This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
And how many Strines are lucky enough to be living in Northern Ireland, anyway? RM is not for point-scoring. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
According to the 2001 Census, there were 107,871 Australian-born people in the whole of the UK, with 106,404 in Britain, so 1,467 are in Northern Ireland. It's not point scoring, it's accuracy. The name of the country is the United Kingdom, not Britain. The content of the article relates to the whole of the UK, so the title should reflect this. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
No, that is what I mean by point scoring. The name of the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Insisting which short form we use matters, when they are all clear to a dispassionate reader, is silly; but it would be nice if this were mere silliness and not some obscure statement on the relative rights of Dublin, London, and Belfast. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 22:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that they are all clear to the dispassionate reader. Britain could refer to either Great Britain or to the whole of the UK, whereas using United Kingdom makes it clear that the article relates to the whole state. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree the article should be renamed to Australians in the United Kingdom, as has already been stated, Britain is only part of the UK, I think the respective wikipedia articles speak for themselves the Great britain article has much, much less information than the United Kingdom article, which just goes to show that more people use the term UK (which does include Northern Ireland). Also this isn't this a subgroup of Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom. I suggest the same be done with Afghans in Britain. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed about Afghans. I've added a requested move tag to that as well. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Substituting one acceptable form for another violates the MoS. Our article on Terminology of the British Isles clearly states that "Britain" is an accurate short form for the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". It is a common form in British English and is also widely used by the British authorities (see my comment at Talk:Terminology of the British Isles#Britain does not equal the United Kingdom). I think usage is changing post-devolution, but it's also true that many residents of Northern Ireland would react strongly to the idea that they're not in "Britain". A couple of light-hearted analogies that might help clear up confusion:
"Western Australia" uses more words than "Australia", but it's a smaller area. "Great Britain" uses more words than Britain", but it's also a smaller area.
Would Australians be more likely to write "Poms in Canberra" or "Poms in the Australian Capital Territory"?
Typical speaking Great Britain or Britain isn't even a country, it's just the name of an island, the United Kingdom is an actual nation, and should be used in the name. it could be compared to naming an article Chinese in America. America isn't the nation its the continent (United States should be used as should United Kingdom). Stevvvv4444 (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Petre Andre should not be listed here. He is not an Australian citizen and does not hold an Austrlaian passport. He is British and never took out Australian citizenship when his family moved to Australia. He requires a visa to return to Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was moved. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Support: Britain (ie: Great Britain) is an island, the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is a soveriegn state. The given by the above supporters are convincing, however while the opening sentence of the article ("Australians in Britain may include Australians who have become residents or citizens of the United Kingdom, as well as the numerous students and temporary workers from Australia who live in the UK.") makes it pretty clear that it's really the UK that's being discussed, the sources don't seem to make the distinction between the UK and Britain (one source opens with "Australians a plenty in Britain London, England, United Kingdom", which is just bizarre). So needless to say that the sources need to be improved. Returning to the topic of the move, Britain is often used as shorthand for the UK, but as an encyclopedia we need to be accurate. Nev1 (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Why are these two people included on the list of "notable individuals" just because they had a parent born in Australia? This doesn't mean that they are also Australians and surely no one could suggest that they are ever seriously considered to be so. Winston Churchill had an American-born mother but no one would ever consider Churchill to have been an "American in the United Kingdom". So unless some valid reasons are provided otherwise then both Jagger and Bacon should be removed from the list as their inclusion seems ludicrous. Afterwriting (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)