Talk:United Kingdom

Archives
September 2001 – August 2004 August 2004 – April 2005 April 2005 – November 2005 November 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 July 2006 – November 2006 November 2006 – April 2007 April 2007 – July 2007 August – December 2007, part 1 August – December 2007, part 2 August – December 2007, part 3 August – December 2007, part 4 August – December 2007, part 5 December 2007 – May 2008 June 2008 – October 2008 October 2008 – March 2009 March 2009 – October 2009 November 2009 – August 2010 August 2010 – December 2010 December 2010 – January 2011 January 2011 – March 2011 March 2011 – May 2011 May 2011 May 2011 – August 2011 August 2011 –
Country/State debate archives
June 2005 – March 2006 April 2006 – May 2006
Terminology debate archives
July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – October 2006
Subdivision name debate archives
April 2008 – June 2008

British, English, United Kingdom, England

I've been correcting things lately on many pages which include 'England' in. Can I point out that England is not a sovereign state and in location details on many articles it says 'England', not 'United Kingdom'. Also, instead of 'British', it says 'English', and it's same for Welsh, Scottish, and Irish too. Someone explain what to do because every time I correct it to 'United Kingdom', an administrator changes it back. Thanks. Josh Robinson 21:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrobin08 (talk • contribs)

Oh boy, did you ever step into a hornet's nest. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

@Josh: The first thing you should recognise is that, when you make changes to articles, not everyone will necessarily agree that they are "corrections". The fact that the UK is a sovereign state, and that England, Scotland, etc., are not is, often, irrelevant. There have been many, many, discussions about these issues on talk pages in the past, which you might want to read. There are also many relevant articles and guidelines - for example, this - which you may find interesting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that WP:UKNATIONALS is just an essay representing one or more editors' viewpoints, not a guideline or manual of style, so I'd be wary of citing it. — JonC^ॐ 10:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but the point for Josh is that he is not the first to have considered these issues, and his views on what is "correct" are unlikely to be shared by everyone. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• Facepalm... just my 2 cents, please read Brittany (AKA Little Britain (Britannia minor) as opposed to Great Britain (Britannia major). See also: Great Britain#Derivation of "Great" and Britain (placename)). Thank you and best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

UK is domestic British, should not be used

There are united Kingdoms all over the world, most Kingdoms are. Using United kingdom is like calling London The town, is logical for Londoners but not for others. Great Britain should be used if not wanting to type the full name, or United kingdom of Great Britian. Some argue that there are more than the ile of Great Britian in the kingdom, but so it is in most states. Swabia is a part of the state Bavaria for instance. Internationally this Country is refered to Great Britain and just United kingdom makes no sense, united kingdom of what? What is decided in the British parliament makes no difference in the shorter forms, for people outside the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.129.54.220 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

In fact the title of this page should be Great Britain and the entire name in the box to the right and any other form of expressions of the name of the country in the leading text. This article is not about just political events in the 18th and 19th century but a country. If it is republic or kingdom is not a main issue and the differences are very small. It must keep the style of other similar articles like Italy, France, Germany and Sweden. Certainly it can state in the beginning of the article it is a historical union of old kingdoms (like most kingdoms) and parts are lost like most kingdoms have. But it must be written from an outside perspective the British know what Britain is, outiders not that clear.

You are completely mistaken to say that "United Kingdom" is a usage recognised only within the UK itself. "United Kingdom" is a long-standing, internationally recognised short form for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", just as "United States" is a recognised short form for "United States of America". The title of this page should certainly not be "Great Britain", which is a purely geographical entity, not a political one, and which includes only part of the United Kingdom. -- Alarics (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If "United Kingdom" is only a "domestic British" usage, we really ought to let the United Nations know, since they have been using the term for nearly 70 years. As for the idea of calling the place "Great Britain", at present the state includes in its territory a large chunk of Ireland, which is a different island altogether. Brocach (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Great Britain is actually not a purely geographical entity, Alarics. In addition to its geographical use, it's used to refer to all territory pertaining to Wales, Scotland, and England. Anglesey, for example, is not part of Great Britain in the former geographical sense, but it is part of Great Britain in the latter political sense. But you're quite right that it would be completely wrong to retitle this page "Great Britain". Our anonymous poster just doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, or how country names work, for that matter. garik (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Bit hard on Alarics there, garik - Anglesey, and other immediately offshore islands of the mainland of Great Britain, are counted "purely geographically" as part of GB in the same sense as any other non-contested offshore island is reckoned part of its mainland. It is only when the territory is or has been subject to dispute that it is reasonable to say that mainland A does not include island a. Brocach (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, same thing for the Isle of Wight and the Scilly Islands. They are part of England and part of GB. -- Alarics (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but once the issue of contested and non-contested land comes into it, there's a political dimension. And the Isle of Man isn't especially contested, but it's not part of Great Britain. Indeed, the Isle of Man is geographically closer to mainland Great Britain than South Uist is (among other Scottish islands), but South Uist can be considered part of Great Britain, while the Isle of Man cannot. This is because Great Britain is not defined in purely geographical terms (or rather, it can be, but when it is, it excludes islands like Anglesey and South Uist). I notice that the Wikipedia article on Great Britain makes this very point: That the term Great Britain has both a geographical and a political definition; the first excludes smaller islands, while the latter includes them. In any case, I freely concede that it was a matter of pedantry on my part, which contributed little to the main discussion. And I'm sorry if I came over as a bit harsh—I really didn't mean to. Sorry, Alarics! garik (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC) edited by garik (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the Isle of Man has never been part of the UK, never mind Great Britain, so I don't see how it comes into the picture at all for the purposes of this discussion. -- Alarics (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It comes into this discussion because, if "Great Britain" is defined in purely geographical terms and is taken to include South Uist, then it has to include the Isle of Man too. I'm not aware of any purely geographical criteria that would include the former and exclude the latter. If Great Britain is taken to include South Uist, and not Man, then the definition of Great Britain is not purely geographical and is at least partly political. garik (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

None of the Scottish Islands are regarded as a part of GB--only as part of the UK of GB & NI.--Bill Reid | (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure about that, Bill? More usefully, do you have a source? If you're right, we should edit the Great Britain article. Under the geographical definition, it's certainly true that the Scottish islands are not part of Great Britain (none of the outlying islands are). But under the political definition, I'm pretty sure they are. In other words, I understand the political definition of Great Britain to include the combined territory of England, Scotland and Wales. This at least is how I read the definition on this UK government page. garik (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course the Scottish islands are part of Great Britain. -- Alarics (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

On further reflection, I think Garik is right. When I said GB was "a geographical entity, not a political one", I meant that there is now no functioning political entity called GB. But of course there was between 1707 and 1800, and the definition of that 1707-1800 political entity (i.e. with Shetland and S. Uist, etc., but without the Isle of Man) continues to apply albeit now only in a geographical sense. I now see that I was wrong to imply that GB could be defined in purely geographical terms without reference to the political history. Sorry for sloppy thinking. -- Alarics (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain as a member of the European Union

Almost in every article I've read about member countries of the European Union, this fact is reflected more explicitly. I think it should be made clear in the introduction of the article, the fact that UK belongs to EU. I would begin the article, at least, with something alluding to the European Union, like this: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland[nb 5] (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) is a sovereign state, member of the European Union, located off the north-western coast of continental Europe."

I hope you'll take this into account when the article is edited, because although European countries now enjoy of certain sovereignty, it is undeniable that the fiscal union of state members in the EU last years, has been crucial to the development and future of Europe. And the fact that UK doesn't belong to the euro area, doesn't mean that it isn't a voluntary and important member of the Council of the European Union. Zathrian12 (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, fiscal union has been very patchy, but that is by the way. You are right in that the EU is not a mere intergovernmental organisation that countries might opt in and out of, but a complex constitutional entity, a fundamental part of the machinery of government, into which the UK has been fully integrated for 40 years. Many UK citizens may not like this, but as things stand it is an objective fact. It does therefore seem very odd that the article doesn't get round to mentioning the EU until the end of the third paragraph, where it comes in a list of things like the WTO and the OECD, which *are* mere intergovernmental treaty bodies and quite different in nature from the EU because they cannot directly make legislation that is binding on their member states. -- Alarics (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both the comments so far. The fact that the UK is part of the EU is a quite fundamental constitutional point (like it or not), and it should really be given greater prominence than it now is. I suggest two options. Either, in the first sentence, add, after the words "sovereign state", "and a member of the European Union...". Or, in the second paragraph, insert a new second sentence: "It is a member of the European Union". In either case, then remove the reference in the third paragraph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

How about in the second paragraph, "It is a country in its own right..." --> "A member of the European Union, it is a country in its own right..." At any rate, this is why we have the EU in the infobox map. CMD (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the only justification for the (seemingly bizarre) statement that "It is a country in its own right and consists of four countries" is that its very oddness encourages readers to click the linked terms - and adding to that sentence would tend to lose that. I'm happy with changing the second para, but prefer my suggestion of adding a separate sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I was just thinking it would be good to have it after the information on the overall UK government system but before looking at all the devolved details. Where would that sentence go? We could put if before the country sentence, but one would have to be fiddled to remove the "It...It..." phrasing. CMD (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I'm happy to wait and see what others think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It's worth comparing with the intro sections of the other largest EU countries (I concur on the basic point about the centrality of EU membership to the current state constitutional structure):

• Germany - first para: "With 81.8 million inhabitants, it is the most populous member state and the largest economy in the European Union."

• France - we have to go the fifth and final para: "It is also a founding and leading member state of the European Union and the largest one by area. "

• Italy - fourth para: "It is a founding member of what is now the European Union and part of the Eurozone."

These variations seem fairly reflective of their roles, I would have put it higher in the France article. Perhaps the UK article should mention something about membership having been later than many others and remaining controversial? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

For me the current wording is fine. Importance is not established by position in the lead. The lead has a structure based upon paragraphs with themes, as it should, and whether something is in the first or third paragraph should not be read as an indication of importance, purely of topic. The point about fiscal union above I don't understand, the UK is not part of the single currency, and even the single currency area does not presently have a fiscal union. Membership of the EU does have certain constitutional implications, although the UK can leave the EU at any time. Membership of NATO is arguably of more fundamental significant, with very profound security implications - an attack on one is an attack on all. This could well mean the UK is engaged in anything upto a full scale nuclear war without having been directly attacked. Furthermore, for the great majority of the UK's history it has not been a member of the EC/EU, whilst the article covers the whole of the UK's history. In my view shoe-horning a reference to membership of the EU into the first paragraph would be messy and undue. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The UK could leave the EU, yes, but to say it could do so "at any time" is misleading. It could decide to do so, and it would then take years to put into effect because it would be extremely complicated and messy to untangle all the relationships and the legal complexities. For a start, what are you going to do about all the thousands of UK staff of the EU institutions whose permanent careers and homes are in Brussels and Luxembourg. It's not like just switching a light off. Also you have not taken on board the point that at the moment the article mentions the EU in the same breath as OECD and what not, whereas it is qualitatively quite different from those merely intergovernmental arrangements. -- Alarics (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Leaving the EU would be messy and complicated, I agree. But so would leaving the United Nations or NATO. I agree that membership of the EU is important, and clearly more important than membership of the OECD. I'm not sure I agree that it is more important than being a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, but these things are ultimately highly subjective.

If you wish to give more emphasis to membership of the EU, I would suggest doing so by amending the third paragraph, perhaps in this way:

The UK has been a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council since its first session in 1946 and has been a member of the European Union and its predecessor the European Economic Community since 1973. It is also a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, the Council of Europe, the G7, the G8, the G20, NATO, the OECD and the World Trade Organization.

Y Done -- Alarics (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking in general Terms, Is it as relevant being a member of the NATO or the United Nations Security Council, for the UK, as being a European Union member? Really?

Let me remind you that UK was one of the twelve founding members of the European Union. The development, politics and history of UK (specially the last decade) is closely related to the European Union and its participation, and not even to talk about the economics, for better or worse...

It is not my intention to overestimate the presence of the EU, but is it so difficult just to mention the name (European Union) at the beginning of the article? It's not just me; I heard some comments about it.

I'm not saying that it has to be an explanation about the situation of the UK in the EU in the introduction, but it should be mentioned at the beginning at least, as a EU country member, making this fact more explicit, and emphasizing it from the beginning to give a more simple general view of the UK in this article. It is my humble opinion, thinking for example, of a student looking for a general summary about this topic.

Here, I leave two links of a UK government website, specifically The Foreign and Commonwealth Office:

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/european-union/europe-approach/ http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/european-union/eu-act/

It is mentioned a little about the UK's role in the EU. Of course there are legal documents in support of this, but I consider pointless to extend such a simple subject. Zathrian12 (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

National Anthem

That rendition of God Save the Queen by the US Navy Band is awful. It's too slow and has the wrong ending to it. The one played on BBC Radio 4 at 12:58am is by far the best and most correct sounding one, and it would be nice to have that on the page instead. A much nicer representation of the anthem. I have it in an ogg file. How do I put it on here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherbetdip (talk • contribs) 19:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This should help. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

edit request

There are too many {{ in this article, due to a markup mistake in one of the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.223.136 (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You didn't say where it was, which would have been helpful, but I've fixed one instance of it. garik (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Devolved Administrations

Probably has come up before, but...the devolved administrations represent 16% of the UK's population. In this article, the UK Government section is 6kb and the devolved administrations section is 11kb. The two sections seem grossly out of proportion to their relative importance. DeCausa (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it from the stand-point of 'how many words it takes to explain something', they are fairly in balance though. A specific "problem" is that the three devolved administrations are all very different: Scotland has close to effective autonomy, Wales less so and shares a jurisdictions with England, Northern Ireland has a complex diacritical arrangement and shared institutions with the Republic of Ireland. All in all, the current text is quite tight, IMO. --RA (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's really around Wikipedia:Summary style. Is there a need to explain that much given that they have their own articles? Given their relative importance I would have thought it would be sufficient to note their existence with the pointer to the relevant articles. DeCausa (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In my view, at least, they already do take summary style: skipping jauntily over Devolution in the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland Executive, Scottish Government, and Welsh Government in a few paragraphs.

Relative importance is more than simply a population game. Otherwise, we would end up with a mirror of the England article + minor appendages. In talking about the politics of the United Kingdom, devolution to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is an important topic and deserves suitable treatment in this article. --RA (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Belatedly:....I think the "England + appendages" scenario isn't applicable here. That would be the case if the topic was, for instance, "Local government". I agree that an "England + appendages" argument would result in some artificial apportionment of that section to English local government based on population size etc. I think this is different. The "UK Government" section is about a UK-wide institution, and this article is, after all, United Kingdom. The devolved administrations are, of course, not UK-wide institutions. It feels misleading (at least to me) to give so much space to institutions which are not UK-wide - and significantly so - especially when so closely juxtaposed to a related section which does cover a similar UK-wide institution, but in half the space. DeCausa (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think see the where the issue lies: do you see the devolved administrations as "local government", rather than "UK Government"?

The devolved administrations are (academic arguments aside) top-tier legislatures and executives in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, whereas the administration at Westminister is only the sole top-tier legislature and executive in England. The Westminister administration is not an unequivocally "UK-wide institution". On devolved matters, the administrations at Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast are top-tier government in those parts of the UK. --RA (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

They're not top-tier. By "academic arguments aside" I presume you mean that the doctrine that sovereignty remains with the UK parliament and merely devolved is trumped by the realpolitik of practical reality. I think that's dubious, but even if true, they are still not "top tier". The Scottish Executive wants greater powers as does elements in the Welsh Assembly. That's only within the power of the government/parliament in London to grant, and at present doesn't look likely: "academic arguments" and realpolitik intersect at that point, and demonstrate that these are not top-tier institutions. The fact is the devolved administrations and UK government, in an overall UK context are not of equal significance, or anything near it. But I think a reader is given a misleading impression of this by the imbalance in the two sections. DeCausa (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And that's the academic argument :-)

The ultimate sovereignty of the Westminister parliament — including practical constraints on it — is discussed in the final paragraph of the section.

Funnily, to my eyes, the two sections offer balance rather than imbalance. "In an overall UK context", governance is both central and devolved. --RA (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The "Devolved admins" section is only 670 words in a 15,000-word article. Relax, DeCausa. If you think the description of the UK government is inadequate, work on it instead of expecting cuts elsewhere to produce 'balance'. Brocach (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DeCausa here. Do we really need to know about former elections and older constitutional situations on this page? Half the Scotland paragraph covers the 2007 elections and political proposals by the opposition. CMD (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Long term editors will be aware that saying things more briefly is pretty much my default position. I would say that it is easiest, and appropriate, to deal with this issue in a separate section. However, looking this over I think we could prune 100-200 words out of this. Bits that strike me as more appropriate to detailed articles include: the West Lothian question, Scottish elections before 2011; the commission on devolution, the stages of development of Welsh devolution; the exact terms of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference; the 1972 example in the final paragraph. There could also be a bit of rewording to be a bit more concise. I am sure that some editors will legitimately disagree with some of this, but it does give an indication of how we might deal with this more concisely and probably more clearly.--SabreBD (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The Scotland paragraph (and the Wales paragraph to a lesser extent) is definitely out of date. Pruning seems reasonable, if the information can be fit into less space. --RA (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think pruning was what I was after! (Brocach: this article is obese enough at 240kb without adding yet more!) DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I was taking a look over just the Scottish and Welsh paragraphs, and after cutting all the details of previous elections and previous powers, we're left with quite short paragraphs:

