Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 5

message: I think there is a problem with the motto. This page says it is Dieu et Mon droit and that that is the royal motto. But isn't the royal motto Honi soit qui mal y Pense (Shame on those who think this is shamful)? You can see this motto on the ring going around the coat of arms, though it is partially obscured by the fore-legs of both the lion and the unicorn.
Please verify this information: Booksworm 19:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dieu et Mon droit is correct - it is the motto of the sovereign. Honi soit qui mal y Pense is the motto of the Order of the Garter, the sovereign's personal order of knighthood - the "ring" you refer to is actually a garter. Please see this official British Embassy webpagefor external verification. Bwithh 21:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto 

message: A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp.  Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Poll:_Ireland_article_titles|Poll: Ireland article titles]] 

message: After looking at dozens of country articles, I think this is one of the better organized articles in terms of top level sections. But, the section organization in this articles still needs some major work. One reason is for ease in finding information. Another is to offer a flow from more objective to more cultural-paticular topics. So, I am trying a new organization. Feel free to revert. Vir 17:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article organization 

message: "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom, or the UK)"
IMHO the article title should then be "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (I would have created the redirect myself if I hadn't been deterred by the number of links to the article, which means there is a risk of breaking a few things) Apokrif 16:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most – if not all – countries, as per the Country WikiProject, are entitled in Wp with their short-form names for simplicity (e.g., Germany, India, Kenya).  Varied renditions typically appear in the lead/introduction.  This is somewhat contentious with some entries (e.g., United States), but lengthy article titles (names or descriptions) are arguably necessary only if and when there's a chance of ambiguity (e.g., Republic of Ireland).  And the current UK is the culmination of former kingdoms similarly named, covered off through hatnotes atop the current article.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be noted that the article title is the title of the article not necessarily the title of the subject of the article. In this case we have an article titled "United Kingdom" which describes a state titled "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". While the longer title may be suitable as the title of a state, it is too long to make a good Wikipedia article title, hence the use of the two word title for the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: For other meanings of the terms "United Kingdom" and "UK”
Which ones are the right ones? Apokrif 17:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation marks 

message: It currently runs at over 15 authors (including JK Rowling twice) and it doesn't include Chaucer, the father of the English language. The problem is that everyone wants to add their favourite. Perhaps we should restrict it to the 3 or 4 best examples. Then add a comment stating that the talk page should be consulted before adding another author. 
Obviously Shakespeare is beyond reproach. J.K. Rowling is the best example of a contempory writer. I would include Chaucer for the above reason (although perhaps you could argue that he has less international influence). Dickins or Austin are probably the two favourites for a famous historical writer. Any thoughts? josh (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably everyone from before 1800 should be removed, as they date from before the creation of the UK. -- Arwel (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Good point. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Authors 

message: Could someone message me on my talkpage regardin which is the appropriate article for this prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/030406camp.htm]? Thanks --Striver 22:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I can't back this up right now(but will check and come back later), but I am not sure the following is true;
"The national sport of the UK is association football, "
I am fairly certain that the national sport is actually cricket, although I admit that it isn't exactly wildy popular in the bits of the UK other than England...
If your going by public support it would be association football by a long way. Lots of games are of British origin though - consider also rugby to name but one. Also remeber this is the national sport of the UK, not England. I'd be in favour of leaving it as Association Football.
:I think 'national sport' probably isnt defined officially. However, football is almost exlcusively described as such. Robdurbar 18:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sports

message: Is it just my browser, or is the time in the United Kingdom bit at the top of the page wrong?
It says 21:43, but my clock says 22:03 ?
:Yeah, you're right! Robdurbar 22:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time 

message: I think the atheism bit could do with some discussion. Thanks to whoever put in the Telegraph reference to support that 40% are atheists argument (later changed to atheists and agnostics). I've added the census reference saying that 76% claim to have a religion, though really only 15.5% said they had no religion. The Telegraph survey which says 35% do not believe in God clearly includes those who do not know if they do not believe in God (only 35% of non-believers know that they do not believe in God). So, although technically correct by some definitions, I think it is misleading to talk about atheism wrt this 35% of the population - since the survey itself (same reference) says that only 12.25% of the population are atheists. (see also ). I think it could still do with some re-wording. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that!  It was me who supplied the reference - I just noticed that the section had been totally deleted without comment, and thought that was a little unjustified.  I noticed it was unreferenced, so just added the first reliable one I found; I'm no expert on the subject however, and didn't feel in a position to expand further.  Your edit is both far more precise and accurate, thanks for that. Aquilina 23:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem - it is always better to have a reference which can be checked - and it was shockingly unreferenced before. Secularism is an important aspect of modern UK society which should be mentioned - I'm surprised it wasn't in the article before. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Atheism

message: I propose a new set of links which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skinnyweed/Sandbox. I'll add them if no one objects in 2 days time. Skinnyweed 04:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The media links aren't needed; they should be on Media in the United Kingdom. --Robdurbar 07:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, leave the linsk as they currently stand/wangi 08:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's best to leave the external links as they are, to avoid a deluge of further TV, radio and other less notable media websites being added later. This is currently one of the best prominent articles as regards external links; compare it to Turkey#External links which is just about to go over the link-spam event horizon - practically any vaguely Turkey-related site could now be added with the justification that there is a similar one in the list already, and Wikipedia is not a link-farm Aquilina 09:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Skinnyweed 17:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Target the 'OECD' into the full title of 'Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development'. I don't know how to edit templates. Skinnyweed 01:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Skinnyweed 17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "International relations of the United Kingdom" template