Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 10

message: This may sound like a silly question but I'll ask it all the same. Is it:
1) The (United Kingdom of Great Britain) AND (Northern Ireland); or
2) The United Kingdom of (Great Britain and Northern Ireland)?
While these are the same in English there is subtle difference in meaning that can make a difference when translated into other languages. I'm thinking about Icelandic here and whether the Northern Ireland part should be in the nominative case (as in example 1) or the genitive case (as in example 2). Does anyone get what I'm trying to ask here? :) --Bjarki 00:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I get your point :). It's (2). The United Kingdom was created when The Kingdom of Great Britain was united with Ireland in 1801. -- Arwel (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Then we've got it right already. :) --Bjarki 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite correct, the two are not interchangeable, but some ignorant people who shout the loudest and cite unreliable sources have one the day on this one. I gave up trying months ago.Valiant Son (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official long name 

message: The list of poets in the literature section was too long, I trimmed it from 19 to 4. Maybe I picked the wrong ones but I hope editors will not re-lengthen this list, at least not without contributing some sort of structure. Viewfinder 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of poets

message: In Para 12 it states: "World famous horse races include the Grand National, the Epsom  Derby and Royal Ascot".
I'm no expert, but I thought Royal Ascot was a meeting.84.130.246.201 11:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right, Royal Ascot is the name of a horse-race meeting (comprising of numerous horse races over the duration) and not the name of a specific individual race. Ergo, the Grand National (or John Smith's Grand National as it is currently called) is a race held at a meeting that takes place at Aintree; the Gold Cup is a race which takes place during Royal Ascot and so on. Mtoreilly 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sport

message: In accordance with the need to cut the article length per WP:SIZE, I am substantially cutting the length of material about pop music. Imo this has been evolving into inner city bill sticker material. If anyone wants to read more about UK pop then I recommend the daughter articles, which have fewer random authors and are better structured. Viewfinder 14:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Popular Music 

message: In the religion section, it says that only 38% of the population belive in a God, then it says 53% of the population is Christian.
How can only 38% belive in a God and 53% be Christian? 
There's a mistake there.Opinoso 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article also points out that "for cultural reasons, some non believers still identify themselves with a religion". All the claims are cited. Viewfinder 22:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: I notice that throughout this article, "God Save the King" is mentioned as the National Anthem. But, to my knowledge, the UK does not have an official national anthem. "God Save the King" is the official Royal Anthem, and is used in place of a national anthem.
I think this should be mentioned somewhere in the article.
I've noticed someone with nothing better to do has changed the national anthem from 'God save the Queen' to a distasteful joke. I would rectify this but I can't find what to edit in the editor. The problem is in the fact box on the right of the page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.128.187 (talk) 15:03, August 25, 2007 (UTC) 
I've noticed it too but I can't fix it either...
Solidus469 15:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, I believe. You can edit the page and rollback to a previous edition. Check out the vandalism pages for wikipedia, and join the crowd in protecting this from the vandals. docboat 15:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "National" Anthem 

message: Is there any reason the above has suddenly popped up all over the article, even in places it doesn't make sense - like suggesting the land mass of the United Kingdom and not its population was opposed to the Euro? RHB - Talk 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see here, WP:FLAG, it is general consensus that flag icons should not be used in general article prose; thus, the the flag icons in this article probably should be removed.  Britney-Boy 02:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed them (there were even a couple of flags in the references!) Bluap 03:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <Flag> United Kingdom 

message: At present the religion section states that "the Church of England ... acts as the 'mother' and senior branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion" and that "The Scottish Episcopal Church, which is part of the Anglican Communion ... it is not a 'daughter church' of the Church of England".  Which is correct? Greenshed 22:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think this is so much a contradiction in as much as its a poorly sequenced sentence. Heres the score: The anglican communion is a worldwide organisation of anglican churches, the 'head' of these organisations is the chuch of england. The Scottish Episcopal Church is a member of the anglican communion but not as a branch of the church of england but rather as a church in its own right. So, despite being in full communion with the church of england the Scottish Episcopal Church had its own history and origins. It did not sprout or break away from the church of england. That at least is my understanding of it, I dont really see a contradiction in that sentence, just its not hugely clear? I think tagging the article as contradictory may have been a slightly big step for such a small phrase. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 23:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, I'm not going to, I wouldn't deeply object if you removed the contradict notice - although it would be better if we had a "sect-contradict" template - a bit like the sect-stub one.  As regards the issue, I still think that "This article appears to contradict itself".  It might be that a CofE editor wrote the first part and a SEC editor wrote the second part.  Anyway, I fail to see how the CofE can be a "mother" to the SEC without the SEC being a "daughter" to the CofE.  Perhaps it would be better to remove the mother / daughter terminology unless it can be cited. Greenshed 00:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I think your right, best to remove the whole mother daugter thing altogether. The same thing has also been said on the SEC article so that needs cleaning to. I'm not really bothered enough to check the edit histories but i'm sure your right, this is almost certainly a later addition by a SEC supporting editor, keen to distance the organisation from the CofE as it reads through like an after thought. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 17:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mother daugter stuff removed. Greenshed 22:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction?