Talk:England/Archive 3

message: Discussions about Cornwall moved to Talk:England/Cornwall. Marnanel 18:02, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cornwall 

message: I see this article is listed in the category "Articles to be merged", presumably because of the suggestion to merge the section England#Transport with the article Transport in the UK, but there seems to be no discussion as yet.
There is an article stub Transport in England.
Personally, I would suggest merging the article Transport in England into Transport in the UK but leaving the section here with a reference to Transport in the UK as the main article. Or have I missed some English "nationalist" issue?
--Boson 09:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal(s) 

message: Possibly I'm missing something here, but how do we resolve the following two sentences with each other:
"British law does not recognise any language as being official"
and
"Unlike Cornish, BSL is an official language of the UK"
So, what is "official" and who decides it?
 Previous comment added by  2006-10-27T15:55:28 
As I understand it, BSL was officially recognized as a minority language in 2003.
But Cornish appears to have been officially recognized as a minority language in 2002.
This is, of course, not what the article says; so more checking is necessary. 
--Boson 20:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  additional languages... 

message: At present there is a section about a symbol of England which is the White Dragon Flag. I'm inclined to suggest that this flag does not hold enough significance for the main England article. Additionally, I do not believe that the source provided is reliable (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and you will surely agree), as it's content does not cite it's sources and has multiple (albiet subtle) race-related slurs (hence it's reason for promoting the flag). Unless a more reliable source for this flag can be found, it is not permissable to include mentions of this flag on Wikipedia. Thoughts? Jhamez84 20:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct, that site isn't what would be called a reliable source. I have removed the section. Thanks/wangi 20:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also: Talk:England/Archive 2#White Dragon Flag of the English. Thanks/wangi 20:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I very much suspected this was the case. This flag has also appeared on Flag of England article (inserted by the same user), with claims to it being the predecessor to the St. Georges cross. I'll remove this also on the grounds forsaid. Jhamez84 21:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Dragon Flag 

message: I changed Catherine of Arragon to Catherine of Aragon as there was an extra 'R'. --Xsamix 11:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misspelling 

message: There's a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location_Maps_for_European_countries--_discussion_continues about the use of a new map style and the merits or otherwise of including EU member states on maps for European countries. We could equally apply this to the map for England alone: I've made a first stab at creating an England-within-the-UK map for this page, though I note there are questions about the scale. More than happy for anyone to revert this if they feel it inappropriate; please comment at the link above if you have time. JamesAVD 12:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Whilst this article has improved somewhat over the last few months, it is still very, very bad. Articles such as our neighbours Scotland and France, and further places such as Japan, and even Bangladesh are vastly superior articles. Certain settlements are also better than England, such as New York City; this is the standard we should be aiming for.
We really need a push from the editting community to bring the England article (and it's daughter articles) upto scratch (something which Scotland has done very well).
There are still basic pieces of info which are needing citation such as England's etymology, and alot of the prose has been hijacked for unencyclopedic means.
If no-one objects, I think that one of the following tags should be provisionally added to the top of the article:
Thoughts/agreement/objections? Jhamez84 13:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to this, I am considering founding a WPE, in an effort to mimic the success of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland. Again I'm asking for thoughts. Jhamez84 13:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it; I'm afraid I've lost a lot of interest in contributing to this page but I do agree that it needs a lot of cleaning up. Robdurbar 09:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've set up a WPE, at my userpage for now, but the project page needs polishing up. Feel free to edit it, probably along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland. Thanks, RHB 23:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I've done a basic summary of the article at Education in England, found on the UK page, but it is by no means complete or well-written. Anyone care to have a crack at it? Thanks RHB 22:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Education

message: How do I find out who wrote this article? I need to cite my sources.
---Nicole McInyre 11-25-06
:No individual wrote it - that's the nature of Wikipedia. If I were you I would just cite Wikipedia. If you want to see who contributed to the article click on the History tab, but most won't have given their real names, anyway. Barnabypage 10:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing My Sources- Author 

message: Border country currently contains the line "This made the Borders into a hive of thieves, outlaws, robbers, cattle plunderers, and the like." - 201.51.221.66 17:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a problem? Sounds fairly accurate to me (speaking as someone who comes of a Borders family). Jshiell 11:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Border country, a hive of scum and villainy 

message: I took the quote someone had about Tacitus' observations from the prehistoric section and put them into a section called Celtic Britain,
Is there not a period of time that should be called this?
as opposed to going from prehistoric times to the Roman era,
Please add to this section,
Or if I am crazy, please re-edit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spettro9 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celtic Britain? 

message: Why is the National Anthem for England still showing as "God Save The Queen/King" when on Scotland's page it displays (Multiple unofficial anthems), this is just discrimination against the English.
I wouldn't be suprised if a Scot was an editor for this "England" page.
There seems to be an inconsistency regarding England's national anthem.  The infobox has it as "God Save The Queen/King", while the "National Anthem" section states that "England does not have an official designated national anthem".  Should the infobox not state "none"?--Michig 19:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. If it is not an 'official designated national anthem' then the infobox should say 'none'. 85.12.80.128 11:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Reference could be made instead to the 'unofficial' national anthem of the  Pomp and Circumstance March No. 1 which is played at sporting events such as the Commonwealth Games where England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland compete as separate teams. Aegirthor 01:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or Land of Hope and Glory at Rugby?  It is in danger of getting messy.--Regan123 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Land of Hope and Glory is Pomp and Circumstance March No.1 - therefore, no mess. Aegirthor 01:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except Wikipedia treats them as two seperate articles, Land having the music recycled as it says. Regan123 03:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So refer to it as Land of Hope and Glory (Music: Pomp and Circumstance March No. 1) Surely there's a convention for referring to similar situations? Aegirthor 11:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Technically I believe both are anthems through common usage - anthems for both the UK and England have never been legislatively defined. 'Land of Hope and Glory' is used at the Commonwealth games to distinguish England from the UK, but again, I believe this is from common usage. Jshiell 11:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: National Anthem

message: Is England really still big in textiles and shipbuilding? Notreallydavid 16:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economics

message: Population below poverty line 17% (2002 est.) 
Statistically, Britain is the worst place in the major industrialised nations to be a child, according to a new report produced by Unicef.
Why is this subject avoided ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.136.27 (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a subject for a page on the United Kingdom rather than one of its constituent parts. 125.239.215.40 09:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Population below poverty line

message: Hi - I've been trying to go through various articles and (mainly) templates to see if :Image:Flag_of_England_%28bordered%29.svg should replace :Image:Flag_of_England.svg - it's very time-consuming as I don't have any special software like popups or know how to program a bot.  If anyone does, please could you give me a hand - thanks!! — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 01:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DONE — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Flag_of_England_%28bordered%29.svg]] —vs— [[:Image:Flag_of_England.svg]] 

message: There was no such thing.
Celtic Britain maybe, but this just looks all wrong. A header and one sentence. England was formed by Anglo-Saxons. Sure, Romano-Britons remained, but it was an Anglo-Saxon overlordship. There was never a Celtic England - this implies England existed as a Celtic state. This should just be removed.White43 11:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celtic England!??!?!? 

message: I'm a bit perplexed by this paragraph under Geography:
:The list of England's largest cities is much debated because in English the normal meaning of city is "a continuously built-up urban area"; these are hard to define and various other definitions are preferred by some people to boost the ranking of their own city. However, by any definition London is by far the largest English city and one of the largest and busiest cities in the world. Manchester and Birmingham now vie for second place. A number of other cities, mainly in central and northern England, are of  substantial size and influence. These include: Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield, Bristol, Coventry, Leicester, Nottingham and Hull.
This is confusing and vague, and it implies there is some heated competition between British cities over which is biggest. The 'preferred by some people' is unsourced - I think there's a wiki-specific term for this kind of vague assertion. It doesn't matter what the definition of a city is in the English language as the only important definition here is that as defined by UK law and convention. Besides, there is already a good article on what consititutes a British city and there are two clear definitions;
# It's been regarded as a city since 'time immemorial' usually because it contains a diocesian cathedral
# It has been conferred city status by letters patent
Also, Birmingham is England's second largest city. By what definition would Manchester be considered bigger than Birmingham? According to this Birmingham is second with a population of 1,020,589, and Manchester is seventh (removing Edinburgh and Glasgow from the list, naturally) with 448,850. (Also, just look at the cities on Google Earth - Birmingham is vast)
The confusion about the size of Manchester is due, i think, to whether you include  Greater Manchester or just the city of Manchester which is much smaller but even so I am very surprised that Manchester is 7th on that list I thought it was third largest. can anyone find another source to confirm this? --Cap 11:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The West Midlands conurbation is vast, but it isn't all Birmingham.  Solihull residents, for example, don't consider themselves to live in Birmingham, and officially they don't.  Since we need to be encyclopaedic, surely the only approach when discussing 'cities' is to use official definitions of cities and official city populations, rather than using 'urban area' figures, which could/should be discussed separately.--Michig 11:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, so we just need to get some official UK Government figures for the populations and areas. I'm sure there around somewhere on the Home Office site. Well, they should be. Still, the paragraph needs a total rewrite as it's nowhere near encyclopaedic. I'll post figures if/when I find them... Aegirthor 11:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a long running debate exhaustively analysed for example at Talk:Birmingham, Talk:Manchester and at Second city of the United Kingdom where a small group of pro-Birmingham editors persistently refuse to allow an NPOV edit of the page. The fact is that there is very considerable debate about the pecking order of cities in Britain. The simplistic population count showing Manchester 7th quoted above is a classic example of the absurd over-simplification involved in going on local authority boundary counts, which is the basis of that calculation. Many do believe (particularly the UK government and public authorities as well as many international organisations and companies) that Manchester is Britain's second city. There are many criteria for evaluating second city status, and these include conurbation population, business and commercial significance, numbers of public and private organisational headquarters, transport networks, universities, cultural centres, media outlets and other criteria besides. The main challenges in the pecking order in Britain are for second place after London (contenders: Manchester, Birmingham and possibly Glasgow), third place (contenders: Leeds, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham) and fourth (Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol, Glasgow). MarkThomas 12:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that clarifies things a bit! Since mention of cities and urbanisation is important in any section on geography, shouldn't it be rewritten in a way to avoid these contentious issues? How much of England is considered an 'urban area'? That should be included, along with the ratio of rural to urban dwellers. The whole 'pecking order' debate can be avoided by referring to England's largest cities as, "England's largest cities and urban areas include [list in alphabetical order]" I don't think that the pecking order is a vital enough piece of information to hijack any mention of urbanisation in England. Aegirthor 23:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of cities, debate? 

message: I've noticed on the Scotland article editors won't allow the fact box map of Scotland to display the rest of the UK in a shaded colour, making Scotland seem like a separate country outside of the UK. Can editors from here who support union the UK please help make sure that UK country fact boxes keep the rest of the UK shaded in a lighter colour especially with how popular Wikipedia is on the internet now and at a crucial time for union of the UK it's silly and dangerous to the UK for people to push separatist POV on UK articles unless people want to see the future of the UK become like that of the Balkans. Please help keep the UK together for everyone's sakes.
:The maps show locations, not connections or affiliations. (One might as well argue that the rest of the EU should be shown in yet another shaded colour.) Also, introducing intermediate levels of colouring could be confusing - there will be Wikipedia readers who don't have the faintest idea where Scotland is, and a simple distinction between Scotland and not-Scotland is the best way to illustrate it for them. Barnabypage 13:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where in the policies of Wikipedia does it say factbox maps are only for simple location and not for connection or affiliation? The only guidance I can find, on infoboxes generally, says that is exactly what they are for. MarkThomas 15:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scotland

message: I suggest a section be included in the article on the military of England like the Scotland article has. Also a new article on the military of England should be created. Somethingoranother 13:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and where is the information on tourist locations that are popular?--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 15:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Military of England

message: The "England" Map on the England page is wrong?, A UK map is shown, not map of England. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.55.16 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err. This map?   That's definitely England, there in green. I'd recognise it anywhere. --Khendon 21:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The England Map on the England page is wrong - its a UK map. 

message: I have changed the first sentence of this page from 'country' to 'entity', as contrary to popular belief England is an entity, as part of the UK and is in fact not a country alone. --Ash online 12:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted this.  This is well trod territory with regards this and other UK articles.  The current lead to this article is the result of much discussion and consensus building and shouldn't be changed without discussion.  The use of the word country does not imply sovereignty (which is I think what you're driving at here - the UK is the only soverigh country).  Take a look at the definintion at Country and Constituent country which explain this difference more clearly. Also take a look at the definition on the government Number 10 webpage  which describes constitutent country (countries within country).Mammal4 12:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand what you are saying, and you are correct, however, England is best described as an entity of the UK, since the act of union between England & Scotland in 1707. --Ash online 15:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Entity is not the best word to use to describe England as it isn't used in common palance to describe geography and isn't going to be understandable to the majority of casual readers.  The term country on the other hand, whilst often misused in everyday speech is a term familiar to all and the suble shades of its meaning are well described on wikipedia such that readers can easily find out what the specific geographical/historical/political breakdown of the UK is.  
It seems that you are new to editing wikipedia, so maybe are aware of how consensus is built on an article.  Generally on established articles such as this it is customary to post suggested changes on the discussion page first and form a consensus opinion especially where changes to the lead section are concerned, so as to avoid an edit war.  It is often likley that the specific wording has undergone much discussion/revision by a succession of editors and the result reached through a group decision, and is not the result of a signle careless uninformed edit.  I will drop a set of guidelines on your userpage when I have a moment.  Take care Mammal4 16:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Country

message: Further to the above, I would also like the template, which appears on many pages, such as Market Deeping to be changed, so that it shows the Union flag at the bottom and not St George's cross. Otherwise there is no mention on any of the pages that feature that table that they are part of the UK, as their country, and not England. --Ash online 16:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. It seems inconsistent to show the map of the UK and the flag of England in the same template. This is the sort of thing that leads to England/UK confusion. In order to avoid this confusion, the UK map should be changed to an England one, or the England flag should be changed to a UK one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In order that this be effective, all UK towns would have to the Union Flag in my view. However, it is unlikely that Scots would put up with that, so it looks as though we're going to have to change the map, much to my malcontentedness! Lofty 16:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  just another point...should this discussion be in the talk of Template:Infobox England place —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lofty (talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags

message: I would like to start a debate regarding the use of a new template on various UK settlement pages, to include the union flag at the bottom, unlike the English version (Template:Infobox England place) in the hope that it will increase public awareness of the difference between England and Britain. In order to do this a concensus is necessary and I would therefore appreciate any possible support. A copy of this template can be seen on the Market Deeping page or here is the template itself Template:Infobox England place with UK flag for UK map. Many thanks. --Ash online 17:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have templates for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I'm not aware of any settlements within the United Kingdom that don't come under one of those categories. Average Earthman 17:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure that sticking a union flag on the bottom will particularly help, although in the previously mentioned context of the UK map with a St George's Cross I must agree that the new template Template:Infobox England place with UK flag for UK map makes more sense. it does not make sense to have the place in a UK context, with the St george's flag. Unfortunately it does remove my beloved wiki continuity. Lofty 17:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Table

message: Both of these are Crown dependencies that is dependencies of the Crown the clue is in the name, they are nothing to do with england and Somethingoranother could you provide a source stating that England accounts for 98% of the UKs GDP --Barry  talk 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a comment at Somethingoranother's talk page. Please monitor contributions. Jhamez84 23:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isle of Man and Channel Islands 

