Talk:ISO 3166-2:GB

message: Wouldn't it be a lot easier for Scotland to use SCO rather than SCT? The o comes before the t. 92.0.110.196 (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCT vs SCO 

message: Regarding Nothern Ireland's "Province" status, how can a province be that big. If the other 3 countries of the uk are countries, then why isn't Northern Ireland? 92.0.110.196 (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: NI is a province?

message: Why isn't my NI flag correct, I am pretty sure it is better than the republican tricolour. Leave my edits alone! 92.0.110.196 (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: NI flag

message: I notice that Geohack links to the region, so a  in Cheshire (region:GB-CHW), for example, links to ISO 3166-2:GB-CHW, which doesn't exist. Should these articles exist as redirects, and if so where should they redirect? I was about to create ISO 3166-2:GB-CHW to redirect to Cheshire West and Chester, but then I discovered that ISO 3166-2:GB-LND (London) redirects to ISO 3166-2:GB. Any thoughts? Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say to point them to ISO 3166-2:GB. There are quite a lot already. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Oh, BTW: you don't need to mess about with  in order to link a template and also show the double braces. Use  or  - for example,  generates . --Redrose64 (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks (and thanks for the tip re templates). Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I mis-entered the link as ISO 3166-2. It should have been ISO 3166-2:GB. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on ISO 3166-2:GB. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090326143027/http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_3166-2_newsletter_i-2_en.pdf to http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_3166-2_newsletter_i-2_en.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090326142942/http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_3166-2_newsletter_i-8_en.pdf to http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_3166-2_newsletter_i-8_en.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can the codes, when the country is not in question, also be used without the "GB-"? For example, is it right to say in internal English contexts that "SFK" is the ISO 3166-2 code for Suffolk? --KnightMove (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

text: I agree with Redrose64. (SFK is just half the ISO code.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage without "GB-" 

message: At English Wiktionary, we've identified that the "Included for completeness" section of this article is potentially inaccurate. See wikt:WT:RFDN#GBN, copied below:
----
[GBN] is factually wrong, because GBN is not defined in ISO 3166-1 (which gives 2 and 3 letter codes to all countries). The codes for the UK are GB and GBR, and no mention is made of Great Britain the island anywhere.
It also can't be a member of the related standard ISO 3166-2, because those codes all refer to subdivisions of countries and follow a strict pattern, which in this case would be GB-GBN.
@Urhixidur - could you please let me know where you got this information from? Theknightwho (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete, it's wrong. Perhaps the mention of "GBN" was seen here, not realising that this actually refers to GB-GBN. This, that and the other (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I spotted that (and the table on Wikipedia that actually says GB-GBN) but didn't want to overcomplicate the original request because I have a feeling that Wikipedia's wrong. I think they mention the codes EAW, GBN and UKM in the remark "for completeness" because they're in the (now obsolete) UK standard BS 6879 that ISO 3166-2:GB is based on, but they haven't actually been incorporated into the ISO standard. In any event, GBN alone is clearly not correct. Theknightwho (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, that makes sense. I found various uses of GB-GBN in the wild, but given the power of Wikipedia it's quite possible they all originated with a Wikipedia editor making the same misconstrual I made. This, that and the other (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Let's discuss here. ISO 3166 never mentions GB-GBN, only GBN. This has led Theknightwho (above) to suspect that there is no such thing as GB-GBN. This, that and the other (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, OK, maybe ISO goofed once again (by being incomplete this time). BeerBuildsBetterBodies (talk) 07:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  GB-GBN etc