This is an archive of past discussions about United Kingdom. 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.
Great power? Lead repetition of Britain's power/influence
Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments7 people in discussion
Hi all. Calling the UK a great power in the lead seems contentious/subjective to me -- I don't think a broad spectrum of experts would unanimously agree this is the case ("great power" is itself as subjective label, and my impression is that the US and China are currently the two countries most commonly referred to as GP's by IR scholars). Also, of the four sources supplied, two are linked to the UK military, and the other two are conservative-leaning British sources. The claim seems to reflect unintentional (British) bias through source selection.
Also, Britain's influence/power is discussed in two separate lead paragraphs, with noticeable overlap. The second paragraph says "...the British Empire which, at its height in the 1920s, encompassed almost a quarter of the world's landmass and population, and was the largest empire in history. A part of the core Anglophonic world, British influence can be observed in the language, culture, legal and political systems of many of its former colonies.
...while the third paragraph says "the UK became the world's first industrialised country and was the foremost power during the 19th and early 20th centuries, a period of unchallenged global hegemony known as "Pax Britannica". In the 21st century, the UK remains a great power and has significant economic, cultural, military, scientific, technological and political influence.
To my eyes, the current text is unnecessarily repetitious about Britain's (and its empire's) influence. Perhaps there can be a clearer separation between the lead's overview of history and current day UK, and/or perhaps the proportion of the text dedicated to statistics about its economic clout/cultural influence (much of the 3rd para.) could be shortened and replaced with some sentences on other aspects of the UK today (e.g. demographics/geography/other areas of note such as music/universities). I'm aware large changes to this lead are controversial, I'm simply offering my comments/seeking feedback. Keen to hear others' thoughts! Jr8825 • Talk19:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
This is merely reflective of the fact that British Wikipedia is written almost entirely by retired white middle-class men. 86.17.129.72 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "British Wikipedia". The service you are currently using is the English (as in language, not nationality) edition of Wikipedia.
BritishWikipedia - the part of Wikipedia purporting to cover topics about Britain.
No original research lead; last paragraph: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. 86.17.129.72 (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The policy about no original research does not apply to this page. So observations that serve to explain absurdities like the repetitious, atavistic jingoism that fills British (and American) topic pages are not prohibited, nor do they "require a verifiable source, or a retraction" as you inaccurately claim. 86.17.129.72 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
It's not just the lead. Sentences like "In 2022 the UK retained its number 1 spot for tech in Europe reaching a combined market value of $1 trillion, number 3 in the world. Cambridge was named the number 1 university in the world for producing successful tech founders. Also in 2022, London was the top tech ecosystem outside of the US and the UK had more than double the investment of any other European country in fast-growing tech companies.[1][2]", copying or very lightly paraphrasing a UK government press release promoting the UK and itself, don't give me confidence that we're presenting a balanced picture let alone one with warts and all. NebY (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Definitely remove from the lead. The sourcing isn't great - by my reading, the sources presented here that actually use it are blogs / opinion, and they're being inappropriately used for an unattributed statement of fact in the article voice (attribution, meanwhile, would make it undue.) Britain's power in the 21st century is a complicated and nuanced topic, not something to be summarized as something as simple as "still a great power" (great power itself is an archaic term, which is probably why the sources bandying it about are mostly talking heads who focus on that sort of thing.) Also, the text in question was added a few months back, possibly by an editor who didn't notice the redundancy. --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I think you are confusing the term "Great power" with "Superpower". "Great Power" has been used to describe the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council since its inception (with the relatively recent additions of Germany and Japan for their economic influence rather than hard power). Superpowers are a subset of the Great Powers which exert extensive control over the world. The British Empire during the 19th century could be described as a superpower given its dominance in global trade and control over maritime shipping routes. The USSR was certainly a superpower after WWII. Today It is undeniable that the US and China are the world's two superpowers, having the two largest economies and military expenditures in the world by a large margin. Mark63424 (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I still think there should be a part about the UK having signifiant cultural and scientific power in the 21st century.--213.122.240.20 (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I think we need to choose between either that sentence, or "A part of the core Anglophonic world, British influence can be observed in the language, culture, legal and political systems of many of its former colonies". I think the "having significant scientific power in the 21st century" is a little less significant/more subjective than the importance of the cultural/legal influence of Britain because of its empire, which is why I chose to keep that sentence, don't ultimately I don't strongly mind which sentence we use -- the problem is that with both it's repetitious/undue. Jr8825 • Talk13:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
That is only for England and Wales, this article is on the United Kingdom, which is not just England and Wales. DankJae10:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
The rest of the census data has not come out for the entirety of the UK, we are still waiting on Scotland in-which population figures are due to be given in Autumn and then religious, ethnic, foreign born and other characteristics to be given in the Summer of 2024. Tweedle (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
The UK is not a country, it’s a sovereign state.
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion
The uk is not a country in its own right.
The term "United Kingdom" refers to a sovereign state that is comprised of four constituent countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Each of these countries has its own distinct legal and education systems, as well as varying degrees of devolved powers. While the United Kingdom is commonly referred to as a country, it is more accurately described as a political union or a state composed of multiple countries.
Here are a few key points to support the argument that the United Kingdom is not a country:
Sovereignty: The United Kingdom is a sovereign state that exercises authority and represents its citizens on the international stage. However, the countries within the United Kingdom also have a certain level of sovereignty and can make decisions on specific policy areas that fall under their devolved powers.
Legal Systems: Each country within the United Kingdom has its own distinct legal system. England and Wales share a legal system, while Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate legal frameworks. This further emphasizes the separate legal identities of the constituent countries.
Education Systems: The education systems in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland also have differences in curriculum, assessment methods, and governance. This highlights the autonomy and distinctiveness of each country within the United Kingdom.
Devolution: Over the years, various powers have been devolved from the UK Parliament to the governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This devolution of powers allows these countries to govern certain policy areas, such as health, education, and transportation, independently from the central UK government.
National Identity: Each constituent country within the United Kingdom has its own national identity, cultural heritage, symbols, and traditions. This distinctiveness contributes to the recognition of these countries as separate entities rather than a singular country.
While the United Kingdom is a political union that operates as a single entity in many international contexts, it is important to acknowledge and respect the distinct identities and autonomy of the constituent countries within it. Jackwdj (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes I was unable to find the original conversation and have been mostly inactive due to hospitalisation, so thought posting a fresh thread would be of benefit. I didn’t know the original had been dismissed and closed. Jackwdj (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Jackwdj. "Sovereign country" was authoritatively dismissed after rigorous debate. "Sovereign state," however, wasn't exactly dismissed because nobody argued for it rigorously. There could still be a discussion around "sovereign state" if you wanted. It's a very difficult thing to argue though. And, of course, it must be done from a deeply NPOV and apolitical position. Angry Candy (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I do believe the correct terminology of sovereign state should be used as using the word country is completely incorrect, and that’s enough evidence and merit in itself to justify the change. If sovereign state is too much then simply referring to it as a state or political union would be better. Jackwdj (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
As it happens I agree with you. "State" and "political union" are to my mind correct and progressive (perhaps even neutral) terms and I'd like to see them more widely adopted. Unfortunately, you won't get far in a debate about that if you use phrases like "completely incorrect" and "evidence and merit in itself." Many, many people (probably even the majority of people) think of the UK as a country and use the term colloquially: anything else to them, understandably, is against common sense. Moreover, their position is backed up by many, many official sources. You need proper and watertight citations, a measured argument, a peaceful heart, and empathy for the other side if you want this point to be considered seriously. Angry Candy (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
The Religious Data is out of Date
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The religious data shows as being in 2011, and is highly inaccurate, as most people from the United Kingdom know, we are no longer in a 50%+ Christian Country, as such I think this needs to be updated, can anyone find the reliable first source this information came from to update this? Wowyoutubethereal (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The United Kingdom is NOT the same as Britain. The first paragraph is misleading in this respect. Britain is just England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland is part of the UK but separate from Britain. 82.30.193.7 (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
You're confusing Britain with the island of Great Britain. "Britain" is commonly used as shorthand for the entirety of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Sometimes it's also used as shorthand for the island of Great Britain, which can be confusing, but that usage is less common. We have whole articles that explain this stuff in detail, with full references. WaggersTALK14:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@82.30.193.7 Britain is a term with multiple, competing definitions. It can be used as shorthand for the island or political territory of Great Britain; it can less commonly refer to the British Islands as a whole; and, it can be and is often used as the common name of the United Kingdom. Jèrriais janne (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
United kingdom is not a country
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion
It depends on how you define country. Incidentally, one of those four countries is part of another country, while England also includes the country of Cornwall. TFD (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
The United Kingdom is a country. Strongly oppose any attempt to remove this important fact from the article. It is the agreed consensus for the introduction to be worded the way it is, this was after extensive debates over many years and more recently via a RFC. Whilst this issue is not even worth debating because those claiming the UK isnt a country are pushing an offensive extreme fringe view, i would love to know under what definition the UK doesnt qualify as a country. In particular how you think England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all DO qualify as a country, but the UK somehow doesnt. Bonus points if you can come up with an answer that doesnt mention football. RWB2020 (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
It’s not a country because it’s not a country. The United Kingdom literally refers to the act of union, it’s the name of the signed document during the merger of crowns. In 1707, an Act of Union joined both parliaments. That Act used two different terms to describe the new all island nation, a 'United Kingdom' and the 'Kingdom of Great Britain'. However, the former term is regarded by many as having been a description of the union rather than its name at that stage.
describing only the political union of the countries that signed the act. In no way did this create a country, especially since Scotland kept its own Parliament and laws. It’s very well known and documented that the United Kingdom was only ever a reference to the political unions and sharing of a monarch, never to describe a country. For the UK to exist as a country, All constituent countries would have to forefeet their right as a country and be neutralised into one, which has never happened. Jackwdj (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
It depends on your definition of country. Merriam-Webster defines it as "2(a): the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship, (b): a political state or nation or its territory." TFD (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The United Kingdom meets far more definitions of the term country than England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland do. So if you are saying its one or the other.. the UK is the country. You have provided no evidence or actual reasoning for why the UK is not a country. The Acts of Union created ONE Kingdom. A Kingdom is a country, just like a republic is a country. Is the Kingdom of Sweden not a country? What makes the United States of America more a country than the United Kingdom? What makes Wales or Northern Ireland more a country than the United Kingdom. Endless reliable sources clearly say the UK is a country. But I guess some editors know more than every country on earth that recognises the UK as a country, and every international organisation that recognises the UK as a country etc. The idea the UK is not a country is an extreme fringe view. If you honestly believe it isnt a country, please spend a little more time researching the issue. RWB2020 (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jackwdj Avoid tautological arguments. The Acts of Union have no bearing on how Wikipedia should describe to the current form of the UK. Wikipedia bases its content on multiple, reliable and preferably secondary sources and attempts (but will necessarily always fail) to present a WP:NPOV.
However, to entertain the line of argument: the Acts of Union firstly do not reference 'country' on any occasion and secondly explicitly say the constituent Kingdoms 'shall ... be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain' which debunks the claim that the Acts were 'only ever a reference to the political unions and sharing of a monarch, never to describe a country'. Scotland did not have a Parliament for nearly 300 years after the union and England hasn't had one since. Jèrriais janne (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Are the CPTPP and TCA really leadworthy?
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Currently the lead discusses two recent trade agreements:
It was a member of the EU until its withdrawalwith a free trade deal in 2020. The UK is set to join the CPTPP, a major trade bloc in the Indo-Pacific, after negotiations regarding its accession concluded in March 2023.
I personally don't think either of these are important enough to be mentioned in the lead of the UK as a whole, per MOS:LEADREL and WP:RECENTISM. In particular, I think giving the CPTPP lead space reflects a current political talking point within the UK (the Conservative Party likes to emphasise its efforts to achieve trade agreements following Brexit). However, there's insufficient evidence to show that the CPTPP will have long term significance to the UK and it's not given significant coverage in the article body, relative to all the other topics subsumed in this country-level article. Comparable articles of the other major countries in the CPTPP don't mention the trade bloc in their leads e.g. Australia, Japan, CanadaNew Zealand, although some smaller countries do. Given the amount of information to cover here, I don't think it's appropriate. I'd like to find out whether there's a consensus on including/excluding the underlined text. Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk12:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't think these trade deals are lead-worthy in any case, but especially when the UK is yet to join the CPTPP, it seems totally irrelevant. Londonski (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Too long?
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I agree with the tag added today that the article is too long. There seem to have been discussions about this before - see the archives from 2007 and 2011. (As background, the tag on this article, and on Italy's, seem to have been sparked by recent posts on the talk page for France.) Meticulo (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Attempting to tackle bloat through consolidation of information scattered around the article, but this is temporarily driving up the word count, darn. If other users could cull themes and information which are repeated in some way in different sections of the article, that would massively help with my mission. Londonski (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Lead
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The UK ranks highly for international measures of quality of life, economic freedom, innovation, healthcare and education. However, the UK has one of the highest levels of income inequality in Europe and is one of the most regionally unequal high-income countries in the world''
I think this recent addition is not needed. Countries with higher income inequality in Europe does not have this mentioned in their lead Wikipedia articles. It seems very one sided.
I do not see this mentioned in the leads for Italy, France, Spain, and other nations with more or roughly the same income inequality than the UK. Not sure why the UK is treated differently and it just makes the lead even longer. It was fine before imho.
The UK does rank highly for international measures of quality of life, economic freedom, innovation, healthcare and education. Yes, it was ncome inequality but so does the rest of Western Europe. 148.252.128.251 (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it makes the article one-sided, rather it actually adds balance as the lead overwhelmingly praises the UK economy based on international measures mentioned above. The UK is notable for having higher income inequality than any other country in Western Europe (including Italy, France, Spain, etc). THIS IS SOURCED. On regional inequality, it is the second most regionally unequal in Europe after Bulgaria. Again, this is sourced. The lead gives a fair summary of the UK economy according to international measures overall on this basis. Londonski (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2023 (2)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove However, the UK has the highest levels of income inequality in Western Europe[29] and is one of the most regionally unequal high-income countries in the world. from the top lead.
In fact, I'd go far to say this whole section needs a rewrite. Remove quality of life and just have The UK ranks highly for international measures of economic freedom, innovation, healthcare and education. 86.173.216.66 (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Not done: Statement is reliably-sources, however required modificaton in this diff to say "*among* the highest levels". Also added an OECD citation showing it among the highest in that organization. Xan747 (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Short description fix request
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I'm new to wiki so can't edit this page but the short description needs to be fixed. It currently says the UK is "composed of GB and NI" when it surely should be "comprised of GB and NI".
Why use the EPI to track climate status of the UK instead of the CCPI?
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
At the end of the section on climate, under the topic of geography, it says:"United Kingdom is ranked 2nd out of 180 countries in the Environmental Performance Index." Why use the EPI in the context of climate and especially climate change (since it is said under the heading of climate and the next sentence is on net-zero policies)? It is the CCPI that looks at emissions, energy and climate policy and it places the UK on the eleventh spot of their EU ranking. It seems a bit misleading, even somewhat propagandist, to refer to an index of en environmental values, in which The Uk does well, in this place of the article. 2A00:23C8:8B82:D601:C5FF:F601:3DEF:9D26 (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
That certainly surprises me given the UK's pretty bad rep in recent months, not least the evidently rampant scale, of its tacitly permitted sewage contamination of water sources. But yes, more generally the EPI is only partially (30%) about the climate, whereas the CCPI is devoted to the climate, so the CCPI is infinitely more appropriate for that section. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2023
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to My favorite countries has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Is it possible if it is not already to protect the article to prevent the term “country” being changed as per WP:CONSENSUS (confirmed by RFC)?.
I can see the topic popping up quite a bit and unless there is a change to the consensus the article should not change.ChefBear01 (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, but, yes, I think ECP is restrictive enough even for a high profile article like this. By the time someone is extended confirmed they really should know better than to edit war, so this should be a low-enough volume problem. (For the record, I hit the ECP as indef due to an ongoing rash of sockpuppetry and not wanting the page to expire back to unprotected. At some point in the mid-range future I expect another admin to drop it back to semi.) Courcelles (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2023
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments6 people in discussion
There is no information in the infobox, or anywhere in the article about the deputy prime minister. The U.S. article has the vice president in the infobox, so I see no reason why the UK article shouldn't have the equivalent. Opok2021 (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
The positions are not equivalent, so there is no reason to have equivalent treatment. Not mentioning it at all sounds reasonable, the position of Deputy Prime Minister is unremarkable enough that even after its relatively recent introduction the UK still spent years without one. CMD (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I've looked through other articles and all major European countries do not have the second in command of government in their infobox, so it can be excluded here. However, I believe the UK deputy prime minister is important enough to get one mention in the article. It couldn't hurt. Opok2021 (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Don't let's. It usually isn't that important a role, the holder can be changed in a moment at the whim of the PM, and on past history is not very likely to take over (except as a temp) if a PM goes. No. Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
This has come up multiple times previously and consensus has always been no as it's just not that significant, constitutionally or otherwise. I think the exception was Nick Clegg on the basis the DPM has a different political significance in a coalition government. Opok2021, you're putting too much store by what's in other articles. Per WP:OTHERCONTENT each constitution/political context is different. DeCausa (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Unlike the US we do not have legislation setting out who is suppose to run the country in the event the PM becomes incapacitated, this came to the forefront when Boris Johnson became hospitalised and the question was asked as to how it should be decided who takes over.ChefBear01 (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Culture
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Why is the following The United Kingdom has a divisive reputation in regards to LGBT issues; while same-sex marriage is generally supported, the British government has been criticised for propagating transphobic rhetoric in culture?
For one, the UK doesn't have a divisive reputation in regards to LGBT issues; and secondarly, there is no need to add this to the page at all. Best keep up for the LGBT in the United Kingdom page. 109.158.64.25 (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2023
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Thank you, although, I would still remove the British government has been criticised for propagating transphobic rhetoric.
I know this is partly true, however, the governments of Norway and Finland have also been criticised for the same thing recently. No mention of it on their respected pages. I think there's a danger this will just lead to a massive debate. The UK still ranks highly in Europe for transgender rights. 109.158.64.25 (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2023
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under economy, change the end text to sound more balanced.
Before (currently):
The United Kingdom has among the highest levels of income inequality in Europe and the OECD, and is one of the most regionally unequal high-income countries in the world.
After:
The United Kingdom has among the highest levels of income inequality the OECD. However, it has a very high Human Development Index ranking.
Not done: HDI is mentioned in the infobox. The section you are referring to is about the Economy, so the current sentence makes sense. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!02:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Infobox arms and flag.
Latest comment: 1 year ago19 comments5 people in discussion
The coat of arms used in Scotland (right) and elsewhere (left)
I'm opening a discussion about the arrangement of the coats of arms and flag in the infobox. Version 1 (the current version) was introduced in November 2021, without discussion. Conversely, version 2 was originally introduced as a BOLD edit in March 2020, which gained consensus following a talk page discussion.
In my opinion version 1 is very unsatisfactory, as the two versions of the arms are separated by the national anthem bar and the placement of the non-Scottish version of the arms next to the flag implies it is superior to the Scottish version. Version 2 is much better, as it places the arms next to each other and the flag looks perfectly fine centred above. The exact size of the flag and arms are worth discussing, and possibly the caption, but I believe a shift back to version 2 would be an improvement to the article. A.D.Hope (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I say we stick to version one. It is standard format to have flag and coat of arms next to each other. Scotland’s coat of arms is just an additional one so it’s on the bottom for inclusion. Flag on version 2 is also larger than what is standard on other articles of other countries. I think the current infobox is perfectly fine and does not need a change. Bokmanrocks01 (talk)
It isn't the case that the non-Scottish arms are primary and the Scottish arms are secondary; both are the royal coat of arms and have the same status, the only significant difference is the context in which each is used. A.D.Hope (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
It's a little invidious to talk about primary and secondary but the Scottish ones are only used in Scotland and the non-Scottish ones don't have a territorial restriction (except in Scotland). So, for example, it's the non-Scottish one that is used as the emblem of the British government around the world - documents, embassies etc. It is kinda primary. DeCausa (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Unless we can find a source stating that the non-Scottish arms are primary I don't think we can assume so. I think the closest we'll get is something like the UK Government identity guidelines (p. 5), which state that:
The primary symbol for use with the government identity system is the Royal Coat of Arms [i.e. the non-Scottish version]'. In specific cases the Royal Coat of Arms will not be appropriate, for example [...] for logos primarily used in Scotland which adopt the Royal Arms of Scotland.
The same guidelines describe the non-Scottish royal arms as the 'primary symbol' and the Scottish version as the 'primary symbol – Scotland'. From that I'd suggest that the two versions are of equal status, the main difference being how widely they're used. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Huh? The source you found literally says the non-Scottish one is primary. That's enough for me to say we should definitely have Version 1. DeCausa (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The source doesn't say that. It states that the non-Scottish arms are not appropriate for use on primarily Scottish logos, where the Scottish arms are the primary symbol. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
On the contrary, there's a picture of the non-Scottish arms with the caption "Primary symbol". The text is as you've quoted above ("The primary symbol for use with the government identity system is the Royal Coat of Arms [i.e. the non-Scottish version]") followed by 4 examples where it would be not appropriate, one of which is "for logos primarily used in Scotland which adopt the royal arms of Scotland". That seems to me to be pretty straightforwardly support the Version 1 approach. DeCausa (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
There's also a picture of the Scottish arms with the caption 'primary symbol – Scotland'. That means, as far as the UK government's branding is concerned, Scotland has a different primary symbol to the rest of the UK. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
But that's the point: the Scottish arms are an exception to the "main" arms. The caption to the main arms simply says "primary symbol". No qualification. Version 1 follows the letter and spirit of that source. DeCausa (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The caption to the Scottish arms also says 'primary symbol'. The logical conclusion is that both arms are primary symbols. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
But it doesn't say that!! It says "Primary symbol - Scotland". The only one with "Primary symbol" without qualification is the non-Scottish one. And the text makes it crystal clear that the Scottish one is one of 4 exceptions for the use of the main arms. I don't know how clearer it can possibly be. DeCausa (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Both versions of the arms are referred to as primary symbols in the source. The reason the Scottish version is captioned 'primary symbol – Scotland' is because the UK Government only uses it in Scottish contexts, but that doesn't make it any less a primary symbol. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
As I say, I think it pretty clearly and straightforwardly points to adopting Version 1 - but let's let others comment. DeCausa (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a sort of precedent on the New Zealand page. They have two national anthems of equal standing de jure. But de facto, God Defend New Zealand is primary and God Save the King is treated as a secondary royal anthem. Hence GSTK is beneath GDNZ with a note. Dgp4004 (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I think Version 1, as before, is the better option. I reverted the edit last night as there was no consensus and only recently saw that it was reverted back to Version 2, again without any consensus. I don't believe that Version 1 places the Royal Coat of Arms for usage in Scotland in either a "primary" or "secondary" position. The fact of the matter is the main Coat of Arms (beside the flag) is the official arms of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Scotland obviously has a very rich, distinct history pre-dating the Treaty of Union and obviously in 1707 exceptions were made based on Scotland's agreement to join the union - one of which was obviously a separate coat of arms for usage in Scotland as well as retaining separate and distinct legal and education systems, to name but a few. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The Scottish version of the arms is also official, that's why there's a problem — it's used in much the same way in Scotland as the non-Scottish version is used outside Scotland.
I did mention this in my initial comment, but it's probably worth repeating that version 2 did gain consensus when it was originally introduced. I think a new consensus would be beneficial, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Population
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I wonder if someone can revise the census population for the 2021-22 Scottish, Northern Irish and English & Welsh censuses.
The 2021-22 population of the United Kingdom according to these censuses was 66,937,075.
The problem is this applies to every infobox in every article. I think purposely rewording them to fit this rule will make the infobox longer than necessary. For example for South Africa the government infobox section is "Unitarydominant-partyparliamentary republic with an executive presidency", I think rewording this will make it too lengthy (it's lengthy enough as is). This rule should apply in general to the body of articles, but it is not practical in terms of infoboxes. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
In that case how about just unlinking "Unitary" since the article for unitary state is already linked in the note attached to it. "Parliamentary" and "Constitutional monarchy" can be separated by < br > to make sure they are on different lines and not next to each other. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I changed the sample infobox to what I am proposing. "Parliamentary" and "Constitutional monarchy" will link to their own pages but separated by being formatted one on top of the other - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes as long as the break separates the two phrases so that they are not next to each other it works, which is already the case without it, but just to make sure it stays that way. Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
No, it doesn't work - there is no visual distinction between it being one link or two, because the line naturally breaks there anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2023
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under the the 'Wales' subheading for the 'Devolved Governments' section there seems to be two misplaced sentences referring to the Northern Irish Assembly/ Executive and not Wales. These two sentences should be moved/removed.
The article should now read:
Since 1999, Wales has a devolved national government and legislature, known as the Senedd. Elections to the Senedd use the additional member system. They have more limited powers than those devolved to Scotland.[203] The Senedd is able to legislate on any matter not specifically reserved to the UK Parliament through Acts of Senedd Cymru. The current Welsh Government is Labour, led by First Minister Mark Drakeford, who has been the First Minister since 2018. Local government in Wales consists of 22 unitary authorities, each led by a leader and cabinet elected by the council itself.
Instead of:
Since 1999, Wales has a devolved national government and legislature, known as the Senedd. Elections to the Senedd use the additional member system. They have more limited powers than those devolved to Scotland.[203] The Senedd is able to legislate on any matter not specifically reserved to the UK Parliament through Acts of Senedd Cymru. The Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly have powers similar to those devolved to Scotland. The Executive is led by a diarchy representing unionist and nationalist members of the Assembly.[204] The current Welsh Government is Labour, led by First Minister Mark Drakeford, who has been the First Minister since 2018. Local government in Wales consists of 22 unitary authorities, each led by a leader and cabinet elected by the council itself. Owaindyfed (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Ive reverted 2 attempts to re-add the Religion parameter in the Infobox with sole recognition of the CoE.[1][2]. If the parameter is to be there it should be a demographic breakdown of religions per census as per other countries. In fact, that's what it always used to be but at some point it seems to have come out of the Infobox. I couldn't find any discussion on that - last discussion I could find was in 2022 - may be I missed it. In any case, I I'm neutral as to whether it has a Religion parameter but if there is one it shouldn't have an arbitrary sole reference to the CoE. DeCausa (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
To my understanding, religion in the infobox would be a reference to the idea of a state church which would be appropriate to mention in there, even if it is caveated by an "England only" note or including the CoS too with the "national church/Scotland only" one. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)18:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The purpose of the parameter is not to state the legal status of one denomination in one part of the country. Why would you think it is? DeCausa (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Technically, it does in 2 of the 4 countries/majority of the nation. Hence why I'd suggest that it be tagged with England/Scotland as appropriate as both churches hold differing legal statuses but legal status nontheless. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)19:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, I think there should be an indication of the official status of the CofE and CofS. I also think census data should only be used for significant religions, eg only if above 20%, otherwise we get a pointless list.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
It's an arguable view. However it's never been the approach taken in this Infobox or the Infobox of similar countries eg those of the Scandinavian countries which have state churches. It's always been a demographic summary of population religious affiliation. If there's traction for that view, however, it's radical enough for an RfC to be warranted. DeCausa (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Coats of arms in infobox
Latest comment: 1 year ago33 comments5 people in discussion
I'd like to raise the issue of the coats of arms again, as the previous discussion didn't lead to a new consensus (regardless of the outcome). As it stands, the only arrangement of the infobox coats of arms which I know to have any form of consensus is this one, which uses the 'other_symbol' field to place the two coats of arms side-by-side. It was BOLDly introduced in March 2020, gained consensus, but was then changed for unknown reasons in November 2021.
There are two primary reasons to use the 2020 arrangement. The first is that both arms have equal status, despite the 'non-Scottish' version being far more widely used. The Scottish version is used by various Scottish institutions including the Scottish Parliament, the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland (you may need to squint) the judiciary, and the monarchy in Scotland. Elements from it are used by bodies such as Police Scotland and Royal Mail in Scotland. In the original discussion there was a debate about what 'primary symbol – Scotland' meant in the UK Government Identity Guidelines, but I think this is a secondary issue when there are plenty of examples of the Scottish version being used as the royal arms in relation to Scotland.
The second reason is aesthetic. It just looks better to have both coats of arms next to each other than to have them separated by the national anthem bar. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I still prefer Version 1 above as it reflects the primary nature of the main coat of arms per the sources discussed in the above thread. Not sure why a new thread has been opened on this with other thread still open above. Someone better close that one or it will end up with new posts going to either. DeCausa (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Only one source is discussed in the first thread, the Government Identity Guidelines, and it's clear we disagree entirely about their interpretation so I'd rather not go over them again. I would genuinely be interested to know what's made you change your position, because you seemed happy to go along with the 2020 consensus to put both arms side-by-side. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Not sure I understand: my last post to that thread was "As I say, I think it pretty clearly and straightforwardly points to adopting Version 1 - but let's let others comment." DeCausa (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm talking about the 2020 discusson. You suggested captions for the side-by-side images, which implies you agreed with the arrangement at that point and have since changed your mind. Apologies if that isn't the case. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Ah ok! At that time I didn't think there was any RS to make the determination that the non-Scottish arms had any sort of primacy, and it was only a question of editorial taste/judgment. I don't think any sources were brought up by anyone in that thread and I didn't/don't have any strong personal opinion (absent RS) either way particularly. But then you produced the Government Identity Guidelines and I find that is compelling as an RS to say the non-Scottish arms are primary. DeCausa (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
See, I just don't find the Identity Guidelines a compelling RS. In the absence of other sources they're useful enough, but they're not a guide to heraldry. I also don't think that the wording is clear enough to definitively show that the Scottish arms are secondary – they're called 'primary symbol – Scotland', after all. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I find your interpretation baffling when the non-Scottish arms are stated to be the "primary symbol" without qualification and the Scottish arms have the limitation "primary symbol in Scotland". One is the primary symbol to be used on the entire planet with the exception of Scotland's 30k sq miles the other can only be used on those 30k sq miles. DeCausa (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The difference is that I don't think the limitation (which isn't strictly geographic) has any bearing on the status of the versions. They're both the royal arms, so we may as well put them side-by-side. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The document explicitly states that the British government uses the Scottish version of the arms in Scottish contexts, not that it's a subordinate version. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh I thought we weren't going to rehash...in that case:
In the document there is only one coat of arms called the "Royal Coat of Arms", and that's the non-Scottish one. It has no further qualification. The Scottish arms are called the "Royal Arms of Scotland". That alone is enough to clearly distinguish the two.
On page 5, that Royal Coat of Arms is represented with the caption "primary symbol". There is no other way to interpret that. The text also reads "The primary symbol for use with the government identity system is the Royal Coat of Arms". There is no other way to interpret that either.
Also on page 5, there is effectively a footnote to that broad statement which says "In specific cases the Royal Coat of Arms will not be appropriate". It then gives 4 "examples". The second example (not even the first one mentioned, mind you) is where the Royal Arms of Scotland should be used. I'll repeat the first point here: the other arms are simply called the "Royal Coat of Arms". They're not "of" anywhere.
Finally, on that page, while the Royal Coat of Arms takes up the middle third of the page, the Royal Arms of Scotland are tucked away in the right corner, with two other similarly miniatured symbols.
To argue that what the document calls the Royal Coat of Arms isn't the primary one really is calling black, white. DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
No, I'm not really interested in rehashing things. As I said before, although the Identity Guidelines are better than nothing they're just the UK Government's branding guidelines, not an authoritative statement on whether the arms are equal or not.
I've been looking for better sources, but the go-to heraldic texts (such as Fox-Davies Complete Guide to Heraldry) don't really touch on the subject. Neither do the websites of the Lord Lyon or the College of Arms, the heraldic authorities for Scotland and the rest of the UK respectively, and as royal.uk still seems to think Wales is a principality it's not great either.
What I'd instead ask is, given the UK definitely has two coats of arms, does it look better to separate them in the infobox or to keep them together? A.D.Hope (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
"just the UK Government's branding guidelines"?? The point of the CoAs in country infoboxes isn't to provide heraldry fancruft - it's to depict a symbol of the state. Hence, country infoboxes of republics and other countries with no heraldic tradition have them. It's about it being a national emblem: how the UK government treats this emblem is exactly on point. DeCausa (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what fancruft is, sorry.
The intricacies of how the UK Government brands itself aren't really important. What is important is that the UK has two coats of arms, or national emblems, and how we display them in the infobox. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:FANCRUFT. The UK doesn't have two coats of arms: one of them is the Royal Arms of Scotland. The government's declaration that the other one is the UK government's primary symbol is hardly an "intricacy". DeCausa (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I think you're focussing too much on this single source to form your opinion. I've just found some guidance from the Lord Chamberlain's Office, for example, which characterises the royal arms as a single symbol with 'English' and 'Scottish' versions.
As far as I can tell the language around the two versions isn't standardised, so you will find them called the 'royal arms', 'Scottish royal arms', even the 'English royal arms'. It all amounts to the same thing — two versions of the royal arms. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
No, I disagree. I would say that that that document was created specifically to control/restrict the commercial exploitation of royal symbols - it's about the Crown's intellectual property rights and revenue only. It's an inferior source for our purposes to the Government publication which is specifically about the symbols the state should use which is what we are talking about. I think the fact that the CoA is referred to as the "English version" should give you a clue about that! DeCausa (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
That's exactly my point, the fact the arms are called the 'English version' despite that clearly being inaccurate demonstrates how loose the language surrounding the royal arms is. You can't infer much from the terms used, they're ways of distinguishing the two versions rather than assigning primacy.
Focussing soley on the UK government is also unhelpful. The Identity Guidelines lay out how the UK government brands itself, yes, but the arms are a symbol of the state (or the Crown, if you like) in its entirety, so how other branches of the state use the arms matters just as much. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
That makes no sense. One source is clearly written loosely so all sources have to be written off? Of course not! You have to look at why the document was created. The Lord Chamberlain's document is not stating how the state should use the symbols, it's setting out the rules around commercial exploitation and other uses of those symbols by private entities i.e. businesses and organizations. It's irrelevant to what we're discussing and, also, it has no need to be accurate about what we're discussing either. And clearly, it's not. DeCausa (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
The Lord Chamberlain's guidance isn't written loosely, but the terminology used to refer to the royal arms isn't standardised across all state documents — the Scottish version might be called that, the Scottish royal arms, the royal arms of Scotland, the royal arms used in Scotland, etc., but it all refers the same thing.
The UK Government Identity Guidelines have no particular need to be accurate about what we're discussing either. They're concerned with how the government presents itself, not whether the arms are equal in general. The UK government uses the non-Scottish version of the arms far more than the Scottish version, so it's no surprise that the latter is given more space in its guidance. That doesn't mean the Scottish version is inferior — just look at a Scottish courtroom, or Holyroodhouse when the King is there. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
To be honest, the issue isn't even equality. It's how, given there are two versions of the coat of arms, they should be shown in the infobox. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I think using words like "inferior" and "equality" doesn't put this on the right footing. I think we have a reliable source that we should follow and not to do so is WP:OR. DeCausa (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there's any need to consider the relative status of the versions of the arms at all. The fact is there are two versions, the question is how to display them.
For the sake of argument I'll agree that the non-Scottish arms are primary. Even in that case, the side-by-side view just looks better. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any particular thoughts on the issue from an aesthetic perspective? I'm sorry to push, it just seems like we never really reach a conclusion. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
My only objection to side by side is aesthetic. If they can be manipulated to be the same height then I think it would look fine. At the moment it looks jarring I think. Dgp4004 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I can see exactly what's happened — when the non-Scottish version was adapted to use the Tudor Crown after Elizabeth II's death the size of the file was changed from 1,550 x 1,550 to 512 x 479 and white space was introduced, so it no longer aligns properly with the Scottish version.
Fortunately, Sodacan (who's created a lot of heraldry images we use) has created a file which combines both arms at the same size, so that solves that issue. I'll swap it out in the article to see how it looks. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Do Scottish residents get issued passports with the Scottish coat of arms? It does seem like in practice that there is a primary coat of arms for the UK as whole. I still oppose changing the format moving the UK coat of arms down. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk)
@Bokmanrocks01: No, the non-Scottish version is used on passports. The Scottish version is used in Scottish contexts, you can see some examples in my original comment from the 22nd. I'm not a fan of separating the two arms in the infobox, it doesn't look very good. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Well at the very least the image size should be made smaller. If you compare national emblems/coats of arms of other infoboxes the coats of arms in this article are too large I think - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I've reduced the image size from 300px to 250px, which seems to be the largest it can be without expanding the size of the infobox. Given the intricacy of both coats of arms they need to be as large as possible, I'd say. A.D.Hope (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
So only one coat of arms is used to represent the entire country? Why is this exception being made for Scotland again? The Scottish coat of arms belongs on the Scotland page for sure, but not here. Scotland doesn't represent the entire country. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
As I understand it the Act of Union 1707 left the power to regulate the royal arms in the hands of the monarch, and Queen Anne and her successors continued to use a distinct version of the royal arms in Scotland. It's just one of those quirks of history. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The UK isn't an island country
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The UK's core territory borders the Republic of Ireland and based on our other articles about countries located on islands (e.g. Haiti, Ireland. Dominican Republic, Papua New Guinea) the lead sentence should just say:
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a country in Northwestern Europe, off the north-western coast of the continental mainland. The helper5667 (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The sentences "the UK consists of three distinct legal jurisdictions: England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. This is due to these areas retaining their existing legal systems even after joining the UK" seem unnecessary for the lead; I propose cutting them or mentioning legal differences in the following sentence about devolution, but would like to hear others' thoughts/suggestions. Jr8825 • Talk01:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
If I read the 2022 RFC correctly. We chose to describe England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, as comprising the UK. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
"Britain"
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I challenge the idea that the UK commonly being referred to as Britain should be present in the lead, particularly without the clarifer that this would be considered colloquial. While Northern Irish people are entitled to a British and Irish passport, including Northern Island in "Britain" is a topic of debate.
Great Britain, which is shortened to Britain, excludes Northern Island, and formally constitutes only the three countries of England, Scotland and Wales. Wrehhn (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Even if it is geographically incorrect, the United KIngdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is sometimes shortened to Britain. TFD (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I might have lost count of the number of times this has been raised, discussed and dismissed over the last 2 decades. Have a look in the archive. The bottom line: it's a question of WP:RS usage rather than editor opinion/preference (as always). The crux is "Britain" isn't treated as just a shortened version of Great Britain. 23:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
The 2022 RFC on how to describe the UK & its components, in the lead
Latest comment: 11 months ago11 comments6 people in discussion
In the lead I've just restored country for the UK description & left no description for England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, aside from that they comprised the UK. Was there another RFC held since, with a different outcome? Because since then, someone had replaced country with island country (I've since restored the status quo). Also, somebody added countries to describe England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland (I've since deleted to the status quo) in the lead. IMHO, adding that description for England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, only creates confusion, when we've already decided to call the UK a country. I'm just wondering, is the aforementioned RFC been overturned, concerning the lead of this page? GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
England, Scotland and Wales are separate countries within the UK and should be listed as such. It seems misleading to exclude this from the lead. Wrehhn (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. We have E/S/W/NI described as such in their own articles & that suffices. Using the descriptions here, would only be cumbersome & add confusion. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Wasn't the RfC about the choice between "sovereign country" and just "country"? I don't have a problem with the revert as it's unclear if there is WP:CONSENSUS for the pre-revert wording but I'm unsure that the RfC is relevant. DeCausa (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
The RfC technically settled only the question of whether the UK should be called a country or a sovereign country, but I think the discussion implied a consensus on whether England, etc. are countries. The background of that RfC was that someone had written the "sovereign country" in order to distinguish the status of the UK from that of England, etc., which were nonsovereign countries. The consensus was that "sovereign country" is redundant, which implies that nonsovereign country is contradictory, i.e. those entities simply aren't countries today. So that bears on GoodDay's second change.
I'm not aware that this issue has been discussed since.
The supposition that if the United Kingdom is a plain "country" then England (et al) cannot be is not correct, as the article on what a country is explains. A country can consist of other countries. That's not a reason to avoid careful and clear wording when describing such a situation. Bazza (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Last year, "...comprises England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland" was adopted, after country was chosen to describe the United Kingdom. I presume, this was to avoid arguments. GoodDay (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2023
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "The Proms is a classical music festival held at the Royal Albert Hall which regularly plays music by Edward Elgar and Henry Wood." to "The Proms is a classical music festival, most closely associated with Henry Wood and held at the Royal Albert Hall, which regularly plays music by Edward Elgar and other British composers". (Henry Wood was a conductor, not a composer.) Cjholula (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think that the flag proportions are incorrect on the Wikipedia page.
The flag proportions are currently 1:2 however those are specifically the proportions on sea and most people will be viewing Wikipedia on land where the proportions are 3:5. I suggest changing the flag in the infobox to the 3:5 land flag or better yet putting both in the infobox and specifying which one is for land and which one is for sea.
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The UK has three territories in the Mediterranean: Gibraltar, Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, and the Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus, that aren't shown in the "overseas territories and economic exclusive zones" map. Hsn.frrr (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
(Infobox map) This is likely because Gibraltar and the SBAs lack EEZs. I am not sure they would show up at the relevant scale, although curiously the entire island of Cyprus has never been present on that map. CMD (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2024
Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Replace the Brexit protest image under 21st century with this image of Queen Elizabeth II's Funeral and Procession, considering it's the UK's biggest moment in the 21st century (so far) and likely will be for a number of decades. 2A00:23C7:69B1:501:F920:6B33:668A:8436 (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Can we replace the Brexit protest image under 21st century with this image of Queen Elizabeth II's Funeral and Procession, considering it's the UK's biggest moment in the 21st century (so far) and likely will be for a number of decades. Open to hear your views. 2A00:23C7:69B1:501:F920:6B33:668A:8436 (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
No. The influence of Brexit on the country is far wider than the smooth and practised transition from one monarch to the next. Bazza (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2024
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except that:
UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units in which the subject project was drawn up (but road distances are given in imperial units, with a metric conversion – see next bullet);
the primary units for distance/length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon (except for short distances or lengths, where miles are too large for practical use);
the primary units for personal height and weight are feet/inches and stones/pounds;
imperial pints are used for quantities of draught beer/cider and bottled milk;
As you can see, none of these circumstances are applicable to the article. Therefore, I request that the sentence in green be readjusted to this (including the 2 sources):
The total area of the United Kingdom is 243,610 square kilometres (94,060 mi2), with an estimated 2022 population of nearly 67 million people.🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 03:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Given area is a function of distances, I don't think the use of square miles is out of line with that MoS even if not specifically mentioned. CMD (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
One difficulty is that all ONS statistics (along with the OS, the only genuine authority on area measurements in the UK) are metric, both for Standard Area Measurements and density. You're absolutely right of course—the MoS means that the figure should be imperial first. But nonetheless, it always feels to me a little dishonest that Wikipedia presents British area measurements as though the statistic is imperial and that Wiki is converting it to metric. When in fact the opposite is true. Dgp4004 (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
@Cleter: I agree with @Chipmunkdavis. I've lived in the country for some time. We're used to square metres and hectares for small measurements, but larger areas are mostly spoken of in square miles (or Isle of Wights or Wales). I suspect this is because road distances, which are a practical yardstick for envisaging a large area, are stated in miles. Bazza (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@117PXL
Latest comment: 9 months ago14 comments5 people in discussion
@117PXL: when you come off your block, put forward your arguments here. If you revert again without getting consensus support first you will just get a longer block. DeCausa (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn’t realise I would need a consensus for removing the image because I thought the bias was obvious. I will explain my thoughts…
In Northern Ireland the pro Irish community speak Irish (Ulster-Irish) and the pro British community speak Ulster-Scots, as well as speaking English.
There are signs in Northern Ireland that are translated into both languages, here are some examples I found:
As you can see the ‘Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure’ is translated into both languages.
These examples show no bias, but do highlight division, so I thought it would be wiser to remove the image, as leaving it, could annoy the pro British community.
Thanks. First of all whether it would "annoy the pro British community" is irrelevant and not a factor that would or could be taken into account on Wikipedia. See WP:NOTCENSORED. I think that sort of thinking has led you to misunderstand neutrality here. It's not about "balancing" conflicts - see WP:FALSEBALANCE which is not exactly on point here but is related. I don't see any "bias" in the pic you wanted to remove for a number of reasons. Ultimately it's just an instance of a multilingual sign in the UK. That's all. Having said that, the pics that you have linked to are an even better illustrations. I wouldn't have a problem with any of those. The other problem with your edit was cluttering of the Topography section with 4 pics. It's not 'bias' just to have pics from 2 countries - unnecessary clutter is a much more significant issue. DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@117PXL: I see you went ahead with this edit, which constitutes another revert. The above was just my opinion - I wouldn't say that is a new consensus particularly as another editor reverted you too. You've just come off a block for edit-warring the removal of the pic. Whilst the edit is ok with me, you run the risk of being re-blocked. DeCausa (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I understand the Wikipedia rules and I understand the image doesn't look as attractive from affar. But this is the main UK page and there are two communities in Northern Ireland that have to work together. There is a Welsh image if the contrast is the issue...
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2024
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under "History - Postwar 20th Century" it is stated that the UK was a founding member of today's EU. It was not. The UK was not a signatory of the Treaty of Rome and therefore not a founding member of the EEC (present-day EU). In fact, its request to join the bloc was vetoed by France, twice. Please correct this mistake. Pandrej01 (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. It doesn't say it was founding member of the EEC which came into being in 1957. It says it was a founding member of the European Union which was a different entity (albeit a successor) that came into being in 1993 and which the UK was a founding member. It doesn't seem to be incorrect. DeCausa (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Rare Book
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Orchard Pavilion by Arthur Christopher Benson.1914 1st edition. Leather bound and Gold embossed. Printed by Ballantyne,Hanson &Co. Edinburgh. Darlene Mumford (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Infobox content
Latest comment: 7 months ago49 comments9 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do we really need to list England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland in the infobox? Most (if not all) other independent countries (sovereign states) don't seem to list their components in their infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
To put that into context here then, what we are saying is, given that two of the three sovereign states that have constituent countries don't list them in their infobox, why do we list them in this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong but there's no practical difference between a "country" in this context and a "state". The Country article pretty much says as much. There are LOTS of sovereign states (or countries) that are comprised of constituent states, which may or may not be nation states. I can't pretend I've looked at all 200 sovereign state articles but of the ones I have looked at where I know they have constituent states, they don't list them in the infobox. WaggersTALK12:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
If 'state' and 'country' are synonymous, I wonder why it sounds so wrong to say "the United States of America is a federation of 50 countries". So I guess there is a difference. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
A (n independent) sovereign state is not the same thing as a (constituent) U. S. state, just like how a (constituent) UK "country" is not the same thing as a (sovereign) "country". This isn't hard to understand but everyone thinks it's hilarious to say "BUT WALES IS A COUNTRY" when we're talking about sovereign states like Zambia or Paraguay. The primary administrative divisions in the UK are their "countries" (but sometimes Northern Ireland is just a "province"?) so they are equivalent to Alabama or Nebraska. They're not special just because 130 years ago, the British decided they get to compete with multiple teams in soccer tournaments. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯01:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Please be very careful here, as you are going to rustle a few feathers. You are referring to countries are regions or “parts” which is not the case. Yes, they are not independent, sovereign countries, but there legal standing remains as countries part of a wider sovereign country. Please, be careful, and be more considerate to the complex and delicate history of the UK, its formation and its predecessor countries. Goodreg3 (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Also, the fact that Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland complete as separate teams in football tournaments has nothing to do with it. If you think that is the main component in which it boils down to, I urge you to research the history of the article you are passing sweeping comments about before you upset most of its population. Goodreg3 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Good point. There's an obvious reason why the USA article doesn't list all 50 states, but equally Canada's infobox doesn't list its provinces, Australia's doesn't list its constituent states. I agree, for consistency there doesn't seem a particularly good reason why there should be an exception for the UK. WaggersTALK09:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Presumably that should list things like NATO, which are currently not in the InfoBox because this has stolen their place. I think that makes the case for ditching the constituent country list even more compelling.... and I'm not seeing any objections so far. WaggersTALK14:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. I never before noticed that it was shoehorned in by misusing that parameter. Seems have been added in 2017 here. DeCausa (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
@CMD, @Waggers, @DeCausa, that field's documentation supports the way it is used in this article. The example is for the EU, showing the member countries as a list in the membership field.
As the UK has four member countries, that field is being correctly used, and the membership_type field is being used correctly too - to label the members as 'Countries'. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Why should it matter, what parts of an independent country is called? Scotland, Ontario, Tasmania, etc etc. No matter what you call'em, each are a component of an independent country. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
@GoodDay, it doesn't - does it? The template provides a field for them and one that allows the editor to label them as whatever they are. So you could legitimately add a (collapsed) list of its 50 states to the USA article, and label the field as "states". You could add the cantons, and label them as such, to the Switzerland article if you so desierd. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I just don't agree with you. IMHO, Wales, Northern Ireland, England & Scotland should be deleted from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
@GoodDay, Fair enough, but IMHO, given the history and levels of devolution of the four constituent countries, there is a good reason to include them in it somehow (but per below, not using those apparently inappropriate fields). -- DeFacto (talk). 11:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
So instead of making one edit to bring the UK infobox in line with ALL the other countries of the world, you're suggesting we change ALL the others to match the UK infobox? It's a no from me. WaggersTALK09:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I am so tired of UK exceptionalism. "But we call them 'countries', so that's the same thing as being actual sovereign states!" when they don't even have a federalist form of government. This is a ridiculous proposal and there is no need to add (e.g.) 50 states, a federal district, and over a dozen territories to the infobox to the United States. The infobox is for a brief overview of the most likely things that someone will want to know, not some exhaustive listing of minutiae. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯10:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@Koavf, no, the UK is a sovereign country but none of its four constituent countries are. As many British people don't identify as British, but as English, Irish/Northern Irish, Scottish, or Welsh, it makes sense to clarify in the infobox the relationship of those four counties to the UK. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
A lot of African peoples identify with their ethnic group, tribe, linguistic minority, religious affiliation, etc. over their sovereign state citizenship, too. But only the UK gets this special treatment because they have 3.5 "countries" (and sometimes a province ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ but also overseas territories and Crown dependencies, etc.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯11:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The simple fact is that the 50 US states have never been countries, and in the case of England and Scotland, independent, sovereign countries. They are still legally defined as countries, albeit not sovereign ones. They are not regions and never have been or never will be. Perhaps our international friends should read up on the history of the UK, its politics and constitution first before being offended by “UK exceptionalism”. Goodreg3 (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The major difference there is that a good number of those examples were unrecognised, short lived breakaway states, so hardly comparable to recognised, historic independent sovereign kingdoms. Goodness gracious me….. Goodreg3 (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
You made the exclusion "never been countries". So there are recognition and time period requirements as well it seems? Over what period (and recognised by whom) were Wales and Northern Ireland "recognised, historic independent sovereign kingdoms"? DeCausa (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Do your research. I’m not saying that there is a particular period of time which a country has to be in existence for it to be considered a country, but unrecognised breakaway states, never has or never will be, recognised internationally as a country, is hardly comparable to a country like Scotland that was an independent kingdom since the 800s-1707. The argument just doesn’t stack up. Research the Treaty of Union, there were many allowances permitted that retained separate and distinct Scottish and English elements that existed in their respective kingdoms, one of which was retaining the status as countries (within the union state of the UK) and not merely becoming regions. Goodreg3 (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Since you don't know the answers to my questions I'll give them to you. Northern Ireland has never been an independent sovereign entity, whether or not as a kingdom. Wales is a little more debateable. I would say the only time, or at least the time where the case is most arguable, for when Wales was an "independent sovereign kingdom" was 1055 to 1063. The Republic of Texas was an independent sovereign state for 2 years longer than that and was recognised by the United States. Oh, and there is no provision of the Treaty of Union that specifies that Scotland should remain a "country". By the way, I have no problem with describing England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland as countries. DeCausa (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
When did I say I didn’t know the answers to your questions? I know that NI wasn’t a country before, instead, it was part of Ireland before Ireland joined GB in 1800. I do hope that this discussion between other users is not an attempt to describe them as anything but countries, as, like it or not, that’s what they are. Goodreg3 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
What you don't seem to understand is that there is no absolute rationale for them to be called countries. It is solely custom, practice and tradition. Just like it is custom, practice and tradition not to call Texas a country. There's nothing inherent in it: Northern Ireland is a good example of that. DeCausa (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
In addition to the multiple U.S. states that were independent, remind me when there was a "Republic of Northern Ireland". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯20:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@Waggers, I'm not sure what you mean by "bring the UK infobox in line" with other countries. France apparently has France-only content. So why disregard key UK facts because other countries don't have a similar regard for constituent competing countries/nationalities? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I would urge you to correctly use the correct defined terms for what you describe as “components”, as you are going to strike a few feathers here which I presume is not your intention. Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland (controversially albeit, however) are countries whether you like it or not. They are not regions as you would suggest. Your comments over the past appear to be very anti-devolution and against the truth that each of the four UK countries are indeed countries and legally defined as such. Remember, you can’t make edits based on your personal assumptions and views alone. Goodreg3 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Webpages published by the Welsh or Scottish governments or the EU or indeed an ISO standard are not "legal" definitions. There is no statute, secondary legislation or case law in the United Kingdom that defines them as "countries". DeCausa (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I would argue that it’s a close as legal definitions as one could get, considering the UK does not have a written legal constitution. If they were not countries, legally, they could not be described as such by trusted organisations such as the Scottish or Welsh Governments, the EU or indeed the International Organization for Standardization, which is really the only organisation in which can recognise or define a country as such. Goodreg3 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Let’s agree then that the feeling is mutual on both sides about some of your claims too, and leave it at that. Goodreg3 (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
DeFacto, the template documentation is precisely the opposite of what you have claimed. If you look, it says This infobox template is used to generate an infobox for the right-hand side of two specific types of article: on a country or territory, or on a geopolitical organisation. It then gives the syntax, separately, for Infobox Country and Infobox Geopolitical organisation. The "Membership" parameter, not surprisingly, is only given for the geopolitical organisation. It is omitted from Infobox country. As one would expect, the EU infobox begins Infobox geopolitical organisation. That's why it's there. The "Membership" parameter has been wrongly inserted in the Infobox country in this article. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for reading the doc more thoroughly, I hadn't spotted that distinction. That helps us decide though if that template isn't for countries. I support removal of that nested template. Perhaps we need to add some extra UK params for it though, similar to the 'France-specific parameters'. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok on that basis (and as no one in this thread is any longer supporting its inclusion) I've taken it out. If there is a need for a 'UK-specific' template then that's a whole other discussion. I personally don't see a need for it. DeCausa (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2024
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under the transport sub-section of the economy section, the sentence about the Elizabeth line:
"It was Europe's largest construction project at the time and will bring in an estimated £42 billion to the UK economy."
should have a wording change as the predicted income is speculative. I suggest changing to:
"It was Europe's largest construction project at the time and is estimated to bring in £42 billion to the UK economy." Wind Orange (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion
We have a whole subsection in the Politics section on a dozen and a half peripheral (mostly) island territories that are not part of the UK. The level of coverage in this article (4 paragraphs and a very large and intrusive map - by far the largest map in the article) is a mystery. Their total population (BOTs and CDs combined) is only c. half a million and, in any case, we have full coverage in Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. It's out of scope of this article and, for such a minor part of British governance, has far too much detail for WP:BALASP and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. In fact, it gives the impression of some sort of residual 1970s-style post-imperial angst.
I suggest deleting the Dependencies section and replacing it with this additional 5th paragraph in the beginning of the Politics section:
Although not part of the United Kingdom, the three Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man and 14 British Overseas Territories across the globe are subject to the sovereignty of the British Crown. The Crown exercises its responsibilities in relation to the Crown Dependencies through the British government's Home Office and for the British Overseas Territories through the Foreign Office.[1]
I would support any concision here. Clearly an area undue at this level, and as can be seen by the latest sentence a magnet for cruft. CMD (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Another support. I think it's very important that they're mentioned, but a passing mention with appropriate wikilinks is sufficient. WaggersTALK11:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I would lend my support to this. I have always felt the dependencies section is rather large and somewhat intrusive, not least because of that large map. Goodreg3 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks all. I've gone ahead and made the change. I added in 'mainly/'principally' in relation to the Home and Foreign Office involvement (per the source) as other departments are also involved. DeCausa (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Admin divisions/Devolved governments sections
Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Does the current structure make sense? I'd imagine if you're not British (or even if you are) you'd be left quite confused by it. We have Scot/NI/Welsh local govt. covered in both sections. In terms of hierarchy it goes from top (UK) level in the previous section to lowest level (local govt) then middle (devolved) level but that "middle" level only tells you about 3 countries. You have to guess what the situation in England is.
It seems to me more logical for there to be an Admin divisions section which (1) starts off with the historical paragraph as now albeit expanded to say that the UK pre-1998 was highly centralized. (2) Then talk about how Devolution developed in general terms. (3) then have sections on each of the 4 countries (with heading for each) which covers not only the devolved institutions but also local government. In the England section it would explicitly cover how the UK institutions effectively continue to cover England - with something about the West Lothian question issues. I was going to go ahead and WP:BEBOLD but I know that some might have issue with not having a specific section on Devolution. I'll press on unless there are objections.
DeCausa (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
That certainly sounds more logical. I don't think we need to go into too much detail about local government structures as that's handled in the appropriate country articles and doesn't have much bearing on the UK as a whole. Just pointing out that the four countries each have different local government structures is probably all we need to say here, with links to the relevant articles for details. WaggersTALK11:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
True. As an aside, the article seems often to be written as though WP:SUMMARYSTYLE doesn't exist. There are dozens of relevant sub-articles. It could be (at least) half the size but has always suffered from drive-by pet add-ons. DeCausa (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 April 2024
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Wikipedia constantly lies and is full of chronic misinformation. Out of respect for all those that you, Wikipedia, have been disrespecting world wide, I request you delete all pages with statements about the English language being American, and International English being the English language. English is from England. Not America. English is not International English, it is English! Call the American language what it is. American. Never call the UK a country! The UK is four different countries united! Stop being one of the most disrespectful, lying website's in the internet, full of chronic misinformation.
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"The Bank of England is the UK's central bank and is responsible for issuing notes and coins in the pound sterling."
BoE are responsible for issuing notes, The Royal Mint is responsible for issuing coins. 92.237.50.201 (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2024
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Updating The Racial Composition Of The U.K.'s Population
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please update the percentages in the infobox relating to the population's racial composition according to the latest census data as seen in the infobox for Demographics of the United Kingdom.
According to the 2021 British Census, (now that Scotland has finally released its racial data), the racial composition of the U.K.'s population is as follows.
I think an image representing Brexit is more appropriate. Brexit resulted in a drastic constitutional change in the United Kingdom, whereas Elizabeth II's death merely resulted in a change of monarch (and unless Charles III reaches the age of 151, the death of a British monarch will occur again in the 21st century). AdamBlacktalk • contribs00:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I, again, think Brexit is more relevant to Britain in the 21st century. The repercussions of Brexit shaped the political landscape and have an ongoing impact on daily life here. The pandemic was a significant event, led to unprecedented restrictions on daily life in modern Britain, and sadly resulted in far too many deaths, but it was relatively short-lived (in the context of a century). I do think the current photo is not the best possible illustration, though. Perhaps you could find a better image representing Brexit? AdamBlacktalk • contribs23:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2024
Latest comment: 4 months ago7 comments6 people in discussion
This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the phrase: "Other major cities include Birmingham, Liverpool, Nottingham, Sheffield, Bristol, Glasgow and Leicester." I would definitely include Manchester. You may argue whether Manchester or Birmingham should be regarded the UK's second city, but for example: Manchester Airport is the busiest UK airport outside London 89.242.197.200 (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Based on the citation, I presume the original author intended to use population as a measure of "majorness". If following that vein, Edinburgh, Leeds, and Cardiff would have to be listed before Manchester, but clearly that would unnecessarily bloat the lead. Of course, we could devise some alternative standard of deciding which cities to include, but is this really that important? Liu1126 (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
This goes back to the old problem of how to define a "city" - in Britain (and elsewhere) administrative boundaries rarely coincide with contiguously built-up urban areas. The cited source seems to use a strange (and unexplained) definition - the population figure for Manchester is much lower than that in any other definition I have seen. Outside London, most would consider the largest or most important British cities to include Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Glasgow - see this source for instance - with places like Liverpool, Sheffield, Newcastle, Leicester, Bristol, Cardiff and Edinburgh at the next tier. But, definitions will vary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
The novel source should be removed from the lead, and the lead should follow the body. Currently, the body text does not bother with cities, with the only coverage being a template. That said, the template in question looks at urban areas and lists Manchester as second. CMD (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with CMD. But if we are to get into a decision about which places might merit a mention, in my opinion we should do it based on notability not population - i.e. which cities are more prominently / more frequently mentioned by reliable sources? That gets us away from the whole boundaries/population thing (but potentially opens a different can of worms). WaggersTALK09:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I think that one problem is that, given that we mention Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast as capitals, it would seem a little odd not to mention some of the other cities that are larger and in many respects more significant internationally. Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow stand out for me. But, they should be mentioned in the main text as well, and they need to be included based on defensible criteria and reliable sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
As delighted as I am about today’s landslide result, Keir Starmer is not yet Prime Minister (as listed on this page) as he has not yet received his commission from the King. Rishi Sunak is the Prime Minister until he has. Ted86 (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago11 comments7 people in discussion
There seems to be an edit war looming so I just want to create a general consensus on whether we use "Keir Starmer" or "Sir Keir Starmer". The former is my choice. Gammawammallama (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
As someone who doesn't care either way, I would ask what do you see as the pro and con arguments or is it just a case of personal preference? I don't see MOS:SIR providing anything definitive on this particular use as that guidance is about a bio article. DeCausa (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
We should use keir starmer since all countries leaders don't start with first name middle name surname it's first name surname (e.x.narenda modi, joe biden, justin trudeau) Depotadore (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Titles such as Sir should be treated in the same way as titles like Dr., Rev., Mr. or Esq. Note that the monarch is referred to as Charles III, rather than King Charles III. King of course is a much grander title than Sir. TFD (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article, but are optional after that. The title is placed in bold in the first use of the name. Except for the initial reference and infobox, do not add honorific titles to existing instances of a person's name where they are absent, because doing so implies that the existing version is incorrect (similar in spirit to the guideline on English spelling differences). Similarly, honorific titles should not be deleted when they are used throughout an article unless there is consensus. Where the use of an honorific title is widely misunderstood, this can be mentioned in the article; see, for example, Bob Geldof. Honorific titles used with forenames only (such as "Sir Elton", "Sir David", "Dame Judi") should be avoided unless this form is so heavily preferred in popular usage that the use of the surname alone would render the entire name unrecognizable.
TL/DR: use it in the infobox and the first time it appears in the article, after that it's more or less a free-for-all. WaggersTALK13:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I don't think MOS:SIR has application here. I think it's intended for the bio articles of the Sirs themselves rather than when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. DeCausa (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
"This page sets out guidelines for achieving visual and textual consistency in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles; such consistency allows Wikipedia to be used more easily. While this guideline focuses on biographies, its advice pertains, where applicable, to all articles that mention people." WaggersTALK07:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
No, dude! While recognising the "constituent nations", the UK is a single sovereign state (ask any Scottish Nationalist), with one capital. The US states have state capitals too.... Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2024
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
One added by a now blocked account on 9 July 2024, and another by a new account three days earlier. Considering Britisher and Pom aren't usually used in the UK itself, outdated, and sometimes as an insult towards Britons, I think they should be removed? Leaving the original remaining three, although debatable whether Brit (colloquial) should stay either as it is basically a nickname. Raised here as because the edit seems to have been tolerated. DankJae16:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
More like, the edits weren't noticed. Should be just British/Briton. This is an encyclopedia not a slang dictionary or tabloid (although I'm increasingly having my doubts). DeCausa (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
UK doesn't have a land border with "the Republic of Ireland" as there is no such country. The name of the country that the UK shares a border with is Ireland. Can this be corrected please?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdenisb (talk • contribs) 10:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
See Names of the Irish State: "Since 1949, the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 has provided that the Republic of Ireland (or Poblacht na hÉireann in Irish) is the official description for the state.[1] However, Ireland remains the constitutional name of the state."
^The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 (Commencement) Order, 1949 (S.I. No. 27/1949) appointed 18 April 1949 (Easter Monday, the thirty third anniversary of the Irish Easter Rising) as the day the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 would come into force.
12:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cherrell410 (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Not done: Statement is reliably-sources, however required modificaton in this diff to say "*among* the highest levels". Also added an OECD citation showing it among the highest in that organization. Xan747 (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Not done: please read MOS:OLINK. M.Bitton (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)
.svg)
.svg)
Already done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_-_08.jpg){kind=link}
_-_09.jpg){kind=link}