Jump to content

Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

UK / GB / etc confusion 1

I thought "Great Britain" referred to the island of Britain as opposed to the political entity United Kingdom. The latter includes the Channel Islands (and the Isle of Man, and the Shetland Islands, and much else), but the former does not. --LMS

Wrong! UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Shetland isles are part of Scotland and so are in UK. Channel Islands and Isle of Man are UK dependancies, not part of the UK itself. Also, there will be no specific Channel Islands info, as they are split into two groups and administered as two seperate entities, Jersey and Guernsey. Grunners 194.168.3.18 13:13, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I think (!) just did a quick search and found an abundance of information at CIA Jersey factbook (incidentally, ci.html is Chile, there doesn't appear to be a Channel Islands specific page), note the "Dependency status: British crown dependency" and the Independence. Certainly I know there is a lot of independence between mainland Britain and the Channel Islands, as demonstrated by the fact it is tax exempt (and the number of offshore banks shows this)..

Crown dependencies don't usually count in Great Britain. See [1]

But this does highlight that the United Kingdom page should be about that, and the Great Britain page should be about that (even if that does leave everyone a bit confused ;-) --Neeklamy

OK, but do the Channel Islands deserve special mention as part of the U.K. that, for example, the Isle of Man or the British Virgin Islands would not? I don't know what the legal relationships are, but I would guess (just guess) that the Channel Islands are in the same relationship to the U.K. that the Isle of Man and the British Virgin Islands are. Of course, I wouldn't be at all surprised if I were totally wrong. --LMS

In practice, the relationship between UK and Isle of Man, and UK and British Virgin Islands is pretty well identical. But they have a very different legal status. British Virgin Islands is a British Dependent Territory (soon to be called British Overseas Territories); the Isle of Man and Channel Islands are British crown dependencies. -- SJK

You've caught me again, I can't say for sure tonight, but certainly I'll hit the library tomorrow and find some dead wood answer to this. --Neeklamy --- Have we determined yet if the Channel Isles and the Isle of Man have a different legal standing than the British dependencies. If they don't they should be folded into that list, not kept separate. If they do -what is the difference? ---rmhermen

They do a separate legal standing, but the difference is more due to the differing historical origins than due to anything practical today. The British Overseas Territories are former colonies, while the British crown dependencies were (and still technically are) feudal vassals of the British crown. -- SJK

Monarchs

Just added list of monarchs if anyone would like to run over it.

Berwick-upon-Tweed

Does anyone know if this Berwick-upon-Tweed thing is true or is it a wind-up? I'm from the UK and i've never heard anything about it, surely it should be on a new page anyway. p.s. I hope i've cleared up any American confusions between the terms Great Britain, United Kingdom and England :) - JamieTheFoool

I've heard the same thing said about war between the Kingdom of Fife and Russia. This needs to be checked. -- Derek Ross

Berwick-upon-Tweed had a weird status until 1885 when it was adminstratively made part of England. Apparently it was mentioned separate in many documents until then (such as the book of common prayer).

EricD Read the bit at the top of the United kingdom page about it being FROZEN! Mintguy 01:03 Sep 14, 2002 (UTC)

UK / GB / etc confusion 2

  • IMPORTANT - Just want to make it clear what make up Britain and the UK.
    • Britain is an island, divided into 3 countries: England, Wales and Scotland.
    • The UK is Britain plus Northern Ireland. It does not include Jersey, the Isle of Man or any other territory. These are crown dependencies/colonies of the UK, not part of it. Grunners 04:51, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, and another thing. You won't find anything about the channel islands on the CIA pages as they are administered as two seperate balwicks: Jersey and Guernsey. There is no single channel island authority Grunners 04:58, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

UK / GB / etc confusion 3

Found this: http://www.observer.co.uk/readerseditor/story/0,8224,515149,00.html

Another reader, who suspects that some of our contributors are 'either arrogant, ignorant or Celtic agents provocateurs' , pleads that we learn the difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain and the British Isles. So, here goes (deep breath): the United Kingdom is a contraction of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the official title of the political union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; Great Britain is the geographical name for England, Wales and Scotland, including those adjacent islands governed by the mainland (i.e. excluding the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands_ are you still with me?); the British Isles is a geographical name describing Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Orkney, the Shetland Isles and the Channel Islands; Britain is another name for Great Britain or the United Kingdom.

Phew.

Actually, Great Britain is just one island - not the adjacent islands as well. PML.
Anglesea? Andy Mabbett 14:20, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PS: Between 1801 and 1922, the UK was actually called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Furthermore, as Irish people resent the use of the term 'British Isles' because it dates from a time when Ireland politically was associated with Britain but Ireland has not been so since 1922, a different term is gradually replacing the term British Isles. It is the IONA (Islands of the North Atlantic.

Motto

I'm not sure that the UK has a national motto at all. The Sovereign has a motto: "Dieu et mon droit", but that's not the national motto. I vote for the removal of the "national motto" line in this table, unless someone can discover a national motto for the UK.

Its possible. I have tried to find one, but couldn't. But Wales has a national motto. It seems odd for Wales to but not the UK.

I believe the UK coat of arms does have the "Dieu et mon droit" motto beneath it. My book with a picture of it also says the coat of arms dates from the ascension of Queen Victoria. Jeronimo
Indeed it does. But I believe that technically it is the royal motto, and the royal coat of arms.
"Dieu et mon droit" is from the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom and is "borne only by the Sovereign".

OK hope you don't mind, just thought you would be interested in other information i've found out about the motto "Dieu et mon droit" actually means

Dieu et mon droit (French for ‘God and my right’) is the motto of the Sovereign and dates from the time of King Henry V (reigned 1413-1422). The motto appears in the shield on the Royal Coat of Arms.

Loosely translated Dieu Et Mon Droit is the Royal Family moto it means "God Is My Help" I hope this clears up any Discrepancies!!

Oh OK. Most reference book give the Royal coat of arms as the UK coat of arms (there appears to be no other). Maybe we should do that, too; there appears to be enough to write about in a separate article on the coat itself. Jeronimo

I would just place the Royal Arms and Motto instead, as technically the UK has no National Flag either, The Union Flag is a Royal Flag that can be used by prvate persons. - fonzy

Actually, the Union Jack was accepted as the British national flag in 1909. It is also used as the royal flag, but since 1909 the Union flag/jack is the official UK national flag. STÓD/ÉÍRE 22:53 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

No, altought the govenment does execpet it as teh antional flag, but i ahve about 5 flag books that can back me up. -fonzy

If you look closely at the Royal coat of arms, it doesn't just say "Dieu et mon droit". It also says (written in a circle) "Honi soit qui mal y pense". As I understand it, this means roughly "May evil be done to he who thinks ill of it". "It" presumably meaning "my right". Incidentally, it is "honni" in modern French, but it is definitely "honi" in the Royal motto. 20:53 Jul 01, 2004 (UTC)

"Cymru am byth", to the best of my knowledge, is a de facto motto, I don't think it is officially recognized. FWIW, the Royal motto on HM Arms and Welsh Badge is "Y Ddraig Goch Ddyry Cychwyn" (The Red Dragon Leads The Way). - mynameismonkey

Bank holidays

Scotland has slightly different bank holidays: January 2 (or a subsequent weekday) but not Easter Monday, and the first Monday in August instead of the last. See this list. I'll leave it to someone who understands the format of the page to put this in ;-) --rbrwr

Land without music

"Britain (England) has been described as a land without music" - who has described it as such and what does it mean? Mintguy 20:24 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

I can imagine England being described as a land without music, but not Britain - Wales is the land of song, after all. Deb 20:30 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
It was so called by classical music critics at the end of the 19th century, I believe - this was a time when the most famous British composers were Purcell (who died in the 17th century) and Handel (who was really German). Then Elgar came along, and from then on things got better. I don't have an exact source for the quote, but it's something that gets quoted quite a lot. --Camembert


Animals

can you tell me what those animals mean on the shield

Click the "Full size" link under it to find out. :) -- John Owens

power not authority

Surely in "Today, her role is mainly ceremonial, with the country's real political authority being delegated to the Prime Minister", it should be "power", not "authority"? The distinction is that the authority is the legitimate basis for the power - and the Prime Minister is merely exercising power vicariously, i.e. it doesn't actually belong to him as such but he gets the authority to exercise it from somewhere else (from "the Crown in Parliament", actually, under the system involved) - he is only a minister. PML.

A very good point, PML. He gets his constitutional power on the Monarch's authority. The article should be more careful with its use of language. FearÉIREANN 00:55 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

BSL

Has BSL really become an official language? I know there were pressure groups to make it one, but I did not know it had become one yet. -fonzy

What is an 'official language' in the UK anyway? Courts/police have to provide translators for any language, and Parliament conducts its business solely in English. Morwen
Just an hypothesis (I don't actually have facts to corroborate, but I can try to find them): Isn't the UK without an official language as a whole (like USA)? Since it has no written constitution, it is possible this is the case. Nevertheless, it is also possible that the autonomy given to Scotland and Wales included the possibility of give Welsh and Gaelic some official status. So, it is possible that Welsh and Gaelic have official status but English not. It is a startling possibility, but it is a possibility nevertheless. Can anybody give some legal background on this subject?Thanks :) Marco NevesMarco Neves

The UK does have official languages, but to my knowledge its only English, Welsh and Scottish Gaelic. - fonzy

But is this inscribed in the law? I always learned that UK had no official language as a whole. User:Marco Neves
I think the Good Friday Agreement means that the Irish language and Ulster Scots should also be included now. FearÉIREANN

Though they do not have the same recognition by UK law - e.g. new naturalised citizens of the UK are required by law to have knowledge of English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic. An Irish speaker with no English (or Welsh or Scottish Gaelic) could not be naturalised a British citizen. Andrew Yong 09:01, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can we settle this thing about the official language once and for all? This section of the page keeps changing from one view to another. The following points need definitive verification.

  1. Has anyone got any proof that there is such any such thing as an official language of the United Kingdom in the first place?
  2. Is Welsh an official language in Wales? H2G2 says that Welsh is not the official language of Wales, (it also says there is no official language of the UK) [2]. Other sites also state that English is THE official language of Wales.
  3. This site [3] describes only English and Welsh and French (for the Channel Islands) as official or national languages and lists a number of other regional languages. Is this correct? It doesn't include any variety of Scots as official or national. I believe that this page is out of date see the point below.
  4. This site [4] states that French was the official language of the Channel Islands until 1970 when it was changed to English. I'm prepared to believe it, if if this is correct it means that the previously cited page is incorrect. For what it's worth it doesn't matter the official language of the Channel Islands is because it isn't officially part of the UK anyway.
  5. The following site [5] states that the 1707 Act of Union declared that English the official language of Scotland. This site [6] says the English still is the official language of Scotland.
  6. Is there any evidence of someone's assertion that BSL is an official language of the UK? I think he has made this assertion through a misunderstanding. This site [7] says "On Tuesday 18 March, 2003, the UK Government formally recognised British Sign Language (BSL) as a language in its own right. " to recognise a language as "a language in its own right" is not the same as recognising it as an official language of the UK.
  7. Similarly this BBC report [8]says that "[the] Cornish [language] joins Welsh and Gaelic as a recognised regional language under a European Charter". This does not mean that they are official languages of the United Kingdom.
Out of this confusion I think that either of the following are probably true. Either, there is NO official language of the UK or the only official language of the UK (and its constituent parts) is English and the other languages are recognised as minority or regional languages only. Mintguy 09:11, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Can I point everyone to the Welsh Language act of 1993 which is, officially:
An Act to establish a Board having the function of promoting and facilitating the use of the Welsh language, to provide for the preparation by public bodies of schemes giving effect to the principle that in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality, to make further provision relating to the Welsh language, to repeal certain spent enactments relating to Wales, and for connected purposes.
This suggests that Welsh is definitely as much of an official language as English in Wales, though there are no actual official languages.

I looked on Encarta World Atlas 2000. for languages it says English (official) then Welsh and Scottish Gaelic. I am shore that BSL is not an offical langauge mainly as their are pressure groups trying to make it one. - fonzy

I'm going to change the article to say there are no official languages. Mintguy 08:25, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)


I suddenly had an idea I will e-mail the govenment asking them, just to make shore. - fonzy

  • The UK has no official languages according to the constitution. English, Welsh, Scots, Manx and Irish Gaelic are all recognised though. Grunners 04:55, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
As far as I know, there are no official languages in the UK except for in Wales where English and Welsh (listed in that order) are both official. The reason for this is because Wales was only demerged from England in 1955, so they made a proper job of sorting these things out. I also believe (though I'm less sure about this) that English, Irish and Ulster Scots (the latter being the Irish version of a Scottish language that devrived from English) were made the official languages of Northern Ireland as part of the Good Friday agreement. So to summerise:
* UK - none
* England - none
* Scotland - none
* Wales - English and Welsh
* Northern Ireland - English, Irish, Ulster Scots (I think)
Does that help?

By UK law all government, local authority and welsh assembly documents must be in English and Welsh if available in Wales. Gaelic (Scottish nad Irish) is not recognised by law as it is not widely spoken. Cornish has only 200 speakers approx and therefore is not recognised by government bodies. Therefore I conclude by saying English is the only language that by law is recognised nation wide although in Wales, Welsh is also recognised by law. C.C. Aged 12

Scots language name

Will someone add the Scots name on the table in the article United Kingdom, please? --Kaihsu Tai 22:07, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That's difficult. It would be possible to add a Scots name for the UK (indeed this has already been done -- the last name on the list is a Scots name for the UK, an Ulster Scots name) but it would be a bit difficult to add the Scots name for the UK since, as far as I know, no such animal exists. Presumably the Ulster Scots name is the one used in the most recent NI agreement. If this is so, I would imagine that it has the best claim to be the Scots name for the UK since the UK government has accepted it. -- Derek Ross 05:29, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Norlin sounds very odd to me when used in this way. It's a noun, the Scots equivalent to Northland with the same meaning, being used to make a noun phrase. Now that sounds fine when used in phrases like norlin leid or norlin fowk but not in the phrase Norlin Airlann just as northland people sounds okay but Northland Ireland doesn't. This sounds more like an example of non-native speakers using a dictionary to translate a phrase without worrying about the grammar over much. Not too surprising if it's a title created by English speakers for political purposes, I suppose. The native Scots speakers that I know would talk about Ulster or the North o Irelan or just use the English phrase Northern Irelan. -- Derek Ross

I just found this article since someone's trying to translate it for cy.wikipedia, and I notice it's had the wrong Welsh title since the end of July! United = unedig in this context, not gyfunol. -- Arwel 01:58, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

languages

"Welsh and Scottish Gaelic have equal status with English in Wales and Scotland respectively (see Languages in the United Kingdom). "

So English is not official... If Welsh and Scottish have equal status with English, that doesn't make it official either. Either it is official or it is not. Why are we listing this here?

Is Welsh and Scottish Gaelic de facto too? Does anyont speak these in the Welsh/Scottish parliaments? --Jiang 02:37, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

    • I don't know about Scottish Gaelic, but Welsh is certainly used in the National Assembly, and most of the county councils in the north and west have simultaneous translation setups in their council chambers too. -- Arwel 02:54, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Monarchy

Monarchy - check your opinion polls

As a matter of interest I did.

http://www.mori.com/polls/trends/monarchy/republic.shtml

It seems that there is a petty constant 70%.

There are some indications that this may change long term; polls of young people show that only 54% of 15-25 year olds support the monarchy and 32% would vote for a republic. See

http://www.mori.com/polls/2001/rd010730-top.shtml

recording industry

Is there a source for the claim that only three countries have a profitable recording industry? Tuf-Kat 07:38, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't sound likely to me. The Australian recording industry would have to turn a profit I'd think. Basically the only major label is Festival/Mushroom, which from what I've been able to find turns a profit. Shock Records is the largest indie, and it's expanded from being a basement operation into being probably bigger than Festival/Mushroom in the past 10 years, so it must be getting the money from somewhere. ShaneKing 07:56, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I rather assumed it meant that domestic companies make more from their home markets than foreign countries -- not whether there are profits to be made. And if there were no profits, why would there be any recording industry at all? Somebody has to be making money... I know not all countries have a recording industry -- out of the ones that do, even countries like Equatorial Guinea and Nepal have recording industries that presumably make enough money to exist, as I doubt there are many government subsidies.Tuf-Kat 08:09, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
Well then I'd have to say the wording is horrible, because even after re-reading it 3 times, I still can't read it that way purely from what's written. I'm still unsure which way you're even reading it. Are you reading it as UK companies making more from non-UK markets, or UK companies making more from UK markets? If the line isn't going to be deleted due to it being unsupported, it surely should be reworded! ShaneKing 13:33, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I removed it pending clarification and citation. Tuf-Kat 16:49, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Blue boxes

I'm sorry - but we do not need to have all those blue boxes at the bottom of this page. A simple link to the larger bodies that the UK is in would be fine, but listing every member is getting silly now - when do we stop - which groups should we list at the bottom of this page? What about members of the UN? Or the WTO? Tompagenet 19:49, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I agree. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries Matthewmayer 15:36, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Inventions

I always think that the outstanding thing about the British is the number of inventions that we have brought to the world. What about adding a couple of sentences on this. We could mention Michael Faraday, Frank Whittle, Charles Babbage, Robert Baden-Powell Alexander Fleming, John Logie Baird, William Caxton, Richard Trevithick, Humphry Davy Robert Watson-Watt, John Logie Baird, Henry Bessemer, Tim Berners-Lee. There are even more here.

David Thrale 21:45, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Sports Teams

Why does the United kingdom field a unified team for the Olympics, whereas seperate teams are fielded (viz. sco & eng) for football, cricket & rugby? Nichalp 19:59, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

The governing body of Olympic sport is organised on an all-UK basis, the British Olympic Association (although for Commonwealth Games purposes mostly the same sports are contested by the four nations), whereas football and rugby have always been only organised on a "nations" basis (although just to be inconsistent, there is of course the British and Irish Lions rugby team which represents both Britain and the whole of Ireland including the Republic!). As far as football goes, for historical reasons the multiple national organisations give the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish football associations a voting strength equivalent to the whole of the rest of the world on the IFAB, the body which regulates the rules of football. -- Arwel 00:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
But this still does not explain why the Olympic team is an all UK team OR why can't a unified UK team play cricket or football. Nichalp 19:47, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
Olympic team or otherwise shouldn't be an all-UK team IMO - I presume the Olympics thing is because it's a more recent phenomenon. The UK includes 3 nations and part of a fourth. The football thing (IFA and FAI) is understandable enough politically - it could just have easily have been so for other sports (e.g. Rugby) except that tradition was stronger. Zoney 13:46, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nations within the UK

It is wrong to talk of the nations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. First, Northern Ireland is not and never has been a nation. Secondly some believe that other nations also exist on the island, notably, Cornwall. Using more precise language avoids the proble,m. The first three were 'nation-states' at least to some extent. Northern Ireland has always been called a home governmental unit or province while Cornwall, whatever about its nationhood has never been a state r a province. FearÉIREANN

  • Agreed - Northern Ireland is no more than that part of the nation of Ireland (once entirely within the United Kingdom) which chose to remain in the Union. This is of course, somewhat awkward of a situation - leading to the situation where people tend to describe themselves as British (but not also Irish), or Irish (but only in the sense of belonging to the State of the Republic of Ireland). People describing themselves as Northern Irish, or British AND Irish (Like British and English) is less usual. Zoney 21:33, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd disagree. Wales has never been a unified nation-state within anything resembling its present borders. "Nation" better describes E, S, + W. I leave the description of NI to those nearer the place! Arwel 00:58, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
  • A fair point, Arwel, but that does open a potential hornets' nest as regards other 'claimants' to nationhood, specifically Cornwall. Cornish nationalists have already besieged some pages here with edits to claim Cornish independence and nationhood. 'Nation' on its own leaves this page open to the same POVing. Maybe 'self-governing nations' might work. While Cornwall may be described by some as a nation and as independent, it can by no means be described as having been a 'self-governing' nation. Any thoughts? FearÉIREANN

I would argue the first two paragraphs are in need of pruning. This whole nations making up a country (or countries making up a nation) thing is too complicated to go in the first paragraph. better simply to say "consisting of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". Morwen 20:09, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

That seems to be a good way around the problem -- the nation/province/nation-state business is too likely to cause disputes whichever way it's phrased, so better to gloss over the technicalities! -- Arwel 20:54, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Agreed - besides - it's not glossing it over for the article as a whole - the history section clearly explains the past and present statuses of the various constituent parts of the UK. Zoney 09:03, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I notice that in the Civil Contingencies Bill the technical term for the 4 entities is 'Part' [9] ;) Morwen 12:56, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Countries might be a better term than nations, but that might confuse people even more. The UK is a state made up of countries, whereas the US is a country made up of states. (Of course, the UK is also a country, and the US a state - there are multiple definitions of all these terms.) Does anyone know why we say that the UK was founded in 1800 and renamed in 1927, rather than saying that it was founded in 1707 and renamed in both 1800 and 1927? (It changed its geographical boundaries - by a large amount - on both occasions.) 20:55, Jul 01, 2004 (UTC)

The difference lies in what occured. In 1707 a completely new nation was created from England and Scotland, being the successor states of both. The same in 1801, when Britain and Ireland were united. However, in 1927, the Irish Free State was simply territory removed from the UK, with the UK remaining unchanged, except territorialy.

Should this include or not include:

  • Europe
  • OECD
  • EU
  • Monarchies
  • NATO
  • Commonwealth
  • Overseas UK territories

I can't currently see any reason to remove them, but there may well be one...

-- EuroTom 22:30, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Refer to wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Current consensus is to remove them. --Jiang 22:51, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any clear consensus and the issue seems to still be under debate. The main Wikiproject Countries page doesn't specify inclusion or exclusion of footers.
It does however, clearly state: This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question.
I understand that there can be substantial benefits to standardisation of the country pages and, indeed, I supports efforts to do so, but no without a) agreement b) consistency with other countries.
As such, I'd like to have a vote, specific to this page on what to include. I feel the page should reflect majority opinion (whatever emerges) until that point.
-- EuroTom 21:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No one is objecting the removal of the footers at wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. There is clear consensus on this issue. If you object, then go there and explain why. The structure is flexible only when there are logical reasons for changing the template. I don't see how this particular article is different from the rest. The template has no footers at all, and we can revert back to that format if you wish.

The poll below is invalid. Polls are only started when discussion has been exhausted. So far, you have provided no reason for keeping the footers there. --Jiang 21:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think the footers look quite nice in moderation and are beneficial to those just browsing for interest, highlighting membership of international organisations. Most other countries in NATO, for example, have such a footer. I don't mind discussing it, but I think we should include and exclude them on a case by case basis. Consensus in wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries is not apparent and until it is, I think it should be decided on each page.
In terms of 'validity' or 'invalidity', I didn't mean the poll to be official or binding, just a method to establish opinion beyond a binary "footer" or "no footer". Clearly some footers are less appropriate than others and it'd be nice to see which people prefer.
-- EuroTom 21:56, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The footers are there because they look nice. Otherwise, I see no point in "highlighting" membership in marginal organizations such as APEC. The EU footer remains because it is a major organization, but elsewhere, a mention in the foreign relations/economy/etc section will do and the article of the org itself will contain a list needed for browsing. A search box exists. There is no need to burden readers with extra scrolling for little benefit.

Please tell me who in wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries has been opposing rm marginal orgnization footers. I warned and waited before removing. This should apply even more now that we've got a categories system in place. Which particular footers to include should be decided case-by-case, but once decided, this should apply to all countries. I don't see why not. --Jiang 22:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with standardisation, as you suggest. In terms of disagreement though, Cantus was strongly in favour of retaining footers. Lots of people (Jao,Timwi), expressed a desire to keep some of the footers. Taku suggested a vote to resolve the issue, but this didn't happen. Shallot and Matthewmayer were in favour of keeping a summary box of some form. Some of those arguing in favour of removing footers, though not yourself, seem to have been suspiciously adding 'suspect' footers (like the very APEC you mention) and then subsequently arguing for the removal of all footers.
As such, I think footers should be on a country by country basis until people agree on a format. I would support compression of the footers into something similar to Croatia's, but not just deletion without a replacement.
Third person input would be good. Otherwise I'd suggest re-adding NATO (but not the others) until consensus is attained. -- EuroTom 22:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Given that I only received enouragement after threatening to remove them the second time on 8 May 2004, I assumed those opposed has changed their minds. Given Cantus's past conduct, I would have been auto-reverted if he was "strongly in favour", but he was only against removing all of them - he only asked to leave " at least one..." As for Jao, I never claimed the consensus was to rm all of the footers (EU and Europe remain here). I agree with Jao. Likewise, Timwi was only adding geographical footers, not the irrelevant mess that came out afterwards. I did, however, propose to revert to the previous fmt after the categories system was implemented a couple days ago. This leaves you the only one opposed to keeping only EU/Europe and removing the rest.

Consensus was never attained to add these footers in the first place, so I don't find fault in removing them. Making it inconsistent by country is not an option. Let's try to find agreement instead. Discuss at wikiproject countries which organizations are coherent/important enough to warrant keeping the footer. --Jiang 23:16, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


I see now they've been completely removed and replaced with ugly redirects. NATO and others are still missing. I have said my bit at wikiproject countries, but clearly that isn't enough.

> "Making it inconsistent by country is not an option."

For the second time, let me remind you that these structures are advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. If, therefore, a consensus is reached on this page I hope you will accept that and re-add the footers and/or a summary box.

-- EuroTom 15:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Correction: NATO is still missing, but problems with other seem to be with my browser. -- EuroTom 16:07, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There's got to be a good reason to break the consistency though --Jiang

Given the views below, is it okay to re-add the NATO footer, but leave the rest off? No rush, if more time to discuss would be good. (Also from the below, someone could additionally remove the Europe footer at somepoint if desired) -- EuroTom 16:40, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you believe it should be added...We should do something about the Europe/EU overlap though (rm Europe and add a link?). --Jiang 03:23, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'd support removal of the Europe box(es) with or without a link.
It might be worth removing the Europe boxes from all 25 member states in one go to preserve consistency. If you'd like to do this, I'm happy to help update half of them or so. (If anyone on other pages felt strongly they could re-add it, as an exception). Let me know what you think - I could check the NATO ones at the same time. -- EuroTom 04:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let's do it, but we need to find somewhere to preserve links to Countries of the World and Europe. --Jiang 05:22, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Europe

  • Keep. Definitely. -- EuroTom 21:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Good points - there is large overlap with EU membership box. Support removal instead. -- EuroTom 23:29, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Not in favour. This is probably unnecessary, as outside the EU, it's not so important to see other European states on the UK page. Zoney 10:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This overlaps largely with the EU footer. --Jiang 23:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove in favor of the EU footer -- only European countries not in the EU need this footer, I think -- or one footer can be used that puts EU countries in bold or something Tuf-Kat 00:28, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

OECD

  • Keep. Moderately in favour. -- EuroTom 21:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Also persuaded - would like to see in a 'summary box', but not as a seperate footer. -- EuroTom 23:31, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary. Zoney 10:48, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • marginal organization--Jiang 23:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove Tuf-Kat 00:28, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

EU

  • Keep. Definitely. -- EuroTom 21:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Absolutely necessary to see fellow EU member-states and have links to them. Zoney 10:42, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes.--Jiang 23:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, or combine with European regional footer. Tuf-Kat 00:28, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Monarchies

  • Keep. Moderately in favour. -- EuroTom 21:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In this case category is probably sufficient. Change to Remove. -- EuroTom 23:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary. Zoney 10:51, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • redundant with categories tag. Monarchies are marginally related. --Jiang 23:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove Tuf-Kat 00:28, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

NATO

  • Keep. Strong preference. -- EuroTom 21:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Absolutely necessary to see military partners and have links to them. NATO mutual defence clause anyone? These countries are prepared to bomb someone else into the stone age at each others request. Zoney 10:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove Tuf-Kat 00:28, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Rls 19:52, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

Commonwealth

  • Keep. Moderately in favour. -- EuroTom 21:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I would also support inclusion in a summary box as an alternative. -- EuroTom 23:36, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary. Zoney 10:51, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • marginal organization (exists mainly for symbolic purposes) --Jiang 23:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove Tuf-Kat 00:28, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Overseas UK territories


Continued in...

Discussion continued in Archive 2.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom/Archive_1&oldid=749841560"