Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 10

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

Country/State debate archives June 2005 – March 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 Terminology debate archives July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – October 2006 Subdivision name debate archives April 2008 – June 2008

This may sound like a silly question but I'll ask it all the same. Is it: 1) The (United Kingdom of Great Britain) AND (Northern Ireland); or 2) The United Kingdom of (Great Britain and Northern Ireland)? While these are the same in English there is subtle difference in meaning that can make a difference when translated into other languages. I'm thinking about Icelandic here and whether the Northern Ireland part should be in the nominative case (as in example 1) or the genitive case (as in example 2). Does anyone get what I'm trying to ask here? :) --Bjarki 00:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I get your point :). It's (2). The United Kingdom was created when The Kingdom of Great Britain was united with Ireland in 1801. -- Arwel (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Then we've got it right already. :) --Bjarki 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the United Kingdom is Great Britain plus Northern Island. The article seems to suggest that the UK and GB can be used interchangeably – not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.116.168 (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're quite correct, the two are not interchangeable, but some ignorant people who shout the loudest and cite unreliable sources have one the day on this one. I gave up trying months ago.Valiant Son (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The current article is 121KB long. Anyone who doubts that this is too high should check out

. Apart from being less readable, long articles are more subject to annoying server lag. I have halved the size of the climate section. and suggest that we should try to halve the size of most of the other sections. (Sorry about the date link removals, I was not aware of the preferences issue).

There is a pervasive quantity of detail that belongs in subsidiary articles. The main problem seems to be the addition of good faith material which, although correct, is not always properly blended in. This creates unstructured prose which is fuelling criticism of Wikipedia by academics and damaging its reputation. For a clear example of this, see United_Kingdom#Christianity; the first part of paragraph two has been randomly inserted. I don't think that this is good English: Economically costly wartime loans, loans taken in 1945 from the United States and from Canada, combined with post-war Marshall Plan aid from the United States started the United Kingdom on the road to recovery.

Lists that have been lengthened by random additions do not make good prose. This, from the science section, looks ridiculous: (The UK) has produced innumerable scholars, scientists and engineers including Sir Isaac Newton, Bertrand Russell, Adam Smith (ed: he was a writer and philospher, not a scientist), James Clerk Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Sir Humphry Davy, Joseph John Thomson, Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, Michael Faraday, Charles Darwin, Alexander Fleming, Francis Crick and Isambard Kingdom Brunel. Most of these belong on formal list subsections; two or three prime examples is enough for prose.

Before making further edits, I will await comment from other editors. Viewfinder 11:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Just a brief reading shows many sections could be tightened up, and less critical information moved to daughter articles. --Michael Johnson 13:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What you commented on is exactly what I noticed when reading this article. Excellent idea - 121KB is pushing it, even for a country article. Rossenglish 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it could be made a bit smaller. The United States article is bigger, so I suppose lots of countries are gonna have their articles shortened now, so they're all equal.. File:Jacks personal flag2.png Jackrm (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2007

Is there not an article which has a list of the famous scientists (writers, engineers, economists, philosophers, etc...)from the UK?

See also: list of famous inventors from the UK and list of famous scientists from the UK

Londium 22:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the US article, the majority view seems to be that it is too long. Also, the US article seems to be better structured, with fewer randomly inserted edits, randomly evolving prose lists and obvious duplication of material. Articles about other countries are shorter. I estimated the UK article's prose size (see

16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear all I have a suggestion in regards to the length of the article. I think it would be more appropriate for this article to be less content heavy and have more wikilinks placed on this article linking to information on other more specific articles on the UK. An example would be the history section which we all know could be the size of an encyclopaedia in its self! For the history section a brief mention about the tribes of Briton before the Roman invasions plus a brief mention of the incorporation of kingdoms into one i.e the the establishment of a united England with the later incorporations of Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Then a brief bit about the British Empire. Then a brief section on recent modern history should suffice. It doesn't have to be done in that way at all but I suggest linking like my example below should be used. In short keep the sections short and concise and link to the more indepth articles. Also there is a box with most UK history aspects on it. Why doesnt someone add this to the main article?

Why dont you guys place this on the article? {{

22:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

List of poets

Stale

The list of poets in the literature section was too long, I trimmed it from 19 to 4. Maybe I picked the wrong ones but I hope editors will not re-lengthen this list, at least not without contributing some sort of structure. Viewfinder 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In Para 12 it states: "World famous horse races include the

".

I'm no expert, but I thought Royal Ascot was a meeting.84.130.246.201 11:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right, Royal Ascot is the name of a horse-race meeting (comprising of numerous horse races over the duration) and not the name of a specific individual race. Ergo, the Grand National (or John Smith's Grand National as it is currently called) is a race held at a meeting that takes place at Aintree; the Gold Cup is a race which takes place during Royal Ascot and so on. Mtoreilly 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with the need to cut the article length per

14:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Official Languages

Resolved

The infobox states that English is the official language of the UK. While this is is true, Welsh is an official language in Wales. This should be made clearer.Valiant Son 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Is English really an official language? Aaker 11:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically it isn't, no. There is no legal standing for the English language. However, it is a de facto language as the article states. The language is officially required to be taught in all state schools.Valiant Son 21:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, then it was as I thought. Aaker 22:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

However, [1] seems to disagree with some of your comments. This site, which I believe should be considered authoratative as it is a British Government site clearly states:

English is the official language of the United Kingdom and that The Welsh Language Act 1993 establishes in law the equality of the Welsh and English languages in Wales. It places an obligation on the public sector to treat the Welsh and English languages equally in the provision of services to the public in Wales. There is also info on Gaelic on the page.

So, I think there is a legal standing for the english Language and also one for Welsh in Wales. Helps? Candy 07:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me to the act of parliament which made English the official language of the United Kingdom? I'd be very surprised if you could because there isn't one! English is the de facto language of the state as it is the language in which legal and parliamentary proceedings occur, as well as being the common laguage of all native populations and the requisite language for teaching in all state schools (In Wales schools may teach in the medium of Welsh and must teach Welsh as a language, but must also teach the English language). However, it has no standing as an official language in law, unlike Welsh. You could, if you so chose, stand for election in England and not print any of your election materials in English. The same could not happen in a country where there is a legaly defined official language. A government website saying something does not make it the legal situation. To assert otherwise is to misrepresent (or misunderstand) the difference between executive and legislature.Valiant Son 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Continuation of Discussion below at Official Languages II. GoodDay 01:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The UK is NOT a country. England is a country. Ireland is a country. Scotland is a country. Wales is a country. UK is NO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.2.246 (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you work that one out? The UK is a country - ask the United Nations if you don't believe me!(See http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml#u - you will note that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a member state, but that England, Wales and Scotland are not). The UK may be disputed as a nation, but it is a country. Valiant Son (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The name of the country is not abbreviated to Britain. Britain is very specifically the union of England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland is not, and never has been, part of Britain. That's the very reason why the official name of the country is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I appreciate that there is a link to usage of the term Britain, but the initial statement is factually incorrect.

• But if you look at this [2] you will see that the Guardian says otherwise and a citation to that effect can be found by following the links in the article.
  Abtract
  05:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian is not the repository of truth! It is a newspaper that can be just as wrong as any other. Britain is the short form of Great Britain. Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales. The United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland, which is not in Britain. Some of the population of Northern Ireland are British, but equally a lot of them are Irish. Northern Ireland is, as the name suggests, in Ireland. My point stands. Valiant Son 22:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. This point has been done to death. How can any people born in Northern Ireland be British if it isn't part of Britain? Some people in Great Britain don't consider themselves British either, does this mean Britain doesn't exist? I've seen no official documentation that Britain is shorthand for Great Britain. Britain is merely a nickname, and it widest use is shorthand for the U.K. Britain can be short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, just as it can Great Britain. Marky-Son 18:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your rudeness is only surpassed by your ignorance! Being born in a country is not the defining factor in nationality. Furthermore your complete ignoring of the difficult issues of nationality in the province of Northern Ireland suggests that, assuming you are British, you have been ignoring the news for the last century! Ask anybody from the nationalist community what their nationality is and they will tell you that they are Irish, while those from the loyalist community will tell you that they are British. The two are perfectly acceptable answers depending upon identity. National identity is an extremely complex issue, but the feo-political situation of Northern Ireland is not. The Treaty of 1922 is pretty clear as is the consitutional origins of British control in the whole of Ireland. Ireland was not part of Britain - EVER! Ireland was a separate kingdom from the rest of the United Kingdom. The Acts of Union had combined both the crowns and the governance of England, Scotland and Wales, but never Ireland.

As to your comments about no official documentation referring to Britain as a short form of Great Britain that would be because countries don't issue documents saying, "This is the short version of our name." The idea is, frankly, ridiculous. UK is not the "official" short name for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and neither is the United Kingdom! All of these names are colloquial and have no legal position. However, you cannot reasonably use the name Britain to describe the United Kingdom because it is WRONG! Britain refers to England, Scotland and Wales and not any part of Ireland whatsoever. It can only be used, "as shorthand" by those who are ignorant of the political and historical situations of the two countries. You might not have noticed, but there has been an armed struggle over this issue for rather a long time. Your apparent disregard for this does not change the facts. Valiant Son 21:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's wrong because of what? Oh yes, your (not so humble) opinion. Your reason for not calling the U.K., Britain, because it's WRONG. Wow, you've really thought that one through. The Prime Minister calls this country Britain, I'm sure he knows a lot more about these matters than you. Many generations have called this country Britain, now political correctness dictates they're wrong. All you're doing is bringing up irrelevant information about Northern Ireland. You've avoided the fact that English, Scottish and Welsh nationalists also don't regard themselves as British. The "facts" are already clear to see on Wikipedia, nothing you've said hasn't already been said before so there's no need to change anything. The way I see it, you're calling Northern Irish loyalists WRONG for regarding themselves as British. If your facts have no grounding, I don't know what you expect to achieve. Marky-Son 21:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I'll add to that, I've never heard of anyone speaking of Britain and meaning Great Britain. See [[3]] for more details. Marky-Son 21:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sarcasm. I've gotten used to that kind of immaturity previous to your dalliance with it. Despite your assertion to the contrary I actually explained why Britain is not an alternative for the United Kingdom. If you can't identify that then it's your problem not mine.

The Prime Minister calls what Britain? He refers to Britain frequently, but how do you know whether he is talking about the United Kingdom or Great Britain. Even if he is talking about the former does not make him right. He is Prime Minister because he is the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons. There is no requirement for holders of the office to have constitutional expertise. Your argument is fundamentally flawed. On the other hand I hold a degree in History and my subsidiary subject was in Politics, including the constitution of the United Kingdom. Therefore I have verifiable qualifications in this area so don't try and suggest that I know nothing.

Irrelevant information about Northern Ireland? Have you been drinking the Kool-aid? The issue of Northern Ireland is fundamental to the issue. I have presented an outline of the situation within the province. You haven't addressed that point in any way, shape or form. I have avoided nothing about what nationalists from other parts of the United Kingdom believe. The issue is however irrelevant because there is a different constitutional and historical position in those nations. BTW you'd be hard pressed to find an English person who did not consider themselves British (the two terms have erroneously become synonymous).

Wikipedia is a living project. There is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that is wrong. That's why people edit. You seem willing to accept what you read at face value. Not the best critical skills I've seen.

They "way [you] see it" is wrong then! If you could be bothered (or were able to comprehend perhaps?) what I had previously written, then you would notice that I actually said both nationalities were valid. Here, I'll quote it for you verbatim, "Some of the population of Northern Ireland are British, but equally a lot of them are Irish.". Do try and actually read things before you pass comment on them. With a following wind it might help with your studies.

Here's a gem from you, "If your facts have no grounding, I don't know what you expect to achieve." What in the name of God is this supposed to mean. It bears no relation to the previous sentence. You ought to learn a little about how to construct paragraphs and then how to construct arguments. So far you appear to be unable to do either. You haven't proved your point because you haven't argued a case. You have come across as rather petulant however.

