Talk:Britain

message: Britain has been add to the new :Category:Germanic culture by an editor. Please discuss this to ascertain whether this is appropriate or not - and act accordingly.-- Zleitzen(talk) 13:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Germanic culture]]

message: Ha, here's a laugh.  You just moved a whole lot of information about the history of the usage of the term Britain to Wictionary, on the grounds that it was "about the word", and of course words go in dictionaries.  Within half an hour, one of the regular Wictionary writers put a clean-up notice on the page, and asked in his edit summary, "Where did all this encyclopedic information come from?"  He is right - just look at the neat tabular lay-out of Wictionary and it should be obvious to you that this kind of discussion does NOT belong there.  The rule about not having dictionary entries in Wikipedia is meant to avoid us having articles which are just dictionary definitions.  But when we get into complex matters of word usage, the history of the signifier is inextricably bound up with our understanding of the significant, and when Wikipedia is discussing a difficult concept like Britain, the history and variation of linguistic usage in relation to that concept is encyclopedic.  I have not worked on this page for over a year, so I'm not going to argue for a simple revert, but do think about this again.  The set of Wikipedia articls on Britain are impoverished if we have a sacred cow stopping us from telling the reader how GB came to be called GB.  And if as I suspect the Wictionary people just delete this information as out of place, then some very interesting background to Britishness has been lost to the project. That would be a shame. --Doric Loon 13:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So add it to the Britishness article, or better still improve the Great Britain etymology section with it. I've added relevent parts to Briton, maybe explain in United Kingdom why the government there is called British and papers like the Economist and the Guardian call the UK, "Britain", for short. Or if you really must start a new article called Historical names for Great Britain. But do you really think that all the articles linking to Britain expect to be met with an etymology and usage guide? --sony-youthtalk 14:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dictionary vs Encyclopedia

message: I added United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and United Kingdom of Great Britain. I think these will be especially important for disambiguating links to this page. --Steven J. Anderson 03:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but removed other fluff. Entering "Britain" in the search box need to be disambiguated, but the word Britain in no way disambiguates to mean "Britain in the Middle Ages", "Iron Age Britain" etc. etc. They belong on the page called History of Britain (which strangely redirects to History of the British Isles ... but eh!). --sony-youthpléigh 12:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical States 

message: The UK article says that the Republic of Ireland gained its independence in 1922, but the UK didn't change it's name from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland until 1927. Is the dab page right on its dates? --Steven J. Anderson 06:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Waited a few days and changed it. I've found the same information in more than one place. --Steven J. Anderson 19:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, hadn't seen the original post. Gotta say I'd be against the change. Its not exactly informative. The constitutional change was in '22, the name change was just cosmetic. --sony-youthpléigh 20:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1922 or 1927? 

message: Should this page include a link to British Empire? --Steven J. Anderson 20:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[British Empire]] 

message: The first line read:
*the British Isles, an archipelago off the northwest coast of Europe
Nobody calls the British Isles British unless in error. And why the first line? Is to prove a point, or to make one? --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is whether British is likely to be a search term to find the British Isles. Dab pages don't usually give references, but some evidence in this discussion of that usage might be helpful on the issue of whether British Isles should be included.--SabreBD (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Isles - incorrect use here 

message: The claim in the UK article ('The United Kingdom is often referred to by the short-form name of Britain') that Britain is a short form of the UK offers no evidence for it. In fact, the official UK Home Office reference further down states directly the opposite: 'The name "Britain" or "Great Britain" specifically refers only to England, Scotland and Wales, not to Northern Ireland.' (Life in the UK: a journey to citizenship). UK should therefore be removed from this page as a synonym for Britain. 86.42.16.248 (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not referring to the UK as 'Britain' or not is correct is a matter of debate, and I do understand your point, but the purpose of a disambiguation page like this one is to direct users to the page they were looking for. Seeing as there are some people who use 'Britain' to refer to the UK (the Prime Minister himself has done so), there will be people who will end up on this page, maybe having typed 'Britain' into the search box, who were looking for an article on the country. The link is therefore appropriate here. -- TheLewisRepublic (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britain ≠ UK, according to the UK government

