Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 8

message: "However, there is at present little sign of any imminent 'crisis'"
Excuse me??? this seems woefully inaccurate, . It should be changed immediately Superdude99 12:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, opinion polls, you know. Up and down all the time. It's indicative but its hardly a crisis. And most Englishmen that I've ever talked to have been supportive of Scottish independence so I'm surprised that it's as low as 59% support. Very disappointing. Once the SNP start winning seats in England, it'll be time to start talking crisis. Not just because Gordon Brown might become Prime Minister -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry that is completely OTT - Scotland has been whining about independance ever since we took the place over, they always say "we want to be seperate" but then when we tell them that means their economy too they always change their minds :) Waffle247 16:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think that the term 'imminent crisis' should be defined. In my opinion, an 'imminent crisis' is one where there is mass support, mass demonstration, a negative effect on the nation's international prestige and economic strength as a result of it. I don't think that one opinion poll can cause an 'imminent crisis', what is happening now is the same crazed not-thought-through thinking that always results from exaggerated (sub)nationalism. Basically, until The Guardian exposes a 'Gunpowder Plot', then I won't agree that there is an imminent crisis. (BTW, I'm not a hardcore Guardian reader!) --MC 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Fascinating. Does this have anything at all to do with editing the article though? MarkThomas 13:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Jackal. Whilst you are correct, the succession of James VI of Scotland in the 17th century to the throne of England is the only way in which Scotland took over England. It has been suggested that whilst the Scottish James I was the first Scottish King of England, he was also the last Scottish King of Scotland. I.e. his successors (Charles I, etc) were all as English/Scottish as James I's predecessors in England. Also; if your argument is to be followed through - then both England and Scotland were taken over by Germany when George I Elector of Hanover ascended the British throne. Basically, nowadays, Scotland despises the UK capital being the English city of London, and for the vast majority of commerce being centred in England. --MC 14:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Breakup of the UK

message: Would it be possibly to produce a graph of the population change in the United Kingdom, as is found in articles like Germany and France? Just to bring unity to the articles, as well as possibly providing useful information. Ignore this if im talking nonesense. LordFenix 19:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population Change 

message: what is the adress and phonenumber for big ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.160.247.13 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you just want to know the time it's easier to call 123 from a UK landline :) Waffle247 16:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  information 

message: ..to find out why Britain recieved such poor results (23rd place) in the Economist's Intelligence Unit Index of Democracy (pdf) report. I have a hard time believing that the UK would be 'less democratic' than Portugal (19th), United States (17th) and Austria (14th), to name a few. ? . Regards, --BishheartElsie 11:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mainly down to very low political participation (lowest in developed world), and to a lesser degree recent erosions of civil liberties. Passingtramp 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, no one votes much in the UK so although we have a democratic system we don't actually use it much so things aren't very democratic. Waffle247 16:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would be interesting.. 

message: "In addition, there are a large number of Indians, mainly from northern India, who make up about 2.0% of the population.[47]"
What the hell is this meant to mean?  Sorry, it's just that you say 'large number' of Indians - what the hell is so large about 2%? (=0.02=1/50=MINORITY...).  OK, so that quantitive assessment is probably not such an objective basis upon which to assign words such as 'large'.  But still, I think that, as far as wiki goes, stating that 2% of the population comes from such a background would probably be as objective as things get (not discounting reference [41] which states the following : "Also statistics can be made to say anything.", add an ethnically unrepresentative mix of statisticians, some state racism and media manipulation, and its not too difficult to see that a significant amount of this article is probably BOGUS when it comes to accounting ethnic representation.  I think that some minor edits are probably in order...
--AryanNextDoor 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down, make your points more gently, and make the changes yourself (you are allowed to!!) - Adrian Pingstone 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Note - you should fix you signature not AryanNextDoor but   --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what the point being made is but 2% is the biggest (as far as I know) ethnic minority within the UK and so worth mentioning... --Robdurbar 08:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Or the point could be that although 2% may be a small fraction, over a million is actually quite a large number. Just sayin'. SheffieldSteel 23:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah i suppose your right and living in the UK myself it isn't really that noticable this 2% as although there seems to be a big debate about everything like multiculturalism etc. etc. blah blah blah well visit England and you'll soon find out that away from political correctness it is just common sense that when immigrants come to any country they stick together in pockets like all the Brits in Spain (which I might add make up a higher percent of the Spanish pop. than South Asians do. So, to be honest I wouldn't worry about it AryanNextDoor or anyone else as it's just another cock and bull story from the Government (along with most its policies e.g e.g e.g multiculturalism most of Brits are white and Christians as I said earlier - I'm not being discriminative just statin' the facts). Tata for now kids! Cokes360 21:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hey up, Chav!?

message: ...by various accounts have definitely been POV, especially the addition/removal of adjectives, with 30 edits in the last few hours alone. I would hazard a guess that there is one user using a sockpuppet/IP address to push his views, but I cant be sure, so wont say who. Thanks, RHB 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits made today..

message: This is ongoing, with various inflammatory extremely POVist phrases being inserted such as in the history section, and all from unsigned users - I would be grateful if other editors would monitor as well. Thanks! MarkThomas 19:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Words like stolen are too POV. The article as it stands manitains a neutal stance by mentioning "creating the modern world" on the one hand and "exploitation" on the other. I think that that is the way it should be. Viewfinder 19:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ongoing unsigned POV edits

message: By citing Niall Ferguson who is a widely published and controversial British historian, is the atticle NPOV? I suggest the above refer to the reference they keep citing, the mentioned author is a defender of Imperialism, and this his views can not be NPOV.
I insist, that if his book is to be referenced, then the part about stolen has to be too, as only then does it neutralise. Hushing up by using words like "critics of the empire" and Explitation" will not do
AJ2k —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aj2k (talk • contribs) 
::One author is not an adequate citation of "many", and please refrain from accusing editors who do not agree with you of vandalism. Viewfinder 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two authors who are cited, not one. Secondly if they are not acceptable, then remove the whole para, as the precedig line about contribition too isnt an NPOV (refer above, it is by a controvertial author
AJ2k —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aj2k (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Stolen" is a strong and controversial word. Please could we discuss this matter here before "insisting" on its inclusion in the article. Viewfinder 20:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm starting to think there are several sockpuppets here, all seem to be newly registered with few in the way of contributions, except to this article. See Parkernext and JupiterJ, although one other, Prafulo has made several recent edits, as well as some to Indian articles. Thanks, RHB 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the agenda is the British are imperialist thieving scum. This may be partially true but there is at least more than just that simple explanation to explore in the main article on the United Kingdom and it's history. :-) MarkThomas 20:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they were imperialist thieves that forced the English language upon India. As a result, of course, India is now the leading country for outsourcing, and the UK will probably become a third world country. But that's my POV, (LOL). BTW see :Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Aj2k --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 20:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This particular imperialist thief has requested semi-protect on WP:RFP which will hopefully help for a while. MarkThomas 07:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of POV

message: Why are English, Welsh and Scotch Gealic under Official Languages when the United Kingdom does not have an official language? Arctic Wolf 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: Is there some Natural History of the UK?  Anywhere?  None of England, either, it seems.  KP Botany 00:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural History 

message: No Dhekelia and Akrotiri (sovereign bases in Cyprus)? --A.Garnet 20:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overseas territory map 

message: What is with the map of all the countries English is an official language? English is the native language of England so shouldn't it be on the England page? Marky-Son 02:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language map 

message: These sentences from the History section seem quite POVist to me: World War II however left the British Isles devastated physically as well as financially, and it was with massive Marshall Plan aid from the United States that allowed the United Kingdom to recover.
Britain's economy however stagnated by the 1970s, in a large part as a result of the massive power labour unions held. The powerful unions deadlocked businesses, creating a very difficult climate to do business in. It was only with the election of Margaret Thatcher and her Conservative government that the power of the unions was rolled back and the British economy began a massive recovery. It is partly from these battles from which Thatcher derived the nickname "The Iron Lady."
For example, the Marshall Plan only loaned money to the UK which was largely spent on nuclear weapons and power. The loan was finally repayed yesterday! Many economists believe that the UK economy recovered strongly in the 50s primarily due to Britain leaving behind rationing, which was not needed, and the central planning of Atlee. The economy boomed strongly in the 60s and entered recession in the early and mid 70s with the rest of the world following the OPEC oil shock; it is also arguable that Britain's strong recovery post 79 was at least partly due to increasing oil revenues from the North Sea which peaked in 1989 at the height of Thatcher's success. Not to say that the social contract and union negotiations coupled with prices and incomes policies didn't have a negative effect, although some think the latter, instituted by Ted Heath and maintained by Callaghan, were what mainly squeezed inflation down, rather than the money supply meddlings of Thatcher's Chancellors. All this just to say that there is controversy. I will think of a suitable way to reword the above pro-Thatcher POV. MarkThomas 15:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Small point - the Marshall Plan was not loaned money, it was a grant - the money that was paid back at the end of last year was a commercial loan of about £4 billion taken out at the end of the second world in order that Britain could inport food to actually feed itself.  This was separate from the Marshall plan money, which came later. Mammal4 14:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: According to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/thatcher/ it was because of her indication of intentions regarding the Soviet Union when she was leader of the opposition. -- Chris Q 07:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History POV

message: Hi! I just wanted to say that someone has been changing the languages in the box from "English, Welsh, and Scottish Gaelic" to "English (de facto)". I was wondering if this was decided upon. It seems to me that this is the UK, not England, so Welsh and Gaelic should be added. Perhaps "Englsih (de facto), Welsh, and Scottish Gaelic" would be better? | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 13:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Britain does not speak English (de facto). The english speak english as first language, in Wales, Scotland or NI it depends on what part you are from as most built up areas tend to speak english first but there are many places where a dialect of gaelic is spoken as the first language. It would be more accurate to say "English is the most predomenently spoken language but a variety of gaelic dialects are also spoken in some of the outlying regions of Britain" Waffle247 16:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: The new map looks great!  The addition of colour defiantly improves the aesthetic look of the entire article imho. Canderra 02:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Map 

message: TharkunColl, I agree with Br2387 that the current map is better than having no map at all. I think it it's the best map so far, see what it used to be like. The aim is to show where in the world the country is, and this map fulfils that purpose. As for why the EU is significant, see the section above this.--Rudjek 00:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section above this simply states that the UK is part of the EU. I don't see any comments there explaining why that should affect the map. I agree the maps for EU countries should be consistent, however. The map is I write this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LocationUKinEUinEEA.png , could do with some work on the colours imo. The UK doesn't stand out, and the point of the map is presumably to show people where the UK is. Hobson 02:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The newer map makes Scandinavia look ten times bigger than it really is - i.e., the projection is wrong. And why should we single out the EU above, say, the Commonwealth or NATO? Many British people hate the EU, and would not wish to be associated with it. TharkunColl 01:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the original PNG map till someone can create an SVG alternative. There was never consensus to use the EU maps, on the contrary they were considered by most as POV and inferior for other reasons. Asteriontalk 01:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Risking confusing you all with a similar, but different topic, I have edited the UK map that is already up and wonder what you all think. I have included the main population centres (+Dundee, Aberdeen and Bristol). I have also made the colours a bit more vibrant.
Comments please! Rednaxela 17:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I prefer this one (:Image:Uk-map.svg). It is a vector map and does not suffer from JPEG artifacts. I am not keen on the colours either. Asteriontalk 17:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the colour, but as a JPEG it isn't the small image available. Plus, what happened Derry and Lough Neagh? « Keith t/e» 17:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And 'ull? :) Asteriontalk 19:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My main complaint with the CIA map was the random places it had on it. OwenBlacker's version goes a long way to rectifying this, but still omits Leeds and Sheffield, two major cities with a total of 940 000 odd inhabitants. My secondary complaint was the vague colours. I certainly didn't intend to pave over all the lochs and loughs, that's an unintended consequence of my naive editing. Anyway, if somebody succeeded at a version with these two core cities included, I'd be happy. Rednaxela 00:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Map edit 

message: Wow. I take a wikibreak of nearly a year; and the whole "should the first sentence say state or country?" thing is still around. It'll still be there when we're all dead. For what it's worth (but oh! I hope I'm too lazy to be sucked back into this again!), I'm amused by the notion that banknotes and postage stamps are somehow decisive evidence -- yes, wow, postage stamps are so vastly important; I can't believe I didn't see that before. Amused also by the notion that any country worth living in could be said to have one single unitary culture. Doops |  talk 09:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State / country

message: The current map displaying the UK as well as the EU makes it look like the UK is a province of the EU which is made to look like a country.
The EU is far from being a country and is only and organisation the UK has chosen to be a member of. The UK is a member of many other organisations but they are not displayed on any other maps of the UK. The EU may very well some day become what might be considered a country if its members choose to or may never become what might be considered a country but until then the map of the UK should only display the UK, after all this is an article about the UK not the EU and the article gives plenty of information where appropriate informing readers the UK is a member of the EU just as it does concerning its affiliation with other organisations. Somethingoranother 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The EU is far more than just an "organisation the UK has chosen to be a member of". Like it or not, the EU now has legal sovereignty over the UK in that EU law is superior to British law, and the EU legislates and supervises a vast range of issues that were formerly British matters within British territory. The EU even has a nascent army and foreign policy and is now regarded by the CIA as a state. Integration is so widespread and total that it is not POV to display the UK in this way as other EU countries. MarkThomas 17:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've created a much better map. What other countries have as their map is their own business. Why don't we have one showing the UK in the EEA, NATO, the Commonwealth, etc. etc. TharkunColl 19:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don't use the EU map, but as they are not EU countries in themselves, maybe they don't need to, however, the regions of EU countries probably should use it and this is simply a matter of editing the map to add these regions. MarkThomas 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say I prefer TharkunColl's, it just plain looks nicer and the UK is more easily distinguishable - its not easyEU yet surely? :P RHB 20:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction Map Showing EU

message: TharkunColl has just broken 3RR by again uploading the wrong image for the UK as discussed above for the third time - can other editors please help and overturn him. If he changes it again I will report him for the breach. Thanks. MarkThomas 19:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are incorrect. I restored the old map once. Then I uploaded a new map. After you trashed it, I had to revert. Once. And now I'm going to do it again. The EU map it truly awful. The projection is all wrong. My new map shows the UK, without ambiguity. TharkunColl 23:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR by TharkunColl 

message: In the rush to make it seem like the EU is a state, and the UK just a province thereof, those with such an agenda have allowed themselves to present a map that is factually incorrect. It may surprise them to learn that Spain is actually quite a lot bigger than Sweden (go and look it up), but if this map is to be believed then Sweden is more than twice the size of Spain. This, to put it bluntly, is a lie. In the preparation of maps it is essential to choose the most appropriate projection for the land area covered. I don't suppose this will make any difference though. Facts and honesty have never been very high on the list of priorities for those who wish to push politics down our collective gobs. Please remember that this article is about the UK, and is not about the UK in the EU. TharkunColl 09:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I intend to do. I shall use my own base map for the purpose, because its projection is far more appropriate for the area covered. TharkunColl 11:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to download my map and adapt it for all those foreign countries, please feel free. Personally speaking, I try to avoid making edits to articles on subjects that a) I don't care about, and b) that I have no knowledge of, so all those pages about European countries are none of my concern. May I remind you that you do not own this page, and Wikipedia encourages us to be bold in our edits. I have created a much better map, one that does not distort geography, and even includes the EU. What, on earth, is wrong with it? Just because all those articles on foreign countries have similar maps to the old one, that is no reason why the UK should. I shall re-insert my map and if you wish to get rid of it, please state some cogent reasons that are not based on other articles. TharkunColl 14:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current map is incorrect

message: The topmost map on the right is the one I created today, specifically to take into account the opinions of those for whom the EU is important. The map below is the one I created yesterday, and the bottom one is the map currently in the article. I am placing my versions here because I suspect very few people have actually seen them, since they were both reverted very quickly.
I have a simple question: which is best? The bottom one is certainly colourful, but in my opinion that's all it has going for it. It is cluttered with rivers and other superfluous features, and most of the countries are all crammed into the bottom half and appear tiny. This is a direct result of the projection used, which is highly inapropriate for the area covered. Sweden, for example, is not twice the size of Spain, but is actually smaller than it. The map, therefore, is untruthful.
It has been argued that since all the other EU countries have versions of the same map, then so should the UK. I have a simple question to this - why? In the interests of truth, and in order to not present a gross distortion of geography, I contend that either of my maps are better. And there is nothing to stop anyone from downloading my map, and adapting it for those other EU countries. TharkunColl 16:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Why" is to harmonise a related group of Wikipedia pages (those belonging to EU countries). Relieved to see that you are at last discussing this sensibly as opposed to using tricks to get round 3RR. MarkThomas 16:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only one of us here has violated 3RR, and it isn't me. TharkunColl 17:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Same style map is useful for many reasons; in an encyclopaedia, a consistent style looks more formal, professional, and allows people to easily take in the same information from each one.  The bottom map, with the EU in one colour and the member state in another is by far the nicest map available, as not only does it display additional information, it does so in a way that is easy to see - the light green on the new map in particular is quite lurid and difficult to look at.  As regards projection issues, that would be a reason for redoing the projection, not necessarily changing other things, such as the colours, and changing only a single map out of the many that use that style is... odd, at best.  As it is impossible to accurately represent a sphere on a flat screen, there will always be projection errors, which mean that the new one must involve them as well.  --Mnemeson 17:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are doing here is making a political judgement about the EU, and allowing it to influence how maps on Wikipedia are organised - but this, I'm afraid, is highly inapropriate. Which polity is more sovereign, the UK or the EU? And what is this article about, the UK or the EU? The EU may indeed be very important politically, but then so is NATO (in very different ways). The map as it stands is simply wrong. And how would it be possible to "change its projection" anyway? But you appear to be willing to overlook its inaccuracy for the same of Euro-conformity. TharkunColl 17:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am making no political judgement; the maps for Iceland and Belarus are the same style of map, without the additional EU colouring, despite the fact that neither Iceland, which is EEA, nor Belarus, which isn't even Council of Europe, are EU states.  It is simply a much nicer map.  I do feel that the additional colouring is useful; it seems that you dislike the EU, and wish to remove it from the British map, but doing so does a diservice to users, as a consistent style is easier to read off quickly and accurately.  I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "And how would it be possible to "change its projection" anyway?" - one of your points arguing for the use of the lurid green map is that it is a different projection, so... well, that's how you change a projection :)  The bottom map is far more attractive to the eye, and using a common style helps users.  Whether you like ir or not, the UK is a member state of the EU, and showing which nations are and are not on the relevant maps again helps users - NATO is expressly a military alliance, which makes it a whole different kettle of fish.  --Mnemeson 17:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Despite TharkunColl's behaviour, I actually prefer the projection in the upper green map he presents, but prefer the colour scheme in the lower map. I lack the design skills to combine them or create a new projection for the lower map, which is probably needed. No disagreement that TC is right about that. It's not really political POV either to claim that Britain is in the EU and the EU is of key importance as an international body since both are clearly facts, something TC acknowledges in his green map despite all the talk. MarkThomas 17:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark, I think you're dead on - as I said at the start, there's a reason for redoing the projection of the map, and if all the European maps were redone in the projection of the new one, with the colour scheme of the lower one, that would be ideal - I too lack the skills to do this, and I feel that unless it's done as part of a mass change for all the European maps, it would be better to stay as is, for the consistency and ease of use the current lot give.  --Mnemeson 17:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The colour scheme on the first map can easily be changed, but if the same base map is used then rivers, oceanic contours, and all the other things that (in my opinion) clutter the current map making its presentation of information less straightforward, cannot be added. Apart from its inapropriate projection, the bottom map also suffers from being an essentially physical map with political information (such as boundaries) superimposed. The first map, on the other hand, is specifically designed to show political boundaries. It also, again because of its projection, manages to have a larger overall scale, whereas the current map has a lot of wasted space. TharkunColl 19:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the use of the middle map (that is, political and without the EU).  The shading of other EU countries really isn't on, because the fact that Slovenia is in the EU (but Croatia isn't) is really nothing to do with the article on the United Kingdom.  The previous 'compromise' maps (e.g. :Image:Europe location UK.png) are still somewhat obscured by rivers and mountains, so they are also inappropriate IMO (hence my reversion in the case of Luxembourg).  Furthermore, whilst it is true that there can be no 'perfect' projection, maintaining all metric properties, there are projections that are better than others, and the one used for the EU maps stinks. Bastin 19:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Comment: There couldn't be an over-lapping Schengen area map, since the UK and the Republic of Ireland are outside Schengen.  However, I'm still firmly opposed to any additional levels of shading. Bastin 09:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for cross-border policing and other such matters, which the UK and RoI take part in. But yes, in general I tend to agree. It seems odd to single out the EU as the overriding international body which needs to be highlighted. After all, the USA is not shown as part of NAFTA. My intention in proposing the EEA (which I think is preferable to Schengen anyway), is that if we must have the EU (and I suspect we "must"), then showing the EEA as well will simply give an even more comprehensive picture of our international commitments and treaties. It's a pity the map could not easily show NATO as well, which must surely be just as important as the EU. TharkunColl 09:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with that point above. Came into this late but I think Tharkun's top map is aesthetically the most pleasing. Such a map is easily created in paint, by the way! I think its helpful to have the EU highlighted. --Robdurbar 10:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New map: Let's have some open debate

message: A I had explained at 23 Feb2007 05:00 (UTC) here above, the location map that User:The Proffesor had put in the article makes to any average reader the statement "The UK is not a member of the EU" (a clearly false statement, not a mere POV, thus utterly unencyclopaedic), because all other EU members appear to have adopted the EU-shaded map and all non-members the plain Europe location map. There are very few exceptions and not one makes that kind of false statement: Spain (with an entirely different style of map that does not suggest it to be a member or not to be a member, and David Liuzzo was contacted in order to possibly make a minor modification on his map for Spain so as to fit a particular Spanish concern), Russia which of course extends far into Asia, finally San Marino and Vatican City because there are no maps available, David Liuzzo was contacted...Though a few contributors are clearly still in disagreement, possibly only one (who got blocked for 4RR while three contributors were reverting his 'old' map back to the Europe of EU location map), an overwhealming number of countries's articles and their respective large number of regular contributors appear to have adopted or at least accepted this uniform style for European countries. The concern for a same map style had been clearly brought forward by defenders of the 'old' maps and by those for the Liuzzo maps.
In order to bring also the UK article in line with this style, and certainly because the present 'Europe location' map style is most clearly to reserved for non-members of the European Union, this change would be required:
In the United Kingdom infobox,IF THE PRESENT IS:
|image_map                = Europe location UK.png
POSSIBLY FOLLOWED BY:
|map_caption              = Map showing the location of the United Kingdom.
IT SHOULD BECOME (AS THE MAP HAD BEEN THERE BEFORE): (copy from here viewed page, not from nowikied source here)
|image_map                = EU location UK.png
|map_caption              = Location of the United Kingdom  (dark orange)– in the European Union  (light orange)– at the European continent  (EU + clear) — (Legend)
END OF REQUIRED MODIFICATION(Notice that the disputed bilingual German/English link is not displayed. The caption text gives enough information for the small locator in the infobox. Unfortunately, if one clicks on it to open the large image for closer inspection, one can not reach the then usefull more detailed 'Legend' from there either.)
In case the UK contributors could not possibly accept the de facto consensus for European countries (though I would dare to strongly recommend to follow the dozens of countries), one might replace the location map with the old style :image:LocationUnitedKingdom.png: that style is obsolete for European countries but it does not suggest European Union membership nor denies such. Another emergency rescue fix might be :image:LocationUK.png though it is no standard anywhere. The overall importance is that a location map mustnot make the false statement "this is not a EU member state.": it must either state the truth or not make a statement at all. The change would then be limited to:
IF THE PRESENT IS:
|image_map                = Europe location UK.png
AS EMERGENCY RESCUE ONLY, IT CAN BECOME any ONE of these two lines:
|image_map                = LocationUnitedKingdom.png
|image_map                = LocationUK.png
Perhaps a visualization helps:
                                                                                                                                                                                          	                                                                                                                                                                                          	Most European countries use the Liuzzo maps the way these were originally intended: with the entire EU coloured only for EU-member states and uncoloured for the other countries (the few exceptions do not use any Liuzzo style map); as long as this situation remains, usage of the second map for a EU member (e.g. the UK) is falsifying information and absolutely inacceptable, regardless one's personal views: If the UK uses a Liuzzo map, it can only be the first (EU coloured) style unless all other EU countries would stop using that first style as well. Both series must remain available for each EU country because the maps on Wikimedia Commons are also used by other language Wikipedia's at which the other choice might be made.
A Liuzzo map as the one on the left  simply does not exist for a dark orange Switzerland, such would be no less or more acceptable than only  the UK using the map to the right.	A Liuzzo map as the one on the left  simply does not exist for a dark orange Switzerland, such would be no less or more acceptable than only  the UK using the map to the right.	Most European countries use the Liuzzo maps the way these were originally intended: with the entire EU coloured only for EU-member states and uncoloured for the other countries (the few exceptions do not use any Liuzzo style map); as long as this situation remains, usage of the second map for a EU member (e.g. the UK) is falsifying information and absolutely inacceptable, regardless one's personal views: If the UK uses a Liuzzo map, it can only be the first (EU coloured) style unless all other EU countries would stop using that first style as well. Both series must remain available for each EU country because the maps on Wikimedia Commons are also used by other language Wikipedia's at which the other choice might be made.
                                                                                                                                                                                          	                                                                                                                                                                                          	
Kind regards. — SomeHuman 26 Feb2007 02:11 (UTC)
*I totally agree with everything said by SomeHuman.  Given the standardisation undertaken by all EU countries, it is senseless for the UK to do otherwise.  DJR (T) 02:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: David Liuzzo location map for the UK

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.215.171 (talk) 
:If the article is about Scotland, then what's wrong with showing just a map of Scotland? I also notice that the map is untitled, so showing anything else would lead to confusion. This is exactly the same principle as the desirability of just showing the UK in the UK article. TharkunColl 13:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article is about Scotland here on the UK page is clearly shows Scotland as part of the UK there is not need to use different shading on the Scotland map --Barrytalk 14:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scotland

message: Am I the only one to find 'billion' ambiguous wherever it's read?  At school I was taught that it was 1012 and that 109 was an American thing.  I know that the American usage is becoming more prevalent in the English language (though, interestingly, in many other European languages, words that sound like 'billion' (eg the Swedish 'biljon') mean 1012, with words sounding like the English 'milliard' (unambiguously 109 - eg the Swedish 'miljard') mean 109.  The older the Brit the more likely he is to find 'billion' ambiguous.  THEREFORE (and there is a point to this) I propose that the 'billion' in this article, which is ambiguous in UK contexts, be changed to the entirely unambiguous 'milliard'. Matthew 11:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Milliard is obsolete. See Long and short scales. The short scale has been officialy used in government statistics since 1974 - well before you were born. Jooler 11:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No to milliard! I'm well educated but I've never heard of milliard so my confusion would be total (unless it was wikified but the reader should not have to leave the article to find the meaning). If an amount is £120,000,000,000 then I (in England) would call it 120 billion (which, I believe, is now the worldwide definition). You want to call it £120 milliard? Why not call it £120,000 million then all people worldwide will understand it. I know that my idea means typing a few zeros but clarity is all. However, in the end, since billion is now defined as 10 to the power 9, what's the problem? - Adrian Pingstone 12:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that 'billion' is ambiguous in British contexts, and confusing to those who haven't grown up thinking of it as 109.  This population includes me and many older Brits.  And, less obviously, many speakers of other European languages to whom 'billion' in English would appear to map to their own equivalent, which is 109. Matthew 12:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're rather overstating the case. Your user page says you're 20-something. I'm 48, and while I was aware in school that "billion" had in the earlier part of the last century meant "million million", I have never personally used it to mean anything other than "thousand million". -- Arwel (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm 40 and likewise have only ever used it to mean as 109. I think Matthew you must have had rather eccentric teachers. Jooler 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me dig out some further information - I'm sure I have some back at home, but in paper rather than electronic format. Matthew 22:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Like Arwel, I'm 48 and I agree with him and with Jooler. To get over the slight chance of confusion, I would go with the "thousand million" suggestion but in my view "milliard" is a historical item and should stay that way. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Thousand million' is just as good as 'milliard' for me - it's a few more letters to type, but is just as unambiguous. Matthew 21:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, so how about 'billion' being replaced with 'thousand million'?  Again, it is entirely unambiguous, whereas 'billion' is not. Matthew 12:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Milliard' is never used in the media.  Since Wikipedia is part of the media, we should follow the conventions laid down by everyone else.  That is to say, if people are expected to understand the meaning when the Times or the BBC use it, they ought to be expected to understand when Wikipedia uses it. Bastin 13:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Times or the BBC are writing for an audience substantially smaller in scope than that of Wikipedia - that is, English speakers resident in the UK.  So this line of argument does not extend to the millions overseas who do not speak English as their first language.  It would be interesting to know if the BBC World Service has any kind of policy on this. NB all see also Ask Oxford for more on the ambiguous nature of 'billion'. Matthew 13:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've changed all instances of 'billion' to 'thousand million' as people either seem to agree with this or not mind either way. Mal - you sound like you were taught in the same way as I was 12 years later! Good suggestion re the style manual - I'll try to follow this up.  Matthew 12:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited part of the Transport section with the word "billion" in late January mainly because some editors have a rather annoying habit of writing enormous numbers in numeric form, (e.g. 287,000 million is 287,000,000,000) which is surely counterintuitive and a pointless waste of space. I am Australian, and while official government documents have a preference for the "thousand million" usage, "billion" is widely understood to mean the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcandelori (talk • contribs) 13:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If another voice is needed, I was also taught that a billion is a million-million (am now 23), perhaps there was a trend amongstUK state schools, but anyway I agree that there is a distinct advantage in the usefulness of data, if it is rendered "thousand million" or 1,000,000,000. Graldensblud 00:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Billion is most commonly used as 1,000,000,000 around the world, and not only in the United States.  Chiss Boy 12:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Used most commonly to mean 1,000,000,000 ; yes, it is. Used universally thus, no it isn't. Most commonly could have anything up to 49% of the world using something else. Therefore we need something which isn't ambiguous. Billion certainly is, see how many people are talking about it *points up*. Graldensblud 18:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the ambiguous 'billion' 

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 actual template Template:Infobox England place with UK flag for UK map. The current use of the England flag at the bottom of such tables lacks continuity between the map of the UK and the English flag, creating confusion, but since there are two templates maybe individual pages could decide or, a template could be created with both. Many Thanks. --Ash online 17:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about an infobox that shows the Union Flag AND the flag of the relevant home nation? Matthew 19:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yet another place where pointless wee flags cause unneeded hassle... WP:FLAGS. Thanks/wangi 13:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am
        for: either both flags
        or : remove flags from tables altogether
there is no need in my view to stick flags on EVERYTHING! It just creates arguments and hastle, especially over a divisive issue like the UK and the status of its parts/home nations. Not all countries have flags in their town templates.
However, it's really not that important, since as one user said the template does recognise the UK as sovereign. Lofty 15:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Table

message: The table states that Welch and Cornish are de facto official languages too. Isn't that confusing officially recognised minority languages with official languages? (The article official language says: "Officially recognized minority languages are often mistaken for official languages. However, a language officially recognized by a state, taught in schools, and used in official communication is not necessarily an official language."). Marcoscramer 01:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can accept that Welsh and perhaps Cornish are respectively de facto languages of Wales and of a county of the UK, but is it right to say that they are de facto languages of the UK as a whole? Matthew 09:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar discussion has been held on the Netherlands, about the status of the Frisian language. The consensus was that it is an official language in the Netherlands, but not an official language of the Netherlands. For more on this, see Talk:Netherlands#Frisian is NOT an official language. AecisBrievenbus 09:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  It is confusing, especially considering that Cornish is NOT widely spoken in Cornwall, in fact less than 100 people are known to speak the language fluently, therefore it cannot possibly be considered a de facto official language Angryafghan 16:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official language(s)

message: The article states;
London is by far the 's largest city. After that, the definition of largest is dependent upon the criteria used, but no one city stands out as larger than the others.
I don't understand this. As anyone who has spent long periods in various urban centres round the UK knows, Birmingham is significantly larger than it's nearest rivals in both size and population. Is this easily verifiable and common fact some bone of contention here? Because it shouldn't be.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 09:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is no doubt a product of the "Manchester is the second city" POV pushers. In fact, of course, Manchester is less than half the size of Birmingham. I suggest that the article be amended. TharkunColl 10:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a look around and found this rather strange. Apart from the statistics which show Birmingham to be far larger than other cities, the scale and size are immediately evident if one were to travel around a bit and take an objective view. I checked the archives and someone was touting Leeds! Despite the fact that the distance between the centre of Leeds and the outskirts is perfectly walkable in an hour or so. The Manchester conurbation perhaps rivals Birmingham city itself, excluding Leigh and various other disconnected towns, but the continuous Birmingham conurbation including the Black Country and the Boroughs (Solihull, Sutton Coldfield etc) is larger than the Machester conurbation again. I assume the latest inflated statistics for Leeds, which is still smaller than both of the above, includes disconnected towns such as Otley and Keighley. Basically, Birmingham is the second largest city on all counts by a "country mile" and I've never understood why this is an issue.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 11:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear hear! Rednaxela 12:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Depends if it means "largest by area", "largest conurbation" - Manchester and Birmingham are so close on this that the difference lies within the error margins assigned by National Statistics to their own data, "largest local authority" - that's Birmingham but does not cover the conurbation comparisons, "travel-to-work-areas", or "contiguously built-up conurbations not officially defined but existing - on this latter point Leeds/West Yorkshire does have a good claim. One of the problems is that people having this argument frequently use shorthand terms ("Leeds" / "Manchester" / "Birmingham) when really they mean something more complicated. There is considerable debate and this is described at the article Second city of the United Kingdom. MarkThomas 12:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cities

message: At the moment, editor TharkunColl is listing Glasgow as third-largest city in the UK, which is obviously wrong. He states on Talk:Second city of the United Kingdom that he is drawing figures from List of English cities by population although this page warns at the top that they disregard conurbation populations - in other words, he is basing his edit on local authority populations. These are widely disputed as being an objective guide to the size of British cities, whose built-up areas frequently exceed (significantly) local authority boundaries. Therefore can other editors take a look at this please and make adjustments? I proposed what I hoped was a more objective summary and was (against WP:CIVIL) accused by TharkinColl of "wrecking the page", which I don't think is fair - I was trying to make it objective and Wikipedian. Please review, thanks. MarkThomas 13:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: List of English cities by population specifically does not base its figures on local authority boundaries. Please read what it says. TharkunColl 13:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you are confusing "city" with "conurbation". TharkunColl 13:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But your pro-Manchester POV doesn't allow you to admit that most people can indeed understand the difference between a city and a conurbation. It's not rocket science. TharkunColl 13:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Your POV is obvious (see your various diatribes on Talk:Birmingham for example). And, for once, we are talking just about size here, not "second city" (which you imagine to mean something different). The City of Birmingham is more than twice the size of the City of Manchester, and in a list of cities this is a basic truth that you cannot squirm out of. TharkunColl 13:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A quick glance at a map might indeed show that the Manchester conurbation is bigger than Glasgow's, but - once again - we are talking cities here, not conurbations. You are deliberately conflating conurbation with city - presumably because the City of Manchester is so small. TharkunColl 14:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I'm with TharkunColl on this one (subject to the wording on the UK article), as the section of the article is purely about the size of the cities and not of their conurbations or of the areas that they influence.   For instance, my home village is of comparable size to others around it, but it benefits from being the hub village, so it has many services that the villages around it, despite being of comparable size, just do not have.  Just because there are places around it that influence what my home village has on offer does not mean that the size of the village should be inflated to take this into consideration. In size terms it's nothing more than the other settlements around it.  Compare with cities such as Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, etc. that have other settlements around them, such as Wolverhampton, Stockport, Paisley, etc., each with their own identities. Matthew 14:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: NB the usual stereotype is the other way round - anecdotally, Manchester is seen as having a swagger and being very capable of blowing its own trumpet, and of having a council that talks the place up.  Birmingham, on the other hand, is typically self-effacing, and has a council that enjoys petty political points scoring and infighting more than serving the people of the city! Matthew 14:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't like that metropolitan-areas page at all as it doesn't list a single source, plus the article mentions London's city size and not its metropolitan area, which arguably encompasses the whole of the UK, we're that centralised as a nation! :-)  If Glasgow's being measured differently then it would perhaps be easiest to list Birmingham as the second-largest city and mention the population of approximately a million, thereby demonstrating the gulf in size from London to the other cities of the UK, and then say that beyond that there are around half a dozen cities with populations of approximately half a million. Matthew 14:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that seems reasonable. The Glasgow figure, by the way, is based on its current unitary authority. According to Politics of Glasgow, this is smaller than the previous local authority district that existed until 1996, so I thought it was a reasonable approximation to the ONS list. Nevertheless, I'm happy with your suggestion. TharkunColl 14:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Co-incidentally, Manchester has been voted Britain's second city, getting 48% compared to Birmingham's 40%. See BBC story here. RHB Talk - Edits 14:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mm, I've just written something in consideration of this here. Matthew 15:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC article states "This is despite Manchester being far smaller than the Midlands city". Which pretty much sums up my point in the higher thread. Why on earth would our article carry the line "no one city stands out as larger than the others" when Birimingham clearly is larger than the others? An objective verifiable fact well known and obvious to anyone who has lived in various cities including Birmingham and Manchester. "Second city" refers to cultural impact, Manchester being the "capital of the north" etc, and has no relevance to this point.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 15:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Entirely agree, where we are showing the populations of the cities. Matthew 15:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, and the question then is which figures? What about for example List of conurbations in the United Kingdom - that would be more in line with what I suspect most people think of when they think "size of city". That gives the top five as:
*Greater London Urban Area - 8,278,251
*West Midlands conurbation - 2,284,093
*Greater Manchester Urban Area - 2,240,230
*Greater Glasgow - 1,749,154
*West Yorkshire Urban Area - 1,499,465
I think it would be interesting to have this. MarkThomas 17:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Tried a new edit which hopefully takes the above discussion points into account. MarkThomas 17:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not too on the use of the populations of conurbations.  Going to the London article, for instance, tells me that there are 7.7 million people and not over 8 million. But I think that the gist of the edit is fine. Matthew 17:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: NB before too long we'll be able to cite Wikipedia talk pages for the 'considerable dispute' that you mention! :-) Matthew 17:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone's already been in to change it! Matthew 18:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know - I've just changed it back since that contributor claimed that Liverpool was the third largest UK city - which is not the case using either Local Authority or Urban sub-area figures! Fingerpuppet 18:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It does make clear that the figures given are for conurbations, but that section of the article is about cities. Cities are not the same as conurbations. Feel free to add in a section about conurbations if you want to! Using conurbation figures for the section of the article dealing with cities is confusing, even if you explain it in the article. Conurbation figures should be in a different section, possibly subheaded conurbations. In any case, the population for cities should be in there somewhere. I will put the population figures for cities back in, using the Office of National Statistics population figures gathered from the 2001 census. If anyone feels those figures are unreliable, please explain which statistics are more reliable, and why, and we'll use those. But it doesn't make any sense to say that city population figures are wrong because they show the populations of cities and not something else. Hobson 23:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks perfectly reasonable to me - it satisfies both views. Matthew 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - a section entitled "cities" should certainly give prominence to actual cities. It is a noteworthy phenomenon that after London, Birmingham is an order of magnitude bigger than the half dozen or so that hover around half a million. I would add, however, that the last sentence, about what constitutes the "second city", seems rather out of place. We are just talking populations here, and it has been forcibly argued by Manchester supporters that when it comes to the second city, size isn't everything. TharkunColl 23:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with that too. Fingerpuppet 08:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Britain's second and third largest city?

message: Myself, Gwernol and Majabl have reverted the following addition by 88.109.86.234. This has been adding in again by Somethingoranother "Information given is completely backed up by references to the CIA World Fact Book. Stop pushing Pro Euro POV and denying factual information which balances the article and creates NPOV". The edit is contention is:
:"However the public generally favours keeping the Pound Sterling, which is the United Kingdom's own sovereign currency. Support for the Pound has been kept high due to its historically stable nature. Since the Euro was launched major economies in the Eurozone have generally struggled while the United Kingdom's economic growth rate has been faster than any other major European economy. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html#Econ  https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html"
The supplied two references do not back up the three claims, in turn:
#"However the public generally favours keeping the Pound Sterling, which is the United Kingdom's own sovereign currency" — no support in either of the sources for this claim; it's a given that the Pound is the UK's currency.
#"Support for the Pound has been kept high due to its historically stable nature" — not supported by either of the sources.
#"Since the Euro was launched major economies in the Eurozone have generally struggled while the United Kingdom's economic growth rate has been faster than any other major European economy" — 1st source states that "The economy is one of the strongest in Europe" and "Critics point out that the economy is doing well outside of EMU". The 2nd source has the UK as entry #175, with the EU as a whole above it at #171 and Eurozone country Netherlands at #164 and other Eurozone countries above it (without an exhaustive search Luxembourg is at #71). None of these support the claim.
Without references that support the claims they should be removed. Thanks/wangi 23:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please be specific and say that the UK's economic growth has been faster than Germany, France and Italy, since "major" is open to interpretation. Further this isn't supported by the reference you cited. If you can provide a reliable supporting citation I'd support inclusion of that sentence. The other sentences seem to be veering into providing a specific analysis of the facts. For example "Support for the Pound has been kept high due to its historically stable nature" is not supported by the references you gave and seems like your original research. It seems reasonable to say that "Support for the Pound has been kept high", but "due to its historically stable nature" is problematic. Gwernol 00:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Who said the CIA wasn't a reliable source? I said that the CIA source did not support what you said and you needed to find a source that did. Of course the CIA Worldbook is reliable, it just didn't say what you claimed it did. Gwernol 01:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The public generally favours keeping the Pound Sterling... 

message: Could someone please explain why the intro says (incorrectly) that the UK is the second most populous state in the EU, yet when I go to the edit page to change it to 'third most populous', it already says third there (but not on the real page)?--Triglyph 22:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says third in the intro for me. Maybe there's an issue with your browser? Cordless Larry 22:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange anomaly

message: The first sentence in the article says the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is shortened into certain terms including the incorrect term Great Britain. The article should promulgate proper usage. If you want to keep it in, why not say incorrectly shortened to Great Britain? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mickraus (talk • contribs) 11:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "Casually shortened"? With the fact implied that any such casual terms are usually less particular about precise details Graldensblud 00:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Term

message: Hi
The top righthand bar states that the uk top level domain is co.uk. Most sources i have read state that the tld is .uk not .co.uk. i suggest that this is changed from .co.uk to .uk
Ckeene 15:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ckeene - You are correct, it used to be .uk in the article and someone appears to have changed it back since your post - thanks for pointing it out :) Benbread 17:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  .co.uk is not the UK TLD 

message: The individual behind these user names is causing real trouble with this article.  They were responsible for the lockdown  that occurred a couple of days ago, because they kept reverting to "their" state of the article, over twenty times in one 24 hour period.  When banned because of 3RR violations, this user simply creates sockpuppet accounts or arranges for new IPs from which to continue their edit wars.
This individual's latest unconstructive behaviour is to repeatedly add "The City of London is a major business and commercial centre, ranking alongside New York City as the leading centre of global finance", to the "economy" section, despite the fact that two paragraphs later, it says "The service sector of the United Kingdom is dominated by financial services, especially in banking and insurance. London is one of the world's largest financial centres with the London Stock Exchange, the London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange, and the Lloyd's of London insurance market all based in the city".
Any suggestions on what we can do with this contributor?
Gsd2000 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says above that this user arranges for new IP addresses to get round his bans. Matthew 17:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, presumably this user's internet provider uses dynamic IPs.  Anyway, this user has shown themselves willing to create sockpuppet accounts.  Gsd2000 23:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If enough evidence is collected, and this becomes a persistant problem, you can have an IP range block placed upon this user - though this is used generally for only the most problematic of users. Failing that, Semi-protection will help for a while. Jhamez84 13:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Somethingoranother]], [[User:Sally-is-the-best]], [[User:88.111.13.106]] 

message: The following sentence, located at the end of the second-to-last paragraph under History, is wordy and unclear:
Following a period of economic stagnation in the 1970s after global economic downturn, and the rule of Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, for critics and supporters heralding respectively greater division and economic recovery, the preceding decade has been dominated by the leadership of Tony Blair.
It should be re-written to something more along the lines of:
The United Kingdom faced a period of economic stagnation in the 1970s after global economic downturn, which the rule of Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s attempted to assuage. Thatcher's free-market strategy for economic recovery gave way to more moderate reform. The preceding decade has been dominated by the leadership of Tonay Blair and his "third way" economic policies.
or something like that. I think the sentence as it stands is simply confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.230.174.92 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'The preceding decade' is bad wording - does it mean the 1960s?  Surely, having spoken about the 1970s and 1980s, the 1990s is the following decade? Matthew 20:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It was a rhetorical question! Matthew 22:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification in History section 

message: Under the photograph of the current monarch, the name given is "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II"  "Her Majesty" needs to be removed from the caption as it suggests subservience to the British crown.
For instance, beneath the photograph of the current Dalai Lama we see the caption "The 14th and current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso (born 1935)." without "His Holiness." The current Catholic Pope is merely designated "The current Pope is Benedict XVI...".  While these are religious examples, we find the lack of full-designation in the Saudi Arabia page where the current king is referred to as simply "King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia" rather than "The custodian of the Two Holy Mosques", etc.  There are more examples.
This disproportionate caption was evidently created by an enthusiast, and appears to be spam.
On the current monarch's entry (under the same portrait, mind you) the less obsequious caption reads:"Elizabeth II wearing the Imperial State Crown and fur cape and holding the Sceptre with the Cross and the Orb at her Coronation (2 June 1953)"
Which is sufficient.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.234.147 (talk • contribs) 
:Or instead of taking this belligerent and accusatory tone, casting aspersions on other editors, and using all sorts of insulting adjectives, you could just fix the caption politely. Doops |  talk 20:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies; the page is protected at present so you can't; nor can I. Still, what I said about politeness still goes -- just ask nicely and somebody will fix it. Doops |  talk 21:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Since this is a matter of preference rather than a matter of fact (as the next issue on the translation of the motto is). I'd rather that we waited until the article was unprotected. Having said that I think that the proposed caption would be fine. Certainly more informative than the current one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was a fairly well-established custom not to use "majesty" and other styles? My suggested wording for the caption would be The present queen, Elizabeth II or, if a full sentence is preferred, The current queen, Elizabeth II, was crowned in 1953. Doops |  talk 16:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not denying that. I think that it's a perfectly reasonable change to make. It's just that the page is already protected because of other disputes and I would rather that they were cleared up first before we introduce anything else which has even a whiff of controversy surrounding it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: On a slightly related note, can the image be changed to one from Commons: Category: Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom? The image on the page is fair use, and should be replaced with a free content alternative (see fair use policy). --h2g2bob 16:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Her Majesty" Caption error 

message: I think it would be useful to standardise the terminology used in the constituent countries' articles by discussing it here in the UK talk page, rather than each individual article debating it separately.  The present situation is that England is a country and constituent country, Scotland is a nation and constituent country, Wales is a constituent country and Northern Ireland is a part of the UK.  These discrepancies will only lead to confusion for people trying to inform themselves about the structure of the UK.  What do other people think? AlexOUK 09:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a bit uncertain that either designation is "official". There is for example no mention of such designations on the official UK government page about the different parts of the UK. Where do these designations come from - history books? MarkThomas 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've changed Scotland back to Kingdom. The clue's in the name. Kanaye 23:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constituent Countries' Articles 

message: In what kind of sense the UK is a sovereign state? As part of the EU it has transfered considerable
parts of politics to Brussels and other EU institutions. It should be rephrased. 84.189.97.252 00:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Among other things, a sovereign state is one that is capable of transferring a portion of its legal powers to an international treaty organisation such as the EU or NATO or the United Nations. The vast majority of sovereign states have done this to a greater or lesser extent. Non-sovereign states are incapable of doing this type of thing. So the fact that the UK has done what you say proves that it is a sovereign state in the "able to delegate its powers" sense. Contrast that with Scotland which, despite its separate legal jurisdiction and devolved parliament, is unable to delegate its powers, and hence can only be classed as a non-sovereign state at best. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Technically, every American state is also a sovereign state (though not by the UN definition).  As the UK is more independent and sovereign than an American state currently, and is able to declare and conduct war unilaterally (as opposed to American states--the main point why they aren't considered sovereign by the UN definition), it easily qualifies (at least currently) as a sovereign state. Chiss Boy 12:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sovereign state ? 

message: The opening section of United Kingdom does not currently conform with WP:LEAD, and in turn is in breach of the WP:GA terms. Articles must have a maximum of four paragraphs for the lead.
Perhaps the small amount of info on the constitutional monarchy status could be merged somehow? Jhamez84 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rearranged the five paragraphs into three, without taking away any information. The first covers the location of the UK, the second covers the politics of the UK and the third covers international affairs. I hope that is more in conformity with WP:Lead. Green Giant 13:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks much better. I've split the first paragraph into two seperate ones as we require four paragraphs for this amount of text. Jhamez84 18:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five paragraphs 

message: Just wondering if the UK's sectarian constitution and the fact of an established church in England is adequately covered.  Even just the fact of an established church is rare (a few Euro countries, Saudi Arabia and Iran, etc.), but the fact that the UK has a constitution that excludes the Head of State either being, or marrying anyone, from possibly the largest religious group in the country is highly unusual and surely should be covered in some depth.  Hughsheehy 17:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also thought it odd that "citation was needed" for the UK being a Christian country since it has an established church. Nickjost 00:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK does not have an established church, and never has done.  England  has an established Church of England and Scotland has a national Church of Scotland.  There has never been an established church in Scotland, nor have there been established churches in Ulster or Wales since Church of Ireland and Church in Wales were disestablished. Bastin 18:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but since England does have one and the constituent countries share a Head of State it's a somewhat grey area.  The acts that require the head of state not to be or to marry a Catholic apply to all.  The UK is by no means alone in this (Sweden, Denmark in Europe, Iran and Saudi Arabia - probably Indonesia, but I don't actually know), but it's still an important constitutional feature...one apparently lightly opposed by the expected next Head of State..Prince Charles.  Hughsheehy 20:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sectarian Constitution - Established Church 

message: The footnotes at the bottom of the infobox take up a significant chunk of the infobox. It would be better to incorporate them into the main references section at the bottom. Is there any good reason to keep them in their current location? Green Giant 13:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: The largest Mountain in Great Britain is not Scaffell Pike, I'm only 15 and I know that. It is Ben Nevis in Scotland —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.109.5.66 (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't say that Scafell Pike is the tallest mountain in Great Britain.  It says that Ben Nevis is the tallest mountain in the UK and that Scafell Pike is the tallest in England. Matthew 22:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest Mountain 

message: i changed the beginning to try and make it clearer and less cluttered. thank you! Why oh why not? 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted this change, because you not only snipped out information, but you're going against the consensus reached after a lot of debate that can be found in the talk page history.  Gsd2000 03:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, there was an extensive debate on the exact wording, and a majority decision reached after much wrangling.  Please stop changing it.  It doesn't "read like crap".  Gsd2000 00:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a difference between "Britain" and "Great Britain" Bluap 05:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usually shortened to... 

message: I have discovered an orphaned article on Social structure of Britain.  I'm not sure what to do with it, so am listing it here for people's attention. Bluap 04:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Social structure of Britain]] 

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 11:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox straw poll & debate 

message: I've just looked at the map in high resolution and noticed that whoever made it has made a fundamental error. He has shaded the Channel Islands pink, as if they were in the EU. It's odd that he should have made this error since he correctly shaded the Isle of Man white. Still, whatever the reason, we need to get rid of it. TharkunColl 14:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not saying you are totally wrong Tharkun, but the situation regarding ownership of the Channel Islands is very complicated and not clear-cut; they are often depicted as belonging to France on maps, as for example on the map on the main Wikipedia article. To quote.... "The Channel Islands fall into two separate self-governing Bailiwicks. Both the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Bailiwick of Jersey are British crown dependencies, but neither is part of the United Kingdom." Therefore they are possibly not in the EU either and do not have representation in the EU. Most people tend to think of them as loosely under the British crown though but semi-independent, hence their status as tax havens. I think the most sensible thing would be if they were colour-coded blank as with the Isle of Man. MarkThomas 08:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just had a look at the map on the France article, and it too has the same mistake. France is red, and the Channel Islands are pink, like an EU country. But they are definitely not in the EU, and should be white, like the Isle of Man. I think someone needs to have a word with the creator of these maps, because I have a nasty feeling that every single one of them is going to be wrong (and that's even ingoring the fact that Sweden is not twice the size of Spain, but is actually smaller than it). TharkunColl 14:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TharkunColl, your last sentence betrays a misunderstanding of the Mercator projection.  Look at a map of the world that uses this projection  and you'll see the same problem.  It's just that the distortions of this projection become more pronounced as you get closer to the poles (e.g. compare Greenland and Africa in that map), and arguably more pointless as you zoom in (e.g. the map you dislike).  In other words, the map isn't "wrong", it's right, according to its projection.  It's the projection you should be arguing against, not the map.  (I know you use the term "wrong" in relation to the Channel Islands, but anyway....)  Gsd2000 14:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully understand the Mercator projection. My point is that it is wholly inappropriate for the area covered. Also, at that scale, showing rivers, contour lines, seabed depths, etc. is also rather inappropriate for what is essentially a political map. It's all too cluttered, too squashed with most countries crammed together in the middle, and now it appears to be factually incorrect as well. TharkunColl 17:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies then.  There was another map that periodically this one got changed to, more of a "standard-style" WP map.  What happened to it?  It was much better.  Gsd2000 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We've (attempted) to discuss this before, haven't we TharkunColl. Your problem is that the maps show the EU at all, not the projection. If it is the projection and the colour-coding of individual territories, why not publish a fresh draft so we can all see, comment and possibly admire your handiwork? I have also asked you to do that before and so far you have declined. MarkThomas 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, I have showed my maps many times. Please take a look at my user page and scroll down, where there are three different maps, each of which would be better than the current one, and two of which clearly show the EU. TharkunColl 17:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the one - the first one.  All it needs is to show the UK - the EU is irrelevant.  If showing the EU, why not show NATO, and the Commonwealth, and the UN for that matter?  I vote we change it to Thark's first one.  Gsd2000 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That would be my preference as well. TharkunColl 18:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As stated before in a huge discussion on exactly the same point, personally I would be against this as I prefer infoboxes to offer harmonised experiences for users moving between related articles. The current maps do at least offer that EU-wide. I meant revising the existing maps, not Tharks' maps, which for all their good points do not show the EU, which is central as it at least partly has absorbed the UK into it and is unlike any other international institution in actually partially taking sovereignty by treaty away from member nation states. MarkThomas 18:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two of my maps do show the EU. The basic question here is which is more important, factual accuracy or harmonisation? TharkunColl 18:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I hadn't realised you have done some EU ones - where are those located please? MarkThomas 18:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All three versions of my map are on my user page. Just scroll down a bit. TharkunColl 18:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, yes, I have seen those before. The bottom one is good graphically and if you dropped the substantially irrelevant and minor EEA stuff from it would be almost there. MarkThomas 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the right to live and work in those countries is a product of the EEA, and not the EU, I would contend that it actually has more effect on our lives than the EU. It may function as a adjunct to the EU, but it nevertheless still includes Norway and Iceland. Norway, in particular, is a popular destination for Britons working abroad. TharkunColl 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever the decision, make the colour scheme easy on the eyes: the bright green of the EU one requires sunglasses to view it!  Gsd2000 19:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reminded me of BBC Micro graphics c1988. Did you used to have one TC? :-) MarkThomas 19:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar with that one. I did it with Paint (software). TharkunColl 21:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map is wrong