
The Royal Coat of Arms is applied across the UK alone for many institutions and governments, e.g. on passports, in Scottish courts, embassies, consulates, and in many other official uses, so this dual version is confusing to say the least.
Why was this rushed through without consensus of any great measure? AlbusWulfricDumbledore ( talk) 17:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
"Placed at the heart of the identity system is the Royal Coat of Arms, designed by Reynolds Stone and approved by Her Majesty The Queen in 1956. The Royal Coat of Arms provides a clear and distinguishable visual reference for HM Government" "When applying the government identity system the majority of organisations will use the Royal Coat of Arms." "Organisations specific to Scotland should adopt the Royal Coat of Arms Scotland, a variant which is used by the Scotland Office." "The primary symbol for use with the government identity system is the Royal Coat of Arms." https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/362346/hmg_identity_system_guidelines_2012.pdf AlbusWulfricDumbledore ( talk) 11:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed a typo on your page. The UK is not a country but a sovereign state. Could this please be corrected? Samanthajaneh1 ( talk) 22:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
It was not the first country in the world to industrialise, many Asian and Middle-Eastern countries industrialised before that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardian101 ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I reverted today's change. A reason was given for its re-revert, namely: "As of today the Welsh legislature is known as Senedd Cymru/Welsh Parliament. https://nation.cymru/news/adieu-assembly-hello-welsh-parliament-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-senedds-name-change/". Common name applies? Opinion? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 08:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Although it relates to article titles, the princial does still apply here I think. That is: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. a source saying what it thinks the common name will be does not make it the common name, so those references are no good. Because it is so soon after the event we simply do not know whether this new name will become the commonly used name by a significant majority of reliable sources. We therefore need to work with what we've got, which is RSSs over the last ten years or so. We can mention the new official name, but that is not the same as using it. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 09:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I was surprised to see
this edit of mine
reverted by
RWB2020. That sentence needs to be neutrally worded, and currently fails in two respects. 1) "Although the United Kingdom is a sovereign country
" is
loaded to suggest or imply that because the UK is a sovereign country, its four constituent countries cannot be. 2) "England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also widely referred to as countries
implies that they nevertheless are not. I propose changing it again to "The United Kingdom is a sovereign country which is made up of the countries of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales
", or an alternative neutral wording if proposed, which is factually correct. --
DeFacto (
talk).
10:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Although the United Kingdom is a sovereign country, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also widely referred to as countries. I do not think that this loaded language is appropriate in an encyclopaedia, it implies that the four home countries are not real countries. -- DeFacto ( talk). 22:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory". [36] We should not be mealy-mouthed about is. We don't see other words couched this way: we don't say "although London is a city, Birmingham, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, and Manchester are also widely referred to as cities". They are cities like E, NI, S and W are countries. -- DeFacto ( talk). 09:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@
Snowded: this discussion was started to discuss the sentence "Although the United Kingdom is a sovereign country, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also widely referred to as countries.
", which still sits in the article. I'm not sure why it switched to that other sentence with "consists of" in it, which also still exists. --
DeFacto (
talk).
12:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
It has a government just as England has a government, just as Scotland and Wales had a government pre-1999 and just as NI has a government off and on depending how much they’ve fallen out with each other I.e. the UK government. DeCausa ( talk) 17:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that the "Formation" section should mention the founding of the European Economic Community and the U.K.'s withdrawal from the European Union. Since many political scientists are starting to consider the E.U. a sort of federation/confederation, I think that Brexit would warrant a mention in "Formation". -- RaiBrown1204 ( talk) 00:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
In this page it cites many places where a language has been given an official status of some kind, however, I see none for English while it's listed as official and national language. Why called it official and not de facto, unless there's some documentation for the status of "official". Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning it's everyday usage, just its legal status with this country. --
sion8
talk page
02:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change country to states. The United Kingdom isn’t a country 2001:8004:DC1:E695:341B:A8DE:7FB1:642D ( talk) 04:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Mutt Lunker undid my Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith edits in which I cleaned up a provocative and inflammatory phrase, which I can *only* imagine was written to either give validity to the illegal actions of T.May's Tory party, which is a longer story, *or* initially written to provoke a response by Nationalists. I edited it to reflect neutrality, which is required of every article, moreover the guidelines state 'Avoid stating opinions as facts.'.. no refs are provided however to my surprise Mutt Lunker has undone these edits, either risking an edit war, or more likely, leaving me with the impression he is bias, a Unionist and most likely doesn't really care for neutrality, only what he likes goes.
How can I say this? ; No message before he undid my revisions, just acted like he pleased and undid them.That's not how you treat other regular editors. Here's the hidden text I put to other warn other Wiki editors..
(removed hidden) Provocative and inflammatory phrasing 'altering or abolishing devolution', clearly aimed towards Nationalists and so breaking Wikipedia's neutrality policy: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone June 2020 (removed hidden)
Dava4444 ( talk) 22:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
A minor discussion has started on the Ruth Ellis talk page about the use of Wales/UK in the infobox. Comments welcome. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 04:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Reino Unido. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 11#Reino Unido until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
07:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Regno Unito. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 11#Regno Unito until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
07:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Royaume Uni. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 11#Royaume Uni until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
07:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Verenigd Koninkrijk. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 11#Verenigd Koninkrijk until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
07:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Vereinigtes Königreich. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 11#Vereinigtes Königreich until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
07:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Organisational chart of the UK political system" should be changed to "Organisational chart of the de jure UK political system" 129.67.117.171 ( talk) 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The area of the uk is 245,415 square km, if viewed as a flat surface. Including the topography (to a topographical resolution of 90x90m) it goes up to 247,719 Square km! Credit: Stand-up Maths (Matt Parker & Co.) See this his YouTube channel for reference! 2A00:23C8:2981:201:59CC:4622:77A5:1169 ( talk) 12:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Another acronym for the United Kingdom is "U.K.G.B.N.I.". I think the heading should reflect this, like: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UKGBNI or U.K.G.B.N.I.), commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK or U.K.) or Britain…". RaiBrown1204 ( talk) 22:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
saying "our" like you're a personal employee ..., I'm not an employee, but as with all editors I am a member of the community. The genitive expresses a relationship, not just possession. Consider the phrase "my country", it does not imply you are a civil servant or head of state. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 09:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. Just an observation. On looking through some of the economic section I was surprised that many of the claims are 15 years or more out of date. I've made a start to updating but there really is a lot to do. Regards Birtig ( talk) 20:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Disagreement about deletion of section and sources. Requesting third opinion per WP:3O
Bookku ( talk) 06:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, can we please add the Dutch Low Saxon page onto the language links?
https://nds-nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verienigd_Keuninkriek
-- Audi1merc2 ( talk) 20:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The section in 'History' under "After the Acts of Union of 1707", should mention that the King George I, and the House of Hanover were German, and he barely spoke English, and that the Scottish uprising was not just about Protestantism, but that the House of Hanover were not thought of as British by almost anyone in Britain. The uprising had a lot to do with British sovereignty, not just Catholicism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 ( talk) 15:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there really a need for a whole paragraph in the History section regarding COVID-19? Considering the scope of the history section, and how small this event is in comparison, is a three line explanation really required in such a brief historical overview? SmartyPants22 ( talk) 13:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
For some reason, editors of this page do not consider the United Kingdom a transcontinental country, despite the fact that the article for transcontinental countries explicitly has the United Kingdom as part of its list, even in map form. People point to the fact that Crown dependencies and territories are not part of the United Kingdom, but this means it is either an inconsistency or the editors of this page are wrong in reverting my additions.
Ddum5347 ( talk) 00:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
The paragraph beginning "During the 18th century, Britain was involved in the Atlantic slave trade." is biased in that it underplays the UKs major role in the slave trade.
The UK traded slaves from the 17th to the 19th centuries and was the major trader during much of that time. To say that the UK "was involved", "during the 18th century" substantially misrepresents the scale and duration of the UK's role. This can be confirmed in detail in other Wikipedia articles, e.g. see Atlantic slave trade, Royal African Company, South Sea Company.
The paragraph should be rewritten to accurately represent the actual scale and duration of the UK's role in slave trading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.21.211 ( talk) 05:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I think that in all the pages about countries, including this page, should be some environmental information. At least 1 paragraph in the main body of the article and at least 2 lines in the lead section. For example, the place of the country in the Environmental Performance Index, if the country is part of the Paris Agreement, if she pledged to shut down GHG emission by 2050. It will help bring information about environment to people and to leaders decide what is better. For example not all people in the world know that the overhelming majority of countries is part of the paris agreement and most of them pledged to cut GHG emission to zero by 2050. I think that if we will do it together we can add such information to every country very fast. Imagine, how it will improve the knowladge about environmental issues in the world
After we finish with countries we can write about cities etc.
Who is in?
Pinging here members of the Wiki Project Climate change.
-- Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה ( talk) 11:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
@ Stephan Schulz: @ Clayoquot: @ Phoebe: @ C-randles: @ C.J. Griffin: @ HMasundire: @ Daniel Mietchen: @ Ainali: @ UnitedStatesian: @ Daylen: @ EMsmile: @ Adumoul: @ TMLutas: @ Bluerasberry: @ Discott: @ KevinShore19: @ Jirka Dl: @ Goldsztajn: @ Chidgk1: @ Peaceray: @ CaptainEek: @ Emjackson42: @ Shanluan: @ Guettarda: @ MaynardClark: @ Laniedufour: @ Sadads: @ Hedgehoque: @ Jlevi: @ Sm8900: @ Abdullah Al Manjur: @ Ebenwilliams: @ RCraig09: @ Tym2412: @ Ebweav: @ Rwebogora: @ Gbadegesin Muhammed: |
How about NO.
1. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing or advocacy of any kind. "It will help bring information about environment to people and to leaders decide what is better." That is totally one example of advocacy.
2. There is 100s of index rankings and they don't go especially into lead of countries, if some ranking is personaly important for some user, user should make own blog or so.
3. 2050, maybe yes maybe not gonna happen, this is not a place for a wish lists, and events what could happen or no, not a crystal ball. 93.86.97.64 ( talk) 14:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
This is probably the same person who has being 'spamming' articles with a lead edit and copy and pasting it into a category as well. I have spent a lot of my time unpicking the mess. I have also kept in your edits within the categories. I just totally disagree with duplication in the lead, otherwise at that rate you may as well remove the categories completely.
AussieWikiDan ( talk) 15:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
At the moment I think there are 2 sentences on the environment in this article? In general for large and medium sized countries I think it would be reasonable to expand that to 2 shortish paragraphs, whereas for small countries one paragraph might be enough. But it depends on the importance for the country - for some large countries one para might be enough whereas, for example, low lying Pacific Islands might need a lot more. Also some structured data could be put in Wikidata - for example %forest cover, air pollution levels, ICE vehicle phase-out date, net zero target year etc and pulled into appropriate infoboxes from there - some of that data would not be important enough for country articles. Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Alexander, thanks for your efforts but in this instance it is not appropriate to add details to the lead section. Adding information as a preemptive to more work by other editors is unnecessary.
Cheers,
AussieWikiDan ( talk) 04:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Migration watch UK is cited as a source but this is a highly political think-tank questioning benefits of UK migration at every turn and should not be cited as if it were an objective source. Leendert123 ( talk) 10:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Is it not best to add Dominic Raab, the First Secretary of State to the infobox, below Boris Johnson? Mike Pence, John Swinney and Michael McCormack are listed in the American, Scottish and Australian articles, so why not here? And The First Secretary of State is the second most powerful political office in the United Kingdom, below the Prime Minister. So we should definitely think about adding it. Ciaran.london ( talk) 15:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
When Boris Johnson contracted COVID-19, Dominic Raab as as First Secretary deputised for Johnson. It’s a fairly significant position in the UK Government. Ciaran.london ( talk) 21:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Still should be the same for the First Secretary of State, it’s practically the same role. Ciaran.london ( talk) 21:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Ciaran.london is correct, we should add Dominic Raab as First Secretary to the infobox. Politicsnerd123 ( talk) 23:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I also disagree. It is not a significant enough position to be added alongside PM. AussieWikiDan ( talk) 16:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The responsibilities for the FSoS include: Supporting the Prime Minister in the running of the Government of the United Kingdom. Deputising for the Prime Minister. Advising the Prime Minister on developing and implementing government policy. Answering the questions at PMQs in absence of the Prime Minister. It’s significant we should add it to the infobox.
Politicsnerd123 ( talk) 17:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
At the end of January 2020, the UK (and with it, Gibraltar) left the European Union. On 31 December 2020, the BBC reported that the UK and Spain had reached an agreement in principle that Gibraltar would join the Schengen Area, to avoid a hard border with Spain and fluidity of movement at the border. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4b00:9008:9200:d51b:62e7:3c26:db4c ( talk) 11:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
References
You might want to add information on that matter to the pages for Brexit and\or the Effect of Brexit on Gibraltar if it isn't already covered there. Llewee ( talk) 15:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Concocting a changing rationale to list Newcastle as a major city of the UK, then a "significant" one, if that is somehow more convincing, seems arbitrary and, based on edits, possibly due to close ties of the user in question. You have chosen to add a couple of other cities with similarly slighter claim than the original list and you could list umpteen others with no less a claim. The list is always going to be somewhat subjective but it was more appropriate, convincing and of appropriate length before. WP:BRD. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 19:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The first paragraph can easily and non-contetntiously be further clarified, as in reverted edit [39], by adding a few words in the second sentence, to read
Qexigator ( talk) 10:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not agree with a change. It makes the sentence bulky without providing any pertinent information. AussieWikiDan ( talk) 11:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Notng RWB's well reasoned and unemotive remarks, the proposal is withdrawn. Qexigator ( talk) 11:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
FrozenDairy178 ( talk) 02:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Fix grammar
Please don’t! It’s ruining the wiki article! IslesandIrajamaf ( talk) 12:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)