Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 9

message: I have tidied up all the references into a standard format using the  template as this was one of the major concerns at the last FAC review.
→ Aktar (talk • contribs) — 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References tidy-up 

message: Reading the sports section, I was suprised to see no mention of fishing, as from what I understand, it is the sport that is most actively participated in, I don't have any data to support this, but perhaps a sport guru might be able to prove/disprove this.  If it is true, then I believe it is worth a mention.  Also there was no mention of snooker, which I always thought was very popular (although less so now than in the 1980's), and I was led to believe was created in the UK.  I'm not a writer or researcher, so I apologise if this is incorrect, and will not add this myself, but hope that these will be considered for inclusion 213.48.1.172 03:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fishing/Snooker

message: In the media part is says that the Belfast Telegraph is the oldest newspaper still running, started in 1860. But the Stamford and Rutland newspaper, which i recieve, dates back to the 1600s. Its kinda well known if you know what your looking for. Please update. --84.66.18.84 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article is incorrect - the oldest daily newspaper is not the Belfast Telegraph but the Belfast News Letter, with the article of the latter stating it was first published in 1737. Is the newspaper you mention a daily? Jonto 22:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have made the correction. Jonto 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Indeed the newspaper you mention does claim to be the "oldest in Britain", but it looks like it is published every Friday? Is this correct? Jonto 22:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK's oldest newspaper 

message: I found this quite confusing in the article as I would imagine most people in Britain and myself would read this as private education, could it be changed to 'State Education' so not to be ambiguous and to still be understandable by the rest of the world. (80.189.224.209 15:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good solution!...Gaimhreadhan15px(kiwiexile at DMOZ)  • 16:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of 'Public Education' is confusing 

message: The first paragraph of the lead section currently states: "It occupies all of the island of Great Britain and the north-east part of the island of Ireland." I understand that the term 'to occupy' can mean "to take or fill up", "to be a resident or tenant of; dwell in", "to take possession and control of" and "to take or hold possession", that it can be neutral. But in regards to the Troubles of Northern Ireland, I don't think the word occupies to refer to "the north-east part of the island of Ireland" is an apt choice of words. It carries too much of a connotation. AecisBrievenbus 00:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easily fixed. Thanks! Doops |  talk 01:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupies? 

message: I added the verylong tag but it seems to have been removed. Well, the article is 112 kb, which is obviously 'very long', even for a country article. Most of the sections can do with some trimming, particularly culture and demography. Look at  Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries for guidelines and countries that are featured articles. Christopher Connor 19:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is! I had pointed this out in an earlier (unresolved) discussion too. Lets work toward a summary style article. AJ-India 03:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is too long 

message: Seems to be a dearth of sources for many statements. Is this typically so in these types of article? Candy 04:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: "Economically costly wartime loans, loans taken in 1945 from the United States..." 
Is this referring to the loan arranged by Keynes? If so, I thought this was after the war not during the war (albeit by a few months) which doesn't make them wartime loans! Has anyone got a reference or information to back up whar is stated in the article? Candy 04:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronologically challenged? 

message: I would request to be listed as a site that links here the link can be found on http://www.local-phone-service.co.uk/links-directory.html. Unsure if this is corect area to ask this.
86.13.131.236 06:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't list sites that link here. AecisBrievenbus 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to be Listed as a site that links here 

message: There are 2 or 3 maps on the page, but no single one that shows the boundaries between England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.  I think it would be a nice addition. (And I think the map on the Scotland page didn't enlarge very well.) EJR 17:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask User:Morwen. She created this, and many other maps. Although I note she has not been around for over 2 months. --Mais oui! 19:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map showing the 4 nations? 

message: Why does your Infobox use footnotes? What are their purpose? Should other Infoboxes support footnotes? We request your comments at Template talk:Infobox CVG. Taric25 04:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: (unsigned post by  removed due to offensiveness - see archive)
:Erm, I don't think so somehow. Do you see it on any other country's article? No. Leave this kind of trivial nonsense to your own talk page. Bennelliott • Talk • Contributions 19:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bestiality/Necrophilia 

