Jump to content

Talk:United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleUnited Kingdom was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
May 3, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 22, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 30, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 11, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 3, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 22, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
March 6, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
September 24, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2024[edit]

In the phrase: "Other major cities include Birmingham, Liverpool, Nottingham, Sheffield, Bristol, Glasgow and Leicester." I would definitely include Manchester. You may argue whether Manchester or Birmingham should be regarded the UK's second city, but for example: Manchester Airport is the busiest UK airport outside London (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the citation, I presume the original author intended to use population as a measure of "majorness". If following that vein, Edinburgh, Leeds, and Cardiff would have to be listed before Manchester, but clearly that would unnecessarily bloat the lead. Of course, we could devise some alternative standard of deciding which cities to include, but is this really that important? Liu1126 (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This goes back to the old problem of how to define a "city" - in Britain (and elsewhere) administrative boundaries rarely coincide with contiguously built-up urban areas. The cited source seems to use a strange (and unexplained) definition - the population figure for Manchester is much lower than that in any other definition I have seen. Outside London, most would consider the largest or most important British cities to include Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Glasgow - see this source for instance - with places like Liverpool, Sheffield, Newcastle, Leicester, Bristol, Cardiff and Edinburgh at the next tier. But, definitions will vary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The novel source should be removed from the lead, and the lead should follow the body. Currently, the body text does not bother with cities, with the only coverage being a template. That said, the template in question looks at urban areas and lists Manchester as second. CMD (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CMD. But if we are to get into a decision about which places might merit a mention, in my opinion we should do it based on notability not population - i.e. which cities are more prominently / more frequently mentioned by reliable sources? That gets us away from the whole boundaries/population thing (but potentially opens a different can of worms). WaggersTALK 09:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that one problem is that, given that we mention Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast as capitals, it would seem a little odd not to mention some of the other cities that are larger and in many respects more significant internationally. Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow stand out for me. But, they should be mentioned in the main text as well, and they need to be included based on defensible criteria and reliable sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is important Depotadore (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bank of England is not responsible for coins.[edit]

"The Bank of England is the UK's central bank and is responsible for issuing notes and coins in the pound sterling." BoE are responsible for issuing notes, The Royal Mint is responsible for issuing coins. (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating The Racial Composition Of The U.K.'s Population[edit]

Please update the percentages in the infobox relating to the population's racial composition according to the latest census data as seen in the infobox for Demographics of the United Kingdom.

According to the 2021 British Census, (now that Scotland has finally released its racial data), the racial composition of the U.K.'s population is as follows.

White: 83.0%
Asian: 8.6%
Black: 3.7%
Mixed: 2.7%
Other: 2.0%

Star VV Cephei A (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Star VV Cephei A (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2024[edit]

Motto: "Dieu et mon droit" (French) "God and my right" Depotadore (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motto: "Dieu et mon droit" (French)
"God and my right" Depotadore (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2024[edit]

Can we replace the Brexit protest image under 21st century with this image of Queen Elizabeth II's Funeral and Procession, considering it's the UK's biggest moment in the 21st century (so far) and likely will be for a number of decades. Open to hear your views. 2A0A:EF40:E0D:1D01:4971:1631:57B8:4CC0 (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think an image representing Brexit is more appropriate. Brexit resulted in a drastic constitutional change in the United Kingdom, whereas Elizabeth II's death merely resulted in a change of monarch (and unless Charles III reaches the age of 151, the death of a British monarch will occur again in the 21st century). Adam Black talkcontribs 00:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you! 2A0A:EF40:E0D:1D01:4971:1631:57B8:4CC0 (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about this image with the following caption:
2 billion doses of Oxford University-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine were sent to more than 170 countries by November 2021.[1]
2A0A:EF40:EE1:1D01:15B5:6D4D:BD77:28DB (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Black 2A0A:EF40:EE1:1D01:15B5:6D4D:BD77:28DB (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I, again, think Brexit is more relevant to Britain in the 21st century. The repercussions of Brexit shaped the political landscape and have an ongoing impact on daily life here. The pandemic was a significant event, led to unprecedented restrictions on daily life in modern Britain, and sadly resulted in far too many deaths, but it was relatively short-lived (in the context of a century). I do think the current photo is not the best possible illustration, though. Perhaps you could find a better image representing Brexit? Adam Black talkcontribs 23:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: per Adam Black. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 01:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ "The story behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine success". UK Research and Innovation. Archived from the original on 2023-02-25.

The UK is not a country[edit]

You should probably clarify that the UK is not a country but a union. It is made up of 4 countries. The UK and Britain are not the same things either. The UK includes NI. Britain is the mainland island of Scotland, Wales and England. Please correct the mistakes in this page it looks sloppy. Bigbotnot2 (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bigbotnot2: I've lived in the UK for quite some time and, as stated in the country article, it is indeed one. It might be other things as well. You are partially right about the UK and Britain being not the same thing: the note against "Britain" in the first sentence gives a summary of the confusion, and United Kingdom § Etymology and terminology expands that. Your statement that the mainland island of Scotland, Wales and England is called "Britain" is wrong and sloppy: see Great Britain. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying you have lived here for quite some time is low key irrelevant respectfully as evidence needs to be fact checked etc. I will say thought that people who have lived here their entire lives will tell you this page is wrong. I have lived here my whole life. I know there is some confusion online but the UK is a union or sovereign nation or sovereign state and made up of 4 countries: England, Wales, Scotland and NI. I will try my best to explain why.
Britain the name for mainland island (England, Scotland and Wales) and is interchange with Great Britain but not the UK as this include NI which is not in GB. However, some people will use it in this way. The full name for the UK is “United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland”. This is why it is not accurate to say Great Britain to include NI.
If you say I am partially right then it should not feature in the first paragraph and should be referenced later on only as it is nearly not prominent enough. There is no need to get rude when you in fact say that you are not native to this country. This is what we were taught in British schools. Now I don’t know your age etc but you never went to primary school in the UK I’m guessing. Doesn’t matter whether you have lived here for a while it doesn’t give you authority to act like you own the page or disregard facts.
Factually, for a country to be a country there are requirements of course. They need “ a settled population, a defined territory, government and the ability to enter into relations with other states.” NI, Wales, Scotland and England each have their own “government”, defined territory, settled population and ability to enter into other relations with other states. For example, Scotland has relations with the United States, China, Canada, India and Pakistan etc. England and government is a little iffy but I will explain more later.
Furthermore, I literally do this at university and have written multiple essays referencing this topic. I have literally studied what makes a state, nation, nation state and country. Similarly, the evidence you have provided proves me right. Also, in the etymology link you sent “ Although the United Kingdom is a sovereign country, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also widely referred to as countries.” This is partially incorrect and also agrees with me. Personally, I don’t think it is not completely right to call it a sovereign country as it does not fall under the guidelines of a country. With a lot of these things it’s subjective and own opinion but the one thing everyone agrees is that the UK is not a country in itself. According to academics it could be classed as a sovereign nation or sovereign state or sovereign nation state as all 4 countries have passed centralised sovereignty into the UK Government. There is a lot of discussion for which option especially since Brexit but that’s irrelevant in this but if you want some academic sources, I can provide. This system of partial centralised power is called a quasi-federal state. The UK itself doesn’t have a government but rather a centralised power structure acting as a governing body. NI, Scotland and Wales have their own governments through devolution. England does not due to the Conservatives as it was rejected in 2021. This is under the “English votes for English laws” and the West Lothian question. It was scrapped because the Conservatives wanted to “streamline parliamentary procedures due to Covid” not the fact that England is not entitled to that debate or their own government. A lot of the time, Welsh and Scottish MPs don’t involve themselves in English matters anyway. NI is not in question because since 2019 the government returned full powers to NI after they removed them for 3 years as Stormont was unable to come to a solution etc.
With your definition, it would mean the EU and other similar unions would be classified as “countries”.
This is because the EU has a similar system of centralised sovereignty. Member states of the EU have passed sovereignty into a centralised power to allow some decisions to be passed through for ALL EU member states or some EU member states. For example, the EU passed a law banning single use plastic by 2030 in all EU members states. I believe it’s called a supranational law but don’t quote me on that. Each EU member state has their own government and own laws that can pass through much like in Scotland, Wales and NI. Scotland has the highest amount of devolved powers including “ the economy, education, health, justice, rural affairs, housing, environment, equal opportunities, consumer advocacy and advice, transport and taxation” which is more than Wales. I am not entirely sure of the powers NI has but it’s more than Wales and I think Scotland. Arguably, England is also able to pass laws for just England due to the devolution of Scotland and Wales.
A similar discussion with greater consequences is that of Taiwan and Hong Kong with China. As well as, some believe also Puerto Rico with the US. However, with the sovereign nation of the UK it is far more clear cut and everyone agrees on the definition within the UK.
If needs be I am totally happy to provide more evidence but I did not watch to overload you because I have written a lot. Sorry about that, I waffle. I might be able send you any material from my uni course but I haven’t figured out that yet. The Cambridge one is from my Uni course but I am not entirely sure if you can access it but fingers crossed 🤞🏼. If you need me to reword or explain something again just let me know as I know my grammar and explaining skills aren’t that good. I hope you have a lovely rest of your day :).
https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/difference-between-united-kingdom-great-britain-england/ Bigbotnot2 (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bigbotnot2: As you know nothing about me other than what is on my user page and what I have said above, I don't think you're qualified to make up facts about me, such as where I have lived, or where I went to school, or how old I am. Your guesses or suppositions above are wildly inaccurate.
Neither my opinions nor yours, on what terms should be used for what are of any use and what each of us prefers, are irrelevant. Wikipedia wants reliable sources for statements made, and this article has them in abundance.
There have been many discussions on this talk page in the past (see the archives) about the use of the word "country". I pointed you to the article body, in particular United Kingdom § Etymology and terminology, but your inaccurate lecture above suggests you have not read or understood the detailed explanations about the country (or state or union) and how it has been described by other sources. The text, as currently published, is the result of many editors working in collaboration over the years to agree the wording presented; describing it as "sloppy" was unnecessary. You will also find links to other article which have further details. I also recommend Terminology of the British Isles, whose second sentence sums things up nicely. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my assumptions were based on your own rude message. If you don’t like how you are perceived don’t write it🤷🏻‍♀️. You said “I have lived in this country for quite some time” this shows you aren’t native or you would have said as such. That is also completely irrelevant as Wikipedia though as relies on factual information rather than baseless opinions as I said previously. This Wikipedia page largely agrees with me. It just does not have references for the things I am highlighting as inaccurate. My message accurately explained why the top paragraph is incorrectly worded with references below. The references you provided and in the page are nearly not enough to make it prominent for it to be at the top. If you feel so strongly it can be mentioned further below with better references but factually the Uk is not a country as per the guidelines referenced in my lengthy comment as well as in the Wikipedia page. It is sloppy because the references used do not contradict or prove my references wrong. The references also used prove my references right when you do proper due dilligence. My references are used by academics and lecturers who are the best in their field. If you don’t like my comment then I don’t know what to tell you as it is backed with lengthy knowledge from academics and scholars with decades of knowledge etc and not some random subjective google search. The fact you did not bother even reading my comment shows that you do not even read this page as most is as actually referenced in the page. Again the reference you provided agrees with me. Similarly, there is zero reliable reference stating that the UK is a country. Therefore I am correct in highlighting it. See the definition of Developed country, Country and Sovereign state if you need further evidence of my research. I will not go into an edit war with you because 1. You are rude and a bully 2. Will not even read my evidence where I am explaining what I mean backed up with evidence. I will happily calmly debate with you and explain but I won’t do this. It is a shame that you have turned into a bully instead of just listening to criticism and coming to an agreement that will be agreed by everyone. In the UK we do not reference it as a country. The page is sloppy, that is a fact. It contains controversial unbacked information at the top. It can be mentioned further down and named a union at the top as this is correct no matter the overall conclusion. I hope you have a lovely rest of your day :) Bigbotnot2 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UK is indeed a country. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not as per the guidelines and evidenced provided. Bigbotnot2 (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced by your arguments. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Erm okay. I’ll explain again. I think the UK is a sovereign state which means “a state with a defined territory that administers its own government and is not subject to or dependent on another power.” I do think a “sovereign union” or just “union” could also be used. I think we can agree that the UK has centralised sovereignty within the government.
The countries in the UK are semi-autonomous countries technically since they are not independent. They are not independent because of colonialism and different acts passed through government. England had Wales since the 16th century and Scotland joined through the Act of Union as well as Scotland shared a King with England in short. Northern Ireland joined the Union in 1920 through Government of Ireland Act. This is why it is more accurate to refer it as “sovereign state” or “union”. They are 4 countries who are joined together in an act of union rather as one country. Through this act of union the UK Government was made which acts as the highest point of authority over the devolved powers.
A country has requirements yes but strictly speaking “country” means a piece of land or geographic area regardless of its political status. Like e.g West Country in England, Basque Country in Spain can be argued are “countries” in line with the original “correct” etymology definition. Country can also be synonymous to “land” or “region” which is not the UK. In most cases, English speakers would say “country” meaning sovereign state except with the UK this would be incorrect. This is because in the UK there are 4 constituent countries (England, Scotland, Wales, NI) and they have semi-autonomous COUNTRY status and together they make a sovereign state.
“Countries within a country” isn’t a thing because joining countries together becomes a union. If you looked up “countries within a country” that would be an enclave but that isn’t what the UK is. It is a “United Kingdom” of separate countries joined together in a political sovereign union. Like for example, the EU is a political union which carries sovereignty over its member states.
To be honest “country” is quite a vague word and is not used within International Relations or in high-level academics often. As I said before the original definition means a geographical area or piece of land regardless of political status and doesn’t really mean anything else. This is why certain countries exist as a country and geographical region but is debated whether it is a “state” as they don’t have an official governing body in the eyes of the UN. For example, this accounts for countries who want independence as well as anarchist countries.
Another example of a sovereign state is the “Kingdom” of Denmark which is the political union to describe Greenland, Faroe Islands and Denmark. Denmark, Greenland and Faroe Islands are semi-autonomous countries in their own right like e.g Scotland. The “Kingdom” part signifies a political association headed by a King or Queen. As already said, a country is a geographical area or territory as the etymology says it just means “land” or “rural area” in short and is not political; just a strip of land. As the UK is a political union, it is unable to qualify as a country. It is in more recent times that country is synonymous with “state” and “nation” and therefore can be confused. To summarise, a country or geographic area that has sovereign polity etc is a nation state and a union of countries is a type of “partnership” or shared agreement. In the UK’s case it is also a sovereign state.
According to BBC, the first UK government leader was in 1924 under Ramsay MacDonald’s Labour Party so not even that long ago. Wikipedia says the first PM of Great Britain (not UK as no NI) was William Pitt in 1801. Still not that long ago in the big picture. This does mean that the UK technically would only exist as a sovereign state since 1924 as only then did they have an independent centralised government as we see today.
Therefore it is only logical and more accurate to call it a sovereign union or sovereign state because it is a grouping/union of different countries with an overarching body with the highest authority (UK Government) which controls the countries. Since leaving the EU, UK has become a more sovereign state as they have withdrawn from the centralised government power and power was passed back. It is recognised in many places like the Ordinance Survey and Countries of the United Kingdom as such. However, since we are not completely dependent from the Council of Europe rulings there is still some debate around it. Yes the UK used to ignore a lot of the rulings made they still had to adhere to most. ECHR should still have power over the Supreme Court to deem whether the UK has breached EU Laws.
Thats why political union or sovereign union is probably more accurate right now but in years ahead as we move away from Brexit and the EU a lot of retained EU Laws will be “removed” and put in to UK law so the ECHR lose the power they have over the UK. It will then become more of a sovereign state than it already is. It’s similar within the UK. Through the removal of the act of Union or the Government of Ireland Act, countries can gain independence and be removed from this sovereign state or union. Thus, the UK is not a country but rather a sovereign state for the most part or a political union of countries.
Countries of the United Kingdom
https://www.thoughtco.com/country-state-and-nation-1433559 Bigbotnot2 (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced & so I don't agree with you on this topic. Also, a consensus was already reached on what to call the UK & that consensus is country. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided more than enough references and I have proved my point to be correct. People in the UK do not call it a country and it is incorrect according to the guidelines and definitions of country, state, nation and sovereign etc. Similarly, I provided the etymology definition of a “country” and educated you. It is literally in the guidelines and definitions this isn’t based in my opinion. You do not need to agree; I am not searching for your opinion or approval. Any opinions are in fact irrelevant as this is rooted in facts. I am in fact educating you and everyone else who seems to ignore facts and believe the UK is a country. Wikipedia is meant to have factual and accurate information but failure to correct the mistake on this page just continues the idea that Wikipedia is unreliable. International relations scholars and academic around the world recognise the UK to be a sovereign state and do not use “country” as it is inaccurate for this description. It seems to me that no one on this thread is knowledgeable on this topic. Please could you provide factual and academic evidence that the UK is a country that is not based in opinions and is from a reliable source. This Wikipedia page does not have any reliable sources that prove that the UK is a country and all my academic sources disprove this misinformation. The only one on there is disproved on the same website and on Wikipedia. If you do not believe the UK to be a sovereign state please read Great Britain List of sovereign states and reference the UN website. You say there was a consensus to call the UK a country? Evidence please? The UK government calls it a sovereign state and recognises it as a union. Another name for the PM is “The Minister of the Union”. So no there is no consensus if the government recognises that I am correct.
The reason Rishi and some MPs/diplomats refer as the UK as one country or as a country is to push the agenda of not allowing Scotland independence. Many believe this behaviour has links to colonialism and therefore believe it is also rude to call it one single country or a country as it erases history. So I do find it hard to believe that a “consensus” allowed for the UK to be called a country as there is deep rooted history denying this fact. However the majority do not call it a country as they know it is incorrect to do so.
Here is further evidence proving I am correct:
Great Britain
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-UK-Great-Britain-Whats-the-Difference/ Bigbotnot2 (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to agree with the changes you want to make, so you're wasting time repeating your position. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided more than enough information. It’s shocking that you have no shame. The consensus doesn’t mean anything if relevant people were not involved. Please listen to the UK government. They have said it is a union or a sovereign as it is a political piece of legislation making it invalid to be a “country”. Bigbotnot2 (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay is correct of course. These complex terminological issues have been discussed many times before at enormous length, and the article as it now stands represents the resulting consensus. Also Bigbotnot2, you keep mentioning the ECHR (Court of human rights). This is a Council of Europe body, entirely separate from the EU, whose job is to interpret the Convention on Human Rights, an international treaty to which the UK is a party. It has no bearing on the nature of the relationship between the UK and its constituent parts. -- Alarics (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bigbotnot2: You confidently assert that "People in the UK do not call it a country". You are mistaken. They do. -- Alarics (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t. Bigbotnot2 (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why you think we do. 95% of us understand why it is not a country. Not sure why you have spoken over a native British person sat in the UK. Not even on the news is it called a country. It is a sovereign state or a union. The Act is literally called “The Act of Union”. Bigbotnot2 (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bigbotnot2: Maybe @Alarics is, like me, a "native" person sat in the UK and, like me, calls the UK a country? Our preferences, though, count for nothing against previously agreed consensus to use "country" in this article, as you have been informed several times.
I'm interested in your figure of 95% of "us" saying it's not a country — who is "us" and where is "95%" published? Bazza 7 (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You aren’t because in the UK we don’t. The government has already set out words for us. The 95% clearly was an estimation.
Also, the page also claims that Britain is a synonym of the UK which it isn’t. Britain or GB is a landmass. The government refers to the UK as a sovereign state or union and therefore the only correct way is to follow the guidelines already set out.
https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-great-britain-and-the-united-kingdom Bigbotnot2 (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, it is referenced as a sovereign state or a union by the Uk government as I mentioned earlier with evidence. The SNP has already said they do not appreciate it being called a country as it links to colonialism as it stops them gaining independence.
I don’t think the consensus holds any power of the literal parliament and I doubt anyone British was apart of it. Clearly everyone I have spoken to is not British and doesn’t understand the law of the land. I provided etymology definitions proving that “country” is inaccurate and yet non-brits are set on keeping this mistake up.
I think you have misunderstood. We signed up to the ECHR as a requirement for being an EU member state but this is separate. This was already mentioned in my comment. Respectfully I’d appreciate if you read my comment and don’t correct me when I have already written that. I also never said it had no bearing on the UK and its constituent parts???Although, the ECHR can step in if the UK is breaking EU laws against any constituent country or even an individual person. Your comment makes zero sense and has a clear lack of research. The ECHR does still have a small presence and can step in to say if the UK have broken EU laws. This is separate from leaving the EU. The ECHR stopped the first flight to Rwanda.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/14/european-court-humam-right-makes-11th-hour-intervention-in-rwanda-asylum-seeker-plan Bigbotnot2 (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bigbitnot2, posting WP:WALLOFTEXT with your unsubstantiated, ill-informed opinion and making absurd assumptions about other editors is becoming disruptive. I suggest you stop before you are made to. DeCausa (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What. I literally cannot explain it shorter. Also not an opinion it’s literally said by the government. You are not very nice at all. I am literally being bullied for having the correct facts. Bigbotnot2 (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says on the page that if you want to change something you put it on the talk page. I literally have a learning disability so I struggle with explaining things which I wrote already. I am being hounded for trying to explain what we do in the UK and saying it was more accurate to call it something else. None of you have ownership over this page and I am more than welcome to try and explain how we do things here. I do not appreciate the aggression that you have others have shown. This is being ostracised for showing evidence that doesn’t align with other belief’s. I am allowed to explain my pov. Similarly, on the page there is no citation next to country showing that is it backed up. And as said previously the UK and Britain are not synonyms. I have not accused anyone of anything. All I said was the person commenting isn’t native which is what they said. I do not appreciate you saying my “opinion” is unsubstantiated and ill-informed as it is literally what the UK government calls the UK in the constitution as evidenced with multiple references.This is a false accusation. You cannot threaten me like you just have. I am allowed to share my opinion but I have been belittled in a manner that is not acceptable. Please refrain from any contact. Bigbotnot2 (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UK government has not said the UK is not a country, "95% of us understand why it is not a country" is nonsense (assuming by "us" you mean the British, but who knows) and "I am being hounded for trying to explain what we do in the UK" is even bigger nonsense on multiple levels. The only thing you need to post is a link to a reliable source that claims explicitly that the UK is not a country so that that could be discussed. You have failed to do that. All you have done is make fairly obviously ill-informed statements and link to online sources which don't even back up your claim. DeCausa (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay United Kingdom is an country and inside it are constitutional "countries" which aren't independent Depotadore (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't denied what the UK is. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
United Kingdom is self explanatory it's a nation that has united (kingdom of england (wales is part of Kingdom of england), kingdom of scotland) and yes i'm including the kingdom of great britian. Depotadore (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is like saying the United States isnt a country but a union LuckTheWolf (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The UK, or United Kingdom, or Britain, is the shorthand WP:COMMONNAME for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland just as the US, or United States, is the shorthand common name for the United States of America. Similarly we say North Korea and not Democratic People's Republic of Korea. As a native British person, if asked, I always refer to the UK, or Britain, as the country of my birth (occasionally Scotland, If say I'm supporting the football team - no laughing at my expense, please!). Even the United Nations refer to the United Kingdom and the United States by their shorthand titles. Bill Reid | (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An Island Country?[edit]

The United Kingdom is referred to an “island country” on Wikipedia but if you ask people who live in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, they will disagree with this statement. 2604:3D08:1E7E:CAC0:7D3B:15C7:241E:2595 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page simply calls it a 'country'. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the IP is referring to the fact that the article is a member of Category:Island countries. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UK should be removed from that category, as well as the Republic of Ireland. Indeed only countries that cover only one island (rather than parts of an island), should be removed from that category. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although our Island country article defines such countries as "a country whose primary territory consists of one or more islands or parts of islands" (unsourced), with the UK and Ireland listed. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the UK fits in that category...although not Guernsey, Svalbard and load of others.Halbared (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Halbared No the reason why the United Kingdom doesn't count as an island nation is because the united kingdom is made of two big islands great britain and ireland (a tiny chunk of it) Depotadore (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a very narrow definition of "island nation" and not one most people would subscribe to. Trinidad and Tobago, for example, I think most people would agree is an island nation despite having two main islands. Same for the Bahamas and numerous other examples. WaggersTALK 13:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The category definition says "This includes countries that consist of an island, an archipelago, or part of an island." Must be somewhat picky to say that it doesn't include "part of an archipelago"! DeCausa (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think the common understanding is that if a country isn't an island country, the bulk of its territory is part of a mainland continental landmass instead. That's not true of the UK or Ireland, they are definitely island countries as far as the bulk of their territory is concerned. Somebody might want to mention Gibraltar being part of mainland Europe but I think it's fair to say overseas territories aren't considered in this sort of definition, and is why I've been careful to mention "the bulk of their territory" a few times. WaggersTALK 07:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Truss + Rishi[edit]

The two worst leaders in the nations history should be mentioned. Their reigns and stuff like Liz being the shortest reigning PM should be added. Framdon (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a case for Truss but it feels like WP:RECENTISM to me. I honestly don't think historians in a hundred+ years' time are going to be looking back at Trussian or Sunakian times as particularly remarkable in the same way we look back at Victorian or Tudor times. WaggersTALK 07:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spooky, History of the United Kingdom ends with Sunak's appointment. CMD (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does, it's the most recent significant event in British history. That doesn't mean it should be mentioned in this article too. There's lots of information in History of the United Kingdom that isn't - and doesn't need to be - repeated here. WaggersTALK 07:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listed PM[edit]

As delighted as I am about today’s landslide result, Keir Starmer is not yet Prime Minister (as listed on this page) as he has not yet received his commission from the King. Rishi Sunak is the Prime Minister until he has. Ted86 (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily in this country there's no fannying about and it's just old cabinet out and new cabinet in! Gammawammallama (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keir Starmer or Sir Keir Starmer?[edit]

There seems to be an edit war looming so I just want to create a general consensus on whether we use "Keir Starmer" or "Sir Keir Starmer". The former is my choice. Gammawammallama (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who doesn't care either way, I would ask what do you see as the pro and con arguments or is it just a case of personal preference? I don't see MOS:SIR providing anything definitive on this particular use as that guidance is about a bio article. DeCausa (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think someone not from the UK cares that Keir Starmer has been knighted and therefore has the "Sir" title. Gammawammallama (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should use keir starmer since all countries leaders don't start with first name middle name surname it's first name surname (e.x.narenda modi, joe biden, justin trudeau) Depotadore (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Titles such as Sir should be treated in the same way as titles like Dr., Rev., Mr. or Esq. Note that the monarch is referred to as Charles III, rather than King Charles III. King of course is a much grander title than Sir. TFD (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's no Sir for me. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "Sir" bit. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article, but are optional after that. The title is placed in bold in the first use of the name. Except for the initial reference and infobox, do not add honorific titles to existing instances of a person's name where they are absent, because doing so implies that the existing version is incorrect (similar in spirit to the guideline on English spelling differences). Similarly, honorific titles should not be deleted when they are used throughout an article unless there is consensus. Where the use of an honorific title is widely misunderstood, this can be mentioned in the article; see, for example, Bob Geldof. Honorific titles used with forenames only (such as "Sir Elton", "Sir David", "Dame Judi") should be avoided unless this form is so heavily preferred in popular usage that the use of the surname alone would render the entire name unrecognizable.
TL/DR: use it in the infobox and the first time it appears in the article, after that it's more or less a free-for-all. WaggersTALK 13:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, I don't think MOS:SIR has application here. I think it's intended for the bio articles of the Sirs themselves rather than when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. DeCausa (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This page sets out guidelines for achieving visual and textual consistency in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles; such consistency allows Wikipedia to be used more easily. While this guideline focuses on biographies, its advice pertains, where applicable, to all articles that mention people." WaggersTALK 07:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. DeCausa (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]