Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 33

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

Okay, so there is much coverage on whether the U.K. is actually a democracy any longer since MP’s have openly refused to implement the result. With this in mind I recommend we edit the article to read that the U.K. was until very recently a democracy but now that status is in question. Not that the U.K. is no longer a democracy but that the status has a question mark attached. Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Doesnt really need to change just because you disagree with the actions of elected officials doesnt question the status as a democracy. Being a democracy allows you to change the elected officials if you are not happy and that is still possible through a free vote at the next general election. MilborneOne (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The referendum had as much legal effect as an opinion poll. It is up to the UK government to decide if it wants to implement the result or not. Frenzie23 (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Who did I disagreed with MP’s? You seem to be trying to assign an Venda where there is none, making assumptions about another editor based on nothing whatsoever, The current political status is in question and should be addressed, why are you so adamant that the issue which has been widely disseminated be hidden? Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry perhaps we jumped to the conclusion that the "result" you talked about was the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum perhaps you need to explain which result or issue makes you think the UK is no longer a democracy. MilborneOne (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It is things like ‘the referendum had as much legal effect an an opinion poll’ that concerns me, any editor with a neutral point of view would never have written that especially so considering the U.K. government has given the ‘opinion poll’ the weight of primary legislation. I think that if you have a political position on the issue perhaps you should back off from reverting other editors edits who are only trying to (neutrally) reflect the facts.Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Please indent your conversation as it makes the thread easier to follow. I've done it for you in the paragraph above. Bazza (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think there is some confusion here. I am referring to the coverage that U.K. mp’s have openly stated that they refuse to implement the result of the 2016 EU referendum which is politically huge. I don’t care one way of the other but there has been both national and international press coverage of the issue. So when I go to edit the article to reflect this my edit is immediately reverted with an editor accusing me of holding some sort of,political position and promoting an agenda which is completely unacceptable.Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I hadnt actually seen your edit to the article but as it has been challenged you really need to gain a consensus here for adding it. That said any discussion on your or anybody elses motives or agenda are not acceptable. MilborneOne (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

(ec)The referendum on 2016 was, indeed, non-binding. Nonetheless, as I understand the mechanism being used, your and my representatives in parliament have been holding the government, led by a prime minister (who we do not elect), as it implements leaving the European Union. Those representatives were chosen by eligible voters in 2017. That is all by-the-by for this article, though. On the more general point of the UK being a democracy, I've had the rare pleasure of casting votes in two elections this month. I wasn't coerced into voting one way or another, nor do I have any reason to suppose my votes were not taken into account in determining my representatives in local government and the European parliament. The fact that none are my own preferences are neither here nor there: that is, I believe, how democracy works. You will need to provide good, concrete and reliable references for your assertion that the UK is not a democracy, sufficiently robust to counter any which will assert that it is, these including references for my anecdotal evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazza 7 (talk • contribs)

Roland of Yew, you are barking up the wrong tree. Check out democracy for some pointers, or if that does not help, try Parliament of the United Kingdom Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

There are clearly degrees of democracy. The Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe mostly styled themselves "democracies", as did other communist one-party states. I know this won't please Remain-inclined readers, but if the UK remains in the EU in spite of the 2016 referrendum result, then its democratic credentials must be compromised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

You could just as well argue that the UK's democratic creditials are compromised if the UK *does* leave the EU, since the referendum was deeply flawed in all sorts of ways (fraud, lies, etc.). Equally, many observers have long argued that the UK is not very democratic because its first-past-the-post voting system fails to reflect the views of the voters in proportional terms. The fact remains that the UK counts as a democratic country in the generally understood meaning of that term, which the Soviet satellite countries plainly did not, whatever they may have called themselves. --Alarics (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It’s a representative democracy, not a plebiscite democracy User:Regularuk (talk)

This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This change refers to the start of the article where it is discussed what the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is commonly known as.

The sole change would be from Britain to Great Britain as the United Kingdom (UK) as a whole is commonly referred to as simply Great Britain. Although people may refer to the island as Britain meaning the UK this is not its full and proper name. In addition to this point, one would argue that the UK being referred to as Great Britain not just simply Britain is no less common or perhaps even more common that the whole of the UK is referred to as Great Britain.

 Not done for now: While I am personally sympathetic to your argument, the issue is already addressed in the

Melmann (talk

) 12:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I just noticed that Wikipedia has two different articles, one for the United Kingdom and one for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Surely these need merging.Regularuk (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Regularuk, The latter is about when the what is now the Republic of Ireland was in the UK, not its current form. Adam9007 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I see, thanks for clearing that up.Regularuk (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Recommend the 'edit spat' stop & a discussion commence. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I get the point though that Cornish is a revived rather than extinct language. That is how we describe the Hebrew language. TFD (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The claim is:

Do we really wish to claim that nobody in - at all - the UK speaks Manx or Breton? And don't say, yes but it's a tiny number of people, because the same would apply to Cornish. Kahastok talk 18:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Cornish should be mentioned because it’s one of the four regional indigenous Celtic languages recognised by the European charter. However, unlike Welsh and Gaelic, it has no first language speakers. I’ve amended text with citation stating this. DeCausa (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kahastok: That's hairsplitting and irrelevant. It's perfectly clear what is meant, and no one will be mislead. Endymion.12 (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Cornish has crept in to this article and several others [1] as a normal living language on a par with Welsh. This has been caused by agenda pushing Celts, by a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on with the Cornish language, and by those wiki editors who like seeing how many languages they can cram into a wiki article. The ambiguity over how to refer to it on wp is about the word extinct and what constitutes a 'speaker'. I take the view that the default meaning of speaker is someone who speaks it as a mother tongue, an L1 speaker, and not someone who has learned it as a second language. L2, later, to a non-defined level. Otherwise, anybody who has been to school in the UK could claim to be a French or German speaker. Similarly, extinct should mean as a default position, when the last L1 speaker dies. However, extinct, or rather not extinct, can correctly be applied to a language undergoing revision or being used in some way, such as Latin. This is not defined, hence my preference to link extinct with the last L1 speaker. It is fallaciously misleading to compare Hebrew with Cornish. Hebrew is a genuine, and AFAIK only, revived language, with countless L1 speakers. This idea that the UK acknowledges officially that Cornish is a minority spoken language because it has confirmed the EU charter is wrong. Under the EU charter for regional or minority language, Cornish is a regional language that affects the culture in Cornwall. There is nothing that says it needs to be a minority living language like Scottish Gaelic. Hence the use of 'or', not 'and' in the Charter's name. The figures quoted for the number of 'speakers' of Cornish come from either census data (primary source) or from L2 speakers. As such, they are highly misleading. I agree that Cornish should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but it should not be treated in the same way that we treat Welsh or indeed Polish or Hindi. Why not insert Latin? My guess is there are more people in the UK that speak Latin to a high level of competency than Cornish. Or Norn, a UK language that became extinct after Cornish. (To answer myself, Norn has not had the same promotion or public profiling in the Shetlands as has Cornish in Cornwall.) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest my amendment this evening caters for all your issues: it references Cornish but differentiates it from Welsh and Gaelic to make clear it is a ‘second language only’; it effectively differentiates from Polish or Latin as an (historic) indigenous language; it differentiates from Norn in that it is recognised in the European Charter - yes, the fact that Cornish has a different political profile to Norn does justify a mention when Norn does not. DeCausa (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

This is perhaps peripheral, but just in case it creeps into the article, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is not an EU treaty, but a Council of Europe one. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Do we need to show the constituent country flags in the infobox? Note, that Northern Ireland doesn't have a flag of its own, while England, Scotland & Wales do. Thus the potential for edit squabbles. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Convention on most other articles is to show them -----Snowded ^TALK 15:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but as we all know, anything related to the UK, tends to need special treatment. It's always a potential powder keg, when British nationality in any form is the topic. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You are making an unnecessary drama of the issue - every now and then on the other articles we get an editor (generally a onetime IP) adding the Red Hand, its promptly reverted and the matter is over. There has been very little contention on the BI issue for several years now thanks to various editors settling things down and properly researching names (which is why we don't use 'constituent' for example although you never miss an opportunity). Go with convention ... -----Snowded ^TALK 15:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree the issue with Northern Irish identity is a sensitive topic, both politically and to the Northern Irish people, however, the three national flags of England, Scotland and Wales are still in use and universally recognised as national flags for those countries, whereas, the Ulster Banner is not recognised as a national flag of Northern Ireland and has long been the case not to use this on the Northern Ireland page. However, I feel that depriving the usage of the flags of England, Scotland and Wales in the infobox of the United Kingdom page is somewhat a shame considering the historical affiliation these flags have with their associated countries. I feel that having the flags included in the infobox gives users and visitors to the page more scope to gain an understanding of the make up of the United Kingdom at a quick glance should they wish, rather than having to read parts of the article to gain this knowledge. Goodreg3 (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a heavily watched article. Just all of you be mindful of the passions around this general topic, if/when either of you 're-insert' those constituent flags. That's all. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Being from the UK myself, I am completely aware of the sensitivity of national identity to the Northern Irish people, we have lived with it for years. However, I think it is somewhat absurd to think this will start any form of edit war on the main UK page, as, for a substantial period of time, the Northern Ireland page has gone without any national flag being shown, despite England, Scotland and Wales having their national flag being shown. Not all will appreciate and understand the reasons why the Ulster Banner has not been shown on the NI, despite the fact it is not a national flag and is not recognised as an official symbol of Northern Ireland. Goodreg3 (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Remember that this discussion is about the icons in the UK infobox, not the portrayal of flags the four constituent parts' pages. It is entirely appropriate to show the Cross of St George on England and I cannot believe that such usage would cause any to immediately think the Northern Ireland page needed editing. I do however think that seeing a list of four parts with three of the four having icons just looks wrong. Worse, if it leads to a flag being added for NI there are at least three that could be added according to partisan adherence: Red Hand, Tricolour or St. Patrick. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware that the discussion here is in regards to the flag icons in the infobox. And of course, it is entirely necessary for the Saltire to be shown on the Scotland page, St. George's Cross on England etc, etc. However, I think we need to get some consensus here surrounding the flags in the UK infobox as this appears to be going nowhere other than people adding their opinions. Personally, I think the inclusion of the flags for the three countries with national and recognised flags gives the article more meaning to users who wishes to gain a better knowledge into the composition of the UK at quick glance, rather than having to scroll the full article for this information. Goodreg3 (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree and its not an issue elsewhere. We can add a note which links to the article which describes why there is no flag - and that is of itself of interest -----Snowded ^TALK 15:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Will many people be able to recognise the flags and not be able to read the names? As regards notes and links, this is an infobox which should just be a quick summary, not a detailed analysis. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I feel the flags make it more noticeable, otherwise, many may scroll past. I have re-added the flags with a note explaining Northern Ireland, albeit brief and straight to the point. Goodreg3 (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Such much for the note :( GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Why does it need to be more noticeable, though, given that the same argument could be applied to any other material in the infobox? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The flags are just being used for decoration and really are not needed in the infobox per

WP:INFOBOXFLAG. MilborneOne (talk

) 17:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I checked over the infobox of many other sovereign state articles. Not only are these types of flags not shown, but neither are shown the areas that those flags represent. See Canada, United States, Romania, Germany etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about other articles that deal with the British Isles where we have two sovereign states and five countries -----Snowded ^TALK 18:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as this article is about the UK and the UK flag is not disputed, why not attach the flag icons from within the UK flag that represent the separate countries, eg St George's Cross for England. Then GoodDay would get the discussion he seems to want. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

So now you want to mark the Welsh out as different? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I checked over more sovereign state articles & so far, this article is the only one with a Membership section to its infobox. But again, I appreciate that the UK tends to be treated differently, so I'll leave it up to the rest of you. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the infobox flags should be removed. They add nothing and are confusing and aesthetically unpleasant. They serve no purpose. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

They never used to be there, and I have no issue with them being there, as it does represent each countries flag. Kingdom of the Netherlands also has flags listed for each country.  — Calvin999 14:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it does not represent each country's flag. On the UK flag Wales is represented by the Cross of St George, and more debatable, NI is represented by St Patrick's Cross. The UK and the Kingdom of the Netherlands are quite different in many ways and should not be compared in this way. Without a good reason, which does not exist in this UK article, flags should be left out of infoopx. One main UK flag at the top is all that is needed. Further detail can come in the main article below.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand that. The UK has four countries (that is established and referenced), three of them have flags one does not (also established by references over multiple debates). So what is the problem?-----Snowded ^TALK 23:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

See the Union Jack article which, being Wikipedia, it must be true. It says Notably, the home country of Wales is not represented separately in the Union Flag, as the flag was designed after the invasion of Wales in 1282. Hence Wales as a home country today has no representation on the flag; it appears under the cross of St George, which represents the former Kingdom of England (which included Wales). Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you misinterpreted. I said that the info box does represent each countries flag. I didn't say the Union flag represents all 4 countries with an element of each of their flags on the Union flag. I agree with Snowded here. I don't have an issue with the flags being included or not. I just highlighted that the Kingdom of the Netherlands is also comprised of 4 constituent countries and does not bare elements of all 4 flags.  — Calvin999 10:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Northern Ireland to be removed from the Constituent Countries list as it is not a constituent country, it is a region. Golem08 (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: - Not done per multiple previous discussions - please check the archives. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

   I summarized with this:

A bold edit; if I hit the jackpot, fine; if not, revert me and send out an alert on the talk page, and someone who understand the policy issue as well as I, and knows a better way to implement the the solution I intended can tweak my version until it's sound.

Those skilled with Template:distinguish-2 will immediately

1. grasp my my intention
2. revert my edit
3. do it over the right way.

Cheerio, old chaps!
--JerzyA (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I removed the mention of the outdated BBC policy for the use of "Britain" since it seems it is no longer used. See for example https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-49903759

Also, the policy was plain wrong when it said ([2]):

British means 'belonging or relating to Great Britain'.

Vpab15 (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at

) 00:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Welsh and Scottish Gaelic have an official status above the other minority languages

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Welsh and Scottish Gaelic do have some sort of explicit (limited) official status within the whole of the United Kingdom under UK law, not just in Wales, England and Wales or Scotland, unlike Scots, Ulster Scots, Cornish or Irish (the last of which definitely remains unofficial even in Northern Ireland, along with Ulster Scots), which are 'sort of' recognised (administratively, by HM Government (the executive)) but they remain legally-speaking 'unofficial'. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

What's your point? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You sound rude, which is uncalled for... anyway, I am saying (if you can actually read, well, I would like to think you can because I like to give people benefit of the doubt) that Welsh and Scottish Gaelic should be moved up, from 'Recognised regional or minority languages', to 'official language' (because they do have official status under UK law of some sort), although not under the same line as English. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 12:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The Welsh Language Act 1993 [3] (E1: "This version of this provision extends to England and Wales only; a separate version has been created for Scotland and Northern Ireland only." [4]) ("The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."); and the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005; Sch 1, Para 1(1)(c) of the British Nationality Act 1981: "Subject to paragraph 2, the requirements for naturalisation as a British citizen under section 6(1) are, in the case of any person who applies for it—that he has a sufficient knowledge of the English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic language; and". No other law (currently) exists for either Cornish, Irish, Ulster Scots or Scots. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You also sound rude:

reliable sources stating what you assert, then the article may be updated. But you need to stop your rudeness otherwise nobody will bother to do what you ask. Bazza (talk

) 12:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

It is a very rude way of reply here in the UK (without actually resorting to swearing), and (most) people understand it 'as such'... as you should know. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

English is the recognised national language, therefore no changes to the infobox are required. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Then how do you explain [5] ("Welsh is an official language in Wales (along with English) and is protected by legislation."), [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] and [30]? 194.207.146.167 (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the United Kingdom, not only Wales. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Let me break it to you very slowly... unlike Canada, the United Kingdom is NOT a federal country, and (because of this) the Welsh Language Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom as far as certain (limited) functions of the UK Government are concerned. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Welsh is an official language in Wales only. For example, we don't hear Welsh being spoken in the Scottish Parliament. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The Scottish Parliament is most certainly not part of the UK Government. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a part of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

And so is Wales. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The Welsh language is not an official language of the entire United Kingdom, whereas the english language is. I don't support what you're trying to push on this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

What I am perhaps suggesting is e.g. (more akin/similar) what they have in the Infobox for Italy. I am NOT for a moment suggesting that English should be changed to 'English, Welsh, Scottish Gaelic'. I am not sure what the Canadian chap here and his unique Canadian perspective, most amusing and fascinating as it always is, is entirely relevant here, with the greatest of respect... 194.207.146.167 (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Your attitude isn't appreciated. Feel free though, to try & convince others of your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Canadian topics are your stronger suit? 194.207.146.167 (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep up with that attitude if you wish. But, keep in mind, there's other establish editors on Wikipedia who aren't as patient as myself. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the Literature section really makes no sense:

”Authors of other nationalities, particularly from Commonwealth countries, the Republic of Ireland and the United States, have lived and worked in the UK. Significant examples through the centuries include Jonathan Swift, Oscar Wilde, Bram Stoker, George Bernard Shaw, Joseph Conrad, T. S. Eliot, Ezra Pound and, more recently, British authors born abroad such as Kazuo Ishiguro and Sir Salman Rushdie.”

Wilde and Stoker, though Irish, were throughout their lives United Kingdom (as was) subjects and were certainly not Rep. of Ireland or Commonwealth nationals. Distinguishing Conrad and Eliot from Ishiguro and Rushdie makes no sense - they all became British nationals and the intro to the paragraph is equally inappropriate for all four. Shaw was born in the United Kingdom (as was) was a British citizen and only acquired Irish citizenship in the 1930s. Other than a couple of years in the 1690s, Swift lived his entire life in the kingdom of Ireland. As far as I can see, the intro to this paragraph only really applies to Pound.

Categorising British writers separately because of their origins seems verging on the offensive to me. However, because of the division into English, Welsh and Scottish sections (where’s Northern Irish e.g. louis MacNeice?) it seems difficult to integrate them into the existing structure. Hence this amendment. I’ve left out Swift and clarifying that Shaw lived in England after Irish independence doesn’t seem worth the text. I’ve also left out the two citations as they are irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Despite some attempts to sort it out, we still have a confused infobox when it comes to official languages. If we avoid the usual squabble and assume English as a de facto can be and is official, and that any de jure language is also official, then the UK has only three official languages, one national and two regional. The EU charter is a red herring beloved by the Cornish language revivalists and the wp crowd who love filling in templates. The EU charter is part of a treaty and as such has no standing in UK law. It does not bestow any official standing or acknowledgement on the languages mentioned in the Charter. As such, it is totally misleading to put Ulster Scots and the others in the same category as Welsh and Scottish Gaelic, both of which do have official status, if only at a UK regional level. I suggest removing the section about regional languages and moving Welsh and Scottish Gaelic into the official language section with English (noting their regional official status. Those other languages can be mentioned in the subsection on languages, but not in the infobox. Only three weeks to go though you might say. But why wait? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

In the official language part, it's English & only English. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that. I am glad that you are as concerned about that as I am, with there being two other official languages within the UK. I randomly looked at the Netherlands and Sweden for a comparison, two countries in a similar situation to the UK. They adopt similar methods as my UK suggestion, describing Finnish, Sami, and Frisian as official minority languages and official regional languages. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It should be only English, in the official language part. For example, in the British Parliament, only English is used by all members of the House of Commons & Lords. GoodDay (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I have reworded in infobox but more changes there are still needed. There are two seperate issues here. One, as mentioned by GoodDay is whether a language that is official in only part of the UK should be described as official in the UK. He thinks no, I think yes, with a side note. The second is the misuse of the EU charter to try to given some sort of official status to those other languages. I will try to finish off the alterations soon. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

We'll see what others think, about your recent change. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I think the introduction's "land mass" should be changed to "landmass". I don't remember encountering "land mass" and think it's an error, but I don't know for sure that it's just a British versus US usage issue. 73.31.191.202 (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

My additions were removed from the page despite been factually correct and adjusting for new laws that make it illegal to abolish devolution, and my information came from the legislation in question.

I also added that rightfully the Devolved Parliaments can take cases of constitution & devolved competence to the UK Supreme Court, which is again factually correct, has happened already and again is take from legislation. ChefBear01 (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t revert you, but I think it was right based on how you worded it. Per

WP:PRIMARY, it’s dangerous to simply rely on a primary source such as legislation. You need to have a secondary source to interpret. To properly cover the ‘permanence’ point in the legislation would require quite a lengthy of discussion of its interpretation. It’s not clear cut, partly because of the way the legislation is worded and partly because of the long-standing principle that Parliament can’t bind itself (I.e. it could simply repeal the legislation). See this secondary source on the Scotland Act for example. DeCausa (talk

) 17:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with above. Interpreting legislation, even for something that might not seem contentious, is original research. It happens far too often on WP. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change the caption "Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister since 2019" to "Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister since 2020" One last sausage roll (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No, he became PM in July 2019. GoodDay (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Brexit has now taken place almost a week ago. How much longer will the current event template be on the article? I get why it was there for a couple of days, but surely it is no longer needed? Any changes related to it will have been made by now. RWB2020 (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks RWB2020 (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The article is correct that usage of the term 'Britain' is mixed, with some using it to mean 'Great Britain' and others 'United Kingdom', but note 11 isn't right to say the UK Government has come down in favour of 'Britain' meaning 'Great Britain'. The relevant entry carefully avoids saying anything either way explicitly, but if anything 'Use UK and United Kingdom in preference to Britain and British' implies the opposite - 'in preference to' is not the same as 'because this is different to'.

Given the sensitivities for some over explicitly decoupling 'Britain' (and therefore potentially 'British') from the UK as a state, Northern Ireland unionists in particular, it's not surprising that the style guide is to avoid the issue. Prime Ministers and other government ministers, of course, regularly use 'Britain' as a colloquialism for the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.18.235 (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. That note is clearly factually inaccurate and does not in any way say what the source claims. No where on that style guide from the British Government does it say Britain means Great Britain. All they put under "Britain" is that UK is preferable, but even that does not say do not use it and by only mentioning the UK there it clearly reinforces they know Britain = United Kingdom. A quick search on the British Governments website will find numerous recent examples of "Britain" referring to the UK.

So the note is completely wrong about the British Government position so that must be changed, possibly to say the UK Government uses Britain to refer to the UK but its style guide says it is preferable to use UK.

The note also claims some organisations use Britain for GB, who are these organisations, because the vast majority of uses of Britain is clearly about the UK, not just England, Wales and Scotland or the island. If no sources are provided to back up the claim, then that bit must be removed as well. RWB2020 (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

"No where on that style guide from the British Government does it say Britain means Great Britain". Well, the entry for Britain is a cross-reference to Great Britain, so that does give the impression that it means that, but then there's a separate entry for Britain under the latter. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The words "See Great Britain" on that site mean simply that the definition of "Britain" is found under the entry for "Great Britain" - not that the two are synonymous. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant - but I was also pointing to a possible source of the view that it was being treated as synonymous. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Even with that directing to that section it still does not match what the note its saying though. For the note to be accurate the definition under Britain would have to say its about GB, but instead it just says its preferable to use UK. Whole part of that note still should be removed or just say the Gov regularly uses Britain as shorthand for UK but style guide says its preferable to use UK. RWB2020 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself clearly, but I agree that the source does not support the interpretation in the note. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

As indicated above, there are political nuances in the sources cited for the Note, but if rewriting the Note, it would be well to have in mind also that Style guide = "set of standards for the writing, formatting and design of documents", while Definition = "a statement of the meaning of a term (a word, phrase...) ... intensional definitions which try to give the sense of a term and extensional definitions which try to list the objects that a term describes. ...ostensive definitions, which convey the meaning of a term by pointing out examples. A term may have many different senses and multiple meanings, and thus require multiple definitions." In the context of the article, is it a question of (house) style or defining the use of the name in a given context? Qexigator (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Section 10.2 of the reference

I am not fussed which, but we do not need both -----Snowded ^TALK 19:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. I’m with Bazza. The govt. source makes a point of giving both and see no reason why this shouldn’t be reflected. DeCausa (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Because every initialism can use either style. And no Wikipedia article is going to mix up the styles. It has nothing to do with individual initialisms. In British English we don't tend to style initialisms with full stops, hence throughout this article this isn't done for any initials.

As I said, the government source is a style guide, this is an Encyclopedic article.

Rob984 (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@DeCausa: It's comparatively recently that newspapers have dropped the full stops in initials. You'd have been told off for doing that in English when I was at school so the claim "In British English we don't tend to style initialisms with full stops" is a little sweeping. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I was there too. Why did you ping me? DeCausa (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Because I need

WP:TROUTing! I should have pinged Rob984. Apologies for the noise. Martin of Sheffield (talk

) 12:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Both not really needed in the first sentence of the article, just use UK as the more common variant. The reader doesnt need a punctuation lesson this early in the article (if ever). MilborneOne (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The same old wrangle happens over the pond with U.S. and US. Personally, I prefer UK and US
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Keep as is - Both the UK and U.K. are used however like Gareth I use UK/US too, I don't see any reason to choose one format over another when both are used. –Davey2010^Talk 11:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as is - Totally agree with Dave. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Nobody's proposing changing "UK" to "U.K.", just whether both styles need listing in the lead because the "Toponymic guidelines" published by the government explicitly lists both styles. I still don't see a justification for why it's helpful to specify an alternative style for initials in the instance of "UK"? As I said, this applies to all initialisms, why do we need to clarify that it is acceptable to use "U.K."? Is a trivial grammatical clarification relevant to an encyclopedia article on the United Kingdom? United States does the reverse and specifies "US" is also acceptable when "U.S." is used throughout the article. Also equal silliness. If anything, it's inferring to the reader that initialisms can't all be styled both ways, which is misinforming. Rob984 (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I started this conversation only because the reference given in the article explicitly gives both UK and U.K. as abbreviations of the full name. If it hadn't, then I would support specifying UK only and have made Rob984's recent edit myself ages ago when both first appeared. Bazza (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be best to just have UK there rather than include U.K. as well. Surely we should just include the most commonly used in the introduction, and that is UK, not U.K. No problems with the article also saying U.K. is also used with the relevant information, but its certainly not very common to justify inclusion in the intro. The U.S. article has been mentioned, but there is far more use of that method than the U.K. I dont think anyone here would advocate we use U.K. throughout this article rather than UK, so why is it needed in the intro anyway? RWB2020 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The

The State is not England and the Church is disestablished in Wales -----Snowded ^TALK 07:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Is there a reason why " Existing under its current name since 1927" has been put in the second sentence of the article? That seems to be a fairly recent inclusion. That surely belongs later on in the introduction after the sentence about Ireland leaving the United Kingdom? It makes no sense for the formal date of an official name change to be given such prominence? I really cannot see any justification for it being there, it would only be justified if it was a very recent change, not something almost 100 years ago. Other country articles do not seem to include such dates. RWB2020 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks fine to me where it is in the current version [31], grouped with other historical details. ghouston (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks i made the change to that current version yesterday as nobody had responded with any objections. i do think it makes much more sense for those historic details to be together, and like i said before, this was returning it to how it had been handled in the intro for years anyway until about a month ago. RWB2020 (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect UNited Kingdom. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Royal coats of arms: Main variant; Scottish variant
ISO 3166 code	GB

I am proposing using the "other_symbol" parameter so that both official variants of coat of arms can be included together in the infobox. While the non-Scottish version is more common, the Scottish one is equally official and used in Scotland and should probably be included visually in the infobox. Preview on the right. TrailBlzr (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I have removed "left" & "right" Both are redundant and it is neater without them. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone find a better term than "main", it slightly diminishes the importance of the Scottish variant. One can hardly say "English, Welsh and Northern Irish variant" but that's what's required. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Martin. How about predominant? (Also, spaced endash instead of ... ) Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

"Primary"? TrailBlzr (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

How about 'Scottish' and 'Rest of UK'? Birtig (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I presume they are of equal status throughout the UK. making the term 'Scottish variant' not quite accurate? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

We could follow the approach adopted by the Monarchy’s official website here. I would interpret this by removing the heading on top of both arms completely. The caption under the “main” coat of arms on the left would simply be “Royal Coat of Arms”. The caption under the arms on the left would then be “Scottish version”. DeCausa (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd concur with DeCausa except possibly use "Royal Coat of Arms ... in Scotland" and the subtitle (pace TrailBlzr). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin of Sheffield (talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagree with this change proposed by TrailBlzr as the article's infobox involves the United Kingdom as a whole, despite the monarch using a special coat of arms in just Scotland. Would argue that only the former coat of arms should be included. Though will leave this to consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk • contribs) 15:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The Royal Coat of Arms for the whole of the United Kingdom is applicable throughout the nation. The version for Scotland could perhaps be used for Scotland's page, but really unsightly and out of place as it looks incredibly crammed, and especially on a Wikipedia page about the UK as a whole.

The Royal Coat of Arms is applied across the UK alone for many institutions and governments, e.g. on passports, in Scottish courts, embassies, consulates, and in many other official uses, so this dual version is confusing to say the least.

Why was this rushed through without consensus of any great measure? AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"Placed at the heart of the identity system is the Royal Coat of Arms, designed by Reynolds Stone and approved by Her Majesty The Queen in 1956. The Royal Coat of Arms provides a clear and distinguishable visual reference for HM Government" "When applying the government identity system the majority of organisations will use the Royal Coat of Arms." "Organisations specific to Scotland should adopt the Royal Coat of Arms Scotland, a variant which is used by the Scotland Office." "The primary symbol for use with the government identity system is the Royal Coat of Arms." https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/362346/hmg_identity_system_guidelines_2012.pdf AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

There’s consensus - only you object. None of what you said is new or unknown. There are 2 coats of arms used by the UK’s head of state. The article reflects that. That’s it. DeCausa (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed a typo on your page. The UK is not a country but a sovereign state. Could this please be corrected? Samanthajaneh1 (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

If you can describe the difference, it might get changed. But the article on country suggests the word is fine to use here. Bazza (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Samantha. You are absolutely correct, but there has been a lot of edit warring over this in the past and any change needs to be discussed on the talk page and agreed beforehand. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a country, all reliable sources say so. Any attempt to change the long standing wording of this article must be reverted. Strongly oppose any change. RWB2020 (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

A country may be an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state. The UK is a sovereign state, which is one type of country. The four constituents of the UK are examples of the other type of country. The lead says "sovereign country", which is correct and precise. "Sovereign state" would also be true but, at a global level, "state" has the same vagueness as "country": just as England is a non-sovereign country, Alabama is a non-sovereign state. Certes (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It was not the first country in the world to industrialise, many Asian and Middle-Eastern countries industrialised before that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardian101 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Source? -----Snowded ^TALK 20:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I reverted today's change. A reason was given for its re-revert, namely: "As of today the Welsh legislature is known as Senedd Cymru/Welsh Parliament. https://nation.cymru/news/adieu-assembly-hello-welsh-parliament-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-senedds-name-change/". Common name applies? Opinion? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely no good reason to continue to use an incorrect and outdated name. The official name, now, is Senedd Cymru, or Welsh Parliament - and the common name is and is likely to continue to be, the Senedd. Sources for the change include this, this, this, this, etc. etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a reason which must be considered, namely that of

WP:COMMONNAME, it seems that WP should refer to it as "the Senedd". (And giving four references in that manner followed by etc. etc. looked a bit disrespectful to this conversation.) Bazza (talk

) 08:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This article should probably use whatever the specific article title is (which will likely reflect the common name), unless there's a compelling reason otherwise. However, that seems to be in flux at the moment, and I agree with Ghmyrtle that the common name is just as arguably the Senedd, so we should switch from the formal "Welsh Assembly" to "Welsh Parliament". I don't think we need to dwell on former names here, although given this is a very recent event the clarification doesn't hurt for the meantime. CMD (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I was not being "disrespectful", merely attempting to be helpful. I would be happy if it were accepted that "Senedd" is the common name, though the official name in English is "Welsh Parliament". There also needs to be a discussion at the article which is (at the time of writing this) called

Senedd Cymru. Ghmyrtle (talk

) 08:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Although it relates to article titles, the princial does still apply here I think. That is: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. a source saying what it thinks the common name will be does not make it the common name, so those references are no good. Because it is so soon after the event we simply do not know whether this new name will become the commonly used name by a significant majority of reliable sources. We therefore need to work with what we've got, which is RSSs over the last ten years or so. We can mention the new official name, but that is not the same as using it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

We should not contain material that is clearly out-of-date. The name of the institution, now, is the Welsh Parliament or Senedd Cymru, and the article should state that. If you want to add an explanation, that it was previously called something else and its name changed as from 6 May 2020, that's a different matter - it could be done so long as it doesn't bloat the text. In any case, as you say,

WP:COMMONNAME does only apply to article titles, not text in other articles. Ghmyrtle (talk

) 09:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The switch from Assembly to Parliament is significant and I'd argue that "the Senedd" is common use and has been for some time in Wales -----Snowded ^TALK 11:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Snowded: Has it been in common use among anglophone Welsh or only Welsh speakers? Remember this is an English language Wiki, and our articles should follow English language usages giving native terms where appropriate. It's also well worth drawing attention to the pronunciation; if you use it as an unqualified English word it would be pronounced "sen-ed", if explained as a foreign language word then the correct pronunciation can be given. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, common use with anglophone Welsh (of whom I am one) agree on pronounciation -----Snowded ^TALK 13:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If the primary concern is english-only readers? then use Welsh Parliament, alone or with the Welsh version. Not everyone can read the Welsh language, so it doesn't hurt to have the english version included. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I was surprised to see this edit of mine reverted by

RWB2020 was correct to revert to the long-established version, which I seem to remember has been the subject of past discussions. The words "Although the United Kingdom is a sovereign country.." say nothing about the future status of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland - the phrase is a neutral and factual statement that simply serves to differentiate between two of the many different meanings of the word "country". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

As Ghmyrtle says it’s a long-established version which was the subject of past discussion. I think that’s probably an understatement. I think there was near interminable discussion with a myriad of issues bubbling around. It’s probably a compromise and like all compromises it’s not perfect but is superior to opening a rather pointless can of worms. My 2p anyway. DeCausa (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You miss the point of my reversal. 'Although' is a conjunction used to convey the unexpected. Although "the UK is a sovereign country" (statement that now requires something unexpected..."ESNIW are also referred to as countries". To be surprised the reader needs to expect a country to be sovereign. I do not think that expectation is generally expected. The word 'country' can have many meanings, 'sovereign state' being only one of them. This all means that the current sentence is using somebody's opinion of what a country is, which is OR. The sentence needs to be rearranged. It may have been discussed before, but that does not make it right.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say. An unsourced statement that the reader would expect a country to be sovereign is OR but an unsourced statement that a reader would not expect a country to be sovereign is not OR? DeCausa (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't accept the premise that "although" has connotations of "unexpected", simply "different" - but, would an old-fashioned semi-colon help? "The United Kingdom is a sovereign country; England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also widely referred to as countries.". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That still leaves the "widely referred to". How about "The United Kingdom is a sovereign country consisting of the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."? Obviously the better solution is to use the precise term "sovereign state" but that will cause about two acres of type from our American cousins! Oops! forgot to sign, sorry Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd go with that suggestion. It's a boring statement of fact, which is what's needed here. Bazza (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"Widely referred to" is completely accurate, and preferable given the lack of a definition for "country", and the firestorm that has erupted on Talk:Northern Ireland regarding this issue multiple times. CMD (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding 'widely referred to' is not acceptable. Period. Birtig (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Birtig - it is not being "added", it is a question of maintaining the long-established and previously-agreed wording, rather than changing it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe the current stable wording should remain which has been the case for a long time, its clear attempts to alter this statement is going to lead to disagreements again and these issues have been discussed in the past. The current wording is neutral, balanced and accurate. It is a reality that this is a very unique situation, there are very few examples around the world of a country consisting of four countries, and as we know some dispute the use of country to refer to Northern Ireland. Thats why the current wording is best, as they are referred to in different ways, not only ever as countries. Strongly oppose any change at all to the current wording. Also if we go down this path of changing this sentence, its going to open up arguments about changing the introduction too. RWB2020 (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed Birtig (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with the caviat that I just restored the original agreement not to use 'constituent' which was not supported by citations when we all went through that exhaustice process some years ago -----Snowded ^TALK 14:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, no need to have the word constituent there and goes against past consensus, didnt realise that had been added RWB2020 (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to have been added in this edit in late 2018. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Disagree as we still have the

WP:Weasel words actually) in the sentence "Although the United Kingdom is a sovereign country, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also widely referred to as countries. I do not think that this loaded language is appropriate in an encyclopaedia, it implies that the four home countries are not real countries. -- DeFacto (talk

). 22:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What, in your opinion, is a "real country"? There are many definitions of the word "country". This article does not need to go into an explanation of all the subtly different meanings, but it does need to set out that both the UK and E/S/W/NI can each be - and is - called a "country" - which is what the current wording does. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: my opinion is that the definition in a standard English dictionary should be used, and for "country" that would be: "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory".[36] We should not be mealy-mouthed about is. We don't see other words couched this way: we don't say "although London is a city, Birmingham, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, and Manchester are also widely referred to as cities". They are cities like E, NI, S and W are countries. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm...as there is no “English government” does that mean England fails that particular definition? Did Scotland and Wales only become countries with devolution? DeCausa (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@DeCausa: the UK government is the government of England too, and in the same way that the governments of NI, S and W make laws that only apply to their respective countries, the UK government make laws that only apply to England. What makes you think England hasn't got a government? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

On that basis everywhere in the world has its own government making either that part of the definition you have chosen otiose or your interpretation of it incorrect. I think the latter is highly likely. I also think Ghmyrtle’s comment below that this thread has added nothing to previous discussions is very true. DeCausa (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@DeCausa: sorry, I do not understand what you mean there. England is nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory - so satisfies the Oxford's definition of a country. What is the problem with that? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the key point is that the recent discussions here have not added anything new to the discussions that took place several years ago, which led to the current wording. Let's not get into the argument over whether

states. Ghmyrtle (talk

) 09:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: presumably those ancient discussions didn't cover the fact that this mealy-mouthed wording fails NPOV and is unencyclopaedic. I think it is now time to fix this, which is why I raised it. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there any of these long-standing terminology disputes on WP where the NPOV and/or ‘unencyclopedic’ buttons haven’t been pressed multiple times? DeCausa (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) I have my doubts as to whether further repetition of arguments on this page is going to resolve it in your favour, but you can always raise the question elsewhere, per

WP:DR. Ghmyrtle (talk

) 09:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Ghmyrtle and @DeFacto: those ancient discussions were, unlike your assertions, based on a comprehensive review of all the sources a large group of editors were able to find. If anything the use of 'country' has strengthened since that time. Per DeCausa's comment I've lost count of editors on a mission who didn't make similar assertion, generally without proper argument or sourcing. -----Snowded ^TALK 09:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Snowded - aren't you confusing DeFacto and DeCausa? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@DeCausa, Ghmyrtle, and Snowded: does anyone recall (or better still, can link us to) the gist of the argument that supports the use of "widely referred to as countries" rather than simply "are countries"? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No. If you look at Archive No. 1 (2005) you’ll find the first debate on the word ‘country’. (I think NPOV was deployed then). I think there’s a fair chance you’ll find at least one thread on this in each of the following 32 archives. DeCausa (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

DeFacto - the arguments over "are" versus "are widely referred to as.." mainly relates to the Northern Ireland situation - which perhaps we can all agree is complex and open to different interpretations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I may be missing something here, but we are using 'consists of' and I don't remember anyone seriously proposing 'widely refered to' and if they had it would have been rejected -----Snowded ^TALK 12:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Snowded: this discussion was started to discuss the sentence "Although the United Kingdom is a sovereign country, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also widely referred to as countries.", which still sits in the article. I'm not sure why it switched to that other sentence with "consists of" in it, which also still exists. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok checking it in more detail - we have more than one reference. The opening paragraph correctly says 'consists', in etymology we have the 'commonly refered to' which is a different context. That was negotiated from memory as a part of the use of "Prime Minister has refered". We now have more use so to change that you would have to change the whole paragraph with more uptodate material. That might make sense -----Snowded ^TALK 12:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Except that it would reopen the whole issue of whether Northern Ireland is a country - on which a range of views exists. Let's not go down that road - let's keep the wording as it is now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: given that Northern Ireland satisfies the English definition of a country - it has it's own government and a territory, why was it deemed necessary to put that fact to one side? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no single "English definition of a country". And, if you don't understand why the question of how to describe NI is contentious..... really ?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: per the Oxford dictionary cite above, there's only one definition that applies in this context, and per that one, NI is de facto, and literally, a country. That isn't to say there aren't those who would like it to be otherwise, but we should remain literal and dispassionate. The political arguments belong elsewhere. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Cornwall has a government and a territory, and is within the UK. Using that criteria to pick just four entities is not a dispassionate choice. CMD (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: do you have RSs saying Cornwall has a government? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Spurious - there are no reliable sources saying that Cornwall is a country, but there are many that say it of Wales, Scotland, NI and England -----Snowded ^TALK 15:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I think CMD’s point is that if, as DeFacto is doing, one uses a simplistic dictionary definition one ends up in trouble very easily.DeCausa (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

How can it, within the confines of

WP:NPOV, not be called a country if it fits the dictionary definition of a country? And we need to see if there are any RSs confirming that Cornwall has a "government" before we can decide why it isn't also a country. -- DeFacto (talk

). 17:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It has a government just as England has a government, just as Scotland and Wales had a government pre-1999 and just as NI has a government off and on depending how much they’ve fallen out with each other I.e. the UK government. DeCausa (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@DeCausa: don't you know? constituent countries is a dirty word for some folks on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why you addressed that to me. DeCausa (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Its one of his pet themes and he can't resist pitching it - it is one of the reasons he had a topic ban from BI articles following by an Indef for dropping provocative remarks to try and wind people up rather then focusing on improving articles to try and wind people up. We may need to go back there -----Snowded ^TALK 17:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed and the pitches aren't always so overt. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I meant if for @DeFacto:, apologies. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Cornwall doesn't have its own government. It has a County Council, which is *local* government but not what is generally meant by government *tout court*. If you go down that road you are going to have to answer to Yorkshiremen like me demanding equal treatment. -- Alarics (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that the "Formation" section should mention the founding of the European Economic Community and the U.K.'s withdrawal from the European Union. Since many political scientists are starting to consider the E.U. a sort of federation/confederation, I think that Brexit would warrant a mention in "Formation". -- RaiBrown1204 (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Weak connection - please expand Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The more items that go into that part of the infobox, the less individual prominence each item has. Joining the EU was clearly an important moment in British history, but I'm unconvinced it played as significant a role in creating the UK as the other events mentioned. CMD (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Less sure - entry and withdrawal have profound constititional implications.-----Snowded ^TALK 11:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly had a major impact on the UK’s constitution. If that’s the criteria, it’s arguable it should go in (but not because someone thinks the EU is a federation.) DeCausa (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Devolution also had major impacts to the UK's constitution, but I don't see either those events or EU entry/exit has having the same fundamental impact as what are essentially various acts of union. The exception is the current inclusion of the Irish Free State Constitution Act, which really contributed more to Ireland than to the UK. (The section is actually meant to describe what status the entity of the article is, which in this case is a sovereign state, and how it obtained that status, but that's hard to do with entities that formed prior to Westphalian sovereignty.) CMD (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

That is an argument - the two devolution acts and the Good Friday Agreement all have similar impact to those listed. -----Snowded ^TALK 13:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The UK has had the same borders for nigh on a century, no change implies no entries needed in "Formation". If the UK had remained in the EU and if the EU had become a federal super-sate, then the "formation" should reflect this. However the UK hasn't remained in, and the EU hasn't yet fully become a super-state so the dates and changes are irrelevant to the formation of the UK. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The infobox section on formation is about the formation of the United Kingdom. It would be inappropriate to include EEC membership and Brexit on that list, as neither had anything to do with the formation of the United Kingdom. Nor should devolution be included. Formation of the UK is different to significant milestones in history. If we included the EU and Devolution, what else might we have to include? NATO? UN membership? Universal Suffrage? Much better to stick with the current list of events/acts that led to the formation of the UK. RWB2020 (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

In this page it cites many places where a language has been given an official status of some kind, however, I see none for English while it's listed as official and national language. Why called it official and not de facto, unless there's some documentation for the status of "official". Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning it's everyday usage, just its legal status with this country. -- sion8 ^{talk page} 02:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

According to page 1 of this RS ‘de facto’ is one of three ways a language can be an official language. It also says English is the de facto official language of the U.K. On that basis, describing English as the ‘official language’ and the ‘de facto official language’ would both appear to be correct. DeCausa (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, as noted by that source, the Welsh Language Act 1993 makes Welsh official by declaring it equal to English, following centuries where English was often mandatory in official matters. There's probably a better way to explain the status in this article than to simply say "de facto", which brushes over centuries of historical law, and even current law, such as a requirement for English proficiency when applying for naturalisation/settlement. CMD (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is simple - the interpretation of the word 'official'. It can be used to described something defined in a written formal document (such as statute or a constitution) or something used in creating formal written documents, the second being a much looser definition. Hence the buzz word terms de jure et de facto. Further complications arise in defining 'official' when unwritten common law exists. The term 'national' language is an attempt to overcome this problem by making the distinction between the two definitions clearer and thus less contentious. Another problem that I think is often overlooked is that a de jure 'official' language often has far smaller status than a de facto 'official' language, but in wikipedia infoboxes and list articles they are portrayed as equal. I would say that Welsh is not equal to English in Wales. It is equal in certain clearly situations that are defined by statute. English is unrestricted. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change country to states. The United Kingdom isn’t a country 2001:8004:DC1:E695:341B:A8DE:7FB1:642D (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article says otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

(removed hidden) Provocative and inflammatory phrasing 'altering or abolishing devolution', clearly aimed towards Nationalists and so breaking Wikipedia's neutrality policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone June 2020 (removed hidden)

Dava4444 (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

He was right to remove you adding commentary to the main article and his edit summary explained that. That said I have removed the sentence as it is an unecessary qualification -----Snowded ^TALK 04:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's a point of detail and complexity not necessary for the lead. It's described appropriately in the Devolved Administrations section - and that's enough. It has come up before whether, because of the way it's worded, the devolution Acts attempt to bind the UK Parliament, which is an interesting (if you're interested in that sort of thing!) academic legal question and a footnote in that section might be justified on it. Probably be more trouble than it's worth though. DeCausa (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed and, per my edit summary, here is the place to resolve the matter. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Should have also added that Mutt's revert was obviously correct for the reason given in the edit summary. DeCausa (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Im not too attached to the previous wording, but i do feel that just removing that part of the sentence means the sentence is lacking as much clarity and detail as should be given. Maybe at the end of the sentence it should say something like, "whilst the UK Parliament remains responsible for all reserved matters". Also i do not understand why "apart from England" bit is linking to a page about a proposed English parliament.I dont think thats appropriate link to a proposal like that, especially one which has almost no public or political support. linking to general devolution page somewhere in the sentence would make more sense. RWB2020 (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The sentence already links to Devolution in the United Kingdom. For the lead, it's unnecessary detail to refer to reserved matters. Stating that its "devolution" (rather than "federation") gives a sufficient picture on those sort of issues at that stage of the article. DeCausa (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Concur -----Snowded ^TALK 10:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A minor discussion has started on the Ruth Ellis talk page about the use of Wales/UK in the infobox. Comments welcome. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

07:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2020

This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Organisational chart of the UK political system" should be changed to "Organisational chart of the de jure UK political system" 129.67.117.171 (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Why? --Hazhk (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The area of the uk is 245,415 square km, if viewed as a flat surface. Including the topography (to a topographical resolution of 90x90m) it goes up to 247,719 Square km! Credit: Stand-up Maths (Matt Parker & Co.) See this his YouTube channel for reference! 2A00:23C8:2981:201:59CC:4622:77A5:1169 (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't think of any other article which mentions area including topography. I think this would just cause confusion. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Another acronym for the United Kingdom is "U.K.G.B.N.I.". I think the heading should reflect this, like: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UKGBNI or U.K.G.B.N.I.), commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK or U.K.) or Britain…". RaiBrown1204 (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No, for several reasons. First, UKGBNI is never used in normal texts. Either the UK, or GB if only referring to the main island (or else being downright sloppy). Next, your UKGBNI is not an acronym – try pronouncing it! I would suggest you read our article

reliable sources before suggesting what is clearly your personal invention. Martin of Sheffield (talk

) 21:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, UKGBNI is on Wiktionary itself, so how about you do a single Internet search before you make a baseless claim against a user and saying "our" like you're a personal employee of the Wikimedia Foundation itself. Thanks. RaiBrown1204 (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary isn’t a

here. An “internet search” is meaningless because there’s a ton of nonsense and garbage on the internet. Unless reliable sources use “UKGBNI”, which they don’t, it won’t figure on Wikipedia. DeCausa (talk

) 22:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) The

initialism UKGBNI is never used in official sources, and is very rarely used anywhere else. The term "UK" is not a "commonly known" short form - it is the correct official term. There is no reason for UKGBNI to be mentioned in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk

) 22:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

saying "our" like you're a personal employee ..., I'm not an employee, but as with all editors I am a member of the community. The

genitive expresses a relationship, not just possession. Consider the phrase "my country", it does not imply you are a civil servant or head of state. Martin of Sheffield (talk

) 09:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. Just an observation. On looking through some of the economic section I was surprised that many of the claims are 15 years or more out of date. I've made a start to updating but there really is a lot to do. Regards Birtig (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

1. Talk:Overseas Pakistani#Following content was censored from the article
   .
2. Talk:British Pakistanis#Sectarianism.

Disagreement about deletion of section and sources. Requesting third opinion per

Bookku (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, can we please add the Dutch Low Saxon page onto the language links?

https://nds-nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verienigd_Keuninkriek

--Audi1merc2 (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

If “Nedersaksies” is Dutch Low Saxon (which according to the Dutch Low Saxon article it is) then it’s already there. DeCausa (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The section in 'History' under "After the Acts of Union of 1707", should mention that the King George I, and the House of Hanover were German, and he barely spoke English, and that the Scottish uprising was not just about Protestantism, but that the House of Hanover were not thought of as British by almost anyone in Britain. The uprising had a lot to do with British sovereignty, not just Catholicism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2017‎ (UTC)

Is there really a need for a whole paragraph in the History section regarding COVID-19? Considering the scope of the history section, and how small this event is in comparison, is a three line explanation really required in such a brief historical overview? SmartyPants22 (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

As consequential as the pandemic is, or will potentially prove to be, I agree that paragraph is

WP:RECENTISM at this point. DeCausa (talk

) 17:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it needs trimming - a single line would be fine. Bellowhead678 (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

For some reason, editors of this page do not consider the United Kingdom a transcontinental country, despite the fact that the article for transcontinental countries explicitly has the United Kingdom as part of its list, even in map form. People point to the fact that Crown dependencies and territories are not part of the United Kingdom, but this means it is either an inconsistency or the editors of this page are wrong in reverting my additions.

Ddum5347 (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Or editors on the transcontinental page are wrong. Fortunately wikipedia does not use wikipedia as a reference point. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The definition given for the UK on this page is clear in not in including the territories, so, yes, it's the transcontinental page that is wrong. If we have reliable references that state that the Falkland Islands (say) are widely considered as legally part of the UK, unlike the Channel Islands and Isle of Man, then the text of the article needs changing. But this seems unlikely to me. Anaxial (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

If they are referring to the colonies/BOTs, they are not integral parts of the UK. It's why Malta got rejected when they asked for integration and why Gibraltar pushed for it in the 60s and 70s. So, I think it is absolutely correct to state the UK is not a transcontinental country. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The

WP:OR. It incorrectly includes the UK. In fact, it includes this: “Debate exists on the degree to which states that have territory on another continent that is an autonomous region, and is not constitutionally an indistinguishable part of the parent state (a dependent territory), can be considered to be transcontinental. They are nevertheless included in these lists (e.g. British Overseas Territories, the United Kingdom)”. Again, unsourced - no evidence that the so-called ‘debate’ exists. Someone needs to take a hatchet to that OR-farm, including removing the unsourced UK references. I was going to edit it but that article needs much more than that to fix it. DeCausa (talk

) 10:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@

edit-warring for the last four insertions of your preferred page categorisations between 9 October and 1 Nov), only one of which contained an edit summary (you may remember, I have prompted you twice already for your failure to assist other editors to understand your editing motives by including such information?). Let's hope discussion and consensus prevails. I have also posted some concerns here Nick Moyes (talk

) 00:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Ddum5347 inserted their edit immediately after opening this thread, without waiting for further input. They were reverted once again a few hours later and I’ve added a edit-war warning to their talk page. DeCausa (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph beginning "During the 18th century, Britain was involved in the Atlantic slave trade." is biased in that it underplays the UKs major role in the slave trade.

The UK traded slaves from the 17th to the 19th centuries and was the major trader during much of that time. To say that the UK "was involved", "during the 18th century" substantially misrepresents the scale and duration of the UK's role. This can be confirmed in detail in other Wikipedia articles, e.g. see Atlantic slave trade, Royal African Company, South Sea Company.

The paragraph should be rewritten to accurately represent the actual scale and duration of the UK's role in slave trading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.21.211 (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The current article wording is fine. No need for it to be changed. RWB2020 (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. That paragraph is

WP:UNDUE: it’s heavily weighted in favour of talking about abolition. It needs to be re-balanced with a sentence explaining what a major impact the slave trade had on the British economy and future industrialisation (as well as making it clearer that Britain was a major player in the Atlantic slave trade). DeCausa (talk

) 20:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I’ve amended the text (with citation) and added an additional sentence on the slave trades economic importance (with citation). DeCausa (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@DeCausa and RWB2020: I agree with RWB2020, it seems the motivation for the change in wording is due to current political events, the previous wording was factually accurate as Britain was involved, it did not misrepresent historical events. The assumption on which was change was made was false, there was political motivation for the change, the change was unneccesary. DukeBiggie1 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

”factually accurate”. It was unsourced. The number of slaves shipped was wrong. The timespan of British involvement was incorrect. Apart from that it was perfect.... DeCausa (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that in all the pages about countries, including this page, should be some environmental information. At least 1 paragraph in the main body of the article and at least 2 lines in the lead section. For example, the place of the country in the Environmental Performance Index, if the country is part of the Paris Agreement, if she pledged to shut down GHG emission by 2050. It will help bring information about environment to people and to leaders decide what is better. For example not all people in the world know that the overhelming majority of countries is part of the paris agreement and most of them pledged to cut GHG emission to zero by 2050. I think that if we will do it together we can add such information to every country very fast. Imagine, how it will improve the knowladge about environmental issues in the world

After we finish with countries we can write about cities etc.

Who is in?

Pinging here members of the Wiki Project Climate change.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:RFC which will automatically give them a message to come to said discussion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓

17:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@HMasundire:
@Daniel Mietchen:
@Ainali:
@UnitedStatesian:
@Daylen:
@EMsmile:
@Adumoul:
@TMLutas:
@Bluerasberry: 
@Discott:
@KevinShore19: 
@Jirka Dl:
@Goldsztajn:
@Chidgk1:
@Peaceray:
@CaptainEek:
@Emjackson42:
@Shanluan:
@Guettarda:

@Laniedufour:
@Sadads:
@Hedgehoque:
@Jlevi:
@Sm8900:
@Abdullah Al Manjur:
@Ebenwilliams: 
@RCraig09:
@Tym2412:
@Ebweav:
@Rwebogora:
@
Gbadegesin Muhammed
:

Minimally, I would think there are two parts: at least a paragraph on Climate change and the country, and at least a paragraph on other environmental issues (i.e. pollution, ecosystem decline, overpopulation, etc), Sadads (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

How about NO.

1. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing or advocacy of any kind. "It will help bring information about environment to people and to leaders decide what is better." That is totally one example of advocacy.

2. There is 100s of index rankings and they don't go especially into lead of countries, if some ranking is personaly important for some user, user should make own blog or so.

3. 2050, maybe yes maybe not gonna happen, this is not a place for a wish lists, and events what could happen or no, not a crystal ball.93.86.97.64 (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

This is probably the same person who has being 'spamming' articles with a lead edit and copy and pasting it into a category as well. I have spent a lot of my time unpicking the mess. I have also kept in your edits within the categories. I just totally disagree with duplication in the lead, otherwise at that rate you may as well remove the categories completely.

AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 15:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

"I think that in all the pages about countries, including this page, should be some environmental information." We could simply add a link to Environment of the United Kingdom, which has a list of relevant articles. Dimadick (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The importance of the issue demands more than just a link. Nothing to do with soapboxes or wish lists. It's a political matter, so there should be a couple of sentences, at least, in the Politics section - perhaps a new paragraph at the end of the Foreign relations section - about the international environmental agreements and commitments to which the UK government has signed up. I don't necessarily agree with the idea of including a ranking position on some environmental criteria. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

No to unachieved future wish list

WP:SPECULATION.--Moxy

🍁 01:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree.-"No to unachieved future wish list." 178.220.243.184 (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Yes to international commitments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that articles should have environmental coverage, summarized as appropriate in the lead (I would not specify what the exact number of mentions should be). Most country articles and almost all major city/region articles are lacking adequate environmental information. The issue here is that articles about geographic places are deeply slanted towards human culture (sport, arts, etc) with very little information about the surrounding environment -- these are articles about places -- and rarely any adequate information about the challenges that are facing residents (sea level rise, subsidence, pollution, etc). It's a simple matter of undercoverage, not of advocacy. As for climate change agreements, we are talking about things that governments are potentially spending billions on; a major commitment. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 14:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to say too much about the supposed "special" status of the UK, but the fact is that it is a political union of four

countries, and the environmental facts such as forest coverage, pollution levels, etc., would be better located in the articles on each of those four countries. This is the right place, however, for statements about the UK government's political commitments and (to some extent) its policy goals. Ghmyrtle (talk

) 14:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

At the moment I think there are 2 sentences on the environment in this article? In general for large and medium sized countries I think it would be reasonable to expand that to 2 shortish paragraphs, whereas for small countries one paragraph might be enough. But it depends on the importance for the country - for some large countries one para might be enough whereas, for example, low lying Pacific Islands might need a lot more. Also some structured data could be put in Wikidata - for example %forest cover, air pollution levels, ICE vehicle phase-out date, net zero target year etc and pulled into appropriate infoboxes from there - some of that data would not be important enough for country articles. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

This article already has 108 kB of prose. That's almost double where it

should be. We should not be adding even more paragraphs, let alone subsections, without serious consideration. CMD (talk

) 15:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The inclusion of content is based on weight. If environmental issues are a significant topic in the literature about the country, then it should be included, otherwise it should not. Generally this would mean that only in the case of extreme outliers would detailed information be required. TFD (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The environment and UK government policy in relation thereto is clearly a significant and widely covered topic. It’s an obvious lacuna that should be filled by a paragraph or two. If the article is too long then there’s plenty of chaff in the article that could be cut to make way for it: the ridiculous Dependencies section for instance. There’s plenty of other editor hobby horses that have run riot over the years that go go the same way. DeCausa (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Each article should have additiona bases on coverage. Last thing we need is another water and sanitation fly by fiasco that we are still cleaning up all over. --Moxy 🍁 01:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

There is information on the Environment in this article, mostly interweaved with other information in the Geography section. It could always be changed, but it is not absent. CMD (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I writed and propose here to write only about facts. No Speculations, no Spam, no Wishes, etc. Only facts, completely relevant to pages. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information and that is exactly what I do. A formal pledge of some country, participation in international agreement and environmental ranking in some index are facts. If there is many information in the main body of the article it should be summarized in the lead section, but if in the main article there is only one sentence, you can not summarize it more. Therfore I writed the same sentence in the main body of the article and in the lead section. The intention was that after I or other users will expand the information in the main body. What I proposed is one of the main purposes of the Online edit-a-thon on climate change, invite you to help. Thank you for the information about how to comtact members of the project. I will use it. --Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alexander, thanks for your efforts but in this instance it is not appropriate to add details to the lead section. Adding information as a preemptive to more work by other editors is unnecessary.

Cheers,

AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 04:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Migration watch UK is cited as a source but this is a highly political think-tank questioning benefits of UK migration at every turn and should not be cited as if it were an objective source. Leendert123 (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that opinions or interpretations from them should be clearly identified as such, in accordance with

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Here, it seems they're only being used as a source for statistics. Presumably these references could be replaced with references to the original source of the stats. Cordless Larry (talk

) 11:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Is it not best to add Dominic Raab, the First Secretary of State to the infobox, below Boris Johnson? Mike Pence, John Swinney and Michael McCormack are listed in the American, Scottish and Australian articles, so why not here? And The First Secretary of State is the second most powerful political office in the United Kingdom, below the Prime Minister. So we should definitely think about adding it. Ciaran.london (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

British constituion does not define that so in my view I don't think we should -----Snowded ^TALK 15:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Should remove positions not mentioned in the article. Should trim.--Moxy 🍁 16:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

When Boris Johnson contracted COVID-19, Dominic Raab as as First Secretary deputised for Johnson. It’s a fairly significant position in the UK Government. Ciaran.london (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

If/when Johnson names Raab as deputy prime minister? we'll add him to the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Still should be the same for the First Secretary of State, it’s practically the same role. Ciaran.london (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No it’s not. They’re not alike at all. There’s no deputisation for the PM that automatically comes with the title because the title literally has no explanation as to what it means or what authority comes with it. It’s just an honorific. Raab deputised for Johnson but that was just an ad hoc decision at the time, not because of the title. Johnson could have chosen someone else. Take a look at the official government website on the meaning of first secretary of state. The ‘responsibilities section is blank! In fact, usually the Chancellor is considered 2nd in command, certainly in terms of political authority. DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ciaran.london is correct, we should add Dominic Raab as First Secretary to the infobox. Politicsnerd123 (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Canterbury Tail talk 16:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The info-box should list only the most important positions, which in this case is the queen and PM. The U.S. is slightly different because its vice president is elected and is next in line to be head of state. Arguably Prince Charles' position of heir apparent is more notable than Raab's position as the guy who would stand in for Johnson for the hours it would take to find a new PM. TFD (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I also disagree. It is not a significant enough position to be added alongside PM. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 16:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The responsibilities for the FSoS include: Supporting the Prime Minister in the running of the Government of the United Kingdom. Deputising for the Prime Minister. Advising the Prime Minister on developing and implementing government policy. Answering the questions at PMQs in absence of the Prime Minister. It’s significant we should add it to the infobox.

Politicsnerd123 (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

At the end of January 2020, the UK (and with it, Gibraltar) left the European Union. On 31 December 2020, the BBC reported that the UK and Spain had reached an agreement in principle that Gibraltar would join the Schengen Area, to avoid a hard border with Spain and fluidity of movement at the border.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4b00:9008:9200:d51b:62e7:3c26:db4c (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that Gibraltar isn't technically part of the UK, though, so I'm not sure this article is the right place to cover this. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Gibraltar isn't a part of the UK, it's a

British Overseas Territory. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk

) 09:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You might want to add information on that matter to the pages for Brexit and\or the Effect of Brexit on Gibraltar if it isn't already covered there. Llewee (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Concocting a changing rationale to list Newcastle as a major city of the UK, then a "significant" one, if that is somehow more convincing, seems arbitrary and, based on edits, possibly due to close ties of the user in question. You have chosen to add a couple of other cities with similarly slighter claim than the original list and you could list umpteen others with no less a claim. The list is always going to be somewhat subjective but it was more appropriate, convincing and of appropriate length before.

Along with those unnecessary changes he continues to make related to cities despite you reverting him, he also made this edit early this morning that significantly changed the opening sentence of the introduction. [37] I have removed it with this edit [38], as the sentence had already been altered by another editor so was unable to just undo it. RWB2020 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph can easily and non-contetntiously be further clarified, as in reverted edit[39], by adding a few words in the second sentence, to read

The United Kingdom comprises and includes the four constituent countries of the island of Great Britain, the north­eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands within the British Isles.

Qexigator (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

LOL at "non-contentiously" and "clarified"! No - that is a grammatical shambles devoid of significant meaning. Besides the nonsense of "comprises and includes", it irretrievably muddles up the political description (of four countries) with the geographical description (a big island, part of another, and lots of little ones). It's a non-starter, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the merits you believe the wording to have, if you think that is in any way a non-contentious proposal here you require some considerable familiarisation with the discussions above and in the talk page archives. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the introduction deals in detail with the fact the UK is made up of four countries along with mentioning their capitals and devolution, so i do not see the need for it to be in the first paragraph too? The first paragraph focuses more on geography issues and it seems better to avoid mixing the two things in to the same sentences and avoids the need for repetition. We don't need the first paragraph and second paragraph both saying the UK is made up of four countries. The wording of both paragraphs have been relatively stable for years and i think its best to just maintain the status quo. Otherwise it will lead to demands for significant other changes undoing years of consensus and stability both in terms of how the UK is described, and how England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are described. For that reason i strongly oppose any change to the introduction on any of these matters. RWB2020 (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not agree with a change. It makes the sentence bulky without providing any pertinent information. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 11:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Notng RWB's well reasoned and unemotive remarks, the proposal is withdrawn. Qexigator (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to United Kingdom has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

FrozenDairy178 (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Fix grammar

 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. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don’t! It’s ruining the wiki article! IslesandIrajamaf (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)