message: I was fairly dissapointed to see the removal of my edit which included into the music section the importance of the current UK Thrash scene and it's international significance.
Ignorance of the subject is no excuse to deny it's recognition. The movement is very popular, more so than many of the types of 'rock music' listed and the deletion of my edit is both intolerant and insulting not only to myself but to thousands of fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holy Crap! Lions! (talk • contribs) 04:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The United Kingdom page is essentially a summary of lots of more detailed pages devoted to the individual topics.  As such, material shouldn't appear in the main page until a more extensive section has been included in the various sub-pages (see WP:SS for details of the process).  The sub-page for music is Music of the United Kingdom which, in turn, has its own sub-page at Music of the United Kingdom (1990s-2000s), and Music of the United Kingdom (1980s)  I suggest that you initially add your contribution as a section of this last sub-page, and mention the genre in Music of the United Kingdom.  However, looking through Thrash metal, it appears as if the genre was developed mainly by US bands, strongly influenced by the British New Wave music.  New Wave is alread mentioned in Music of the United Kingdom. Bluap 13:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the editor who removed your edit, I just wanted to re-iterate what Bluap has said about this essentially being a summary page. As such, it can only cover the most notable of subjects under each heading. Although you talk about "thousands of fans", I'm sure you'd admit that bands such as Evile aren't as well known as the bands currently listed, such as The Beatles, The Clash or Franz Ferdinand. One of the bands you listed doesn't even appear to have a Wikipedia article, judging by the red link. Cordless Larry 13:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of the Thrash scene and its impact globally 

message: Njan, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and Gwernol, please stop reverting each other. If you have something to say, do it here. Discuss change, don't editwar. AecisBrievenbus 23:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop reverting each other 

message: I was trying to fix the broken photo caption in the economy section (see here ) and thought that someone had broken it by inserting a Dickensian essay into the caption, when in actual fact the closing tags were just in the wrong place.  I then got irked by an accusation of vandalism on my talk page when this got reverted, when I should have double checked more carefully instead of reverting back.  This was what I should have done .  Apologies to all, it was a good faith edit.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To err is human. --Guinnog 23:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies 

message: thumb|250px|The famous Spitfire of the RAF. The RAF won the Battle of Britain and ended Germany's advance in western Europe during World War II.
This is certainly not encyclopaedic content, it's a biased opinion with no basis in fact. The Battle of Britain was indeed a major turning point in the war - but the spitfire was not. Also - it's very unfair (nigh incorrect) to state that the Spitfire won the B.o.B - there were far more Hawker Hurricanes in service, not to mention other aircraft (The Defiant, Blenheim to name two) involved, and radar and ground defences. The Spitfire is certainly famous, but it didn't win the Battle of Britain - at least not by itself.
89.241.167.236 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect at best 

message: Please could we stop citing sources from the website 'globalsecurity.org'. It is unreliable. There are better organisations, comprised of academics and professionals. Could we please only use statistics from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the International Institute for Strategic Studies or the Royal United Services Institute? These provide extensive academic research on security and defence issues, which is used by most of the world's defence ministries, etc. User:Ouip 13:17 (GMT), 8th June 2007
:Globalsecurity.org is reliable, it's even in its slogan "GlobalSecurity.org - Reliable Security Information". The website specifically targets "Subject Matter Experts", "Senior Leaders", "Junior Staff and Interns", "Concerned Citizens", and "News Reporters"; the latter stated to be the site's most important online target audience. Forbes.com has a review of the site and lists it in their "Best of the web" directory.--Ilya1166 13:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forbes is not a credible source for assessing the competency of security and defence information—this is the prerogative of academics and defence intellectuals, like those at SIPRI and the IISS. And your source from the US DoD says absolutely nothing about British defence spending, or Russia. Further, Britain's defence budget also does not include nuclear weapons costs or internal defence issues, or the costs of overseas operations like Afghanistan or Iraq, so the real amount spent by the country on defence is also likely to be higher. Now, it seems clear that China's defence spending may plausibly be higher than Britains—although only three 'high end' estimates say this from your DoD source—but Russia's is certainly not. Britain therefore probably has the world's second highest budget, although China may also hold this position. User:Ouip 03.38 (GMT), 9th June 07
*Sigh* I can see this will continue to be a problem as nationalists like you do not listen to reason.--Ilya1166 03:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: globalsecurity.org

message: I've removed the date of formation: the uk of gb and ni wasn't formed in 1707, so to simply have 1707 next to formation is misleading. Best to just have the dates of each treaty. Passingtramp 00:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formation

message: I can't find any information regarding plant and animal life in the UK, not even in the British Isles article or the Great Britain article. Come on, you biologists, make a substantial contribution! --Voyager 15:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, I'll have to remember to deal with that.Parmesan 10:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a gap in quite a lot of other country pages too though - is it something that's normally dealt with elsewhere than country pages? MarkThomas 17:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's missing 

