Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 13

message: Everest is the tallest mountain in Nepal. True, but it hardly does it justice. And the pictures of skyscrapers are there specifically to illustrate the UK's economic growth. TharkunColl 11:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about the United Kingdom; dragging in the RoI to boost the status of Nevis is aggravated trivialisation. Skyscrapers are often constructed during recessions so their existence in wherever the photo was taken is not a testament to anything. Maybe a potential "indicator" but a testament is way to strong and non-Wiki in terms presentation. The fact that the UK Government has a Defence Ministry means nothing; every country has, and every country calls their military "defence". But you will note that Wiki does not have to validate this euphemism; the term that avoids pov is "military expenditure"; which it is actually the term used in the actual link which appears as "defence spending" (Sarah777 11:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree that "military expenditure" is a better term going forwards. I think citation would solve the other issues. -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree the statement about skyscrapers being a testament to the economic growth of the UK is an odd one, and very unencyclopaedic.  The building of skyscrapers is actively regulated and discouraged in London to protect its skyline.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case it's generally perceived that the number of tower cranes/building sites in a city is an indicator of its current economic status, not the number of skyscrapers. Skyscrapers may well show that there has been a booming economy at some time previously but it gives little or no information about the current economic situation, particularly when you take into account the sort of local planning rules that the Red Hat mentions above. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ben Nevis

message: Eagerly trying to get their favourite city or town into the list largest cities/towns, some editors are restorting to including the entire population of city councils or their equivalent: Newcastle upon Tyne and City of Sunderland are the latest to try and squeeze in. Taking into account the comment in the article's text just above and below the list — See main article for the precise figures. They are urban sub-divisions according to the 2001 census, not local authority districts. — and the notes at List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population, I have removed any below the 200,000 mark. Bazza 14:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think eventually, the whole section will have to be deleted. It has become a 'favourite city' battle ground. GoodDay 14:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree. I find it odd when there are lists in some articles which simply duplicate the information on another "List of..." page. Perhaps just replace it with (e.g.) "There are twenty-two cities or towns with a population over 200,000." Bazza 15:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd go for that. GoodDay 15:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is more that editors are ignoring the comments placed in those locations for exactly that reason.  There's no reason for the 200,000 - 250,000 group to be removed if people actually read the comments and the daughter article.  If this list is to be removed, then so should the conurbation and LUZ ones too - which would be a shame as they add valuable information to the article. Fingerpuppet 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. I've been bold whilst you were typing. Agreed about conurbation lists going the same way, but is there a similar UK-only LUZ list as well? Bazza 16:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it makes sense to list the largest urban areas and urban zones without having the cities in. There may be strong arguments for saying that urban area boundaries are as meaningful, and perhaps more meaningful, than city boundaries - however, I think most readers would be more interested in cities and expect to see that information in there. People are more likely to have heard of Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham etc, and to have some interest in them, than in the West Midlands or West Yorkshire. They'd expect to get some idea of the major cities of England in the England article. The fact that the cities list has apparently led to difficulties in terms of editing the article is not a reason for removing it, although I understand why an editor took it out. I also think that having both Urban Areas and Urban Zones in is overkill, as aren't they the same thing defined in slightly different ways? However, if anyone feels both lists are needed then I wouldn't argue with that. But I do think cities should be in there. Hobson 18:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Urban Areas are conurbations; whilst LUZs are City-Regions and are agglomerations of local authorities.  To give an example, the West Midlands conurbation includes both Birmingham and Wolverhampton and is defined by the extent of the built-up area, whilst the Birmingham LUZ does not contain Wolverhampton and is defined using economic factors. Fingerpuppet 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. My main point though is that it makes sense to have the list of cities in, even if it seems to inspire problematic edits.Hobson 19:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest cities/towns 

message: As much as it pains me to say it, presumably the sentence "England is the current holder of the Rugby World Cup." should be removed.
86.159.83.93 11:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And surely it should have been "England are the current holders of the Rugby World Cup" anyway. Untidy grammar.  PS- We should put the FIFA rankings in. Now that Scotland are doing well I have recently developed 100% confidence in this flawless and unassailable test of a football team's mettle and ability. Badgerpatrol 12:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rugby World cup 

message: This article lists Northern Ireland as a constituent country (which I agree with), however at Northern Ireland constituent country is omitted. Shouldn't this be corrected (either here or there)? GoodDay 14:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been restored, hopefully the dispute is at an end. GoodDay 01:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hopefully, the articles should be consistent Thunderwing 20:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Ireland 

message: This artice applied status to each of the home nations based on a website , which is far as I can tell is a page put up by a computer science department to demonstate HTML, it has no merit as a reference on a geographic article and fails WP:VERIFY, I have removed the column  Fasach Nua 21:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Administrative subdivisions

message: Became an american citizen & invented the telephone in the america & yet he is in the list of british inventors?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChesterTheWorm (talk • contribs) 17:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, one of the strange things about being British is that you don't stop being British even when you take out citizenship with some other country. In fact you remain British even if you deny it. It's easier to change your sex than to change your Britishness. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 800 years we've been telling them, Chester - and we're not even from Britain! ... it's true, easier to change your sex! Of course, if you have ever looked sideways at anything that might be green (even turquoise will do, or any other colour that's not green) and you risk winding up on this list! --sony-youthpléigh 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd steer clear of mentioning Bell as 'the' inventor anyway. As Telephone#History states, the invention of the telephone is a matter of dispute. Maybe it could be omitted or modified? Rossenglish 15:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even more frustating - We can't call him a British inventor, it's gotta be Scottish. GoodDay 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... he was European. --sony-youthpléigh 17:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GoodDay- making sarcastic comments about people who use the word "Scottish" is not constructive. I'm getting sick of this pettyness. Be civil. Lurker (said · done) 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not being sarcastic (for what it's worth, I'm of Scottish descent). I'm merely pointing out, Bell's citizenship/nationality etc, has to be consistant with his article Alexander Graham Bell. GoodDay 17:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At times I forget the 'sensitivities' involved with the UK's internal politics - I should word my postings more carefully to avoid misunderstandings. I apologies, if I've offended anyone. GoodDay 17:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander Graham Bell...