Talk:United Kingdom

Conversion in total area

Hello, I am Cleter, and I would like to begin by stating that the conversion of the land area in the UK reads as follows:

I suggest the following change in accordance to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Unit_choice_and_order which includes:

• In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except that:
  • UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units in which the subject project was drawn up (but road distances are given in imperial units, with a metric conversion – see next bullet);
  • the primary units for distance/​length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon (except for short distances or lengths, where miles are too large for practical use);
  • the primary units for personal height and weight are feet​/inches and stones/​pounds;
  • imperial pints are used for quantities of draught beer/​cider and bottled milk;

As you can see, none of these circumstances are applicable to the article. Therefore, I request that the sentence in green be readjusted to this (including the 2 sources):

Template:Tq 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 03:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Given area is a function of distances, I don't think the use of square miles is out of line with that MoS even if not specifically mentioned. CMD (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

One difficulty is that all ONS statistics (along with the OS, the only genuine authority on area measurements in the UK) are metric, both for Standard Area Measurements and density. You're absolutely right of course—the MoS means that the figure should be imperial first. But nonetheless, it always feels to me a little dishonest that Wikipedia presents British area measurements as though the statistic is imperial and that Wiki is converting it to metric. When in fact the opposite is true. Dgp4004 (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cleter: I agree with @Chipmunkdavis. I've lived in the country for some time. We're used to square metres and hectares for small measurements, but larger areas are mostly spoken of in square miles (or Isle of Wights or Wales). I suspect this is because road distances, which are a practical yardstick for envisaging a large area, are stated in miles. Bazza (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@117PXL

Template:Ping You seem to misunderstand "bias" and "neutrality" as it operates on Wikipedia. Please read WP:BRD, self-revert and discuss your edit here. DeCausa (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping when you come off your block, put forward your arguments here. If you revert again without getting consensus support first you will just get a longer block. DeCausa (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn’t realise I would need a consensus for removing the image because I thought the bias was obvious. I will explain my thoughts…

In Northern Ireland the pro Irish community speak Irish (Ulster-Irish) and the pro British community speak Ulster-Scots, as well as speaking English.

There are signs in Northern Ireland that are translated into both languages, here are some examples I found:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Multilingual_sign_Department_Culture_Leisure_Arts_Northern_Ireland.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Derry_Guildhall_Nameplate_2013_09_17.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Looking_for_the_%22Cludgies%22%5E_-_geograph.org.uk_-_637820.jpg

As you can see the ‘Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure’ is translated into both languages.

These examples show no bias, but do highlight division, so I thought it would be wiser to remove the image, as leaving it, could annoy the pro British community.

All thoughts are welcome. 117PXL (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. First of all whether it would "annoy the pro British community" is irrelevant and not a factor that would or could be taken into account on Wikipedia. See WP:NOTCENSORED. I think that sort of thinking has led you to misunderstand neutrality here. It's not about "balancing" conflicts - see WP:FALSEBALANCE which is not exactly on point here but is related. I don't see any "bias" in the pic you wanted to remove for a number of reasons. Ultimately it's just an instance of a multilingual sign in the UK. That's all. Having said that, the pics that you have linked to are an even better illustrations. I wouldn't have a problem with any of those. The other problem with your edit was cluttering of the Topography section with 4 pics. It's not 'bias' just to have pics from 2 countries - unnecessary clutter is a much more significant issue. DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping I see you went ahead with this edit, which constitutes another revert. The above was just my opinion - I wouldn't say that is a new consensus particularly as another editor reverted you too. You've just come off a block for edit-warring the removal of the pic. Whilst the edit is ok with me, you run the risk of being re-blocked. DeCausa (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The text on File:Derry Guildhall Nameplate 2013 09 17.jpg is much harder to see in thumbnail view than that on File:Bilingual welcome sign Newry.jpg, so I disagree with 117PXL's replacement of the latter with the former (which I see has now been reverted). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry didn't see the latest comment. But I don't think we should have the previous photo on there. 117PXL (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I understand the Wikipedia rules and I understand the image doesn't look as attractive from affar. But this is the main UK page and there are two communities in Northern Ireland that have to work together. There is a Welsh image if the contrast is the issue...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Welcome_sign_Llandrindod.jpg 117PXL (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Is everyone happy with the Welsh one? 117PXL (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I thought there was no objections to a welsh image and the long place name looked good on there? 117PXL (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I think there are too many pro republic editors on here such as the last Canadian one. 117PXL (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

You'd be better serve trying to get consensus for you changes rather than casting aspersions.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping What does my being a republican & a Canadian, have to do with the disputed topic? GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It's at WP:AN3 plus WP:PA. DeCausa (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2024

Template:Edit extended-protected update first minster post for northern irealand Saltcoats123 (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Saltcoats123: What do you want changed? Read the instructions in the template which you inserted: Template:Quote Bazza 7 (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2024

Template:Edit extended-protected Under "History - Postwar 20th Century" it is stated that the UK was a founding member of today's EU. It was not. The UK was not a signatory of the Treaty of Rome and therefore not a founding member of the EEC (present-day EU). In fact, its request to join the bloc was vetoed by France, twice. Please correct this mistake. Pandrej01 (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. It doesn't say it was founding member of the EEC which came into being in 1957. It says it was a founding member of the European Union which was a different entity (albeit a successor) that came into being in 1993 and which the UK was a founding member. It doesn't seem to be incorrect. DeCausa (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Rare Book

The Orchard Pavilion by Arthur Christopher Benson.1914 1st edition. Leather bound and Gold embossed. Printed by Ballantyne,Hanson &Co. Edinburgh. Darlene Mumford (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox content

Do we really need to list England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland in the infobox? Most (if not all) other independent countries (sovereign states) don't seem to list their components in their infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

How about Britain and Northern Ireland?Halbared (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Halbared, Britain? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay, how many other countries have countries as components? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Denmark and the Netherlands are both listed at Constituent country as having constituent countries, and they're not included in the respective infoboxes. WaggersTALK 10:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

So not many of the 200ish sovereign states then.

To put that into context here then, what we are saying is, given that two of the three sovereign states that have constituent countries don't list them in their infobox, why do we list them in this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but there's no practical difference between a "country" in this context and a "state". The Country article pretty much says as much. There are LOTS of sovereign states (or countries) that are comprised of constituent states, which may or may not be nation states. I can't pretend I've looked at all 200 sovereign state articles but of the ones I have looked at where I know they have constituent states, they don't list them in the infobox. WaggersTALK 12:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

If 'state' and 'country' are synonymous, I wonder why it sounds so wrong to say "the United States of America is a federation of 50 countries". So I guess there is a difference. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

A (n independent) sovereign state is not the same thing as a (constituent) U. S. state, just like how a (constituent) UK "country" is not the same thing as a (sovereign) "country". This isn't hard to understand but everyone thinks it's hilarious to say "BUT WALES IS A COUNTRY" when we're talking about sovereign states like Zambia or Paraguay. The primary administrative divisions in the UK are their "countries" (but sometimes Northern Ireland is just a "province"?) so they are equivalent to Alabama or Nebraska. They're not special just because 130 years ago, the British decided they get to compete with multiple teams in soccer tournaments. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point. There's an obvious reason why the USA article doesn't list all 50 states, but equally Canada's infobox doesn't list its provinces, Australia's doesn't list its constituent states. I agree, for consistency there doesn't seem a particularly good reason why there should be an exception for the UK. WaggersTALK 09:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes are often abused: most can be reduced by a quarter or so. This one is no different. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the field being used is one for membership in international organisations. CMD (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Presumably that should list things like NATO, which are currently not in the InfoBox because this has stolen their place. I think that makes the case for ditching the constituent country list even more compelling.... and I'm not seeing any objections so far. WaggersTALK 14:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. I never before noticed that it was shoehorned in by misusing that parameter. Seems have been added in 2017 here. DeCausa (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@CMD, @Waggers, @DeCausa, that field's documentation supports the way it is used in this article. The example is for the EU, showing the member countries as a list in the membership field.

As the UK has four member countries, that field is being correctly used, and the membership_type field is being used correctly too - to label the members as 'Countries'. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Why should it matter, what parts of an independent country is called? Scotland, Ontario, Tasmania, etc etc. No matter what you call'em, each are a component of an independent country. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay, it doesn't - does it? The template provides a field for them and one that allows the editor to label them as whatever they are. So you could legitimately add a (collapsed) list of its 50 states to the USA article, and label the field as "states". You could add the cantons, and label them as such, to the Switzerland article if you so desierd. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I just don't agree with you. IMHO, Wales, Northern Ireland, England & Scotland should be deleted from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

DeFacto, the template documentation is precisely the opposite of what you have claimed. If you look, it says Template:Tq It then gives the syntax, separately, for Infobox Country and Infobox Geopolitical organisation. The "Membership" parameter, not surprisingly, is only given for the geopolitical organisation. It is omitted from Infobox country. As one would expect, the EU infobox begins Template:Tq. That's why it's there. The "Membership" parameter has been wrongly inserted in the Infobox country in this article. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)