message: On 7 July, before User:WheelerRob's series of edits, the definitions used here included:
* The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a sovereign state in western Europe
* Great Britain, the largest island in the British Isles and the largest island in Europe
I don't have any problem with the subsequent reordering of the page.  However, I disagree fundamentally with Rob's proposed changes to the definitions, which would read:
* United Kingdom, a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe
* Great Britain, an island situated off the north-western coast of continental Europe
I have proposed an alternative, which Rob has reverted:
* United Kingdom, a sovereign state in north-west Europe comprising Great Britain and Northern Ireland
* Great Britain, an island situated off the north-western coast of continental Europe
The problem here seems to be Rob's insistence (here) that it is "debatable" whether the UK is "part of Europe", and therefore his insistence that wording that suggests such a thing should be removed.  No, it isn't "debatable" - or, at least, it is only "debatable" to those pushing a specific political POV.  All sources that I have seen locate the UK as within Europe.  Of course, it is located on islands which are separated by sea from continental Europe.  But that is not the point.  The UK is a political entity, located in Europe.  Great Britain is an island, located off the coast of continental Europe.  The two should not be confused in the way that Rob suggests.  I would prefer to revert to the status quo ante, and the wording of 7 July, rather than Rob's proposal, if others disagree with my suggested wording.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to wait to see the outcome of the discussion at United Kingdom. Although the description on this page doesn't have to be identical as the one there, it should be based on it. I don't mind the inclusion of 'comprising Great Britain and Northern Ireland' as this helps in the absence of the map however whether its described as being off the north-western coast of continental Europe, or within western or north-western Europe should be decided by what article reads. Regards, Rob (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK is geographically and politically within Europe per any source other than a UKIP or BNP manifesto.  Why are we wasting time on this nonsense? ----Snowded TALK 19:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no point in discussing this here. You are just spreading the discussion across articles. Definitions across Wikipedia should be consistent. Regards, Rob (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, settle where you want to have it.  I am just responding to a thread on a watched article.  ----Snowded TALK 20:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to have the discussion in one place, and no need to have identical definitions in different articles.  This page is a disambiguation page, where there should be absolute total clarity in how terms are disambiguated.  Clarity is still needed on other pages, but there is less need to spell out very specific detailed variations in definitions on article pages.  Rob has made edits on numerous pages, which may be watched by different editors, and it is useful to bring as many editors as possible into these discussions so as to help achieve a broad consensus in each case.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I began with saying that 'Although the description on this page doesn't have to be identical as the one there, it should be based on it'. Until the discussion is finished at United Kingdom, I would advise editors not to discuss the terminology used on disambiguation pages. Rather then starting discussions, providing a link to the discussion at United Kingdom would help to centralise the discussion. Also terminology used across different disambiguation pages to describe the United Kingdom and Great Britain should be identical, so having that discussion at United Kingdom would probably be most ideal. Regards, Rob (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes to definitions 

message: Editors should be aware that it is against Wikipedia policy to include inaccurate information in the encyclopedia.
I understand that there are quite a few people who have managed to never learn that Britain does not mean the United Kingdom. There are many other things that people fail to learn as well, but that does not mean that they should be included in Wikipedia.
To pander to those who feel that readers will be incapable of going to the article on Great Britain and to read that Great Britain is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I have added an section that describes the common abuse of language in the disambiguation page. It is important NOT to include this misuse in the first section, as it would be misleading people about the meaning of the term, contrary to Wikipedia policy.
Please do not revert to suit your own misunderstanding of the meaning of the term Britain: rather accept that you have learnt something today. Elroch (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not prescriptive with regards to language use. There is abundant evidence that many people commonly use Britain to refer to the UK, regardless of what you might think of it. older ≠ wiser 01:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

text: As MOS:DAB puts it; " Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the specific article they want quickly and easily." NebY (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of the term Britain 

