www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DeCausa (talk | contribs) at 17:23, 9 April 2024 (→‎Infobox content: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleUnited Kingdom was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 3, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 22, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 30, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 11, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 3, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 22, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
March 6, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
September 24, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

Conversion in total area

Hello, I am Cleter, and I would like to begin by stating that the conversion of the land area in the UK reads as follows:

The total area of the United Kingdom is 94,060 square miles (243,610 km2), with an estimated 2022 population of nearly 67 million people.

I suggest the following change in accordance to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Unit_choice_and_order which includes:

  • In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except that:
    • UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units in which the subject project was drawn up (but road distances are given in imperial units, with a metric conversion – see next bullet);
    • the primary units for distance/​length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon (except for short distances or lengths, where miles are too large for practical use);
    • the primary units for personal height and weight are feet​/inches and stones/​pounds;
    • imperial pints are used for quantities of draught beer/​cider and bottled milk;

As you can see, none of these circumstances are applicable to the article. Therefore, I request that the sentence in green be readjusted to this (including the 2 sources):

The total area of the United Kingdom is 243,610 square kilometres (94,060 mi2), with an estimated 2022 population of nearly 67 million people. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 03:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given area is a function of distances, I don't think the use of square miles is out of line with that MoS even if not specifically mentioned. CMD (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One difficulty is that all ONS statistics (along with the OS, the only genuine authority on area measurements in the UK) are metric, both for Standard Area Measurements and density. You're absolutely right of course—the MoS means that the figure should be imperial first. But nonetheless, it always feels to me a little dishonest that Wikipedia presents British area measurements as though the statistic is imperial and that Wiki is converting it to metric. When in fact the opposite is true. Dgp4004 (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cleter: I agree with @Chipmunkdavis. I've lived in the country for some time. We're used to square metres and hectares for small measurements, but larger areas are mostly spoken of in square miles (or Isle of Wights or Wales). I suspect this is because road distances, which are a practical yardstick for envisaging a large area, are stated in miles. Bazza (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@117PXL

@117PXL: You seem to misunderstand "bias" and "neutrality" as it operates on Wikipedia. Please read WP:BRD, self-revert and discuss your edit here. DeCausa (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@117PXL: when you come off your block, put forward your arguments here. If you revert again without getting consensus support first you will just get a longer block. DeCausa (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I didn’t realise I would need a consensus for removing the image because I thought the bias was obvious. I will explain my thoughts…
In Northern Ireland the pro Irish community speak Irish (Ulster-Irish) and the pro British community speak Ulster-Scots, as well as speaking English.
There are signs in Northern Ireland that are translated into both languages, here are some examples I found:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Multilingual_sign_Department_Culture_Leisure_Arts_Northern_Ireland.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Derry_Guildhall_Nameplate_2013_09_17.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Looking_for_the_%22Cludgies%22%5E_-_geograph.org.uk_-_637820.jpg
As you can see the ‘Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure’ is translated into both languages.
These examples show no bias, but do highlight division, so I thought it would be wiser to remove the image, as leaving it, could annoy the pro British community.
All thoughts are welcome. 117PXL (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. First of all whether it would "annoy the pro British community" is irrelevant and not a factor that would or could be taken into account on Wikipedia. See WP:NOTCENSORED. I think that sort of thinking has led you to misunderstand neutrality here. It's not about "balancing" conflicts - see WP:FALSEBALANCE which is not exactly on point here but is related. I don't see any "bias" in the pic you wanted to remove for a number of reasons. Ultimately it's just an instance of a multilingual sign in the UK. That's all. Having said that, the pics that you have linked to are an even better illustrations. I wouldn't have a problem with any of those. The other problem with your edit was cluttering of the Topography section with 4 pics. It's not 'bias' just to have pics from 2 countries - unnecessary clutter is a much more significant issue. DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@117PXL: I see you went ahead with this edit, which constitutes another revert. The above was just my opinion - I wouldn't say that is a new consensus particularly as another editor reverted you too. You've just come off a block for edit-warring the removal of the pic. Whilst the edit is ok with me, you run the risk of being re-blocked. DeCausa (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text on File:Derry Guildhall Nameplate 2013 09 17.jpg is much harder to see in thumbnail view than that on File:Bilingual welcome sign Newry.jpg, so I disagree with 117PXL's replacement of the latter with the former (which I see has now been reverted). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry didn't see the latest comment. But I don't think we should have the previous photo on there. 117PXL (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the Wikipedia rules and I understand the image doesn't look as attractive from affar. But this is the main UK page and there are two communities in Northern Ireland that have to work together. There is a Welsh image if the contrast is the issue...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Welcome_sign_Llandrindod.jpg 117PXL (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is everyone happy with the Welsh one? 117PXL (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there was no objections to a welsh image and the long place name looked good on there? 117PXL (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are too many pro republic editors on here such as the last Canadian one. 117PXL (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be better serve trying to get consensus for you changes rather than casting aspersions.-- Ponyobons mots 23:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@117PXL: What does my being a republican & a Canadian, have to do with the disputed topic? GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's at WP:AN3 plus WP:PA. DeCausa (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2024

update first minster post for northern irealand Saltcoats123 (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saltcoats123: What do you want changed? Read the instructions in the template which you inserted:

"Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

Bazza 7 (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2024

Under "History - Postwar 20th Century" it is stated that the UK was a founding member of today's EU. It was not. The UK was not a signatory of the Treaty of Rome and therefore not a founding member of the EEC (present-day EU). In fact, its request to join the bloc was vetoed by France, twice. Please correct this mistake. Pandrej01 (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. It doesn't say it was founding member of the EEC which came into being in 1957. It says it was a founding member of the European Union which was a different entity (albeit a successor) that came into being in 1993 and which the UK was a founding member. It doesn't seem to be incorrect. DeCausa (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Book

The Orchard Pavilion by Arthur Christopher Benson.1914 1st edition. Leather bound and Gold embossed. Printed by Ballantyne,Hanson &Co. Edinburgh. Darlene Mumford (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox content

Do we really need to list England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland in the infobox? Most (if not all) other independent countries (sovereign states) don't seem to list their components in their infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about Britain and Northern Ireland?Halbared (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Halbared, Britain? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay, how many other countries have countries as components? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Denmark and the Netherlands are both listed at Constituent country as having constituent countries, and they're not included in the respective infoboxes. WaggersTALK 10:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So not many of the 200ish sovereign states then.
To put that into context here then, what we are saying is, given that two of the three sovereign states that have constituent countries don't list them in their infobox, why do we list them in this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong but there's no practical difference between a "country" in this context and a "state". The Country article pretty much says as much. There are LOTS of sovereign states (or countries) that are comprised of constituent states, which may or may not be nation states. I can't pretend I've looked at all 200 sovereign state articles but of the ones I have looked at where I know they have constituent states, they don't list them in the infobox. WaggersTALK 12:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If 'state' and 'country' are synonymous, I wonder why it sounds so wrong to say "the United States of America is a federation of 50 countries". So I guess there is a difference. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A (n independent) sovereign state is not the same thing as a (constituent) U. S. state, just like how a (constituent) UK "country" is not the same thing as a (sovereign) "country". This isn't hard to understand but everyone thinks it's hilarious to say "BUT WALES IS A COUNTRY" when we're talking about sovereign states like Zambia or Paraguay. The primary administrative divisions in the UK are their "countries" (but sometimes Northern Ireland is just a "province"?) so they are equivalent to Alabama or Nebraska. They're not special just because 130 years ago, the British decided they get to compete with multiple teams in soccer tournaments. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be very careful here, as you are going to rustle a few feathers. You are referring to countries are regions or “parts” which is not the case. Yes, they are not independent, sovereign countries, but there legal standing remains as countries part of a wider sovereign country. Please, be careful, and be more considerate to the complex and delicate history of the UK, its formation and its predecessor countries. Goodreg3 (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the fact that Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland complete as separate teams in football tournaments has nothing to do with it. If you think that is the main component in which it boils down to, I urge you to research the history of the article you are passing sweeping comments about before you upset most of its population. Goodreg3 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. There's an obvious reason why the USA article doesn't list all 50 states, but equally Canada's infobox doesn't list its provinces, Australia's doesn't list its constituent states. I agree, for consistency there doesn't seem a particularly good reason why there should be an exception for the UK. WaggersTALK 09:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are often abused: most can be reduced by a quarter or so. This one is no different. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the field being used is one for membership in international organisations. CMD (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably that should list things like NATO, which are currently not in the InfoBox because this has stolen their place. I think that makes the case for ditching the constituent country list even more compelling.... and I'm not seeing any objections so far. WaggersTALK 14:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree. I never before noticed that it was shoehorned in by misusing that parameter. Seems have been added in 2017 here. DeCausa (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CMD, @Waggers, @DeCausa, that field's documentation supports the way it is used in this article. The example is for the EU, showing the member countries as a list in the membership field.
As the UK has four member countries, that field is being correctly used, and the membership_type field is being used correctly too - to label the members as 'Countries'. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it matter, what parts of an independent country is called? Scotland, Ontario, Tasmania, etc etc. No matter what you call'em, each are a component of an independent country. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay, it doesn't - does it? The template provides a field for them and one that allows the editor to label them as whatever they are. So you could legitimately add a (collapsed) list of its 50 states to the USA article, and label the field as "states". You could add the cantons, and label them as such, to the Switzerland article if you so desierd. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I just don't agree with you. IMHO, Wales, Northern Ireland, England & Scotland should be deleted from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay, Fair enough, but IMHO, given the history and levels of devolution of the four constituent countries, there is a good reason to include them in it somehow (but per below, not using those apparently inappropriate fields). -- DeFacto (talk). 11:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So instead of making one edit to bring the UK infobox in line with ALL the other countries of the world, you're suggesting we change ALL the others to match the UK infobox? It's a no from me. WaggersTALK 09:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am so tired of UK exceptionalism. "But we call them 'countries', so that's the same thing as being actual sovereign states!" when they don't even have a federalist form of government. This is a ridiculous proposal and there is no need to add (e.g.) 50 states, a federal district, and over a dozen territories to the infobox to the United States. The infobox is for a brief overview of the most likely things that someone will want to know, not some exhaustive listing of minutiae. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf, no, the UK is a sovereign country but none of its four constituent countries are. As many British people don't identify as British, but as English, Irish/Northern Irish, Scottish, or Welsh, it makes sense to clarify in the infobox the relationship of those four counties to the UK. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of African peoples identify with their ethnic group, tribe, linguistic minority, religious affiliation, etc. over their sovereign state citizenship, too. But only the UK gets this special treatment because they have 3.5 "countries" (and sometimes a province ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ but also overseas territories and Crown dependencies, etc.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact is that the 50 US states have never been countries, and in the case of England and Scotland, independent, sovereign countries. They are still legally defined as countries, albeit not sovereign ones. They are not regions and never have been or never will be. Perhaps our international friends should read up on the history of the UK, its politics and constitution first before being offended by “UK exceptionalism”. Goodreg3 (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of Texas, Vermont Republic, Hawaiian Kingdom, Republic of the Floridas, California Republic. DeCausa (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The major difference there is that a good number of those examples were unrecognised, short lived breakaway states, so hardly comparable to recognised, historic independent sovereign kingdoms. Goodness gracious me….. Goodreg3 (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You made the exclusion "never been countries". So there are recognition and time period requirements as well it seems? Over what period (and recognised by whom) were Wales and Northern Ireland "recognised, historic independent sovereign kingdoms"? DeCausa (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Waggers, I'm not sure what you mean by "bring the UK infobox in line" with other countries. France apparently has France-only content. So why disregard key UK facts because other countries don't have a similar regard for constituent competing countries/nationalities? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would urge you to correctly use the correct defined terms for what you describe as “components”, as you are going to strike a few feathers here which I presume is not your intention. Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland (controversially albeit, however) are countries whether you like it or not. They are not regions as you would suggest. Your comments over the past appear to be very anti-devolution and against the truth that each of the four UK countries are indeed countries and legally defined as such. Remember, you can’t make edits based on your personal assumptions and views alone. Goodreg3 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where are they "legally defined" as countries? DeCausa (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.gov.scot/publications/building-new-scotland-independent-scotland-eu/pages/7/#:~:text=Scotland%20is%20a%20country%20within,of%20political%20union%20with%20England.
https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/archive/pdf/en/iso_3166-2_newsletter_ii-3_2011-12-13.pdf Goodreg3 (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.wales.com/about/how-wales-governed Goodreg3 (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto, the template documentation is precisely the opposite of what you have claimed. If you look, it says This infobox template is used to generate an infobox for the right-hand side of two specific types of article: on a country or territory, or on a geopolitical organisation. It then gives the syntax, separately, for Infobox Country and Infobox Geopolitical organisation. The "Membership" parameter, not surprisingly, is only given for the geopolitical organisation. It is omitted from Infobox country. As one would expect, the EU infobox begins Infobox geopolitical organisation. That's why it's there. The "Membership" parameter has been wrongly inserted in the Infobox country in this article. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading the doc more thoroughly, I hadn't spotted that distinction. That helps us decide though if that template isn't for countries. I support removal of that nested template. Perhaps we need to add some extra UK params for it though, similar to the 'France-specific parameters'. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok on that basis (and as no one in this thread is any longer supporting its inclusion) I've taken it out. If there is a need for a 'UK-specific' template then that's a whole other discussion. I personally don't see a need for it. DeCausa (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom&oldid=1218091109"