Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 7

message: This article contains nothing on the UK's climate, for instance, how it could be placed in Köppen climate classification. --Barberio 17:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate 

message: The 230 is only a specification, it is still supplied at 240v.
See http://www.answers.com/topic/mains-electricity
:240V is within tolerance and it has not, therefore, been necessary to change all of the equipment to meet the harmonised standard yet. That doesn't alter the fact that the UK voltage is defined as 230 and this is what should be shown here.
:BTW, Wikipedia articles are not usually considered satisfactory references Mucky Duck 14:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, 230v it is. All the EC members with 220v electricity had to raise it to 230v and those with 240v had to reduce it to 230v quite a few years ago. The result being that older 220v designs can now be used in the UK/Ireland without major problems (although their life will more than likely be shortened) and older 240v designs can be used elsewhere in the EC. Of course newer equipment is designed for 230v so it should be happy anywhere in the EC. The actual voltage supplied does fluctate -- I've seen it over 250v in the old days: that caused problems with electronic equipment although kettles and motors hardly noticed -- but the electricity suppliers are now aiming at 230v plus or minus, so it should be there or thereabouts. The old specs (240v +/- 6%) translated to anywhere between 225.6v and 254.4v whereas the new specs (230V +10%/-6%) translate to somewhere between 216.2v and 253v. Of course since 240v lies within both ranges it's quite true to say that 240v is still supplied but that doesn't change the fact that the allowable range is different. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mains voltage supplied at 240v 

message: reqmapin|England
I think we could do with a map showing the borders of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - perhaps with major cities marked too. It would also be useful on Politics of the United Kingdom Cheers Andeggs 15:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a map showing the location of major cities in the geography section, however this does not include state boundaries (although modification to include boundary lines probably wouldn't be too dificult). Maybe a map similar to this one which appears in France#Administrative divisions could work well; with the thicker, darker lines showing the state boundaries between Scotland, England and Wales and the thinner, lighter lines showing either regional boundaries (i.e. North-East, Midlands etc.) or county boundaries. State and County boundaries would probably be best although I fear the small size of counties might make the map unclear. Doesn't such a map already exist on Wikipedia somewhere?  Canderra 15:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah that sort of thing would be perfect. I can't find anything like it for the UK on wikipedia which is amazing really when you think we have maps for so much else (e.g. all constituencies!). Let me know if you find one or can make one.Andeggs 16:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "There is already a map showing the location of major cities in the geography section" This shows Felixstowe, but not Sheffield, Grangemouth, but not Dundee, Falmouth, but not Swansea, Coventry or Leicester. I've said it before and I'll say it again; it's far from ideal. Rednaxela 21:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a blank one to the commons if anyone wants to use it as a base.  Kmusser 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps 

message: What's the archive policy on this page? Discussions from the last week (indeed from yesterday) seem to have been archived already. Mucky Duck 09:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived because the page had reached 100kb in length (well, 99!). There is no policy, as such - people (usually me) just archive when its fairly long. I archived all talk which I figured was 'dead' (I wanted to archive the Britain stuff above but as I'd been involved, felt I better not), but if you want to resurrect something just retrieve it from the archives. --Robdurbar 18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I pulled conversations that were only a couple weeks old back out.  Kmusser 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: I have removed lots of names in lists.  Can we please try to keep the names down.  I have been very harsh but the section read very badly, would you pleases consider this if more names are to be added.  The UK article is too long and overly long lists are the easiest things to go. Rex the first talk | contribs 23:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I did something similar to Scotland a few weeks ago. But I also linked a list, from an external source rather than a random list based on the personal favourites of whoever happens to have been editing Wikipedia. You might like to do the same. Viewfinder 00:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah - unfortunately I seem remember that people (myself included) have done this before, and then lo and behold, the list grdually expands again. --Robdurbar 06:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: For things like famous UK bands rather than a making up a list ourself we should reference an external source and use that. See Scotland's talk page for an example and in this page's archives about universities. Thanks/wangi 12:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists 

message: Naming conventions are currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#UK geography terminology straw poll. Please join the discussion there to define a United Kingdom-wide policy. Mammal4 09:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: Is over 60 million now. I haven't changed it though. Troubleshooter 09:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "60,200,000" suggests the population is no more than 60,199,199 and no less than 60,000,001: "60.2 million" makes no such claim.  Yorkshire Phoenix 10:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ACtually 60,200,000 suggests the population is 60,200,000, 60.2 million suggests the population is anywhere between 60,150,000 and 60,249,999. 203.114.140.222 20:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The ONS say it is 60,209,500 . It has been updated accordingly. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: Could I suggest editors talk here instead of reverting over Welsh being included in official languages.  Also why was Welsh and Scottish Gaelic not treated the same? Rex the first talk | contribs 13:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only speak for myself but I know that Welsh is an official language in Wales (and thus the United Kingdom) but I don't know if the same is true of Scottish Gaelic, Ulster Scots or Cornish.  Yorkshire Phoenix 13:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All those languages are official minority languages but no offical languages. The official language is the one used by the government and Welsh has never been uttered in Westminster. josh (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Government =/= Westminster: if you change your address to one in Wales the DVLA will supply a bilingual licence whether you want it or not.  That's official government use, as was the way the information booklets about higher education issued when I was at school that were published jointly by the Home Office and Welsh Office included Welsh (and my school was in Yorkshire, not Wales!)  Yorkshire Phoenix 14:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The DVLA are civil service not the government. The government are the 600+ MPs and the dusty lot in the House of Lords. josh (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the government are the few MPs and Lords with ministerial portfolios, their civil servants and the departments and agencies who deliver their services.  Yorkshire Phoenix 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Then, may I suggest we compromise by stating that there is no official language for the UK, and list all British languages that are officially recognised?  Yorkshire Phoenix   07:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, AFAIK there are no official languages for the UK as a whole. Although I must add that Welsh has been uttered in Westminster whatever difference that makes. Owain (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The legal situation is, I believe, that services must be provided in Welsh, and documents translated into Welsh, in Wales. So you can go into a government office in Cardiff and expect to be served in Welsh, but not in London.  We should probably explain the situation rather than just say is/is not an official language. DJ Clayworth 13:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the Welsh Language Act 1993,  an obligation is placed on the public sector to treat the Welsh and English languages equally in the provision of services to the public in Wales (direct.gov.uk).  However, The Welsh Language Act 1967 guaranteed the right to use Welsh in court, and also provided for its use in public administration. (www.bwrdd-yr-iaith.org.uk - the Welsh Language Board).  The upshot is that any Welsh speaker can access Government servies and documentation in Welsh in any part of the United Kingdom and not just Wales. christopherson78 13:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not true that one can access Welsh language services elsewhere in the United Kingdom, as the Welsh Language Acts were restricted to Wales.  Furthermore, the right to use Welsh in court (in Wales alone) was established in the 1993 Act, not 1967.  Notwithstanding those dry technicalities, Wales is unequivocally not an official language of the United Kingdom.  Whilst we lack our own definition of an official language, the European Union does not, and they treat Welsh as a minority language, not an official language of the UK.   This is also the position taken by the British government in everyday discourse.  Thus, English is the only official language of the United Kingdom (as established by precedent), but Welsh is official in Wales (as, in fact, it was even before 1993). Bastin 20:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  "Welsh has never been uttered in Westminster" Lloyd George's first language was Welsh, for the record, so this statement is unlikely to be true. [[[User:Graldensblud|Graldensblud]] 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welsh 

message: The article states that : "Thousands are separated (formal) by a comma: 10,000. (To avoid confusion with continental countries which use the comma as the decimal separator, a space may be used, e.g. 10 000.) ".  We were always taught in highschool that it was now non-standard to use the comma separator for thousands and that the space, or even no marker at all was the correct format. Comments?  Mike 09:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Commas are still in widespread use, especially with numbers over 9,999.  The English (UK) locale setting in Microsoft Windows includes the comma separator, meaning the vast majority of computer-generated documentation in the UK will use it.  Yorkshire Phoenix   09:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just finished A-levels and we were taught to use the comma.  DJR (T) 13:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Data

message: for the sake of this discussion page, especially people who want to discuss matters unrelated to the first line of the article, I have undertaken a major sub-page/archiving of this page into three separate subsections all linking from Talk:United Kingdom/Terminology.  I apologise for any inconvenience caused, but I honestly do not believe it to be fair that this one topic dominates this page in such a way.  Furthermore, the length of the page(s) are now much shorter, making it easier to get to the latest changes.
Cheers, DJR (T) 14:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna move current discussions back to here - I'm not accusing you of anything, but in the past subpages have been operated for certain areas of discussion on this page and users have been accused of attempting to hide talk, in order to ensure that only their own voices were heard. Like I said, I'm sure that's not your intention, but all the same I think we should avoid such a situation again. --Robdurbar 18:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: archive/moving debates

message: Hello everyone, there is a current need to help disambiguate the term British.  At Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, British is the disambiguation pages with the most links (by far), and ideally there should be no links to disambiguation pages.  So if possible, please take a look at the  links, and try to disambiguate the links to a more correct location.  It's actually pretty easy, and most get disambiguated to United Kingdom.  If we could get 10 or so people doing 50 links a day, we'll be done in no time.  Thanks in advance , -- Jeff3000 03:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help disambiguating 

message: There is no reference for this claim, and I have heard others. Actually, here are three:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29 (6th)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29 (5th)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html (8th)
There need to at least be one credible reference listed, but even better would be to list both nominal and PPP from two sources.
:The media in the UK commonly use the phrase "the worlds's fourth largest economy", which when you inspect it and attempt to get figures turns out to be a puff of hot air - seems like it's probably about tenth or something. I believe this quote first arose from Alistair Campbell, spin doctor for Tony Blair and has been endlessly repeatef like a mantra by New Labour politicians ever since, and our baying mindless kneejerk pathetic "journalists" in London have brainlessly accepted it without checking. The "fifth" thing is just a slight adjustment on "fourth" - I think NL are scared of being found out on the fourth thing as even the laziest journalists on the planet sometimes check a factoid. Jeez, even Belgium probably produces more goods than Britain now. The last sentence is a joke by the way. MarkThomas 17:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any source that puts the UK tenth (by the way, it's not just goods that count towards GDP - services do too). As for the World Factbook reference above, it lists the UK as 8th, but the world and the EU are 1st and 3rd, and they don't count as countries, so the UK is the 6th placed country by that source. I think we should stick to nominal measures though, since that measures the actual size of the economy. Cordless Larry 18:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A quick look at the 'official exchange rate' GDP figures from the fact book make this easy to explain. Both India and China, who rate higher than the UK in PPP, are lower in official exchange rate, promoting the UK to fourth. So it's more than just 'hot air', but the PPP figure probably better reflects the truth. DJ Clayworth 19:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the extremely strange - and often non-sensical - world of economics. The problem basically boils down to the fact that it is extremely difficult to compare such statistics between nations. Not only are there many different 'versons' of GDP (nominal & PPP being the most famous), but each country has a different relationship between the public and private sectors, this combined with each countries unique strucuture of public/private debts, foreign ownership and public/private equity structure make any ranking purely "an estimate based purely on criteria X, Y & Z" rather than a 'true' GDP ranking. Canderra 02:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think a better thing would be to remove the comparative GDP rankings from all country articles as they are all misleading and based on quite arbitrary factors, not to mention the various absurdities like debt, war and natural disasters increasing a nation's GDP etc., HDI is far more useful (although no "ranking" can be perfect). But this issue needs to be debated at a far higher level than just this article. Canderra 16:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fifth largest GDP? 

message: This  contrived attempt, of extremely recent vintage, to say that Britain is now merely an "informal" name for the UK does not address in any way, shape or form the issue of precision, of accuracy. The proposers of the motion know it, which of course is why they want to create such a chimera away from the accuracy issue.  Equating Britain with the UK is just as wrong in 2006 as it was in 1801, and it was so wrong even in the heart of the British establishment in 1801 that they renamed the British state from Great Britain to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The conjunction 'and' is, obviously, the key word there. Re-read. And re-read again. And again. Comprenez-vous? An dtuigeann sibh? If wikipedia wants to stand over such an inaccuracy, then it abnegates any right to term itself an encyclopedia on this issue. South Armagh is not in Britain, and it never has been. Have you people been asleep for the past few decades? And it doesn't really matter (in fact, it matters not a whit) if all 58.5 million people over in Britain jumped on screaming that a part of Ireland is in Britain- their nationalism will not change geography. When it comes to writing an encyclopedia, accuracy is everything. The entire wikipedia project is discredited by the triumph of British supranationalism over accuracy on  this United Kingdom article. El Gringo 20:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus, for a second time, was for the opposing view.  We've already had this debate twice now, let's move on.  Gsd2000 21:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Lesson: 'informal' does not address the issue of 'accuracy'

message: A few days ago I modified the infobox including a new map. The older one has recently been replaced
because it is considered coherent with the rest of the nations' wiki pages. That's true, but see for example the french pages about Italy or France. Don't you think that the new map is graphically better? It could be used for all EU countries pages. Let me know what you think about it. --Kloud88 14:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For my two cents, I must say that if the map was implemented as a standard across Europe-articles, I would support it over the old ones.  It is a more informative image as a whole. DJR (T) 17:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK location map 

message: Would it be extraneous to add in a bit about firearms or the lack thereof? It does seem to be common knowledge that they are not around unless for sport, but it might be worth mentioning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.138.80.20 (talk) .
:no it wouldn't, guns arent really a part of our culture here in the UK so we shouldn't really talk about them, maybe in a separate article firearms in the united kingdom or something like that --The big moose 16:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I can't help feeling that "It does seem to be common knowledge that they are not around unless for sport" is something that is so normal in the vast majority of the world that it would be worth mention if it was not the case . It is normal to not allow guns, and the USA allows them is probably the biggest anomaly in the developed world.  DJR (T) 17:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: exactly.. the article on policing in the uk does say that the police aren't generally armed, which is enough I think --The big moose 17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed also. DJ Clayworth 13:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a link to here? Gun politics in the United Kingdom? The USA is not an anomaly, many nations allow more access to firearms then the UK.Halbared 08:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worth Mentioning Firearms? 

message: Is it just my eyes, or has the map of the UK in the "Geography" section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uk-map.svg) been accidentally stretched? I think it's too high compared to its width, or too narrow compared to its height, whichever way you want to look at it. Someone should do a rough measurement to check... Matt 23:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Map at Geography of the United Kingdom: ratio 1.87Map in my atlas: ratio 1.85Map in this article: ratio 2.02
Admittedly the ratio will depend slightly on the map projection used, but these figures bear out what my eyes are telling me. Matt 00:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks nice and slim. But is it a map of the UK, or of Britain?--Shtove 01:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - merits further discussion, I reckon. :-) Badgerpatrol 01:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a map of the UK. The regions constititing the UK are shaded in the lighter colour. In particular, the light-shaded area includes Northern Ireland - which is part of the UK but not a part of (Great) Britain. It also excludes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which are not part of the UK. Matt 10:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd-looking map 

message: Would it be possible to get a map of the uk which is in proportion to the rest of the world or europe at least? Am I being a moron? I thought the UK was about half the size of Spain. France is even bigger than Spain, so why is it that many maps which claim to be physiucally accurate - and even some satililite photos - show the uk to be about the size of Spain and France put together? Alex, 07/10/06 16.44
:Which map are you talking about?  I've personally never seen a map that has the UK the size of France and Spain together, unless it's one drawn by a six year old.  Perhaps you are referring to the problem of projecting something that exists in three dimensions (the surface of the globe) in two?  See here: Map projection. Gsd2000 16:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of the UK which is size accurate? 

message: The economy section lists Edinburgh as no 6 financial centre in Europe. It cites reference 55, which is an article quote from a debate in the Scottish Parliament, from which I quote:
What is even more remarkable is that Scotland no longer has the sixth position in Europe as a banking centre. A few months ago SFE updated its survey. It found that Scotland is not sixth, fifth, fourth, or even third, but is now the second most important banking centre in the whole of Europe, behind only London in its European and international importance. Indeed the chief executive of SFE tells me that when his survey reached that conclusion, he was so surprised he thought he had better check his figures, so he collected the figures afresh from another source and ran the calculation again, achieving the same result, confirming that Scotland was indeed the second centre in Europe 
I think it's very unlikely anyway that Edinburgh ranks sixth, although I also think the above is exagerrated - Frankfurt is surely second. London is first. Zurich third - I would guess Edinburgh is fourth. Permission to correct my fellow editors? :-) MarkThomas 08:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless we can come up with a better source, it should stay or be deleted?  You may be well right about fourth ness but unless you have a source for that it shouldn't be going in.  Morwen - Talk 08:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah.  It's not a terribly well defined concept anyway - how do you measure?  funds under management?  turnover?  number of people employed?.  and "banking centre" doesn't equate to "financial centre": there's no big Edinburgh Stock Exchange.  Morwen - Talk 09:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edinburgh as 6th largest financial centre in Europe 

message: Very early in the text: "The attitude of the present government towards further integration with this organisation is mixed [9], with the Conservative Party favouring a return of some powers and competencies to the state [10]. "  Does this need an edit?  No mention to that point who the current government is and no mention that the Conservative Party is the current opposition.Rogerrab 21:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we probably ought to mention both. --Robdurbar 08:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you look in the government and politics seciton, it discusses the various political parties in some detail. --Robdurbar 09:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First mention of political party 

message: "by playing a leading role in developing Western ideas of property, capitalism, and parliamentary democracy"
I thought the Dutch were the first true capitalists?? Or am I wrong? Superdude99 21:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its probably unrealistic to state that any nation or national economy are 'true capitalists' - there isn't a set definition or moment of capitalism. The transition from a feudal system was a very gradual one. It is true that it had its genesis in Western Europe and that Netherlands/UK were two countries that were at the front of this; hence 'by playing a leading role'. --Robdurbar 15:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Italian bankers from the Renaissance, surely?--Shtove 18:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would have thought the existence of Adam Smith and the Industrial Revolution was sufficient to justify this sentence. DJ Clayworth 18:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalism

message: This is very misleading. In the last 300 years (i.e. since 1706) only two unions, not "several", have been formed - in 1707 and 1801 (the loss of most of Ireland in 1922 can hardly be described as a "union"). All the other unions that could be referenced, such as the Union of the Crowns in 1603 or the parliamentary unions between England, Scotland, and Ireland in the 1650s under Cromwell, fall outside of the specified time period. Just what, exactly, do we want to say here? TharkunColl 12:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The present United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the latest of several unions formed over the last 300 years.

message: I've just noticed the map in the side box, showing the position of the UK within the European Union, and the member states of the European Union within geogreaphical Europe. I'd like someone to give a cogent reason (without presenting a POV on whether or not the EU should become a state in it's own right) why this map should be used. 
Unless we use a map of the UK within geographic Europe or the world, with only the UK identified, we are presenting a POV on the politics of European union. The EU is not a state, just a regional grouping. The map used gives the EU an importance it does not possess and subtly also implies that the UK might be a subsidiary unit of that grouping, which is misleading for readers not versed in European politics. On their pages in Wikipedia we don't show Malaysia within ASEAN, or Brazil within Mercosur. We don't identify the EU members on the Croatia page. Clearly someone has deliberately gone through the pages of all states which are EU members and replaced their maps with those identifying their position within the EU; we might think they have simply done so to give a commonality of maps, but that does not justify what is a mispreresentation. 
The map should be reverted to a standard common across all Wikipedia nation state pages. The maps used on the England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland pages should be the guides. JamesAVD 17:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No strong views on the best map to use, but I think it should be pointed out that the suggestion that the home nation pages should be used as guides as to what should apply on a nation state page is flawed. None of these are nation states. Mucky Duck 09:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto really. Although I see JamesAVD's point, it should also be noted that - rightly or wrongly - the European Union IS more than just a regional bloc. Most political scientists would now describe it as a sui generis institution, and its states as having given up some of their sovereignty to it. Is it worth referring to on a map of the UK - possibly. I must admit, it bothers me little. --Robdurbar 10:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, I understand. That makes good sense. Mucky Duck 11:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, fair enough. --Robdurbar 12:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would appreciate if the discussion could be continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location_Maps_for_European_countries--_discussion_continues as it involves more than just this country. Regards, Asteriontalk 18:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect map should be reverted 

message: A number of users are attempting to force the inclusion of EU accesion date into the infobox of this and other country pages. It's apparently been there for some time but I've only just noticed it myself. Clearly this is non-standard (cf. Mexico) and is potentially promoting a POV on the constitutional status of the EU which is not appropriate for an infobox; I suspect some of the users making this change have a particular agenda they are seeking to promote. The inclusion of this information has not been discussed or agreed amongst the contributors to this page and it should be. Until we have a consensus, please support me in keeping it out of the infobox? JamesAVD 15:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been in the infobox for over 3 months on a highly watched page like this. All EU members have this date, and it is not surprising that Mexico doesn't, as there is no institution comparable to the EU in North America. could you please obtain consensus to remove this information at Template talk:Infobox Country where this discussion belongs? Kusma (討論) 15:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Consensus on your talk page User talk:JamesAVD favors inclusion of the accession date. Kusma (討論) 15:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please discuss this at Template talk:Infobox Country or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries since this is nothing that is relevant only to the United Kingdom page. Fragmented discussion works against standardization. Kusma (討論) 15:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be confused there is not a discussion being held at Template talk:Infobox Country what so ever.  Just a link the the projects page.  — MJCdetroit 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I really don't see why we need a standard format over the entirity of Wikipedia, to be honest. But even if we do, it has already been acknolwedged when discussing the map that the EU is so much more than NAFTA, the AU, the Commonwealth or any other organisation of nation states. The AU cannot pass a law which supercedes Nigerian laws for example. Robdurbar 16:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're expressing an opinion on the constitutional status of the EU. EU law can only superceded UK law (in this example) because the UK parliament says it can by acceeding to one of the EU treaties. If the UK revokes the treaty the EU goes away. The EU may have different characteristics to NAFTA but it is still not a nation state. The UK has important constitutional/political arrangements with other counties: should these all be shown on a map? To highlight other EU member states in a map for the UK implies a position on this debate which is either misleading, or non a neutral point of view. There's a reason we have a standard format: to avoid factual inaccuracies and points of view. JamesAVD 18:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, we're all getting confused here: the discussio on maps is above, this is the discussion of EU accession dates (though the arguments are related). JamesAVD 18:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-standard inclusion of EU accession date 

message: I've just noticed that two users attempted (see the history of this page) to REMOVE the discussion being had here! Can someone report these guys? How do I do that?! JamesAVD 15:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were never removed, just moved to the proper place. Please check the facts before accusing other people of vandalism. Kusma (討論) 15:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see Wikipedia:Talk page. Its simply a bit of confusion. The standard format for talk pages states that we should have newer decisions at the bottom of the page. I presume the users were moving the talk down the page to follow these conventions. I don't think anyone here has been trying to vandalise; and I think JamesAVD genuinely thought that people were trying to disrupt the discussion. But its just a little confusion - calm thee all down :) --Robdurbar 16:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I think the following text understates the situation regarding the Scottish situation:
"The resurgence in Celtic language and identity, as well as 'regional' politics and development, has contributed to forces pulling against the unity of the state [25]. However, there is at present little sign of any imminent 'crisis' (at the last General Election, both the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru saw their percentage of the overall vote drop, though the SNP did gain two more seats and are the second largest party in the Scottish Parliament as well as official opposition). Nevertheless many in Scotland would like independence [26] although most English do not[27]."
The poll cited indicates majority support for independence, and since then, ICM have conducted another poll which gave a larger majority in favour (51% yes vs 39% no, 57% of those who expressed an opinion).  ICM has polls dating back to 1998 which indicate average support for independence at 54%.  While perhaps "crisis" is too strong a word, the intervention of UK politicians such as Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, and the Governor of the Bank of England in the current debate shows that there is concern in London regarding the Scottish elections in May 2007.
I would modify the text slightly thus:
"Nevertheless opinion polls in Scotland indicate that the majority are in favour independence [26] although most English are not[27]."
and add a reference to the ICM polls in addition to the YouGov reference.
Malcovic 22:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinion poll results go up and down like a ta...  Well anyway, what I mean is that they're far too transitory to add to a general overview like this. That text should be deleted entirely, not just modified. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government and politics 

message: I added Leeds as being able to claim 2nd city but someone removed it - Leeds is above Manchester here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_cities_by_population and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_districts_by_population and above Birmingham here http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=402384 . Therefore Leeds has equal claim to be second city.
:Except that on the first list its beaten by Liverpool and on that latter one its behind Manhcester anyway. I don't like having lists of cities on the page - we should remove all three. --Robdurbar 16:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's got to be some official definition of what constitutes a city population, As Wikipedia already seems to accept that the list used here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_cities_by_population is an accurate list of cities by population, surely we should just stick with that? But I don't think this whole "second city" thing is useful. People don't use the phrase to refer to the second largest - it also means second most important, or second most prestigious. As it is not an official title with no accepted definition, there is no NPOV factual information that can be given other than "there is no agreement what it means, there is no agreement which city it is, and here are some links to articles written by people from Birmingham, Manchester etc about why their city is the best". If the UK had an official second city then I would say it should be mentioned in this article, but as it doesn't I suggest it is best avoided. Hobson 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities 

message: "The British economy is the home of the Anglo-Saxon model, focusing on the principles of liberalisation, the free market, 'common law' relating to property, and low taxation and regulation."
Low taxation?? This really needs reviewing... 194.6.79.200 04:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we all think that we could pay less tax, but this is refering to comparisom with taxation levels in some countries on the continent (income tax in Denmark for example can be as high as 60%) whose economies historically follow a more socalist model.  Whereas UK tax is higher than the US, compared to many western nations UK tax could be described as low Mammal4 08:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: In the opening paragraph, the UK is described as being located in "west Northern Europe". That sounds somewhat awkward, although it seems to have been done to allow links to both Western Europe and Northern Europe. Any ideas for something better-sounding? We could use a link to North-West Europe instead. Cordless Larry 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geographical location