message: In the first section with the basic senses of 'Britain', somebody a while ago added this line:
"Breton, a region in France that gave origin to the word Britain during the Roman time."
I'm sorry, that is egregiously bogus and I'm deleting it. I'm sad that the intervening editors did not realise this needed to be removed ASAP (even if it isn't common knowledge it's contradicted by the information on the 'Britain (placename)' page).
For the record:
1. 'Breton' is not the name of a region in France in either English or French - Brittany/Bretagne is.
2. 'Breton' is the name of the people of the region. In that spelling it's never been a name for the inhabitants of the island of Britain.
3. The names Bretagne (Brittany) and Breton come from the words for Britain and its peoples due to migration by south-western Britons to Brittany during the Anglo-Saxon invasion period.
4. That was after the Roman period - therefore that region was not called Brittany/Bretagne, and certainly not 'Breton', or even 'Britannia' during Roman times. Instead it was part of 'Armorica'.
5. The origin of the word 'Britain' is explained exhaustively on the 'Britain (placename)' page. It comes from a native Celtic name for the island and its inhabitants that was recorded in Greek and Roman forms. Nothing to do with any part of France!
Sorted 2A00:23C4:C402:6E00:297F:5AD6:42A8:F65C (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus 'Breton' entry 

message: *"The island containing England, Wales, and Scotland. The name is broadly synonymous with Great Britain, but the longer form is more usual for the political unit." – Britain | Definition of Britain in English by Lexico Dictionaries
*"England, Scotland, and Wales" – Britain | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
*" the island of Great Britain" – Britain | Definition of Britain by Merriam-Webster
Kmcdm and Gareth, please desist from edit-warring and stop removing this common meaning from this disambiguation page, which should point readers to all the usual meanings. . . dave souza, talk 12:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining Britain

message: This page should be a redirect. The page Britain (disambiguation) is the proper place to disambiguate. America redirects to United States, and you have to go to America (disambiguation) to find alternative meanings. The same should apply here; "Britain"/"British" overwhelmingly means "UK"/"pertaining to UK" throughout Wikipedia and the English language corpus, just as "America"/"American" means "US"/"pertaining to US". GPinkerton (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but there is a case for getting rid of an article which is largely a coatrack however we would need to be very clear about this misnomer -----Snowded TALK 19:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not really a misnomer if it's the WP:PRIMARY meaning of the word. There's nothing in the lead of United States saying "oh and by the way what everyone calls America is only a small fraction of America". There's nothing about the term "Britain" that ties it to the island of Great Britain, it's always had a wider meaning, as in the ancient Greek terms "British Isles" and "Lesser Britain" (now called Ireland). We also don't need to state that America is not all in America and includes Hawaii and Guam and so on. GPinkerton (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You should review the British Isles naming disputes on wikipedia for a contrary view and it is a current politial topic.  If you check I'm OK with a redirect as long as the proper naming stays clear in the UK article -----Snowded TALK 06:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not proposing changing anything there, it's just odd that a name almost universally used as equivalent to UK can't be used in articles as a plain redirect. It's always been the country's common name after all, even if it's not the official long one. The style guides cited in the lead sentence of the UK article says things like:  and  GPinkerton (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Having looked again at the British Isles naming dispute, it looks as though the issue is local and minority interest, and is focused on the term British Isles not "Britain" anyway; I'm pretty sure that historical dispute doesn't have much bearing on most of Wikipedia's editors and readers, whom I think would be served better with a redirect than with a disambiguation page at this URL. GPinkerton (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

text: , I fully agree. I think most users searching for "Britain"would expect to find the United Kingdom article. A hatnote with a link to other uses on a disambiguation page seems the obvious way to go. WaggersTALK 11:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Sorry, no. 1) The preceding discussion was not a proper move discussion and there was EXTREMELY limited participation to establish consensus, and 2) the move should not have been done as a cut and paste move. That was completely inappropriate. I've restored the status quo. If you disagree, please follow instructions at WP:RM to initiate a proper move discussion and establish consensus for this. older ≠ wiser 20:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

text: There was insufficient consensus on this given the previous discussions and this being a controversial, see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Britain, please file a formal WP:RM if you desire a primary redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk)  20:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was not involved in the previous discussion at all nor how any change was carried out at the time. All i saw was the change made to the UK page and this page with no conversation on either about making the change after many months of how it had been so i reverted. I didnt see the conversation started on the other talk page about this before i reverted the page initially. I do think something like this should have been discussed more and on all the impacted pages, before the change was suddenly made and after just a couple of hours. Britain absolutely should be a redirect to the UK page but i wont revert any of these pages on this again and will wait and see if others agree with the change or not. If there is support for it restoring it as a redirect then we can start the appropriate process to do it, if not then i will accept the change. I just dont like seeing any significant changes made without clear consensus on something like this. Sorry if i responded in haste.   RWB2020 (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

text:  Prior to this page being made into a redirect, it did atleast make clear that Britain usually refers to the United Kingdom, and then went on to other uses. If we are undoing the redirect that was made and going back to how things were four months ago, the page should at least be worded in the way it was before  the redirect was made. One of my instant concerns when i saw this redirect removed, was the fact the page now gives equal status to the usage of Britain between UK and the Island of Great Britain, even though Primary usage is absolutely about the country, not the island.  RWB2020 (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

text: It's complicated, which suggests sending the reader to a dab where they can pick the flavour of Britain they had in mind.  This version seems best to me, though I would also consider swapping the priorities of UK and GB.  If we want to deviate substantially from the status quo ante then the subject is important enough to merit a properly publicised RfC. Certes (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should be a redirect to United Kingdom 

message: Ok following the discussion above there does not seem to be others wanting to restore the redirect, so i accept we have to keep this as a dab page. But i really think the current wording of the page is inaccurate because it contradicts itself. it says usually refers to, and then lists very different things. I believe its more accurate if we use the wording that was stable (before it was turned into a redirect a few months ago), and that wording was fundamentally different. The wording before made clear its usually refers to the country, and then listed the other things it is sometimes used to refer to such as the island. If that was the stable wording before and was accurate, why now have this new wording that totally contradicts what was said before, especially as we have done away with the redirect to restore the status quo? The country remains the primary meaning of Britain, even if we are no longer redirecting to the UK page. Please can we not restore that stable wording or atleast make an adjustment to the new wording to make things clearer? RWB2020 (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording you suggest would be an appropriate start to Britain (disambiguation) if Britain were an article on a primary topic.  However, the reason for putting the disambiguation page at the base name is that we found no primary topic.  In such cases, MOS:DABFIRST recommends the standard introductory line followed by a list of meanings.  We've placed the common meanings at the top, per MOS:DABORDER.  Certes (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  More accurate wording needed for the Dab page 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that there is no primary topic for this title. (non-admin closure)  – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Britain →  – Britain is widely used as a term for the UK by the mediahttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/01/race-in-britain-how-did-the-sewell-report-get-it-so-wronghttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/01/no-lockdowns-britain-will-treat-coronavirus-like-flu-says/https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/britain-s-slow-return-to-travel-at-risk-in-europe-s-covid-surge/ar-BB1fdmMzhttps://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/opinion/uk-mauritius-china-us.html, general population, the British government and relatedhttps://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/boris-johnson-prime-minister-government-britain-kemi-badenoch-b927531.htmlhttps://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/the-100-richest-families-in-britain-have-seen-their-wealth-increase-by-55-5-billion-since-2010/https://www.gov.uk/government/news/britain-s-biggest-network-of-diagnostic-labs-are-completed-in-5-weeks and non-British government related serviceshttps://www.voanews.com/europe/irish-foreign-minister-britain-guilty-perverse-nationalism-over-us-tradehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-49090804https://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2021/mar/28/french-covid-jabs-will-catch-up-with-britain-in-a-few-weeks-saysmacron-2282782.html. It barely ever refers to other items, especially the ones under 'usually refers to'. Britain should redirect to United Kingdom for these reasons. 
– Fixing26 (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 April 2021