You made this a personal attack.Valiant Son 01:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Britain" is not the official short form but it is widely used and understood. For example, from number10.gov.uk: "On this site the term 'Britain' is used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." From the Oxford dictionary: "... now also used for the British state or empire as a whole." This is not new, even while all of Ireland was part of the UK the state was widely called Great Britain e.g. during WW1. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Valiant Son. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. I don't have to prove my as the article is on my side, other people have already proven my point in the past. You're the one with something to prove, and you've done nothing of the sort. There are a lot of things wrong on Wikipedia, but those things are mainly on the minor articles. I really couldn't give a toss if you think I'm petulant, rude, ignorant, etc. Oh, but I'M the one that made this a personal attack, boo hoo. You must say the same thing to anyone that disagrees with your (unfounded) opinions. I wouldn't be surprised if you had a political agenda. Still, you avoid the subject of Scottish nationalists and the like. I wouldn't be hard-pressed to find an English person who doesn't consider themself British, at all, and how many of them there are doesn't matter. Ireland was never part of Great Britain, but it was part of Britain, and Northern Ireland still is, get over it. Marky-Son 13:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no point discussing things with people like you. You are small minded and offensive. It's sad that at the age of 19 you still haven't grown out of your juvenile ways. I can't be bothered continuing as you blithely ignore everything put in front of you. You know nothing of what you speak and you don't attempt to argue the point in any kind of substabtiated manner. By the way, I do hope, for your sake, that the university course you're doing doesn't involve any kind of critical argument work. Then again it is a poly so it probably doesn't matter. Valiant Son 03:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Marky-son. The official name (in the UN) of the country is United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland. "Ireland was never part of Great Britain, but it was part of Britain" How can that be? I just wonder how Northern Ireland cannot be part of the long name, but be part of the short version of the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.26.61 (talk) 09:27, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

British Isles = The islands of Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales), Ireland (NI and Republic of Ireland), Man, Wight, Hebrides, Orkneys, etc etc. UK = United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (ie England, Scotland, Wales, NI)

"British" has two definitions: 1) Pertaining to the whole of the British Isles (despite what some in the ROI would say!); 2) Pertaining to the island of Great Britain alone. Neither definition is the synonymous with the UK, though confusion is understandable. 82.44.82.167 03:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)catiline63

What exactly do you call a citizen of the United Kingdom then? United Kingdomer? No the official name for a citizen of the UK is British. The Northern Irish nationalists, by denying British nationality, are making a comment that they think none of Ireland should be in the British State. They are not making a comment on whether Britain and the UK are synonymous. In their opinion I'd imagine it would be synonymous, as it is seen as an occupying state not a union of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland. Scroggie 08:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we're at cross-purposes here. My post isn't a political one but was to point out that the correct abbreviation for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is "UK" (an exact term), not "(Great) Britain" (which is the debate that started this thread). As for what is the demonym for UK residents: British, Britons, or UK citizens. 82.44.82.167 17:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Catiline63

I can't believe this same fucking debate comes up again and again and again on Wikipedia. The name Britain is commonly (and correctly) used to refer to the UK. There is plenty of evidence for this.

Just look at how often Gordon Brown uses the word Britain when he's talking about this country. Or are you suggesting that even the Prime Minister continually gets the name of the country wrong? Malcolm Starkey 22:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Britain should stay, why? British Prime Minister

Elizabeth II and (for musical history) British Invasion. GoodDay

22:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to swear. The use of "Britian" as shorthand for "UK" may be common but coloquial terminology does not equate with correct terminology - which is what an encyclopaedia entry should use - regardless of what Gordon Brown says. I suggest you type British Isles (Terminolgy) into your wiki browser, read the piece, and then come back and try and argue that you're still right. Since you cited her as an example, you may also wish to look at the Queen's wiki page, where she is never refered to as the queen of Britian (always UK). They even supply her proper title - "By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" 82.44.82.167 09:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Catiline63

Tell you what. You find me a reputable citation proving that it is wrong to call the UK "Britain". The Guardian style guide (written, like most newspaper style guides, by professional sub-editors who make a living being precise with words) maintains that the term is correct. All other British (yes, British) newspaper style guides do the same, but regrettably they are not published on the internet for all to see.

All you have to do is find a reliable source saying that your opinion is actually a fact. Something along the lines of "The word Britain should not be used to refer to the United Kingdom, according to The Made Up Guide for Writers and Editors." Examples by omission are not good enough, I'm afraid, to counter the overwhelming evidence that Britain is a viable (and correct) synonym for UK. 80.254.147.52 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, you trumped be there by citing the Grauniad! I concede. Seriously though, even the most cursory of look in that paper's daily corrections column is enough to show anyone that it's journalists and subs exhibit far less diligence in their work that you credit them with. "Britian" may well be used as a synonym for the UK. However its a synonym only insofar that its a colloqualism - much the same way that "America(n)" is commonly understood to mean the US or of the US, while the exact definition is very different. The British Isles (Terminology) site I refered to quotes both the offical British Government website (direct.gov) and the OAD. Thus:

Directgov: "The term 'Britain' is used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"; OAD: "Britain: an island that consists of England, Wales, and Scotland. The name is broadly synonymous with Great Britain, but the longer form is more usual for the political unit." OAD: "Great Britain: England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit. The name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom."

Thus while "Britian" may "informally", "broadly", or "loosely" be used to refer to the UK, the synonym is inexact and far from the "correct" that you'd contend.82.44.82.167 15:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Catiline63

Where is the citation saying it is incorrect? I don't see one.

Moreover, the

British Isles (Terminology)

page to which you refer specifically says that Britain is a synonym, and does not say it should not be used. I quote: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the sovereign state occupying the island of Great Britain, the small nearby islands (but not the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands), and the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland. Usually, it is shortened to United Kingdom, UK or Britain."

I have no idea what the OAD is - I assume it's probably an American dictionary - but my Collins Dictionary defines Britain as: "another name for Great Britain or the United Kingdom". No mention of it being informal, colloquial, loose or in any way wrong.

PS Re: The Guardian subs. There's no apostrophe in the word "its" when it is possessive. There is, however, one when it's an abbreviation of "it is". Pot/kettle etc. 80.254.147.52 15:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your reference to the wiki BI(T) page is invalid because all it does is link to the erroneous Grauniad footnote which I've dealt with above. (Hey, your whole arguement isn't based on the Guardian is it???)

OAD = Oxford American Dictionary. I don't have access to the OED, but I guess - seeing that the Univ. of Oxford controls the publication of both - that the entries would be similar. Webster's online defines the UK as England, Scotland, Wales and NI, while it defines Britian as England, Scotland, and Wales. Is there is difference? Yes, the exclusion of NI. If there's a difference they can't be synonymous. Similar, yes. Synonymous, no. The terms are not interchangable.

From Directgov again: "'UK' or 'Britain'?: The full title of this country is 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. 'The UK' is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 'Great Britain' (or just 'Britain') does not include Northern Ireland. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK." Mmmm... seems that the Government is aware of a difference too...

Nor does the CIA World Factbook list "Britian" as a the correct abbreviated form, listing only United Kingdom or UK.

"Ah" I hear you say "but neither the British or US Governments say that the terms are not synonymous, do they". No they don't. But then it's not their job to point out that asynonymous terms are asynonymous.

BTW nice pointing out of the apostrophe use. I knew that would be tempting. 82.44.82.167 19:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Catiline63

Its interesting to note that even the last edit refers to the gov of the UK as the "Britsh Government"

20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

here is the page. Although it says that Great Britain can be referred to as Britain it doesn't say that the UK can't. Interestingly, it is in the section called "About Britain" (see the URL). josh (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

AAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!! This debate is inane! Shut up! Malcolm Starkey 21:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I addressed the second criticism in my last post. Just because the government (or anyone else) doesn't say that Britain doesn't equate with UK is NOT a tacit admission that the terms are equivalent. The arguement is specious. Using the same logic I could argue any point on Earth simply by stating "well they don't say it isn't". Nor should Direct.gov's colloquial use of Britian be cited as supportive to your arguement - I've never said that the term Britain cannot be used colloquially to refer to the UK, just that it shouldn't be considered as either a proper abbreviation or synonymous. The example of using "America" to mean the United States it just as technically and geographically inaccurate, although the usage is common. As for the first criticism - I was assuming the character of the opposition when refering to the British government. The inverted commas were a tell-tale sign that I wasn't writing in the first person. 82.44.82.167 22:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Catiline63

Face facts, mate. You are in the minority. You can huff and puff here as much as you like, but you won't convince anyone with your badly typed and rather obdurate line of argument. So why not run along now and find another page to troll. Malcolm Starkey 22:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah finally, the ad hominem response. Since when has being in the minority made one wrong? 82.44.82.167 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Catiline63

Since we were talking about language. What ever is common usage is correct. Ten years ago the word muddle didn't exist. Now it has even made it into the dictionary. A hundred years ago England was used to refer to the UK. Language is in the ownership of the majority, which in this case use Britain as a common term for the UK. Get over it. josh (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that the muddle that the Online Etymology Dictionary records as first being used in English in 1697? Maybe there's a newer definition on the street that I'm unaware of. I'm well aware that languages change but once again my point has been entirely missed. As I stress, I've never said that "(Great) Britain" isn't a commonly used and commonly recognised euphemism for the UK, but my point is that the terms are not synonymous and shouldn't be intimated as such in an encyclopaedia entry. The former is the island of England, Scotland and Wales; the latter is the political union between England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. That distinction may well be too subtle for those who use the terms as if they're interchangable, but the distinction is there nonetheless. My suggestion is that the wording in the opening paragraph should be changed to reflect this - from "also known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain" to "also known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or, commonly, Britain". For any who are confused there's already a link after this sentence which takes the reader to the British Isles (Terminology) site. There at least they seem to have things more or less in order. There's even a nice diagram to explain things. 82.44.82.167 12:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Catiline63

Since Britain isn't going to be removed from the article (due to majority opinon/consensus), there's little to discuss. Your constant protestations are merely 'bloggings'. But then, we're guilty of responding to your complaints (thus encouraging you to continue complaining). I'd suggest this discussion be considered ended. GoodDay 13:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made no such suggestion to remove Britain from the page - have you not read any of my posts? Nor do juvenile attempts to close down counter-arguments by saying "discussion ended", "get over it", or "shut up" lend any weight to the argument against me. In fact, while in the past 2 days I've cited UK and US governmental sources and the Oxford and Webster's English dictionaries to support my point (hell, even other wiki pages agree with me! - not only the aforementioned Terminology page, but Wiktionary agrees with my contention that Britian is only loosely the UK), I've yet to read a single considered, cogent response from anyone who's opposed my views - apart from the poster who claimed the Guardian as evidence.

I might be outnumbered, but you fellas are putting up a damned poor effort to argue your point - beyond the continual, abysmal, amateurish utterances of "because it is".82.44.82.167 16:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Catiline63

British [4]has referred to The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in common speech since it's founding. You may note thet the British flag includes the cross of St. Patrick [5] people dispiting their status as British Subjects (citizen being a term applied to a non-monarchy and implying certain freedoms) are more often than not making a political point or speaking incorrectly. The use of "England " to refer to the country as a whole is, and has always been incorrect, and a source of some irritation to certain of the scottish and welsh inhabitants. D.C.Rigate 05:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

may be helpful if I, as an editor of Hansard, join this argument.

The United Kingdom was first created when the kingdoms of Scotland and England were united in 1706 by the Union with Scotland Act 1706. [6] The Act states “That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the First day of May which shall be in the year One thousand seven hundred and seven and for ever after be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain”. It goes on to say: “That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament to be stiled The Parliament of Great Britain.”

Until 1800 the terms United Kingdom and Great Britain could be used interchangeably.

The Act of Union (Ireland) 1800 states “That it be first article of the union of the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January, which shall be in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever, be united into one kingdom, by the name of “the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,”” [7]

That’s three united kingdoms in one! The country changed it’s name to the United Kingdom - of Great Britain (meaning England, which at that time included Wales, and Scotland) and Ireland (meaning what is now Eire and Northern Ireland). Then most of Ireland left (1920) and set up a republic, but Northern Ireland wasn’t included and remains one of the constituent “kingdoms” of the United Kingdom.

Scotland, Wales and England are Great Britain. Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland are the United Kingdom. All subjects of those countries are technically “British”, how British they each feel is another argument. For further evidence please see the following sources: [8] and [9] . It is an important distinction.

In the religion section, it says that only 38% of the population belive in a God, then it says 53% of the population is Christian.

How can only 38% belive in a God and 53% be Christian?

There's a mistake there.Opinoso 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The article also points out that "for cultural reasons, some non believers still identify themselves with a religion". All the claims are cited. Viewfinder 22:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice that throughout this article, "God Save the King" is mentioned as the National Anthem. But, to my knowledge, the UK does not have an official national anthem. "God Save the King" is the official Royal Anthem, and is used in place of a national anthem.

I think this should be mentioned somewhere in the article.

I've noticed someone with nothing better to do has changed the national anthem from 'God save the Queen' to a distasteful joke. I would rectify this but I can't find what to edit in the editor. The problem is in the fact box on the right of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.128.187 (talk) 15:03, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed it too but I can't fix it either... Solidus469 15:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, I believe. You can edit the page and rollback to a previous edition. Check out the vandalism pages for wikipedia, and join the crowd in protecting this from the vandals.

docboat

15:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, God Save the King/Queen is the National Anthem in the United Kingdom and commonly referred to as such. --Breadandcheese 19:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason the above has suddenly popped up all over the article, even in places it doesn't make sense - like suggesting the land mass of the United Kingdom and not its population was opposed to the Euro? RHB - Talk 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As you can see here,

Britney-Boy

02:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed them (there were even a couple of flags in the references!) Bluap 03:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I just ran across

11:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is good material, but I think that most of it belongs in the daughter article. Would anyone object if I left a summary, and a "see also" link to re-parent the daughter article, whose name should perhaps be shortened.

Why mention Head of the Commonwealth...

Resolved

This article is about the United Kingdom not Elizabeth II (we have an article called Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, which mentions Head of the Commonwealth). PS- the 'Head of Commonwealth' isn't mentioned this way at Canada, Jamaica, Australia etc. GoodDay 22:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a raging monarchist or Anglocentric, but I do think that that statement helps in providing context to the reader. Afterall, Elizabeth II is verifiably Head of the Commonwealth, and the UK is not only where she resides and is broadly indigenous, but the UK is the traditional centre of the Commonwealth too. I think that's why it's probably appropriate here and not, say, Jamaica. Jza84 22:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But this article is about the 'country', not the 'monarchy' or the 'monarch'. GoodDay 22:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they are somewhat interlinked. Jza84 22:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. However, I've no intentions of 'omiting' the entry. Anyways, thanks for responding. GoodDay 23:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with GoodDay here, and I also question why it's mentioned that the British Monarch is also head of state of other countries, esp. in the article lead. EIIR's role as, say, Monarch of Jamaica, has little to nothing to do with the United Kingdom itself. --G2bambino 04:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It does have a good deal to do with the UK's role as a colonial power. Having said that it possibly should be in the history section, rather than the lead. --Michael Johnson 06:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhat of a product of the UK's former colonial power, but that's not to say EIIR is monarch of those other countries by force or mere happenstance. But, yes, it is the location of this "information" that's the most glaring anomoly. Actual wording can be worked out once it's decided if and where it should be moved to. --G2bambino 13:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Somewhat" seems somewhat understated. EIIR is only monarch of these countries because of Britain's role as their colonial masters. I am yet to come across any nation that adopted EIIR as monarch without being a former colony. As an "effect" of Britain's colonial history (and one of the the most enduring) it deserves to be noted, but as we are all agreed in the History section. --Michael Johnson 02:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the case because the present countries under EIIR, besides the UK, chose by their own free will to enter into a personal union relationship upon becoming fully independent states; each made the monarch who was previously their "colonial ruler" the monarch of their country, fully separately from that same person's position as Monarch of the UK. Thus, yes, there's a lineage there, but to imply the current personal union amongst the Realms is some kind of colonial hangover is quite mistaken.

Regardless, I do think the history section is a better place to mention such details. --G2bambino 02:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to agree with that. I think any other encyclopedia would mention this type of infomation within this framework as part of an article about the UK however, so yes I would urge it to be mentioned somewhere within the text. Jza84 01:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

English? of course. Welsh? and for that matter Scottish? Irish? what's the view on this subject? GoodDay 20:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely it's pretty clear ... English allover, with English and Welsh in Wales only, that's it.

Abtract

21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Soo for the United Kingdom (as a whole) it's English (only)? GoodDay 21:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No there are two official languages, but one is applicable in Wales only.

Abtract

21:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

But what about Scottish and Irish (Scotland and Northern Ireland are a part of the UK)? GoodDay 21:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't official languages. Marky-Son 22:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.

Abtract

09:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. GoodDay 19:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There is one official language: English. This has been discussed ad infinitum before. Whilst there is no statutory definition of an official language passed by the British Parliament, there are definitions used by the European Union. Under these, Welsh is NOT an official language. See this decision, etc. Or alternatively, just read the past debates.

Bastin

19:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense too. Holy smokes, now I'm really confused -- perhaps 'English & Welsh' belongs only in England and Wales, I don't know anymore. GoodDay 19:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Since Welsh is recognised, even by the EU, to be a language of equal status to English and English is as official a language as you are likely to get, then Welsh is also the official language in wales. This was clearly the intention of the Welsh Language Act [10]
  Abtract
  22:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

But we're talking about the United Kingdom. GoodDay 22:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and Wales is a significant part of the UK ... I have said all I intend to on this subject.

Abtract

23:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So is Scotland & Northern Ireland. English is the lone 'Official Language' of the 'whole' United Kingdom. Please respect that fact (and don't edit war). GoodDay 23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been battled to and throw so many times before its getting unreal. In wales the official language is english AND welsh, that seems pretty straight forward. But this isn't the article on wales, we must remember this is the UK we're talking about. Heres a thought arguement, something to consider, there are roughly 3 million people in wales right? well estimates suggest there are between 1 and 3 million indians and pakistanis in the UK... does that make punjabi or hindi an official language of the UK? no, it doesn't. Therefore the arguement that wales is a large part of the UK becomes redundant. Equally, it has been suggested that in wales it would be extremely unusual (if even possible) that anyone speaks welsh but not english... so in effect english IS the de facto language of the UK as everyone speaks english but not everyone speaks welsh and not all legal documents are available in welsh but all legal documents (even those affectign just wales) must still also be in english.WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 23:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally, an end to this dispute. As WiProlific said, this article is about the whole nation. GoodDay 00:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoke too soon. Where's this 'agreement' to include 'Welsh' (it's not in the above Official Languages discussion)? The Official Language of the United Kingdom (the entire country, the national level) is English (only). Welsh is 'correctly' mentioned at Wales, like Gaelic is mentioned at Scotland, Irish is mentioned at Northern Ireland & English is mentioned at England. GoodDay 00:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, we all agree that Welsh is one of two 'official' languages in Wales and that elsewhere in the UK only English is 'official' yet this should not be mentioned at the relevant place in the info box because the article is 'about the whole nation'. If this was so then presumably we should all be out there cutting out the many references to parts of the UK. This really is a nonsense ... Welsh has special status as is well known, a status not afforded (rightly or wrongly) to Punjabi etc ... this should be made clear at the outset.

Abtract

23:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The National Level (ie the UK) - English is the whole nation's official language; Secondary Level - Welsh/English in Wales, Gaelic/Scottish/English in Scotland, Irish/Ulster Scottish/English in Northern Ireland & English in England. That's the way it is. GoodDay 20:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

But only Welsh has official status and thus it should be mentioned in the info box. There are many mentions of facts which concern only one or more parts of the UK; Welsh is important and should be included at the appropriate place.

Abtract

20:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion would have Welsh as the official language in -England, Scotland & Northern Ireland, aswell. GoodDay 21:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct. The suggestion that the entire article can have no facts about parts of the UK is absurd. However, that's not what has been said. The purpose of the infobox fields is to provide quick information that is applicable to the UK in its entirety. The field 'largest city' doesn't state "London, except in Wales, where the largest city is Cardiff". That would be ridiculous, yet is effectively what you are suggesting should happen with language.

There are two correct places to note that Welsh is a language of equal standing to English in Wales. The first is in the body of the article. The second is as a footnote in the infobox. Since both of these options have been taken, it's actually being given all the prominence that it can really be afforded.

Bastin

21:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

At last a reasoned response.

Abtract

06:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's more like it, the footnote also explains that Gaelic is equal with English in Scotland & Irish is equal with English in Northern Ireland. It's good to see the UK's four sections treaded equally. GoodDay 20:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to check the 'history' of the article, to find out who removed the Official Languages from the Infobox. However, it's the best move (removing a 'lightning rod'). GoodDay 22:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Some extremely important legal documents pertaining to the United Kingdom are written in Norman French, Gaelic, Welsh, and all kinds of odd languages that existed long before the current most popular language. Moreover in the UK it's quite normal for local and central government to go to great efforts to improve the enfranchisement of the whole community by consulting people in their own tongue: obviously you cannot conduct a proper population census if you just walk away when the person who answers the door doesn't speak a language you, personally, happen to understand, so you show them a chart containing written languages and ask them t point, and the next week a specialist in the chosen language visits the household.

There are perhaps some rules that pertain in the courts and legislatures, which will vary from place to place: an Irish MP could probably not give a speech in Irish at Westminster but in Stormont the same person, as a delegate to the Northen Irish assembly, might legitimately refuse to give it in any other language. A parliamentary candidate for Birmingham Sparkbrook would be foolish not to distribute at least some election literature in Urdu. If you're running for MP in the Western Isles, your choice of whether or not to publish your literature in English as well as Gaelic might affect your chance of election. We don't really have any "official" British language. --Tony Sidaway

In the absence of consensus here, I have added a phrase including other languages.

12:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? There's already a footnote about the regional and minority languages, and their use is mentioned in the body of the article. To mention them, and, even more laughably, languages used in migrant communities, as OFFICIAL languages of the United Kingdom is absurd, POV, and runs counter to the consensus that has been reached time and time again before.

Bastin

14:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree but how do I remove the word "official"? As you will see I have removed it by edit but it still appears in the box.I'm not sure where you see consensus, as all the above comments come at it from a different angle, which is why I put the phrase in that covers all languages and seems to me to be quite helpfully indicative of the actual situation on the ground rather than fiddling around with what is or isnt "official" ... indeed "de facto" as a previous version had it

Abtract

14:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't remove the word 'official', because it's an infobox. It's supposed to name the official language(s) of a country. In this case, the official language of the United Kingdom is English, so that ought to be stated. The use of Urdu in the election literature of Sparkbrook, Bangla on the streets of Bow, or Polish in the pages of the Polska Gazeta are a million miles away from what the purpose of this infobox field is. It is to display the official language of the United Kingdom - not unofficial languages, not in one part of the United Kingdom - and that's English and English alone.

The consensus is in previous discussions, most notably

Bastin

14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree in two counts, first info boxes are for imparting info and the complex language situation in the UK deserves an airing at this early stage in the article (IMHO). Second, past consensus does not set a ruling for ever, new ideas, new thoughts can produce a new consensus. I am seeking a new consensus around my inserted phrase which takes a distillation of the above discussion.

Abtract

14:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

First, the field for 'official languages' isn't for unofficial languages, surprisingly enough. It is not to reflect your interpretation of the language situation, but the fact of what the official language is: English. The language situation in the UK is no more complicated than in other European countries in having minority immigrant communities. For a cue, look at France, Netherlands, Sweden, etc. Despite having proportionately larger immigrant communities than the UK, they don't mention Arabic, Serbo-Croat, or Urdu in the infobox, since they aren't official languages. Why are you insisting on doing that here? If you can find an academic that has stated "Polish is effectively an official language of the United Kingdom", you can do that. Otherwise, be sensible and follow what the field says: "Official language = ..."

You fundamentally misunderstand the process of consensus-building. Above, you state 'I'm not sure where you see consensus, as all the above comments come at it from a different angle', hence you recognise there's no consensus formed in this discussion. If you disagree with the current consensus, you have to find a new one on the talk page. You cannot do it by just writing whatever you want and demanding that no-one change it because consensus doesn't exist, because there was never consensus to make your change. See

Bastin

15:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I am demanding anything, I am simply trying to make the info box more informative; there are several indigenous minority languages with official status and several immigrant minority languages with "de facto" status - I believe this needs to be mentioned in the info box. Who is the other editor who rejected my most recent edit? You might like to consider whether you use the revert tool a little too readily - it should be used mainly to counter vandalism. A more polite way might be to build on previous edits to produce a more rounded article.

Abtract

16:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on the fields in the infobox template ... I should have looked earlier. Regional languages are catered for and I have input welsh and gaelic.

Abtract

16:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that (the current version) is what I call 'a compromise', Well done folks. GoodDay 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a bit of a discussion on the

Manx Gaelic as although the U.K. Govt. has included it, the responsibilities for the implementation of associated policies fall to the IOM Govt. and outwith the realms of this article. Rab-k

19:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Scottish and Irish come under the name Gaelic. (Electrobe 12:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

At present the religion section states that "the Church of England ... acts as the 'mother' and senior branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion" and that "The Scottish Episcopal Church, which is part of the Anglican Communion ... it is not a 'daughter church' of the Church of England". Which is correct? Greenshed 22:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont think this is so much a contradiction in as much as its a poorly sequenced sentence. Heres the score: The anglican communion is a worldwide organisation of anglican churches, the 'head' of these organisations is the chuch of england. The Scottish Episcopal Church is a member of the anglican communion but not as a branch of the church of england but rather as a church in its own right. So, despite being in full communion with the church of england the Scottish Episcopal Church had its own history and origins. It did not sprout or break away from the church of england. That at least is my understanding of it, I dont really see a contradiction in that sentence, just its not hugely clear? I think tagging the article as contradictory may have been a slightly big step for such a small phrase. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 23:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Although, I'm not going to, I wouldn't deeply object if you removed the contradict notice - although it would be better if we had a "sect-contradict" template - a bit like the sect-stub one. As regards the issue, I still think that "This article appears to contradict itself". It might be that a CofE editor wrote the first part and a SEC editor wrote the second part. Anyway, I fail to see how the CofE can be a "mother" to the SEC without the SEC being a "daughter" to the CofE. Perhaps it would be better to remove the mother / daughter terminology unless it can be cited. Greenshed 00:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think your right, best to remove the whole mother daugter thing altogether. The same thing has also been said on the SEC article so that needs cleaning to. I'm not really bothered enough to check the edit histories but i'm sure your right, this is almost certainly a later addition by a SEC supporting editor, keen to distance the organisation from the CofE as it reads through like an after thought. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 17:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mother daugter stuff removed. Greenshed 22:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The map is currently Image:Uk-map.svg

Not one single city in Yorkshire is shown, there are apparently no towns in East Anglia at all, The Wash goes unmarked, yet somehow Portsmouth and Southampton are both marked clearly. Hull also exercises an odd fascination over the cartographer. Very strange. --Tony Sidaway

There's nothing from Lancashire, Cumbria, Gloustershire, Leicestershire, Rutland, north Wales, or many other places, but I really don't think there needs to be. It's not going to have everybody's city/town listed - it's rather like BBC weather national forcasts, which shows (from memory) nothing between Birmingham and Newcastle. It doesn't mean they're not there. I think its a good map. Jza84 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hull's in Yorkshire, isn't it?--Elfbadger 13:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So is Middlesbrough josh (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It leaves a lot to be desired graphically and has massive discrepencies in labelling, like including both portsmouth and southampton (which are practically the same place) but not bournemouth or brighton. Virtually no cities in middle england including Leicester, the 10th largest city in the UK and the larget in middle england! I think the best way to do this is to choose an arbitrary number of cities that will fit on the map (maybe around 15-20) and then mark them on according to size. So only the top 15-30 sized towns are marked, then maybe just one or two extra labels for places like dover which are not nessessarily very big but are of importance for transport/historic links. Font size of the labels is massively to big in my opinion. I generally dont like the diagram as I think its been drawn quickly with not enough detail. The coastal outlines are sketchy at best and not very accurate to the true geography of the UK. Its more of a general diagram than a real map. I dont like the marking of the channel tunnel in a solid line, its very suggestive of more than just a tunnel and not a proper cartographic convention. England, scotland and wales are labelled but its not clear what exactly they each refer to (I know its obvious to the British but not nessessarily to say an american). Why a mountain is marked on it but the 10th largest city isn't beats me. Isle of mann is noted but the isle of wight isn't... the list is endless. Personally i'd just start from scratch and redraw the whole thing. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 22:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And the Channel Tunnel's shown on the wrong side of Dover, anyway... -- Arwel (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have some experience in drawing maps for Wikipedia. I may be able to aid in a redraw, but I'd like some consensus on what should, and shouldn't be included. Jza84 23:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I had a go a while back and came up with Image:Uk-map-edited.jpg. My editing wasn't that good, but it shows my opinion of what should be included. Rednaxela 10:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a good place to start would be to use the top dozen or so cities on

List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population. The four constituent country capitals should definitely be on there too. Rossenglish

14:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say as general criteria:

The image should ideally be SVG but theres no point using SVG if we arent going to draw the coast very accurately so if thats the case stick to a raster format, ideally png. I'd suggest labelling the following. Watch out for the list of cities by size as some are erroneous. For example brighton is listed at 51st as its counting just the town of brighton, not hove, saltdean, rottingdean etc. whilst stoke-on-trent is counted as 16th because it includes suburban areas well outside the city. The following are based on size or importance, those of importance have their reason in brackets. Suggestions anyone?

• London
• Birmingham
• Glasgow
• Liverpool
• Leeds
• Sheffield
• Edinburgh
• Bristol
• Manchester
• Leicester
• Cardiff (Welsh captial)
• Belfast (N.I. Captial)
• Truro (major cornish city)
• Brighton (larger than the statistic suggests as its really Brighton & Hove, eastbourne etc.)
• Portsmouth/Southampton (effectively the same place, i'd choose one or the other and mark it)
• Bournemouth (major south coast city)
• Nottingham (major middlands area)
• Reading (major south east region with a large suburban sprawl between reading and guildford, e.g. fleet, farnborough, camberley etc.)
• Guildford (major south east area same reason as above)
• Dover (important travel hub --> channel tunnel)

I'm pretty sure these should all fit on the map, if space is tight some of the less important ones could be removed? E.g. Glasgow (after all edinburg just down the road is marked) or Reading if guildford is marked. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I can do this (including SVG format), it'll be nicely vectorised too, but it will take me a little bit of time mind. I have a backlog of maps to produce but will make this a priority! Nudge me if it's not ready within 7 to 10 days. Jza84 20:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree with the list. I would say though that if the Chunnel isn't marked than Dover could possibly be omitted as it is only a small town (30,000 people), unless there is room for it, then by all means include it as it is justified for its importance. If space is tight than I agree that minor ones could be removed. Rossenglish 20:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There's some very odd suggestions above - especially Truro (approx pop. 20,000) and Guildford (approx pop. 66,000).

List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population

should be used. That will prevent arguments over which city is "more important" than another, whether Dover is more important than Folkestone and the like. It will also ensure that large boroughs that are agglomerations of towns such as Kirklees, East Riding of Yorkshire, Wakefield or Wigan (all of which are much larger than Brighton & Hove) don't end up on the map.

The only issue is that I think that Bradford won't fit on the map - as it is surrounded by Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield, a label would be difficult to fit on. In which case, Reading (21st) should make it on there and so on for the next awkward city. Alternatively, a case could be made for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, as it is the only one of the English Core Cities group not to make it in the population listings. Either way, it should be based on fact, not any POV regarding "importance". Fingerpuppet 23:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

When we talked about what would go on instead at the start of the discussion we did note that size isn't everything, that some places like dover have a big logisitical, tourist, economic, regional etc. role where as say somewhere like bradford isn't so much so. I do agree we should use the list but only as a rough guide, because its hugely subjective (the list is just as POV as our ideas on importance) as its based depending on how strict the boundaries of the city are. In some places its just wrong. Stoke for example is basically counting the entire borough and then some, when in reality stoke is actually more like a set of medium sized towns which have grown to meet each others borders. Then its counting Brighton as a lone city, which it isn't. There is a city of Brighton & Hove (note the ampersand) but not just Brighton. Truro is important in my opinion as the capital and only city in cornwall. Its also the smallest city in the UK I think (plus theres nothing else in that region so a label can be slipped in easily). St. Austell is a town which is actually bigger than truro in cornwall but truro has many of the regions medical/police/administrative HQs. Just some thoughts. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 14:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Being the capital of a county does not make a city/town important. Plymouth is the largest and most important city in the area.

St David's is the smallest city in the UK. josh (talk

) 14:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I note that User:WikipedianProlific is complaining about Stoke-on-Trent not being a single city, whilst "Brighton" is "really Brighton and a load of other towns". Let's look at the facts:

• The local authority of Stoke-on-Trent was created as a federation of towns in 1910. It is part of a conurbation along with other towns such Newcastle under Lyme.
• The local authority of Brighton & Hove was created as a federation of towns in 1997. Its consitutent towns are part of a conurbation along with other towns such as Littlehampton.

User:WikipedianProlific's arguments for the one city and against the other are inconsistent. The list given is not subjective, nor POV as it is published by the Office for National Statistics and measures Urban Areas, not local authorities.

Local authorities are not the same as towns and cities, otherwise the map would need to mark places like "East Riding of Yorkshire", "MB of Wigan" and "City of Wakefield". If User:WikipedianProlific insists that Stoke-on-Trent is simply a collection of towns (despite almost 100 years of history suggesting otherwise), then I must insist that consistency is maintained and that the local authority of Brighton & Hove (which has a history stretching back only 10 years) is also a collection of towns. I would also be interested in User:WikipedianProlific's views on whether Sandwell, Kirkless, Trafford and Tameside are a single town. Fingerpuppet 17:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should Cornwall get special treatment? Swansea, Aberdeen, Hull and Middlesbrough are all much bigger and important regional centres. Besides, Plymouth is the centre of employment and entertainment for most people in Cornwall anyway. Marky-Son 17:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Simple answer, people are approaching this with the NPOV they would bring to an article, but its a map not an article! Practically is an issue and we have plenty of room for a label in the cornwall region of the map as there is very little down there, labels for wolverhampton, birmingham, coventry and nottingham though are all in an area potentially packed with labels and so we will have to reduce how many we use. I appreciate people are now arguing the basis of the statistics, what i'm saying is the literal size of cities does not confer any real importance or meaning on a map. Some cities are of strategic, historic, administrative, economic or logistical importance. Equally, labelling some cities which are in close proximity will be mecessaru, i.e. if southampton is labelled portsmouth is effectively covered and if birmingham is labelled wolverhampton is covered as there is not room for both, however big or small their population. Population is only one factor in determining the importance of a city, hence why just making a map of the top 10 cities or whatever will not make a great diagram. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 15:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't see the problem with having Southampton and Portsmouth as they both already fit onto the map without any problem. I don't see how Southampton covers Portsmouth, yet Plymouth isn't good enough to cover all the small towns in Cornwall. Southampton is an inland industrial port and Portsmouth is a naval port, both are distict now and historically. I don't see the problem with using the biggest cities, unless there is no more room, so maybe Wolverhampton could be left out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marky-Son (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends on where you stick the labels, obviously - there's an awful lot of Mid-Wales for a Wolverhampton label to go into, whilst Birmingham fits nicely underneath its "dot"! Seriously, that was my point entirely - try to fit them in by population size, but if there's no way they fit, or if it makes it look particularly messy, then the "next" one in the list could be added. Southampton could fit to the left of the "dot", whilst Portsmouth could easily fit to the right or beneath its "dot". However, Portsmouth's down at number 26, so it may well not get on anyway. Fingerpuppet 18:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone with the right software please be bold and add Leeds, Sheffield to the map? It is quite obvious we need some more Yorkshire dots in there, even if it means removing Middlebrough. --Asterion^talk 20:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest York is marked. As in "Yorkshire," and a highly noteable city in terms of british history.[11]D.C.Rigate 05:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It stikes me as absolutely potty to have a map of Europe, the EU, with the UK highlighted. It would be infinitely preferable, in my view, to have a more detailed map of the United Kingdom (or British Isles). This article is about the UK! Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that the infobox map is there to focus on the position of the UK in the world, i.e. where it is in relation to larger features in the world. This is in a similar situation to other country articles around the world, so when people see a world map, they can say which country the UK is and where about it is.

A map focused on the UK would only show where it is in relation to close countries, such as France or Ireland. A more detailed map of the country (cities and natural features etc) is still in the Geography section, where a description of the geography of the country can lie alongside. I would say such a map is more useful there than in an infobox, which is usually just an overview. Rossenglish 14:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A good point. But surely then the United Kingdom should be centred on the map? Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is usually what most infobox country maps do, but for countries which are on the edge of a land-mass (like the UK), a map centred directly on the country would mostly show ocean, so more land being shown gives a better context - it is easier to see the UK on the edge of Europe than on the edge of the North Atlantic Ocean.

Also, the image used currently is derived from one that is standard across European country articles (like

USA infobox). Rossenglish

17:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a UK centered image would place it in the centre of mostly the atlantic ocean which isn't very helpful, its useful to be able to scale the UK against other european neighbours. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 20:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)