Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 12

message: People might want to check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanker (2nd nomination) Jooler 17:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article for deletion

message: The latest Private Eye (no. 1175) includes a poem from E. J. Thribb referring to our great encyclopaedia - see Talk:E. J. Thribb. Sam Blacketer 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  E.J. Thribb reads Wikipedia 

message: Common scold has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Common scold FAR

message: Montagu Pyke, Charing Cross Road, Wed 10 Jan. I'll be there from seven, others may be earlier. Signup at Wikipedia:Meetup/London#Informal_socials - David Gerard 21:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WRONG DATE! Jimbo got his dates wrong. It's TUESDAY 9th JANUARY, same place, same signup sheet - David Gerard 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  London meet, Tue 9 Jan 

message: The Quatermass Experiment has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Quatermass Experiment FAR

message: The important article on The British Museum has recently become badly degraded -- can any interested parties take a look and help with improvements? --mervyn 10:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we just revert to something like this revision ?  Morwen - Talk 10:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, harsh but needed -- I think this slightly later version incorporates some good refs, just before the rot set in.  --mervyn 12:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On investigation, most appear to be good faith edits, so am now liaising about improvements at Talk:The British Museum --mervyn 11:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The British Museum

message: Henry VIII of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Henry VIII of England FAR

message: I didn't even know that this noticeboard existed. Sorry. Anyway, i was wondering if i could seek help with this project e.g. assign more tasks in the to do list. Anyone interested in joining the project? It is WikiProject Transport in Scotland. Simply south 22:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WPTIS 

message: Hi. This is probably a strange request here, but I'm not sure where else to ask. Mulesing is the current Australian collaboration article, and is a rather contentious topic. We have a claim that "Mulesing is currently illegal in Britain where fly strike is a relatively controllable problem" with a rather doubtful reference. I was wondering if any UK farmers or lawyers can advise a suitable reference for the claim (or its negative). It may be that due to breed choice and flock size/farming practices, mulesing is not required in the UK, so while not practiced, it is not illegal either. Thanks for any help you can provide. --Scott Davis Talk 01:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mulesing legality reference question 

message: They're at it again - Talk:Humour Jooler 23:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Homour move

message: Perhaps this has been debated before, but allow me to comment on the seeming proliferation of the Flag of England in articles (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). In the current environment, with many Scots openly contemplating secession, this is bound to be somewhat of a political statement. Now, don't get me wrong: I love England, and I think English people have every right to be proud of their country's amazing achievements. But I also love the United Kingdom - of which Scotland is an integral part - united under one Crown (I wouldn't mind a 1603-1707 type situation that much, but we all know an independent Scotland would be a republic). Thus I support use of the Union Jack over the individual nations' flags, and putting in "England, United Kingdom", not just "England" in biographical infoboxes. (Indeed, I hold the same view toward the Saltire - it too should be replaced here and here, for instance.) Or perhaps we could use both flags, as here. The point is, national unity is threatened, and we shouldn't exacerbate the trend here. But, truth be told, I really don't see the need at all for flags in such boxes - it seems a little childish, but if people want them, I suppose it's all right.
(And yes, I am aware that the Flag of England is fully appropriate in sporting and pre-1606(?) contexts.) Biruitorul 04:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. Support the current usage. - Francis Tyers · 13:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One size doesn't fit all. There is nothing wrong with identifying somebody as English (rather than British) if that is how they consider themselves. Same for Scottish. But I do hate those bloody little flags... /wangi 13:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - the flags get on my nerves as well. But let me ask: what if the individual hasn't pronounced on his self-identity? Surely not all persons for whom we insert an English flag have said "I am English first and British second"? Biruitorul 16:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same goes for Scottish, Welsh and northern Irish. We have quite bad sourcing on peoples ethnic identity. - Francis Tyers · 17:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I wasn't trying to single out England - although England is the only one without some form of local autonomy. One might think, though, that in the absence of a declared national (English, Scottish...) identity, the state (UK) flag would be the default. Biruitorul 18:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the St George's Cross

message: Anne of Great Britain has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anne of Great Britain FAR

message: Battle of the Somme has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of the Somme FAR

message: Restoration literature has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration literature FAR

message: People might want to look at and comment on Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#The_Sun Jooler 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Sun (newspaper)]] as a cited source

message: is up and running, and looking for members. Its still developing, so feel free to edit the project page, add and format to the to do list etc. Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 20:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject England

message: There is currently a dispute going on at the Template talk:UKFormation which regard the inclusion of treaties specific to England within the template which aims to display the treaties leading to the formation of the United Kingdom i.e. the Union of Parliaments and Union of Crowns before that. Comment upon the dispute is needed so that a consensus may be reached. siarach 04:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute regarding treaties relevant to the formation of the United Kingdom

message: Representative peer has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Representative peer FAR

message: Richard O'Connor has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard O'Connor FAR

message: John Major has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: John Major FAR

message: This article is up for deletion review, since it was a UK event I thought it would be worth linking from here.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Massoud Tofangsazan (second nomination) GameKeeper 13:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion review

message: Someone is proposing that England and Wales article be deleted. G-Man * 22:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: England and Wales

message: I've proposed some major changes on Portal:United Kingdom that I think would improve it. Comments welcome at Portal talk:United Kingdom#Randomisation. the wub "?!" 18:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Randomisation on [[Portal:United Kingdom]] 

message: I would be really grateful if any of you want to pitch in to help write Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations. Given the controversy swirling it we could do with a good article on it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 

message: From time to time, articles on minor football league teams are nominated with a policy guideline being referred to. If memory serves, it goes to about 10 leagues down from the Premier leagues. We are looking at developing something similar for the Australian football leagues such as AFL, rugby league, rugby union and soccer. If anyone could advise me of the relevant guidelines, I would be much obliged. Capitalistroadster 08:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Football Leagues notability

message: Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox flag straw poll 

message: I notice that quite a few articles include England, United Kingdom.  This feels a bit clunky to me but, before changing any, I thought I'd check if there is a consensus to use it or not.   It does seem to afflict Cornish articles in particular.  Google has about 123 from en.wikipedia.org for "Cornwall England United Kingdom", 5 results for "Devon England United Kingdom" and none at all for "Dorset England United Kingdom".  This makes me wonder if someone has been using the phrase to annoy any Cornish Nationalist readers.
If we don't use both together, what do we use?  I think just England would be fine for most articles but, for the Cornish ones, I think I'd run with United Kingdom as being more neutral, culturally.  Another possibility for these would be South West England or South West Britain with the Britain linked to either Great Britain or British Isles (terminology) which would be more descriptive, geographically. --Cavrdg 16:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: England, United Kingdom

message: Royal Assent has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Assent FAR

message: I would appreciate it if someone with copy editing skills, and some time, would go through History of Sheffield. It is currently on FAC, and might make it to FA. But it has been suggested that it would benefit from someone less close to the article giving it the once over. Thanks, —JeremyA (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of Sheffield]] FAC 

message: United Kingdom corporation tax has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: United Kingdom corporation tax FAR

message: Moorgate has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moorgate FAR 

message: I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bilateral relations discussion

message: James I of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  James I of England FAR 

message: I would like to invite all British editors to check the page The Selector, a world wide radio program created by the British Council to promote different musical styles from underground and mainstream artist in several countries around the world. The page is still a very little stub, however maybe you guys in the UK and in other countries are able to find more info since I only have about the Colombian version via the BC here. --ometzit<col> 04:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Selector: UK music around the world 

message: Buckingham Palace has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Simply south 11:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buckingham Palace FAR 

message: Can somebody else try explaining to User:Billleech why his version of the Henley-in-Arden article, is completely innapropriate. I've tried doing this but to no avail. G-Man * 19:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Henley-in-Arden

message: Charles I of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles I of England FAR 

message: Speaker of the House of Commons has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaker of the British House of Commons FAR 

message: Margaret Thatcher has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Margaret Thatcher FAR 

message: I've just split out Community Charge as a seperate article, rather than a subsection of Poll tax - perhaps the most contentious political event in the last couple of decades, and we didn't have an article! Remarkable...
It's fairly complete but a bit anecdotal in places and gets some of the history a little confused - would anyone be interested in working on it? Shimgray | talk | 14:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The poll tax 

message: Have been advised to come here re Template:Infobox UK place which are used for London districts as awell as UK. For London - don'y know about all other towns - would be good to have an option to ad electoral wards. DOn't know if you feel this is not your issue, but would appreciate some guidance / help.
hjuk 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infoboxes

message: A local museum has written to me to say that they will be happy for me to use soem of their photos on Wikipedia. But looking at the image pages, it all seems more complicated than that. I don't think they want to release them for free use. Anyone know what type of licence protects them and Wikipedia? hjuk 17:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an expert but I get the impression that only public domain, and variants, are to be uploaded.  is the one that applies but if you read the description it states that these images will be deleted!  MortimerCat 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While public domain images are welcome, most images are copyright under a licence chosen by the copyright holder, which must allow free use of the image under the same licence terms, permitting both commercial reuse and derivative works. Thus, I use Creative Commons with attribution, so anyone using the image has to make it available under the same licence, and name me as having created the image. The Wikipedia:Image use policy sets out the basic terms, Wikipedia:Image copyright tags links to the various licences. Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial#Ask for permission gives ideas on getting use of images from other copyright holders, and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission suggests sample letters. There are similarly useful pages on Wikimedia Commons, such as  commons:Commons:First steps/License selection The main thing, as you say, is to find the best licence for their purposes, and of course it's important to ensure that they actually hold the copyright. While the licence will make the images available for others to use, attribution means that they can treat it as advertising. One option is to limit the resolution, making a low resolution image suitable for illustrating an article available to all, while keeping control of the detailed high resolution original. Hope that helps. ... dave souza, talk 19:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of Historic Photos

message: One for the ToDo list.
The series of redirects and history of pages for
*UK Government's recommended daily allowance
is somewhat embarrasing and could do with sorting out / expanding. -- Solipsist 12:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[RDA]] 

message: I've created a Burial places of British monarchs. It has a bit of a Scots bias (reflecting my interests) in the referencing. Any help, and particularly from an English historian would be appreciated.--Sandy Donald 19:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Kings and things 

message: Can I get some guidance on what qualifies as a notable organisation within the scope of this project? According to Wikipedia, Royal patronage does not equate to automatic notability. I get the feeling this is a very subjective view on what Royal patronage actually means. Whether or not Royal patronage equates to automatic notability under current guidelines, should it? Patronage isn't given to any old organisation. Dbromage 04:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal patronage of UK organisations 

message: There is a debate at Talk:Worcester over whether the page should be moved to a disambig because of an American place called Worcester, or left alone. Views on the matter are welcome. G-Man * 01:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Worcester

message: There is also a debate at Talk:Plymouth about very similar issues, raised by the same people, because of the most notable USA place with the same name. Again, views on the matter will be welcomed.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plymouth

message: I added an entry on this in List of road accidents, and noted no deaths, but that is only because the source I have is unclear (none of the schoolchildren in the involved bus were injured). Can somebody double-check? Circeus 03:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  43-cars pile-up near Dover 

message: Some anon keeps adding to the Liverpool article that Liverpool name in scouse is 'Scousland' . They also appear to be serious. G-Man ? 02:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Scousland"

message: A new WikiProject on Bradford has just been started. If anyone is interested in writing and organising articles about Bradford, please sign up! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WikiProject 

message: A guideline is being drafted at this page which would prescribe that all UK nationals be described as British, rather than English, Welsh, Scottish or N. Irish. Unfortunately the proposer appears to have overlooked notifying the UK based projects. Leithp 07:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They should be describe as British. GoodDay 22:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that Rhodri Morgan should not be described as Welsh, and that Billy Connolly is not Scottish? Good luck with that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's frustrating: Connolly and Morgan are both British; Non-British readers can easily be tricked into thinking (via Connolly and Morgan articles for example) that Scotland and Wales are independant countries. GoodDay 22:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be like saying Mario Lemieux is a Quebecer and Brad Richards is a Prince Edward Islander; instead of saying both are Canadians. GoodDay 22:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all this has been discussed on the rejected proposal's talk page. A general rule of thumb throughout much of Wikipedia is to use the most commonly used description, or the one the subject would use themselves. It would seem to apply equally here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left comments on that rejected proposal page. It's too bad things will remain as they are; the UK is apparently a single country, simultaneously four countries. Oh well- English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish it is. GoodDay 19:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles)]] 

message: We're having a growing discussion (hopefully not an 'edit war') concerning the UK's official language. Some editors are arguing that the Official Language is English and Welsh. Others are arguing English only. GoodDay 23:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See this UK government site :. English is the official language of the UK as a whole, but Welsh, Scots Gaelic and Cornish now have different degrees of official status in some parts of the UK.  Ghmyrtle 00:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Abtract continues to 're-add' Welsh. GoodDay 00:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where ? Ghmyrtle 09:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the TopInfobox of the article United Kingdom (I've since reverted him). GoodDay 18:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It could probably use a footnote referring to the site I cited, but the footnote arrangements in the infobox look complicated and I wouldn't want to mess it up ! Ghmyrtle 19:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sorta understand Abtracts confusion. He's getting 'official language' of Wales (part of the UK), confused with 'official language' of the United Kingdom (the whole nation). If we went by Abtracts version, we'd have to also add 'Gaelic' (from Scotland) & Irish (from Northern Ireland). He's got to understand - English is the 'national' Official Language. GoodDay 19:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Welsh has a status above Gaelic, Irish and so forth, however. --Breadandcheese 18:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's already been settled, Welsh doesn't get special status over other regional languages. GoodDay 19:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[United Kingdom]]'s Official Language

message: Don't forget that libraries in England (not sure about W,S, NI) have acquired the right to use a swathe of OUP reference titles, including the magnificent Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.  Anyone with a library card can log on at . BrainyBabe 10:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources for biographical articles and supporting context 

message: I had to post here (couldn't get anyone's attention at the required article). Can someone fix the mistakes at 'family tree' article (see talk: British monarchs' family tree, for discussion of 'errors')? GoodDay 22:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[British monarchs' family tree]]

message: There's a vote to rename "press up" to "push up"; the argument in favour of moving is along the lines that "there are far more English speaking Americans than there are English speaking Brits". — Matt Crypto 05:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's never been policy. Secretlondon 13:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quite. The manual of style covers this (WP:ENGVAR). — Matt Crypto 18:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Press up]] -> [[Push up]]

message: There's disputes at England and List of English monarchs, over when these 2 kingdoms became united. I say it was in 1707; other argue 1604, when James I/VI proclaimed himself King of Great Britain. We need help at those articles. GoodDay 00:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two dates, as you have found out: the earliest date was when James VI became the King of both countries and the later date was when the Scottish Parliament voted to abolish itself. The Scottish Parliament was abolished in 1707; so that is the legal date. Pyrotec 17:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a small thing: the "Scottish Parliament" is generally used to refer to the devolved body in Holyrood. The pre-union legislature is known as the Parliament of Scotland and is located at that page. --Breadandcheese 17:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: When did England and Scotland merge to become Great Britain?

message: A proposal has been submitted for the creation of a Somerset wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. If anyone supports this or would be willing to contribute please comment/add your name there.— Rod talk 11:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This project has been launched at Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset.   Derek Andrews 14:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? Somerset wikiproject 

message: Greetings from down under - is there anyone in this project interested in working on 'tagging' articles and categories for the project?  The prepondence of red discussion tags at the top of category/article pages suggest that it might have been a low priority for most participants at some point in the history of this project.
It could be done by a bot - but human /manual checking is as effective - its just the project will never know much about itself if it cannot make a check of what categories it has and whether they have been appropriately populated and tagged.      
Also - the tags currently attract a configuration of class=NA, importance=NA for the categories - as the class=cat does not work - a good example of it working  is at the australian project.
For any project to adequately handle assessment at all - the tagging of articles becomes essential in the process of getting assessment up and running properly.
I dont expect much of a response as few in wikipedia seem interested in this aspect of project management - however the results in the long term make the endevour well worth it.
Please reply here or at my user talk page - I would be interested to know if any are the slightest interested. cheers SatuSuro 11:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which project are you talking about here? Keith D 12:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed that the UK project and/or any of the sub projects that need the 'treatment' as well SatuSuro 12:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category tags

message: I've nominated Blyth, Northumberland for FA (candidate page).  If anyone would like to have a look at it and leave a comment or offer their support it would be very much appreciated, thanks. Dbam Talk/Contributions 18:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure whether to add comments here on on the talk page; but I'm here now so just a couple of comments: I think that it should be stated in the intro that it is on the 'south bank of', rather than 'to the south of' the River Blyth. Also the giant killing exploits of the football team should give examples of giants killed; simply reaching the 5th round may just indicate they were just fortunate in the draw ! GrahamHardy 15:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Graham, thanks for the suggestions, that's a good point you make about Blyth Spartans and the FA Cup, I suppose it is just a matter of assumption that a team would have to beat high-level opposition to reach the fifth round.  If you wish, you can leave further comments at the article's candidate page, or either support or object the nomination as applicable.  Hope to see you there, cheers. Dbam Talk/Contributions 16:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blyth, Northumberland FAC 

message: Coronation of the British monarch has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --RelHistBuff 07:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAR notice

message: Contributions welcomed to debate the issue on Talk:London. Jooler 21:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Welsh in lead on [[London]]

message: Hello there,
A straw poll has opened at this section of the United Kingdom talk page regarding the use of the Ulster Banner for that article's circumstances only. To capture a representative result as possible, you are invited to pass your opinion there. If joining the poll, please keep a cool head, and remain civil. Hope to see you there, Jza84 22:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ulster Banner]] straw poll 

message: There is a debate going on at Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom as to whether Victoria of the United Kingdom should be moved to Queen Victoria. Just thought people might be interested. G-Man ? 22:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen Victoria vs Victoria of the United Kindgom

message: Hi, there's currently a proposal by me for "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)" to be clarified with usage notes regarding the use of "British" or "English", "(Northern) Irish", "Scottish" and "Welsh" to be used to describe the nationality of persons in biographical articles. Do provide your views at the "talk page" so that broad consensus on the matter can be reached. Cheers, Jacklee 16:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual of Style (biographies): British, or English, (Northern) Irish, Scottish, Welsh? 

message: A while ago now the Clarence Mitchell article was deleted, as he was deemed to be non-notable; the main reason being cited appeared to be that his recent job (spokesman for the McCann Family) was not notable. This may well be the case however his earlier career in the BBC is I feel of note. At the time I tried to get some UK based input to the deletion debate without success.  Can someone who knows how to do such things have a bash at re-instating the article (assuming I am not the only one beleiving him to be of note !
Thanks,
GrahamHardy 22:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarence Mitchell Secretlondon 11:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarence Mitchell 

message: At List of English monarchs concerning when the English monarchy ended- Did in end in 1707? or evolve into the British monarchy, disregarding the Scottish monarchy? GoodDay 20:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help wanted

message: Hello UK Wikipedians,
Just a note that I have proposed to overhall parts of the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. The project is a little dated, and lacking in vision and quality. I would welcome any feedback regarding improving this WikiProject. I don't necessarily aim to change the remit of the project, but more so the branding, organisation, systems of check, reviewing, and heirachy of daughter projects. Hope this is well received, -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography]] 

message: On 22 October :Category:Strictly Come Dancing participants was deleted after this nomination, fair enough you'd think, but then on 31 October :Category:Dancing with the Stars (US TV series) participants was nomination for deletion (by me) and subsequently kept after this nomination. I feel this has a place here because it does show a prejudice against UK topics. I think it's probably a subconscious bias without any malice, but it does exist. There is currently a deletion review on the subject if anyone would like to comment. --Hera1187 08:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia bias against UK articles 

message: The article on the Scottish island of Shapinsay is up for peer review. Feel free to contribute suggestions on how the article can be improved. Lurker (said · done) 16:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shapinsay Peer Review 

message: Just a note that Oldham is up for featured status nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oldham. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Oldham]] FAC 

message: There have been questions raised as to the relevance of the UK places infobox regarding the use of the Scottish saltire flag in the Inverness article. Someone has proposed that a number of changes, basically (in my humble opinion) plastering flags on said infobox and removing references to the United Kingdom contrary to established consensus. I'm sure you're all capable of sustaining your own viewpoints, however. Anyway, the discussion is ongoing at Template talk:Infobox UK place/doc/examples.--Breadandcheese 03:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you have a look at Ben MacDui's writings under the "Fields" section of the Template Talk discussion linked to. I'm certainly not making it up. As for Wikiettiquette, presumptions of good faith can only go so far - particularly when consensus and objectivity are being openly sacrificed. --Breadandcheese 01:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Infobox in Scotland 

message: Just to let people know that Manchester is up for WP:FAC! Please add any comments with support or opposition (with details why please) on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester if you have not significantly contributed. Thanks in advance! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 01:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester 

message: The article on the island of Shapinsay is now a Featured Article Candidate. Please go to its nomination page to give your opinion. Lurker (said · done) 13:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shapinsay FAC 

message: The List of historic buildings and architects of the United Kingdom is a huge, ungainly list of buildings and architects, listed by period. Aside from the impossibility of listing every historic building in the UK, the list also mixes in architects, and the later sections list buildings by architect, rather than alphabetically as further up. In short, its a mess. I propose creating a separate List of British architects, listing the architects by period as here, and then seeing if the remaining list of buildings can be trimmed down any. There are already such pages as list of castles in England, abbeys and priories in Scotland, Roman sites in the United Kingdom, etc, etc. See :Category:Lists of buildings and structures in the United Kingdom for more, though not all. The page may eventually become a list of : links, though the arrangement by building style may be problematic. Any comments or suggestions on how to deal with this page are welcome. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck 11:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of historic buildings and architects of the United Kingdom 

message: If anyone can help, still needed is an article about the History of the Jews in Wales to complete the History of the Jews in Europe. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the Jews in Wales 