message: I have noticed that a lot of information on this article is regularly being deleted particularly any which presents England in a positive sence. I have also noticed that a lot of this information being deleted on a regular basis is done so by editors who on their talk pages have very pro Celtic statements and their contributions list shows they regularly contribute to Cetlic related articles, which I checked were always contributed to in a positive manner in contrast to their negitive edits of England related articles. Can this Anti-England sentiment from what looks like users who are from Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and Celtic sympathizers in the USA please be stopped and if needs be reported so that further damage to this article cannot be allowed to continue. I fear if left to their own devices they'll cut this article down to nothing more than a stub. Somethingoranother 00:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such concerns deserve to be taken seriously; but I've just taken a look at some of the back-and-forth in the page's history and I have to say the main difference between your versions and the responses to them by other editors has not been pro- or anti-England POV: the main difference has been encyclopedicity. We are all striving to write something which seems like something a serious and responsible encyclopedia would write. I'm an ardent Anglophile and I'm quite satisfied, looking at most of the reversions your edits have suffered, that their editors were wearing good-faith 'make the wikipedia better' hats, nothing more sinister. Doops |  talk 05:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also echo these sentiments. I'm an Anglophile, and have contributed much to get the article upto scratch, but there are strict policies with regards to content inclusion which we all must adhere to. With regards to the text both under this heading, and the above heading, perhaps it may be useful to ask for a peer review to help move the article forwards? Jhamez84 13:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What a random (and wrong) statement!  First off, the Anglo Saxons were not one people (the name is a bit of a give away to start with) and spoke a raft of different Germanic language dialects, not English.  Secondly, English as we now know it developed from these dialects in England over the subsequent centuries whilst also taking influences from Norse languages, Norman French and the indiginous celtic languages; although related it is distinct from these Anglo Saxon languages.  Saying that the Saxons brought English to England makes as much sense as saying we all really speak Proto-Indo-European from which all Indo-European languages are derivedMammal4 15:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: if english didnt originate in england why is it called english?, i assume that by this sentiment 'french' didn't originate in france 'german' didn't originate in germany and 'yankee doodle dandy bulls**t about england not being a country' didn't originate in yankee doodle dandy land (aka US America). iammadeofjelly 15:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti England sentiment by editors

message: Hello everyone. Was wondering if someone could explain this statement: "It is believed amongst English nationalist circles that the 'natural culture' of England is comprised of legacies of Brythonic tribes of Celts and Anglo-Saxons appearing in waves of gradual migration" Don't understand the inclusion of the word 'nationalist'- how does this interpretation of history/archeology justify the 'nationalist' tag? I gather that there are simply two competing theories in historian circles, and support of one or the other doesn't seem to me to have bearing on political orientation- have I missed something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atillashardermate (talk • contribs) 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - this smacks of attacking nationalists for the sake of it. The statement is fact, the English are a result of Anglo-Saxon and Brythonic tribes migrating and intermingling. White43 11:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English people 

message: Could somebody supply a good reference for the GDP and GNP figures for England?
GDP ? Are you crazy ? The GDP of England means nothing, we should be more preoccupied about the inequality between the people in this country, and our 17% of 'under poverty line'. The UK has the worst rate of child poverty in the European Union – a third of Europe’s poorest children live in the UK.
Through the recent article history you can find this information was previously in the article:
GDP (PPP) 	2006
 - Total 	$ 1.8 trillion IMF 2006
 - Per capita 	$ 35,300 IMF 2006
Now the article says this:
GDP (PPP) 	2006 estimate
 - Total 	$1.9 trillion (6th)
 - Per capita 	$37,482 (5th)
And also adds this:
GDP (nominal) 	2006 estimate
 - Total 	$2.3 trillion (5th)
 - Per capita 	$45,373 (7th)
Though it is far from clear why a nominal figure is at all useful.
Even the earlier "IMF" figures were not provided with an actual reference.
Additionally, the rankings in parenthesis seem misleading, linking as they do to tables of states and/or internationally recognised independent countries, and England is neither of those. When it says "5th" for GDP-PPP per capita, for example, it links to a table where Iceland, not England, is 5th. Robertbyrne 06:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP and GNP figures for England 

message: How come it says in the Infobox that England's HDI fell? I find this hard to believe considering almost all HDIs increase apart from extreme cases like Zimbabwe and North Korea. Could someone please change this. Userofwiki 06:17, 26 February 2007 
(UTC)
I checked the HDI for the UK and it also says 9.40 which is also the same figure given for the HDI of England but the difference is it says the UK's HDI increased. I think the HDI given for England isn't actually England's HDI and is taken from the UK's HDI. It seems to conflict that England's HDI says it fell. Userofwiki 06:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HDI

message: The article states that London is, 'by any definition' Englands largest City. The City of London is clearly NOT the largest City in England. Greater London is NOT a City, as it does NOT have 'City Status'. Wikipedia has conflicting articles on this. Greater London article says Greater London is not a city, London article says City of London is one square mile, yet England article says London is Englands largest city. ? 80.192.242.187 21:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The confusion here is that the City of London is simply the name for the financial district of London - a bit like New York's Wall Street. While it is only comparatively small (The Square Mile) London itself is a large city and, depending on how its boundaries are definied, is a global city. (Ajkgordon 08:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: have a look at Global city.  People in the past have tried to categorise cities by importance, and grade them in some way.  There is some stuff in this article about some of these different methods - global city is a term used within this type of study Mammal4 12:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: London, Largest City in England?

message: ... is one of the three most major cities in the world alongside New York City and Tokyo [5] and is a Global City ...
First, this is useless information. Second, the 1991 article/book is a bit outdated for today's reality; and last what does major cities and Global city mean anyway? Why Paris, Sydney, São Paulo, Beijing, L.A., Rome, (and the list go on and on), is not included there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.175.209.212 (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: have a look at Global city.  People in the past have tried to categorise cities by importance, and grade them in some way.  There is some stuff in this article about some of these different methods - global city is a term used within this type of study Mammal4 12:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major city...

message: Why is English law only mentioned in passing in this article? Surely the fact that English law played a key role in the history of law worldwide (eg. foundation of US law) is worth a little mention in the introduction, plus its own subsection? -- Mais oui! 11:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[English law]] 

message: i wantedjust to tell that you need to translate this page in ewery languges that is in the world!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.110.11.158 (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ytgutbsyt 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.[?]
*See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
*Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to a separate page, like Gallery of England.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 400 miles, use 400 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 400 miles.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 38 km.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**it has been
**arguably
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, GazMan7 10:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: re the penultimate point - see Turnham Green — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 21:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated review 

message: Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox flag straw poll 

message: under the heading Anglo-Saxon England it says "mediaeval England" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.41.68 (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: British English spelling and usage is preferred in this article, as per the Manual of Style. — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 16:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As has been said above, it is not an error. It is British English and as this article is about England it is perfectly acceptable to use it. Tangerines 23:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  i can see a typo 

message: why is it necessary to include ethnicity alongside the population when researching english towns and cities. It only appears to be on the english towns and for some reason not scottish, welsh, or irish let alone cities in places such as france and germany which are far more ethnically diverse than England. I just wish the government would stop promoting multiculturalism etc. as we are not the most multicultural place in europe yet propaganda wise it seems we are. Would someone please explain this for me. Thank you from England! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.66.62 (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ETHNICITY 

message: "the Kingdom of England would fall in and out of power between several West-Saxon and Danish kings." is unidiomatic. I'd rewrite it if I knew what it meant. Does it mean that the kingship of England was held by both west Saxon and Danish kings? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.206.112.162 (talk • contribs).
Yes. 84.12.47.154 13:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: in and out of power

message: It seems that not a day goes by without this article being vandalised, and often a number of vandal edits each day. It is easy enough to remove of course, but is it not time now to restrict editing of this page to registered users only, at least for a specific time period?♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 17:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was protected temporarily earlier this month (see  and ).  England is an obvious target for political reasons, so I will put forward that it be protected again. — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 17:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done —   — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 18:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Daily Vandalism of this article

message: Have recently uploaded photos to my commons  page some of which may be useful... Merlin-UK 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: Turkish is not a european language as referred in Nomenclature.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.92.233.87 (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Turkish language article, Turkish is a member of the Turkish, or Western, subgroup of the Oghuz languages, and the Oghuz languages form the Southwestern subgroup of the Turkic languages including Eastern Europe.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 17:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in Nomenclature 

message: I've done some preliminary cleaning-up of the cuisine section, but if someone had time to do a proper digest of the main article on the topic that would be great. As it stands, I feel it greatly over-emphasises Asian food - while it is indeed an important part of today's English food scene, it's by no means the only thing people eat. Barnabypage 13:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: cuisine

message: Well? What a bloody outrage!! Tourskin 22:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the caps. But the bigger writing should be English and the French underneath shouldn't it?Tourskin 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My congratulations, appreciation and respect to Tourskin who is a person who can admit an error. Many of us could stand to learn from you, and I hope to have your grace when it is my turn ;-) --Slp1 02:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, see Dieu et mon droit for an explanation. It is not uncommon for countries to have mottos in a foreign language, e.g. Latin in the case of the United States. — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 16:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHY IS THE FRENCH LARGER IN WORDING FOR THE MOTTO THAN IT IS FOR ENGLISH 

message: There's a few different "origins" claimed out there for the word Angle, would it make sense to mention them all? Hot-dog
: Yes, if they can be referenced — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 11:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: The article has just been vandalised by Liamcymro, buit I do not have a login o cannot correct it, apparently  195.82.123.61 18:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: England anthem is not God save the Queen it's Hope of land and glory God Save the Queen is United Kingdom anthem! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamcymro (talk • contribs) 
:Not according to Land of Hope and Glory it ain't. Love the Spoonerism by the way! Barnabypage 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Must admit that I think that Jerusalem makes a far better English anthem than LOHAG anyway. At least Jerusalem refers to England by name whereas LOHAG only refers to its country by implication. And the implication, (Thine Empire shall be strong.), implies that the country concerned is Britain rather than just England. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a spoonerism, just a mix up of the order of the words.  A spoonerism involves interchanging letters from 2 different words, eg. Land of Glope and Hory.  Also, this isn't the place to debate what might or might not be a better anthem than the existing one.  JackofOz 00:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor to discuss the correct definition of "spoonerism" but no harm done, eh? -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right - the definition of spoonerism is more precise than I thought, as I found on reading the article. This word-swapping can henceforth be known as a Liamcymroism. Barnabypage 12:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anthem

message: I think the dablink should be expanded a little more and point to the UK.
:This article is about the constituent country of the United Kingdom. For other uses, see England (disambiguation).
or
:This article is about the country. For the modern state that it forms a part of, see United Kingdom. For other uses, see England (disambiguation).
As we all know, many people confuse the term England, UK and Britain. I think its like that one of these people would put England in the search box when they meant the UK. --sony-youthpléigh 08:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair point, but in the opening sentence it goes on to explain England's status.  However, people are more likely to read the disambiguation than the opening sentence.  So, I would put it in, despite my reservations. My preference would be for the first.  In the second, "This article is about the country" is not entirley correct, and is actually quite contentious. — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 08:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dablink 

message: This article needs to be semi protected, I know same people who have some strange vendetta against England (mostly Americans) would like to see it get vandalized by IP users…But for the good of wikipedia...
:I agree, although i don't think most of them are americans.. Jackrm 21:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was protected reacently.  Someone must have requested unprotection. — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 21:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs semi protection. 

message: Mediæval æ is not used in the OED Their spellings are: mediaeval, medieval --Philip Baird Shearer 12:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediaeval 

message: :"King of England" being a subsidiary title of a succession of French-speaking Dukes of territories in what is now France.
The Normans may have prefered the weather in Aquitaine and other parts of France, but in the mediaeval world the title king is not usually seen as subsidiary to duke. So I am puttong a citation needed on the sentence. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsidiary title