From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleEngland has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
April 25, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 13, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 22, 2009Good article nomineeListed
June 14, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 4, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
October 17, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Claim about anthems.[edit]

The stuff about England having anthems is nonsense and should be removed. There can be no such thing as an "unofficial national anthem" as it's a contradiction in terms. Also England isn't a nation. It's a part of The UK. (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

National is open to numerous interpretations, so your argument falls flat without a very clear definition. Official is also loosely defined and is similarly open to interpretation. Without going into detail, it seems that on the balance of probability, England is a nation and a national anthem does not need to be official, hence it can be unofficial. You need to provide much stronger reasoning for your argument to carry any weight. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
No. It is a fact that Britain is a nation. Official has only one meaning. (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
"Waltzing Matilda" is an unofficial national anthem of Australia, and "God Bless America" is an unofficial national anthem of the United States of America. (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
‘There can be no such thing as an "unofficial national anthem"’ — Well, actually your wrong. The UK itself has no official national anthem. God Save the Queen has been adopted through longstanding use, but has no legal recognition as the British national anthem. Indeed, many British symbols such as the Union Jack have no legal recognition. Their use as national symbols are only legitimised through longstanding use. The fact that God Save the Queen is sung at most English sporting events and Jerusalem specifically for cricket, is enough to justify their inclusion on Wikipedia as unofficial English anthems.
’Also England isn't a nation. It's a part of The UK.’ — England is a nation and has been recognised as such since the time of Bede over a thousand years ago. The UK is an amalgamation of different nations (i.e. England, Scotland, Wales etc...). This is a fact that has been repeated by many politicians and journalists alike. David Cameron, the former PM, described the UK as a country of countries. There are multiple examples of UK institutions making references to the various nations of the UK. If this isn’t enough, then you might be interested to know that England competes as an individual nation in many sporting events such as football, rugby league, rugby union and cricket. England also has its own distinctive national symbols such as St George’s Cross and the Three Lions. Wales and Scotland are also distinctive nations in their own right. Being part of a political union does not undermine this fact. Margalant (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


I cannot understand what the correct area for England is:

... which one is right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitokmen (talkcontribs) 12:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Probably all of them, they may have slightly different criteria for measurement and none of them are that different to each other. MilborneOne (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The UK, and therefore England, has a particular problem shared by the few other island states... most or all of their national border is with the sea. Which not only moves near-continually, going up and down in a nonuniform manner (the ~120 sqkm discrepancy could be *easily* explained by disagreements over whether to draw the line along endless miles of wide saltflats and the like - high spring tide, low spring tide, mean height between neap tides, technical global "sea level" geoid?), but is also something of a fractal outline. It's even more difficult to come up with any kind of meaningful length for the perimeter... and that's before we start considering the area covered by territorial waters as well as the land they surround and frequently inundate, and the possible issues of imprecise conversions from square miles, acres, etc. Even the Isle of Wight is notable as having two different official areas - one for high tide, another for low. The Wikipedia value is probably taking a mean of several other values, and is hopefully cited as coming from somewhere in particular. I would however suggest that the "official" figure is that given by the commonwealth office, even if it's a slightly high estimate. If you just need to be approximate, then "about 130,300 sqkm" should do it. (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Official population update[edit]

Latest ONS statistics for England's population as of 30 June 2017 were released yesterday. Now 55,619,400. Here is the link:

Can someone please update the article with this and also update the "population of over 53 million" in the introduction to "population of over 55 million". (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing it out. Batternut (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


I feel it would be appropriate to add in the word 'non-sovereign' before 'country' in the opening line. This would serve to clarify as the page for the UK, as well as most other pages for countries, are also simply described as countries, and there is of course a difference between such other countries and the home nations. JJThunder1 (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I fear it would raise more issues than it solves. A quick scan of this talk page's archive will reveal endless bickering over how to represent the constituent countries. Batternut (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

That is a shame, however surely just the term 'non-sovereign' would be fine as, whatever someone may say about the home nations, the term is completely factual JJThunder1 (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes and no - they are sovereign in some aspects of what they do - the UK Government in general uses the word 'country' (per previous arbitratration) so lets just keep to that rather than adding commentary -----Snowded TALK 15:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I hear ya, JJ. But, you've little chance of getting something like that added into the intro. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Royal Banner of England[edit]

I notice that the Royal Banner of Scotland is featured alongside the national flag on the Scotland article, perhaps it would make sense to include the corresponding Royal Banner of England (three golden lions on a red field) here for symmetry?

Indeed, the Scotland article’s infobox looks more visually appealing with the Royal Banner included alongside the Saltire. I would personally be in favour of including the English Royal Banner or Royal Arms in the England article’s infobox. I believe most countries/nations on Wikipedia have either a coat of arms or national emblem accompanying their national flags in their infoboxes. As far as I know, England and Wales are the only exceptions.
There are a number of issues however with including the Royal Banner in the article’s infobox. While Scotland possess a newly-designed and aesthetically pleasing royal banner, England sadly does not. Royal Standard of England.svg This is an example of one of the English Royal Banners availible on Wikimedia Commons. As you can see, the design is quite old and outdated. Most Banner designs don’t look much better. There is however, a very well-designed Royal Arms freely available, but this leads me on to my next point.
There has been a bit of opposition from some editors relating to the inclusion of the Royal Arms in the infobox. Whenever someone attempts to include the Three Lions in the infobox, the usual editors take it down again. The reason given is a bit odd; apparently because England’s traditional arms are rarely used in unmodified form, they therefore shouldn’t be featured in the infobox. I personally believe this is an unusual argument. Ireland’s arms for example, feature in a modified, black and white form in almost all contexts such as on state examination papers and government documents. Denmark similarly also uses a modified form of its arms (also three lions) in almost all contexts such as in sport.
In short I agree with you, but what your proposing will need more general support. PS, please sign your posts. Margalant (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The name of England[edit]

The Arabs used to call England in the golden age (the dark age in Europe) Alinkitar which is maybe type of making the word sounds like Arabic words. هارون الرشيد العربي (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

That seems like (a) original research, and (b) dictionary material, which Wikipedia is not. Batternut (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Probably also explainable as Al-inki-tar or similar... which I'd guess as "the land of the Engs", or as close as arabic can get to that. Most likely that was a translation of "England", rather than being any kind of source for it. (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
If ‘Alinkitar’ is truly an old Arabic name for England then that is an interesting piece of trivia, but unfortunately has no place on this Wikipedia article — especially if there are no credible sources to back up this claim. However, I am almost certain that some countries such as France and Germany have specific articles dedicated to the name of their countries in other languages. I’m not certain if England has one, but if it does then you should contribute to it, but only if you have credible sources. Also, you should refrain from publishing your own interpretations on articles as that qualifies as original research, which breaks Wikipedia’s code. Margalant (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Missing link to West Midlands article in "regions" section[edit]

I'd put it in myself, but being a lowly IP user I'm blocked by the semi-protection. Every other listed region has a link but for some reason WM is isolated as the only one without it (which I discovered by trying to click through on a lazy search for a certain piece of data). Could some kind person implement a quick fix?

NB, it'll have to be "West Midlands (region)", as the name is also used for a county (yay confusing bureaucracy) and so WP doesn't have a straight "West Midlands" article, only the disambiguated subpages.

edit: it's the Regions section under "Governance", not "Geography"

edit2: be sure to get the capitalisation right, WP seems to be extremely fussy about that, as I just found trying to go back to that page manually. Capital W, capital M, lower-case r.

Thanks... (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable request. Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)