message: I've started looking at National parks of England and Wales as I've been editing Exmoor trying to get it up to GA & was looking for ideas. I'm amazed that this is still a FA with no inline citations to verify the information given, which may not have been required when it became an FA in 2004 but is now. I'm happy to do some of the work on improving this if others are willing to help - otherwise would it be best to put it up for Wikipedia:Featured article review on the grounds that it fails 1(c) of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria which says "that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate." Putting it up for FAR may get a wider audience & more people to work on it, but before this is necessary would anyone from this wikiproject be willing to help?— Rod talk 13:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National parks of England and Wales 

message: Is there a possibility that :Category:British colony flag images and :Category:Flags of British overseas territories be merged into one category. The former has only three images, with one related image inside both categories. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest merging into :Category:Flags of British overseas territories, it's a more open name - looks good to me. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag categories 

message: I'm now ready to start merging the articles that are too short, and renaming everything with the formula "xxx immigration to Britain'. Below is the current plan - please stop me if you don't like it! I plan to put merge tags on all articles for a week to give editors advance warning. This will all take a long time so please join in if you want! I'll cross things off as they're done. Cop 663 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, but I'm still concerned about immigration vs. migration. I'd also be inclined to keep Black British (like White British and British Asian) as a stand alone article as this term is verifiable (possibly the only one listed!). It is also an official ethnic classification with which statistics can be attributed to. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Crap, I forgot about 'migration'. I've fixed that. And I didn't mean that Black British should be merged, so I've fixed that. Cop 663 (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the problematic groups has been those from the US. We not necessarily talking about an 'immigrant' group as such, or necessarily a permanant one.  After some on page discussion, Cop663 has suggested 'Americans in Britain'.  I'd like to endorse this, and suggest that 'Canadians in Britain' also works well. Indisciplined (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However, I have to say Western European migration to Britain is a complete car-crash.  First fatal problem, what are 'Western Europe' and 'Eastern Europe'? Any definiton is arbitary, the terms shifted radically over time.  Certain 'push' factors - like political and racial persecution, would have been common to both Germany and Russia in the past (who'd end up in different articles), whilst French migration (now lumped together with German) was essentially economic. Secondly, there is just no narrative to that article.  Maybe we could do a general overview on European migration to Britian, but trying to cut-and-paste the national articles onto one article like that just hasn't worked. The Latin American page, on the other hand, has a clear narrative, based on the many points of commonality that underly migration from different Latin American countries to the UK. We cna also talk about a Latin American cultural influence in a meaningful way as one heading - impossible with 'Western Europe'.  So, it's not a cut-and-paste exercise.  That's the way forward. As a rule of thumb, I suggest that if we can't form a clear narrative for the article, there probably is not basis for an article in the first place. (I really do hate criticising new articles when their authors are putting so much hard work into trying to improve Wikipedia. But if we are to move together to improve this situation we cannot just replace one set of flawed articles with another set of equally flawed articles). Indisciplined (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise totally valid points, in my opinion. I believe your input here is invaluable and I too like the "Americans in Britain" approach too (I wish I'd thought of it!). -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I've been slowly testing the waters with these ideas, most of which have been uncontroversial, but the "Western and Eastern European" one was pretty stupid in hindsight. I don't think a single, unified system is going to work, instead the different groups and subgroups require different solutions for their different situations. See Talk:British_Pakistanis#Merge_into_British_Asian for another problem: one ethnic group not wanting to be lumped with another due to cultural antagonism between the two. Cop 663 (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Small ethnic groups: moving forward

message: Hello,
I'm making a request for comment at Talk:United Kingdom. There is a debate as to whether the (verifiable - of course) term "major power with global influence" and other simillar versions should be allowed in the article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK not a major power with global influence? 

message: I've made a proposal to merge Union Flag into Flag of the United Kingdom (discussion). This is likely to be a controversial merger. At present there are two articles deal with the the same subject in order to avoid edit warring over the name of the article. I propose that the "standard" naming of flag articles should apply - or at least have only one article on a single subject. --sony-youthpléigh 12:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union Flag/Flag of the United Kingom 

message: Hi, there.
The Scotland article is up for peer review. If anyone wishes to make suggestions, feel free to do so. All help would be much appreciated. Lurker (said · done) 15:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scotland peer review

message: Hi. The "move" button at the top of the Occupation of the Channel Islands does not appear for some reason. Has someone or something disabled it for some reason? If so, why? Thanks for helping me solve this mystery. IZAK (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the "move" button on Occupation of the Channel Islands