The Scottish Government and Parliament have wide ranging powers over any matter that has not been specifically 'reserved' to the UK parliament, including education, healthcare, Scots law and local government. At the 2011 elections the pro-independence Scottish National Party was re-elected and achieved an overall majority in the Scottish parliament.

The Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales have more limited powers than those devolved to Scotland. The Assembly is able to legislate on devolved matters through Acts of the Assembly, which require no prior consent from Westminster. The 2011 elections resulted in a minority Labour administration lead by Carwyn Jones.

Both these have all the information about devolved powers and current administrations that the current article has. Perhaps instead of simply saying Wales has more limited powers we shoudl describe its powers, but as it stands I don't think any of the information I cut out is needed at all. CMD (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The excised material is all highly relevant - it deals with the recent political discourse around devolution in both countries - and these are just two quite brief paragraphs in a long article. The proposed edit, two sentences for Scotland and two for Wales, reduces it to a snapshot of the constitutional situation right now, rather than an (extremely brief) account of devolution issues in the recent political life of each country. Brocach (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Chipmunkdavis. Spot on reductions. "reduces it to a snapshot of the constitutional situation right now" exactly defines what's needed for the UK article. "an (extremely brief) account of devolution issues in the recent political life of each country" is what's needed for the 2 country articles which are then expanded in the articles on the specific devolved admins. Summary style! DeCausa (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt, but it looks like a bad haircut to me too.

Maybe a better (but more difficult) approach would be to look at the section as a whole. Rather than taking Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland separately, maybe it would be more appropriate to talk about "devolution" in the context of the UK — and indicating unique aspects of devolution for each of the three places as they arise.

That would mean a complete re-write but the result may be more satisfying for all? --RA (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a promising approach, and gets away from the case-by-case detail. I think it sounds similar to Spain#Autonomous communities and autonomous cities which I think is quite an effective approach. DeCausa (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I cannot quite see how this can be done, but I am willing to see what can be achieved. If that is unsuccessful then I suggest we go back to the trimming strategy.--SabreBD (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll turn a hand to trying it, though I probably won't have an opportunity to to do until next week. It will probably take a few iterations — and won't be right first time — but I think it can be done. --RA (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Overseas territories

Why does this article only have a few paragraphs on overseas territories whilst the France article has more info about them like geography etc. When I visit the UK only a few know about them but those who do only 2 territories Gibraltar and Falklands but don't know about the others at all. Ironic cause us Americans go there on holiday. If you put more info in about them maybe people in UK and around the world can find out more about them. It could help more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.16.122 (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Essentially, I think, because many of the overseas departments and territories of France are an integral part of France - they are within the EU, for example - but neither the British Crown Dependencies nor the British Overseas Territories are part of the UK. They have different constitutional positions, more analogous to, say, Puerto Rico or American Samoa which are equally not part of the US. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What Ghmyrtle said. French territories are all legally full parts of France. They just have special status, sort of like autonomous areas. CMD (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

But that's not completely true guys. They have French Polynesia in their article and some other ones in some diagrams. It's not integrated just like all of the British ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.88.26 (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

French Polynesia is legally a full and proper part of France. Under article 74 of the French constitution, French Polynesia is an 'overseas country within the French Republic' (translation kindly provided by the Australian government). CMD (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit protected

{{Edit protected}} The article was protected in the incorrect state. The state was created by Ubiquinoid here. It should be restored to before that point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The page isn't fully protected.JOJ ^Hutton 03:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Walter, if you're really interested in keeping score, the links were arbitrarily stripped away without discussion by Ohconfucius a short while back. I'd have restored them if I'd seen them first. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Ohconfucius was just following the rules. WP:OVERLINK says: "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions." -- Alarics (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"Overlink" - actually an aspect of the overall linking guideline - is just that, a guideline, and a highly contested one at that. There are a few editors - a small group - who have been making rapid-fire script-based edits to strip out links that they dislike, often (in the case of geographical locations) without attention to context, using "overlink" as their justification. Note that the overlink text advises not removing links if they are "particularly relevant to the topic of the article". I think it would be hard to argue that Great Britain is not relevant to the United Kingdom... --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Why was the script approved, if it produces results not in line with policy? -- Alarics (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Guideline, not policy - very different intent. Plus, it's a personal script, and doesn't require approval. The list of items that are delinked is arbitrary, based on the preferences of the authors, and not open to discussion or changes by other users. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Moot point. It's a good thing not to do. I'm sorry, I see an edit six weeks ago but that's not the one. Where's the original, recent edit?

Ubiquinoid also has an WP:AXE. Another edit who feels strongly about should feel free to remove the links as they're clearly not necessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Moot? Hardly, you've yet to explain how GB is not relevant to the UK. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have stumbled into this by reverting the re addition of these links in accordance with my understanding of WP:OVERLINK. If there is some issue about whether that guideline is appropriate then we should be discussing it at some appropriate central place. If we are going to make a decision based on local consensus then lets just do that here without recourse to wider or acrimonious dispute on the guideline.--SabreBD (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

How can one link Northern Ireland yet not Great Britain? They are both in the country's long-form name, e.g., and of direct relevance to the topic and per guidelines...whichever ones one may adhere to. Idiotic. For fcuk's sake, there is an entire article and Venn diagram explaining the difference of terms regarding the British Isles. Apropos, observe WP:UNDERLINK. As for W_G's commentary, no comment. Lastly, con-editors have been to asked to demonstrate the root of consensus or agreement for the OVERLINK geo guideline of note -- unsurprisingly, silence on that point. So, that assertion is quite debatable and the script of note is arguably disruptive. (That discussion will restart soon.) Otherwise, per Ckatz. Ubiquinoid (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think that there was no agreed consensus on this because until it was changed recently it was not disputed. Since it is now a matter of debate lets attempt to establish a local consensus on the implementation here of WP:OVERLINK - which includes a clause to "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions." and WP:UNDERLINK - which states point to linking "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully". Here are two proposals:

• Proposal 1: That we link all major geographic, national and geographical terms (such as Great Britain, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland)
• Proposal 2: That we link only constituent parts of the UK (such as Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland), but not wider geographical features or countries (such as Ireland and Great Britain).

Please comment below:--SabreBD (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Proposal 2 It would be odd not to link constituent part of the UK, but the wider terms seem to me to be major features and locations that are probably familiar to most readers.--SabreBD (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There really is nothing firm or sensible supporting the subjective linking of diminutive territories but not major ones per P#2. That is counterintuitive. More so given this archipelago and the various constituent parts, but also others. Countries do not exist in isolation, and to delink those territories and geographic features of direct relevance is rather inane (particularly to novice users, who may not know better), and a disservice to all users. Also note that the article existed -- links and all -- for many more months (at least 8 ) before being changed with the aforementioned script, without apparent discussion let alone consensus. This requires a wider discussion. Ubiquinoid (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Proposal 2 although there are other options. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

And further, it wasn't Ohconfucius who removed the links. Because of all of the templates it takes a long time to load the page to see when the links in the lede were removed but the link provided above does not remove the links in the lede. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes it/they did - the diff provided shows the removal of links to Great Britain, Ireland and Republic of Ireland from the lead and Irish from the language section in the infobox (as well as some links that probably should have gone, such as country). Are you really not seeing that? Are we living in a different universe? N-HH talk/edits 15:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oh god, it's all here too. Anyway,Not taking part in another of these polls given how the last one, on Canada, was dealt with. Again, one or two people cite overlink and claim it mandates the removal of well known terms .. while missing out the crucial qualification "unless relevant to the topic" (even though this has been highlighted by a previous comment); and ignoring WP:CONTEXTLINK in wp:lead. Great Britain and Ireland are clearly relevant to the UK. It's absurd to suggest otherwise. Also, let's point this out again to those demanding the removal of links that others may well use because they happen not to like them: links do not exist solely to explain what something is to some purported average, idealised reader with some arbitrarily assumed current knowledge base. They provide navigation to detailed encylopedia entries on other, related topics that readers of the first article may well - or may not, sure - be interested in. And, finally, actually there is a great deal of confusion about the terms Ireland and Great Britain so even on the "links for explanation only" standard, they have value. N-HH talk/edits 15:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you check the provided link? The links in the lede were not removed, although other links were removed. I'll assume good faith and assume that you thought that it was the right link to history, but you're wrong and you should check before assuming things like that. And I'll remind you that comment like this are considered personal attacks since you're discussing the editor and not the edits, the contributor and not the content. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not a "personal attack". Anyway, Walter, perhaps you could please elaborate on what you were looking at when you said that OC didn't remove the links? If you compare this version, saved by Micropot and the next version, saved by Ohconfucius you will see that OC's script removed geographic links. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a personal attack per WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

I see what you're saying. He unlinked the constituent parts (Ireland, England, etc.), unlinked common terms (sovereign state, country), but left the bodies of water linked. Thanks for the clarification.

We're discussing the constituent parts and it seems that linking them is acceptable. Is it necessary to have those common terms (sovereign state and country) linked? Is it necessary to link the geography (continental Europe) and the seas? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

My edit summary was indeed not a personal attack, and you have not just received "clarification" of what OC did - you have simply had to have it pointed out to you for the third time before it registered; while flinging ridiculous and untrue claims at others (including me) that we had not checked it properly ourselves. And even now it seems not to have registered fully, and what you say makes no sense. OC did not unlink England in the lead. It's not been unlinked and no one has been saying it was - he unlinked, as I said, among other things, Great Britain, Ireland and Irish [language]. Nor is Ireland a constituent part of the UK. And I, for one, btw also said he was right to unlink country, for example. Any further discussion with you is pointless. The experience here and on Canada shows you are clearly incapable of reading or understanding what is in front of you. I guess that is now a personal attack, but I find your obtuseness and refusal to acknowledge that you were in the wrong on a simple point a personal attack on my wish to discuss things sensibly with other reasonable, intelligent people. Hundreds of words have been wasted because you can't follow a diff. N-HH talk/edits 21:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• The islands of Great Britain and Ireland are very closely (even intimately) related to the topic of the United Kingdom. Indeed the original name of the state, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, referred directly to them. Therefore, it is appropriate to link to them in this article (and would be peculiar not to). Also, remember WP:COMMON and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY when discussing guidelines.--RA (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The heat generated by this is pretty strange even by WP standards. I suggest all involved remember this is a very minor issue and not very important. DeCausa (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Second that. --RA (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It is minor, and I certainly wont be losing a lot of sleep over it, but even minor issues need to be sorted, so it would be helpful if editors could make their views on the proposals clear. In this context we don't need long and accusative explanations.--SabreBD (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I wish everybody would calm down. This is all a quite ridiculous amount of fuss over almost nothing. We are supposed to be grown adults here. Let us try to keep a sense of perspective. -- Alarics (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand

There are three constituent parts that must be discussed:

1. constituent nations (Great Britain, Northern Ireland)
2. common terms (sovereign state and country)
3. geography (continental Europe, Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Atlantic Ocean, North Sea, English Channel, Irish Sea)

Which, if any should be linked in the lede and which can suffer to be linked later in the article? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Don't care. Suggest leaving as it is now (whatever it is - I haven't looked). DeCausa (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support linking first mention of all terms mentioned. Absolutely no good reason not to do so, and many good reasons to do so, given the geographical and constitutional complexity and our global and relatively uninformed (that's why they're here) audience. We are here to provide information, and links are extremely helpful in doing that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Largest Urban Areas?

With the information that is given in this page, you will actually find Greater Glasgow is larger than West Yorkshire Urban Area, the population in Greater Glasgow is 1,999,629 and in West Yorkshire it is 1,449,465? 92.22.25.168 (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't understand. The table in the article says "Greater Glasgow 1,199,629". Have you misread it or are you saying it is wrong? DeCausa (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying way it is presented is wrong. Greater Glasgow, accordingly, has a population of 1,999,629, but it says that West Yorkshire Urban Area has a population of 1,449,465. Therfore, Greater Glasgow should be #4 and West Yorkshire should be #5? 92.22.25.168 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The table says Greater Glasgow has a population of 1,199,629 not the 1,999,629 you say. Are you saying the number in the table is wrong? DeCausa (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

By way of confirmation, I checked the source (note 265), which says 1,199,629 for Gt. Glasgow.--SabreBD (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)