message: There is discussion on how to write nationalities at Talk:England#English versus British Nationality. Please join in! --h2g2bob (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to move this discussion to here instead. Some of it is also being duplicated at Talk:Hugh Laurie#English_rather_than_British; one of the articles I changed that caused the discussion in the first place. Any input would be appreciated and I would like to find consensus.(Ajkgordon 16:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion: Nationality 

message: I noticed someone removed the section on Islam in the religion section of England. What are people's views on this? I must say i agree with it, as it already has 2 parts on the 2 main beliefs in England, Christianity and Athiesm. If a section on Islam was allowed, there would need to be a section on every religion in England, so it seemed "fair", and info about every religion in England would mean alot of info. — Jack Milne – 12:15, 6 June 2007 (Talk  — Contributions)</span>
:Perhaps. My main concern at the moment is that the section is badly written. I've had a quick go at re-wording it, but would appreciate some help. Cordless Larry 20:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's since a new section been added on Islam, which is well worded and informative. Jackrm 15:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam 

message: and ... There seem to be be some disagreement on this talk page and the article itself. I'm glad to see you're both using the talk page to discuss this but please keep in mind that this article is the super-article for the many UK related articles. The sections in contention should simply be summaries of the main articles for them. So if something isn't in the main article then please add / discuss it their first and only if it is very important of relevant to the UK as a whole add to this article too, once it's on the sub-article. Thanks/wangi 02:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Ilya1166 and Ouip... 

message: Apologies if this has been discussed before and I missed it. The "motto" appears in the infobox as "God and my right" - is this correct? I always thought that Dieu et mon droit to give the old French version was the motto of the British Monarchy and originated with the Black Prince although I could be wrong about the latter. The motto is surely not the motto of the "United Kingdom" which I doubt even has a motto. Am I wrong people? Thanks. MarkThomas 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong. See Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. --John 20:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page you use as illustration supports my argument. The opening sentence is The Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom is the official coat of arms of the British monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II.  Quite right. They are the arms of the monarch and the motto is the motto of the monarch. It is not the motto of the state entity known as the United Kingdom, which has no motto. MarkThomas 11:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto - "God and my right" 

message: You're invite to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 12:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New European vector maps 

message: I would appreciate it if someone could add facts such about the UK such as, 'how much of the UK is urbanised' and possibly government predictions about population growth or population decline in the future.88.110.24.141 14:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts/Demographics 

message: I've just seen that, according to Yahoo!, Gordon Brown becomes PM "today". Shouldn't we change it from "Tony Blair" to "Gordon Brown"? 89.240.82.159 13:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he's leader of the labour party today, PM on weds. Bennelliott • Talk • Contribs 14:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So who is the PM until Wednesday?? user:mnw2000 17:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, Tony Blair of course. Bennelliott • Talk • Contribs 18:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely right.  If Gordon Brown gets run over by a bus before 2pm today, he still might not become PM.  We need to report what actually happens, not what we think is going to happen, no matter how likely it appears to be. Waggers 09:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prime Minister

message: I think, by my personal opinion, that this particular article fits FA-class. Randalph P. Williams 13:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Its class 

message: Can I add a link to the BBC Domesday Project website: http://www.domesday1986.com/?
This is a very extensive interactive guide to the UK as it was in the early 1980s. It includes photographs from all major towns, satellite and aerial photo data, and personal viewpoints provided by over 1 million people (mostly school children between 7 and 14 years old -- these slightly naive apolitical viewpoints are surprisingly interesting!) and other data from national archives, museums and art galleries. It was the first major interactive multi-media document in the world (a precursor of electronic Encyclopedias).
The collection is accessible by zooming into the maps at:
http://www.domesday1986.com/
Rnt20 15:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domesday Project link 

message: I think the first sentance could be tidied up a bit to:
"The United Kingdom (full title The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but usually shortened to the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain) is a sovereign country to the northwest of mainland Europe."
What do people think?
:Personally I think it is better the way it is. "Sovereign country" (your proposed version) is not a well-used term whereas both "country" and "sovereign state" are. As the UK is both these things it is best keeping the two descriptions in there even though there is a lot of cross-over between them. --AJKGordon 12:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentance 

message: Just reading through and found that the numbers aren't correct - didn't want to alter it without finding out if there is an equation or anything pinning it together. V-Bede 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethic % table