Talk:England (disambiguation)

message: Shouldn't mention be made of the fact that England is for many people around the world a synonym for the state known officially as the United Kingdom? It may be technically incorrect but it is widely used in many many languages and is also very commonly used in spoken English in the Republic of Ireland and the United States to name just two English-speaking states. An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is incorrect to say it is factually inaccurate that England is a "general phrase for the United Kingdom". It is a fact that people do indeed use the term in that manner. Some may deem such usage inappropriate or mistaken, but you cannot say it is factually inaccurate that the term is used in that manner. older ≠ wiser 18:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Readded to state "though this is incorrect usage as England is a constituent part of the United Kingdom". Triune (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a figure of speech that is widely used. As a figure of speech, it is not a technically precise term and characterizing it as incorrect usage is prescriptivist pedantry. older ≠ wiser 10:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with calling this a figure of speech in the same way as I would if someone called Africa a country.  People may say it, but it is still demonstrably wrong as used by the inhabitants of the countries in question.  You've now reverted my suggested edits on many occasions because of your personal preference.  Please stop unless you can actually demonstrate a reason why this usage is not in fact erroneous, as your actions at the moment appear to be an attempt to legitimise incorrect use of a word, which is not the task of wikipedia. Triune (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And you reverted me several times now based on your personal preference. This is nothing more than a disambiguation page, it is not the place to correct perceptions of incorrect usage. older ≠ wiser 17:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that mine was the updated version of the article, and wikipedia guidelines state that the update should take priority over the status quo in such discussions.  As such, if you and I can't agree, the update should take priority until consensus on your proposed changes can be reached.  Again, please do not revert my changes any further without obtaining external views. Triune (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no. There is no policy that allows an editor to hijack a page to insert personal preferences. the status quo should stand unless you can demonstrate a consensus for the change. older ≠ wiser 17:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling is an essay, not policy or even a guideline. By your reasoning, every instance of metonomy is incorrect in that a part is used to represent a larger entity. It is pointless to flag every such usage. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help readers navigate to the topic they are looking for, not to didactically tell them their usage is regarded as incorrect by some. So far you have presented nothing more than your personal preference in this regard with no other support. Please gain consensus for this change before reverting again. older ≠ wiser 18:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Triune, there is no policy that allows you to add or change material without consensus. The long-standing version is "A general phrase for the United Kingdom as a whole" (since July). I think "A metonym for the United Kingdom as a whole" is an improvement. If you don't think this is an improvement on the previous wording, you can revert it and argue why the previous wording is better, but you can't change it to how you want it without consensus. There is long-standing consensus for "A general phrase for the United Kingdom as a whole", and a reasonable argument and support for "A metonym for the United Kingdom as a whole". There is no support, aside from yourself, for your proposed wording. Rob984 (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob, the purpose of wikipedia is to present facts.  The argument here is that the fact that this is incorrect is somehow not relevant to the definition.  If you look back at the history of the article, the long-standing consensus is actually for this definition not to be included, as it was removed in 2005 and left alone until 2016, where it was added in July and then removed for the first time less than 2 months later.  Numerous people throughout the history of this article have stated a preference for either not including an incorrect definition or stating that the definition is incorrect, and the reversions recently have flown in the face of that long-standing consensus.
Either consensus is important, in which case the longer-standing consensus is not to include the incorrect definition at all, or correctness is important in which case reverting the page from showing more correct information to less correct information is the wrong action.  Either way, adding the word "erroneous" adds correct information that is otherwise lacking, therefore it shouldn't just be reverted back without good justification, which is still lacking. Triune (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  England and United Kingdom 

message: *Support Factual accuracy is important to state even in disambiguation pages. Triune (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey