Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 12

Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Article for deletion

People might want to check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanker (2nd nomination) Jooler 17:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

E.J. Thribb reads Wikipedia

The latest Private Eye (no. 1175) includes a poem from E. J. Thribb referring to our great encyclopaedia - see Talk:E. J. Thribb. Sam Blacketer 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Common scold FAR

Common scold has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

London meet, Tue 9 Jan

Montagu Pyke, Charing Cross Road, Wed 10 Jan. I'll be there from seven, others may be earlier. Signup at Wikipedia:Meetup/London#Informal_socials - David Gerard 21:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

WRONG DATE! Jimbo got his dates wrong. It's TUESDAY 9th JANUARY, same place, same signup sheet - David Gerard 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Quatermass Experiment FAR

The Quatermass Experiment has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The British Museum

The important article on The British Museum has recently become badly degraded -- can any interested parties take a look and help with improvements? --mervyn 10:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we just revert to something like this revision ? Morwen - Talk 10:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, harsh but needed -- I think this slightly later version incorporates some good refs, just before the rot set in. [1] --mervyn 12:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
On investigation, most appear to be good faith edits, so am now liaising about improvements at Talk:The British Museum --mervyn 11:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Henry VIII of England FAR

Henry VIII of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WPTIS

I didn't even know that this noticeboard existed. Sorry. Anyway, i was wondering if i could seek help with this project e.g. assign more tasks in the to do list. Anyone interested in joining the project? It is WikiProject Transport in Scotland. Simply south 22:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Mulesing legality reference question

Hi. This is probably a strange request here, but I'm not sure where else to ask. Mulesing is the current Australian collaboration article, and is a rather contentious topic. We have a claim that "Mulesing is currently illegal in Britain where fly strike is a relatively controllable problem" with a rather doubtful reference. I was wondering if any UK farmers or lawyers can advise a suitable reference for the claim (or its negative). It may be that due to breed choice and flock size/farming practices, mulesing is not required in the UK, so while not practiced, it is not illegal either. Thanks for any help you can provide. --Scott Davis Talk 01:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Homour move

They're at it again - Talk:Humour Jooler 23:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of the St George's Cross

Perhaps this has been debated before, but allow me to comment on the seeming proliferation of the Flag of England in articles (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). In the current environment, with many Scots openly contemplating secession, this is bound to be somewhat of a political statement. Now, don't get me wrong: I love England, and I think English people have every right to be proud of their country's amazing achievements. But I also love the United Kingdom - of which Scotland is an integral part - united under one Crown (I wouldn't mind a 1603-1707 type situation that much, but we all know an independent Scotland would be a republic). Thus I support use of the Union Jack over the individual nations' flags, and putting in "England, United Kingdom", not just "England" in biographical infoboxes. (Indeed, I hold the same view toward the Saltire - it too should be replaced here and here, for instance.) Or perhaps we could use both flags, as here. The point is, national unity is threatened, and we shouldn't exacerbate the trend here. But, truth be told, I really don't see the need at all for flags in such boxes - it seems a little childish, but if people want them, I suppose it's all right.

(And yes, I am aware that the Flag of England is fully appropriate in sporting and pre-1606(?) contexts.) Biruitorul 04:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Support the current usage. - Francis Tyers · 13:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
One size doesn't fit all. There is nothing wrong with identifying somebody as English (rather than British) if that is how they consider themselves. Same for Scottish. But I do hate those bloody little flags... /wangi 13:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree - the flags get on my nerves as well. But let me ask: what if the individual hasn't pronounced on his self-identity? Surely not all persons for whom we insert an English flag have said "I am English first and British second"? Biruitorul 16:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The same goes for Scottish, Welsh and northern Irish. We have quite bad sourcing on peoples ethnic identity. - Francis Tyers · 17:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, I wasn't trying to single out England - although England is the only one without some form of local autonomy. One might think, though, that in the absence of a declared national (English, Scottish...) identity, the state (UK) flag would be the default. Biruitorul 18:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Anne of Great Britain FAR

Anne of Great Britain has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the Somme FAR

Battle of the Somme has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Restoration literature FAR

Restoration literature has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Sun (newspaper) as a cited source

People might want to look at and comment on Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#The_Sun Jooler 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject England

is up and running, and looking for members. Its still developing, so feel free to edit the project page, add and format to the to do list etc. Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 20:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute regarding treaties relevant to the formation of the United Kingdom

There is currently a dispute going on at the Template talk:UKFormation which regard the inclusion of treaties specific to England within the template which aims to display the treaties leading to the formation of the United Kingdom i.e. the Union of Parliaments and Union of Crowns before that. Comment upon the dispute is needed so that a consensus may be reached. siarach 04:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Representative peer FAR

Representative peer has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard O'Connor FAR

Richard O'Connor has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

John Major FAR

John Major has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

This article is up for deletion review, since it was a UK event I thought it would be worth linking from here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Massoud Tofangsazan (second nomination) GameKeeper 13:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

England and Wales

Someone is proposing that England and Wales article be deleted. G-Man * 22:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Randomisation on Portal:United Kingdom

I've proposed some major changes on Portal:United Kingdom that I think would improve it. Comments welcome at Portal talk:United Kingdom#Randomisation. the wub "?!" 18:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations

I would be really grateful if any of you want to pitch in to help write Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations. Given the controversy swirling it we could do with a good article on it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Football Leagues notability

From time to time, articles on minor football league teams are nominated with a policy guideline being referred to. If memory serves, it goes to about 10 leagues down from the Premier leagues. We are looking at developing something similar for the Australian football leagues such as AFL, rugby league, rugby union and soccer. If anyone could advise me of the relevant guidelines, I would be much obliged. Capitalistroadster 08:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox flag straw poll

Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

England, United Kingdom

I notice that quite a few articles include England, United Kingdom. This feels a bit clunky to me but, before changing any, I thought I'd check if there is a consensus to use it or not. It does seem to afflict Cornish articles in particular. Google has about 123 from en.wikipedia.org for "Cornwall England United Kingdom", 5 results for "Devon England United Kingdom" and none at all for "Dorset England United Kingdom". This makes me wonder if someone has been using the phrase to annoy any Cornish Nationalist readers.

If we don't use both together, what do we use? I think just England would be fine for most articles but, for the Cornish ones, I think I'd run with United Kingdom as being more neutral, culturally. Another possibility for these would be South West England or South West Britain with the Britain linked to either Great Britain or British Isles (terminology) which would be more descriptive, geographically. --Cavrdg 16:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that generally it is simpler and more descriptive to put say Brighton, England because it is clear that england is in the uk (therefore brighton must be) whereas to put simply brighton uk misses out the info that it is in england. I can see that there will be occasions where uk is preferred to england and Cornwall, UK may be an example. I think england and uk is pedantic overkill. What surprises me is that there isnt a manual of style ruling on this. Abtract 07:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Royal Assent FAR

Royal Assent has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Sheffield FAC

I would appreciate it if someone with copy editing skills, and some time, would go through History of Sheffield. It is currently on FAC, and might make it to FA. But it has been suggested that it would benefit from someone less close to the article giving it the once over. Thanks, —JeremyA (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom corporation tax FAR

United Kingdom corporation tax has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

{{WikiProject UK}}

Guh...Just finished adding everything needed (except for the edit team box) for a project template. x_x Blast 03.04.07 0116 (UTC)

Moorgate FAR

Moorgate has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Bilateral relations discussion

I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

census info

Hi, anyone here know a good place to get census info for The Falkland Islands? See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Falkland Islands for the context — Jack · talk · 02:39, Monday, 9 April 2007

James I of England FAR

James I of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Selector: UK music around the world

I would like to invite all British editors to check the page The Selector, a world wide radio program created by the British Council to promote different musical styles from underground and mainstream artist in several countries around the world. The page is still a very little stub, however maybe you guys in the UK and in other countries are able to find more info since I only have about the Colombian version via the BC here. --ometzit<col> 04:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace FAR

Buckingham Palace has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Simply south 11:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Henley-in-Arden

Can somebody else try explaining to User:Billleech why his version of the Henley-in-Arden article, is completely innapropriate. I've tried doing this but to no avail. G-Man * 19:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Charles I of England FAR

Charles I of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaker of the British House of Commons FAR

Speaker of the House of Commons has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher FAR

Margaret Thatcher has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The poll tax

I've just split out Community Charge as a seperate article, rather than a subsection of Poll tax - perhaps the most contentious political event in the last couple of decades, and we didn't have an article! Remarkable...

It's fairly complete but a bit anecdotal in places and gets some of the history a little confused - would anyone be interested in working on it? Shimgray | talk | 14:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Have been advised to come here re Template:Infobox UK place which are used for London districts as awell as UK. For London - don'y know about all other towns - would be good to have an option to ad electoral wards. DOn't know if you feel this is not your issue, but would appreciate some guidance / help. hjuk 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of Historic Photos

A local museum has written to me to say that they will be happy for me to use soem of their photos on Wikipedia. But looking at the image pages, it all seems more complicated than that. I don't think they want to release them for free use. Anyone know what type of licence protects them and Wikipedia? hjuk 17:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not an expert but I get the impression that only public domain, and variants, are to be uploaded. {{copyrighted}} is the one that applies but if you read the description it states that these images will be deleted! MortimerCat 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
While public domain images are welcome, most images are copyright under a licence chosen by the copyright holder, which must allow free use of the image under the same licence terms, permitting both commercial reuse and derivative works. Thus, I use Creative Commons with attribution, so anyone using the image has to make it available under the same licence, and name me as having created the image. The Wikipedia:Image use policy sets out the basic terms, Wikipedia:Image copyright tags links to the various licences. Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial#Ask for permission gives ideas on getting use of images from other copyright holders, and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission suggests sample letters. There are similarly useful pages on Wikimedia Commons, such as commons:Commons:First steps/License selection The main thing, as you say, is to find the best licence for their purposes, and of course it's important to ensure that they actually hold the copyright. While the licence will make the images available for others to use, attribution means that they can treat it as advertising. One option is to limit the resolution, making a low resolution image suitable for illustrating an article available to all, while keeping control of the detailed high resolution original. Hope that helps. ... dave souza, talk 19:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that - helpful. hjuk 06:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

RDA

One for the ToDo list. The series of redirects and history of pages for

is somewhat embarrasing and could do with sorting out / expanding. -- Solipsist 12:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Dead Kings and things

I've created a Burial places of British monarchs. It has a bit of a Scots bias (reflecting my interests) in the referencing. Any help, and particularly from an English historian would be appreciated.--Sandy Donald 19:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

An English passport?

Hello UK Wikipedians!

It seems a debate about the use of nationality and ethnicity has been stirred on the Bernard Manning article talk page (I do beg your pardon!). It is my believe that nationalism is spoiling the integrity of some articles, and have had Union flags and citations removed with no justification. Some are even asserting there is an English nationality!

Comments are welcome on the talk page, as I feel I'm talking to a brick wall. Jhamez84 21:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem? People within the UK commonly refer to themselves using the "countries within a country". It's far more common for someone to say they are English or Scottish or Welsh... than British. Indeed It's standard practise in the articles to try and describe them as they would themselves - can you find a reference for BM describing himself as British? Thanks/wangi 22:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Jhamez84, reading through Talk:Bernard Manning#Channel 4 Poll I'm led to believe you don't understand the dynamic within the UK, how people refer to each other, and are referred to by others. There are strong national identities within the UK, and it is normal to associate people with these. Thanks/wangi 22:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Unquantifiable and unverifiable baselessness. So tell me User:Wangi - what nationality and ethnic group are the following and why?
  1. Queen Elizabeth
  2. Tony Blair
  3. David Cameron
  4. DJ Nihal
  5. Salman Rushdie
Jhamez84 00:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Tony Blair and David Cameron are Scots, Nihal is English. - Francis Tyers · 14:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Do Tony Blair and David Cameron call themselves Scots, or is it just that some Scots have claimed them as "non-British"? The last two are clearly British Asian, English is an ethnicity. Secretlondon 10:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the only thing that can be said with certainty about this concerns what is officially said on the travel documents when one travels away and returns to the UK. In the passports, it clearly states "British Citizen". Consequently, the only thing that can be claimed with utter verifiability is that there is a British Nationality. If people wish to alter this, then they would be better occupied campaigning to get those changes made officially - which means going to the government and arguing with them for changes to be made to these travel documents rather than engaging in squabbles on here that are ultimately disruptive to wikipedia.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Citizenship is not the same as nationality. On my passport it says "British citizen" — which is not the same thing. - Francis Tyers · 14:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. They are not the same thing, but being a British Citizen implies having British Nationality. I refer you to British nationality law#Classes of British nationality, where it states "British citizenship is the most common type of British nationality, and the only one that automatically carries a right of abode in the United Kingdom", along with "Of the various classes of British nationality and BPP [British Protected Persons] status, all except British citizenship and British Overseas Territories citizenship are residual categories." So,thank you for allowing me to correct my error, but the force of what I said still stands. Of course, it may be that wikipedia article is in error, in which case, I would say it would be far more productive for those who take issue with it to go and fix it rather than argue the case in this discussion.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Jhamez84, I'm not interested in a blow-by-blow "discussion" here, you asked for the opinion of others and I gave you mine - please respect that opinion. To be honest there is one name on that list I'm completely ignorant about and four I couldn't care less about. I'll reiterate; it's common for people in the UK to identify themselves as "English", "Welsh", "Scottish", "Irish" etc before "British". The census has a question regarding nationality, of which the previous nationalities are all options. Dig into the census results for yourself, here's a "nugget" from them: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=278 and http://www.devolution.ac.uk/Final%20Conf/Devolution%20public%20attitudes.pdf is also worth reading. In the end we must reflect reality, and referring to people simply as "British" when they don't identify themselves as such isn't accurate. Thanks/wangi 11:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

But many people do NOT consider themselves to be English as it is seen as an ethnicity. They do consider themselves to be British however. I understand that people in Scotland and Wales may not consider themselves to be British, and that one can be, say, black and Scottish (or so I am told). One cannot be black and English, as English is an ethnicity. People are black British, British asian etc. Wikipedia should NOT reflect nationality through a celtic nationalist viewpoint. The nationality is British, that's what it says on the passport. Secretlondon 10:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Plenty of people consider themselves to be black and English/Scottish etc. The idea that you have to be white to be English (or Scottish, or Welsh, etc) is offensive (it's a bit ironic that those who dare use words like Scottish are considered nationalist extremists by some wikipedians when we aren't the ones coming out with racist arguments). Wikipedia should follow normal accepted usage (shown by reputable newspapers etc.), and normal accepted usage is for both "British" and "English, Scottish, etc" to be considered valid terms. Trying to restrict usage to the subset of accepted terms that agree with your own politics is nothing more than POV-pushing. Nationalism is nothing to do with this- the only question is "Is a term used in reputable sources?". Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant- there are plenty of terms used on Wikipedia ("race", "I.Q.") that I personally find to be less than useful- but if they are used in reputable sources, they should be used here. Lurker (said · done) 10:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Royal patronage of UK organisations

Can I get some guidance on what qualifies as a notable organisation within the scope of this project? According to Wikipedia, Royal patronage does not equate to automatic notability. I get the feeling this is a very subjective view on what Royal patronage actually means. Whether or not Royal patronage equates to automatic notability under current guidelines, should it? Patronage isn't given to any old organisation. Dbromage 04:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Worcester

There is a debate at Talk:Worcester over whether the page should be moved to a disambig because of an American place called Worcester, or left alone. Views on the matter are welcome. G-Man * 01:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Plymouth

There is also a debate at Talk:Plymouth about very similar issues, raised by the same people, because of the most notable USA place with the same name. Again, views on the matter will be welcomed.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

43-cars pile-up near Dover

I added an entry on this in List of road accidents, and noted no deaths, but that is only because the source I have is unclear (none of the schoolchildren in the involved bus were injured). Can somebody double-check? Circeus 03:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Scousland"

Some anon keeps adding to the Liverpool article that Liverpool name in scouse is 'Scousland' [2]. They also appear to be serious. G-Man ? 02:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

New WikiProject

A new WikiProject on Bradford has just been started. If anyone is interested in writing and organising articles about Bradford, please sign up! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A guideline is being drafted at this page which would prescribe that all UK nationals be described as British, rather than English, Welsh, Scottish or N. Irish. Unfortunately the proposer appears to have overlooked notifying the UK based projects. Leithp 07:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

They should be describe as British. GoodDay 22:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that Rhodri Morgan should not be described as Welsh, and that Billy Connolly is not Scottish? Good luck with that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's frustrating: Connolly and Morgan are both British; Non-British readers can easily be tricked into thinking (via Connolly and Morgan articles for example) that Scotland and Wales are independant countries. GoodDay 22:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be like saying Mario Lemieux is a Quebecer and Brad Richards is a Prince Edward Islander; instead of saying both are Canadians. GoodDay 22:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, all this has been discussed on the rejected proposal's talk page. A general rule of thumb throughout much of Wikipedia is to use the most commonly used description, or the one the subject would use themselves. It would seem to apply equally here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I've left comments on that rejected proposal page. It's too bad things will remain as they are; the UK is apparently a single country, simultaneously four countries. Oh well- English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish it is. GoodDay 19:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom's Official Language

We're having a growing discussion (hopefully not an 'edit war') concerning the UK's official language. Some editors are arguing that the Official Language is English and Welsh. Others are arguing English only. GoodDay 23:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

See this UK government site :[3]. English is the official language of the UK as a whole, but Welsh, Scots Gaelic and Cornish now have different degrees of official status in some parts of the UK. Ghmyrtle 00:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Abtract continues to 're-add' Welsh. GoodDay 00:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Where ? Ghmyrtle 09:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
At the TopInfobox of the article United Kingdom (I've since reverted him). GoodDay 18:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It could probably use a footnote referring to the site I cited, but the footnote arrangements in the infobox look complicated and I wouldn't want to mess it up ! Ghmyrtle 19:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I sorta understand Abtracts confusion. He's getting 'official language' of Wales (part of the UK), confused with 'official language' of the United Kingdom (the whole nation). If we went by Abtracts version, we'd have to also add 'Gaelic' (from Scotland) & Irish (from Northern Ireland). He's got to understand - English is the 'national' Official Language. GoodDay 19:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Welsh has a status above Gaelic, Irish and so forth, however. --Breadandcheese 18:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It's already been settled, Welsh doesn't get special status over other regional languages. GoodDay 19:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

sources for biographical articles and supporting context

Don't forget that libraries in England (not sure about W,S, NI) have acquired the right to use a swathe of OUP reference titles, including the magnificent Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Anyone with a library card can log on at [4]. BrainyBabe 10:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

British monarchs' family tree

I had to post here (couldn't get anyone's attention at the required article). Can someone fix the mistakes at 'family tree' article (see talk: British monarchs' family tree, for discussion of 'errors')? GoodDay 22:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Press up -> Push up

There's a vote to rename "press up" to "push up"; the argument in favour of moving is along the lines that "there are far more English speaking Americans than there are English speaking Brits". — Matt Crypto 05:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that's never been policy. Secretlondon 13:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Quite. The manual of style covers this (WP:ENGVAR). — Matt Crypto 18:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

When did England and Scotland merge to become Great Britain?

There's disputes at England and List of English monarchs, over when these 2 kingdoms became united. I say it was in 1707; other argue 1604, when James I/VI proclaimed himself King of Great Britain. We need help at those articles. GoodDay 00:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There are two dates, as you have found out: the earliest date was when James VI became the King of both countries and the later date was when the Scottish Parliament voted to abolish itself. The Scottish Parliament was abolished in 1707; so that is the legal date. Pyrotec 17:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a small thing: the "Scottish Parliament" is generally used to refer to the devolved body in Holyrood. The pre-union legislature is known as the Parliament of Scotland and is located at that page. --Breadandcheese 17:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

? Somerset wikiproject

A proposal has been submitted for the creation of a Somerset wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. If anyone supports this or would be willing to contribute please comment/add your name there.— Rod talk 11:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This project has been launched at Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset. Derek Andrews 14:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Category tags

Greetings from down under - is there anyone in this project interested in working on 'tagging' articles and categories for the project? The prepondence of red discussion tags at the top of category/article pages suggest that it might have been a low priority for most participants at some point in the history of this project.

It could be done by a bot - but human /manual checking is as effective - its just the project will never know much about itself if it cannot make a check of what categories it has and whether they have been appropriately populated and tagged.

Also - the tags currently attract a configuration of class=NA, importance=NA for the categories - as the class=cat does not work - a good example of it working is at the australian project.

For any project to adequately handle assessment at all - the tagging of articles becomes essential in the process of getting assessment up and running properly.

I dont expect much of a response as few in wikipedia seem interested in this aspect of project management - however the results in the long term make the endevour well worth it.

Please reply here or at my user talk page - I would be interested to know if any are the slightest interested. cheers SatuSuro 11:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Which project are you talking about here? Keith D 12:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I assumed that the UK project and/or any of the sub projects that need the 'treatment' as well SatuSuro 12:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Blyth, Northumberland FAC

I've nominated Blyth, Northumberland for FA (candidate page). If anyone would like to have a look at it and leave a comment or offer their support it would be very much appreciated, thanks. Dbam Talk/Contributions 18:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure whether to add comments here on on the talk page; but I'm here now so just a couple of comments: I think that it should be stated in the intro that it is on the 'south bank of', rather than 'to the south of' the River Blyth. Also the giant killing exploits of the football team should give examples of giants killed; simply reaching the 5th round may just indicate they were just fortunate in the draw ! GrahamHardy 15:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Graham, thanks for the suggestions, that's a good point you make about Blyth Spartans and the FA Cup, I suppose it is just a matter of assumption that a team would have to beat high-level opposition to reach the fifth round. If you wish, you can leave further comments at the article's candidate page, or either support or object the nomination as applicable. Hope to see you there, cheers. Dbam Talk/Contributions 16:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

FAR notice

Coronation of the British monarch has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --RelHistBuff 07:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Welsh in lead on London

Contributions welcomed to debate the issue on Talk:London. Jooler 21:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Banner straw poll

Hello there,

A straw poll has opened at this section of the United Kingdom talk page regarding the use of the Ulster Banner for that article's circumstances only. To capture a representative result as possible, you are invited to pass your opinion there. If joining the poll, please keep a cool head, and remain civil. Hope to see you there, Jza84 22:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Queen Victoria vs Victoria of the United Kindgom

There is a debate going on at Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom as to whether Victoria of the United Kingdom should be moved to Queen Victoria. Just thought people might be interested. G-Man ? 22:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style (biographies): British, or English, (Northern) Irish, Scottish, Welsh?

Hi, there's currently a proposal by me for "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)" to be clarified with usage notes regarding the use of "British" or "English", "(Northern) Irish", "Scottish" and "Welsh" to be used to describe the nationality of persons in biographical articles. Do provide your views at the "talk page" so that broad consensus on the matter can be reached. Cheers, Jacklee 16:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarence Mitchell

A while ago now the Clarence Mitchell article was deleted, as he was deemed to be non-notable; the main reason being cited appeared to be that his recent job (spokesman for the McCann Family) was not notable. This may well be the case however his earlier career in the BBC is I feel of note. At the time I tried to get some UK based input to the deletion debate without success. Can someone who knows how to do such things have a bash at re-instating the article (assuming I am not the only one beleiving him to be of note !

Thanks,

GrahamHardy 22:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think going from BBC to HMG to McCanns does make him notable. If he'd only ever done the McCanns then I'd agree. Secretlondon 01:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not see the article but often WP:BIO articles are deleted because they do not contain enough references to establish notability. If you can supply these then recreate the article. If you want to work on it for a while before recreating you could set up a user page to prepare the text say at User:GrahamHardy/Clarence Mitchell and only copy over when you have enough references. I am sure you can find some BBC and Times references that should be enough for the notability criteria. GameKeeper 11:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarence Mitchell Secretlondon 11:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Help wanted

At List of English monarchs concerning when the English monarchy ended- Did in end in 1707? or evolve into the British monarchy, disregarding the Scottish monarchy? GoodDay 20:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography

Hello UK Wikipedians,

Just a note that I have proposed to overhall parts of the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. The project is a little dated, and lacking in vision and quality. I would welcome any feedback regarding improving this WikiProject. I don't necessarily aim to change the remit of the project, but more so the branding, organisation, systems of check, reviewing, and heirachy of daughter projects. Hope this is well received, -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia bias against UK articles

On 22 October Category:Strictly Come Dancing participants was deleted after this nomination, fair enough you'd think, but then on 31 October Category:Dancing with the Stars (US TV series) participants was nomination for deletion (by me) and subsequently kept after this nomination. I feel this has a place here because it does show a prejudice against UK topics. I think it's probably a subconscious bias without any malice, but it does exist. There is currently a deletion review on the subject if anyone would like to comment. --Hera1187 08:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Shapinsay Peer Review

The article on the Scottish island of Shapinsay is up for peer review. Feel free to contribute suggestions on how the article can be improved. Lurker (said · done) 16:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oldham FAC

Just a note that Oldham is up for featured status nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oldham. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

UK Infobox in Scotland

There have been questions raised as to the relevance of the UK places infobox regarding the use of the Scottish saltire flag in the Inverness article. Someone has proposed that a number of changes, basically (in my humble opinion) plastering flags on said infobox and removing references to the United Kingdom contrary to established consensus. I'm sure you're all capable of sustaining your own viewpoints, however. Anyway, the discussion is ongoing at Template talk:Infobox UK place/doc/examples.--Breadandcheese 03:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who this person who is proposing the removal of references to the United Kingdom is. There's nothing of this nature on the page you linked to. You are already deaf to requests to be civil, and I can't be bothered getting into a wikiquette discussion, not with someone with your track record on this issue. But basic honesty is something I am afraid I will have to insist on. Lurker (said · done) 14:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you have a look at Ben MacDui's writings under the "Fields" section of the Template Talk discussion linked to. I'm certainly not making it up. As for Wikiettiquette, presumptions of good faith can only go so far - particularly when consensus and objectivity are being openly sacrificed. --Breadandcheese 01:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Manchester

Just to let people know that Manchester is up for WP:FAC! Please add any comments with support or opposition (with details why please) on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester if you have not significantly contributed. Thanks in advance! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 01:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Shapinsay FAC

The article on the island of Shapinsay is now a Featured Article Candidate. Please go to its nomination page to give your opinion. Lurker (said · done) 13:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


Re-merge British cuisine articles

The cuisine articles (of Britain) originally started out as British cuisine but for presumably nationalistic reasons someone decided to split out Scottish, Welsh and Irish/Northern Irish and rename the old British article to English cuisine. I think this was a mistake. There is so much crossover here that it makes sense to discuss them all together and then have subsections explaining English/Scots/Welsh/Irish/Cornish etc specialities. I was particularly annoyed when someone removed references to the fact that "Britain became a net importer of food" from the English cuisine article because they, they said in the edit summary "British isn't English", they also removed referenced to Gordon Ramsay because he was born in Scotland. This is where it becomes plain silly and the problem would be solved by simply remerging the articles. Jooler (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I also note that the disambiguation now at British cuisine doesn't even mention Northern Ireland, but does mention Gibraltar! Jooler (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree, at least in the case of Scotland (I can't comment on the others). While there is certainly such a thing as British Cuisine, there is also a unique Scottish cuisine as well. Certainly there is more than enough material to fill a series of articles on Scotland's food. Merging the articles seems to be a retrograde step. In any case, wouldn't the talk pages of the relevant articles be a good place to initiate discussion? Leithp 12:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Porridge? Certainly a Scottish dish but widely eaten in the rest of the UK one one would expect to see it if you were offered a full English breakfast menu in a hotel. Smoked Salmon? Some argue the best comes from Northern Ireland. Kippers? There supposed to have originated in Northumberland and probably the most prized kippers in the British Isles come from the Isle of Man. I could go on, but just read the Scottish cuisine article. I think it could all be discussed in a British cuisine article. Where references to the Industrial revolution and the move away from the land, the introduction of the Potato, Fish and Chips, World War II rationing, and Chicken tikka masala (was it invented in Glasgow or Birmingham? The jury's out on that one) in context. Ohh I have raised this for discussion on the talk pages of the various articles without reply as of yet. What is the noticeboard for if it's not to bring to light discussion about UK articles? Jooler 00:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you honestly want a list of food unique to Scotland? Try reading The Scots Kitchen by F. Marian McNeill. The various articles could be improved, but you know, we are Wikipedia, a work in progress. Leithp 11:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there is a uniquely Scottish cuisine and as such think there is a very viable article there. There is also certainly a large body of very British cuisine which cannot simply operate as a redirect and must be readily interlinked with the more local articles. The problem arises with an English article - there is not a great deal of exclusively English cuisine which does not cross over into being associated equally or moreso with Britain. I actually think we may well be better in this case redirecting English cuisine to British cuisine, and then having yet more local pages for various English dishes associated with counties etc.--Breadandcheese 12:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend that someone with a sound knowledge of the various national cuisines take a look at this. Certainly there are recipe books on British, English and Scottish dishes; enough, I'm sure, to build strong articles out of each. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, The solution is not to attempt to merge two or more fairly lengthy and quite different articles, but rather to add summaries of the individual UK national cuisines to "British Cuisine" with the usual 'Main Article' tags and provide more information about the "crossover" there. If there is no genuinely distinctive English cuisine (which I doubt) then yes, that could be replaced by various regional pages. It may be over-complex to have the regional pages summarised at English cuisine and then re-summarised at British cuisine. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The above seems like a sound suggestion to me. --Breadandcheese 22:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I’d agree, to merge all these articles into the British cuisine one would result in a huge cumbersome monster of an article. As more material is added on these topics in our work-in-progress it makes sense to have an appropriate level of detail at each stage in a hierarchy, as now with British cuisine linking to the various nationalities etc. At a later stage in the project what would be the problem with, e.g. "British cuisine" linking to "Scottish cuisine" even to "Fife cuisine" to "Cuisine of Auchtertool", if of course there is enough distinctive and notable material to warrant it? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, after all.
If you reckon nationalism is at the root of this, you could argue a merger is just the flip side of that same minefield (excuse the mixed metaphor). Or you could keep all national divisions out of it and merge all European cuisine articles into one super-article. All political issues magically vanish…hmmm.Mutt Lunker 20:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Ben MacDui's solution seems to me to be the most sensible one that solves the problem that was raised whilst maintaining the very real distinctions between the different cuisines under discussion. It should be implemented.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Re-reading Ben Macdui's suggestion, there are parts that I can interpret in more than one way. I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing, just unclear about quite what is intended. Are the “various regional pages” entirely new articles regarding cuisine of individual regions of England? What are they to potentially replace: the “summar(y) of the individual UK national cuisines” for England if there is in fact nothing “genuinely distinctive” to list there? Mutt Lunker 23:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Ben MacDui's solution seems good to me. I would happily help with the base British cuisine article GameKeeper 00:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

List of historic buildings and architects of the United Kingdom

The List of historic buildings and architects of the United Kingdom is a huge, ungainly list of buildings and architects, listed by period. Aside from the impossibility of listing every historic building in the UK, the list also mixes in architects, and the later sections list buildings by architect, rather than alphabetically as further up. In short, its a mess. I propose creating a separate List of British architects, listing the architects by period as here, and then seeing if the remaining list of buildings can be trimmed down any. There are already such pages as list of castles in England, abbeys and priories in Scotland, Roman sites in the United Kingdom, etc, etc. See Category:Lists of buildings and structures in the United Kingdom for more, though not all. The page may eventually become a list of {{main}}: links, though the arrangement by building style may be problematic. Any comments or suggestions on how to deal with this page are welcome. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck 11:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Wales

If anyone can help, still needed is an article about the History of the Jews in Wales to complete the History of the Jews in Europe. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

National parks of England and Wales

I've started looking at National parks of England and Wales as I've been editing Exmoor trying to get it up to GA & was looking for ideas. I'm amazed that this is still a FA with no inline citations to verify the information given, which may not have been required when it became an FA in 2004 but is now. I'm happy to do some of the work on improving this if others are willing to help - otherwise would it be best to put it up for Wikipedia:Featured article review on the grounds that it fails 1(c) of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria which says "that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate." Putting it up for FAR may get a wider audience & more people to work on it, but before this is necessary would anyone from this wikiproject be willing to help?— Rod talk 13:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Flag categories

Is there a possibility that Category:British colony flag images and Category:Flags of British overseas territories be merged into one category. The former has only three images, with one related image inside both categories. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest merging into Category:Flags of British overseas territories, it's a more open name - looks good to me. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Renaming of articles on minor ethnic groups in Britain

Recently, the article Spanish Britons (about people of Spanish ancestry who live in Britain) was nominated for deletion on the grounds that 'Spanish Britons' is a neologism used only on Wikipedia. The result of the discussion was that the article should stay, but it needed a more appropriate name. There are numerous other similarly-titled articles including 'German Briton', 'Latin American Briton', etc etc, all of which equally need to be renamed. As one editor wrote, "Karl Marx would never have called himself "British", yet this is what is implied by the term German Briton; he was in fact a German living in Britain". We need a name that covers both British citizens with XX ancestry and people from XX country who live in Britain. Here are some suggestions (using 'Spanish' as an example but the same applies to many others):

I wouldn't apply this to articles such as Black British or British Asian, as those are commonly used terms that are not neologisms. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? Cop 663 (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable to me. Perhaps a full list of offending articles would be of use here? This may help us identify problem articles and possible scope for merges.
By co-incidence (possibly?) there has been alot of activity from User:90.210.0.163 (contributions) today who has been renaming and realigning some of these articles. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Template:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom provides links to all of them, but I'll see if I can make a list. Cop 663 (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
How about "Foo settlement in Britain" per Welsh settlement in Argentina, Arab settlement in the Philippines, German settlement in Australia ... et al? Man vyi (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I could live with that, although to me 'settlement' sounds odd in relation to modern Britain; it sounds more like what people did in the age of exploration. But it would certainly be consistent with those other articles. Cop 663 (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I would be a little uncomfortable with the word 'presence' since this word can sometimes have other connotations, especially relating to a temporary state of affairs and a sense of an unwelcome 'other'. The article currently has a section titled "History of Spanish settlement", which looks about right. However, settlement only refers to those who have settled (ie permanently). I would presume this article should also cover transient populations such as students. This would normally be included under the term 'immigration', so I would also suggest something like Spanish immigration in the UK. – zzuuzz (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)\
'Immigration' is mostly good although might seem odd in some historical contexts (e.g. it doesn't describe Catherine of Aragon very well, and is even less appropriate to the Vikings, who were invaders rather than immigrants. A broader word might be more useful. Cop 663 (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, "Spanish presence in Britain" implies something like an occupying army to me... Shimgray | talk | 16:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! I guess words imply different things to different people. I'm thinking either 'settlement' or 'immigration' at the moment. Cop 663 (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list. At best, they're inconsistent, at worst, they're useless neologisms that don't tally with the article's content; e.g. Scandinavian British discusses the Vikings, who could never have been labelled such a thing! Cop 663 (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be tempted to redirect some of these to Briton, others to Black British. A bit of WP:COMMONSENSE won't do much harm here I think. I also like the idea of "X settlement in the United Kingdom" for some of the more verifiable of these articles. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely support this move, but have similar concerns to what was already raised about "settlement" and "presence". I can understand the problem with "community", which was up until now my preference, when not actually talking about a community. I would also say that "ancestory" is also a bit off since it's "taken" already by the US experience, which is different to the UK's.
Maybe the simple Spanish people in Britain? Or Spanish people in the United Kingdom, which follows common naming of articles about the UK but can lead to historical inaccuracy pre-1707 (or 1801, depending on your side of that debate!). --sony-youthpléigh 21:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought of that too, but it's too limiting. Michael Portillo is not a 'Spanish person in Britain'. He's a British person descended from Spanish immigrants. He would belong in an article called 'Spanish immigration to Britain' (because he is the product of it) but he would not belong in one called 'Spanish people in Britain'.
Damn, words are difficult! I'm coming round to 'immigration'. I guess even the Vikings were 'immigrants' in one sense, since they settled, built farms and towns, etc, even if they were also into pillaging. Cop 663 (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
We do have a Immigration to the United Kingdom (1922-present day) article with which I'd be inclined to redirect some of the smaller articles. How about that? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
And Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh wow! This is more of a mess than I realized! Cop 663 (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Some of them are a bit random, but I wouldn't support merging them all into Black British. I think Poles in Britain could be an interetsing article as many people think it is only a recent thing.. Secretlondon (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
British African-Caribbean community is a featured article - certainly not one to be deleted! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I recommend the following as a soloution to this problem: I would provisionally like to see Jamaican British redirected to British African-Caribbean community, and South African-British, Zimbabwean British, Nigerian British, British Somalis, African British, Ghanaian British and Kenyan British to Black British.

Those that are articles about any other people which involves an ex-British colony (such as British Pakistani, are redirected to Immigration to the United Kingdom (1922-present day) and all others to Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom. How does that sound for an attempt at cleaning this up? Any objections or tweaks? -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Although the overwhelming majority of people of African origin in Britain might identify as black, it might strike some as odd to include non-black South Africans, for example, in Black British. There may be some merit in distinguishing between nationality of origin and race in some cases. Man vyi (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
That seems both reasonable and logical yes. Perhaps that ought to redirect to one of the other two articles? -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it is a bit tricky. My grandfather regarded himself as a Kenyan who had moved to the UK, but he was white. There are lots of white Zimbabweans in the same situation today. It's probably better to keep Black British as it is, and either merge the small African-British articles to Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom, or, perhaps better, create a page called African immigration to Britain that doesn't have the word 'ethnic' in it so it can include all Africans regardless of race. Cop 663 (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes - absolutly. On the AfD for Spanish Britons I questioned just how notable many of these groups are and suggested most would be better treated as part of larger and genuinely notable subgroups like Black British, Asian British, Eastern European migrants to the United Kingdom, or whatever else. Just look at the number that has been added to the ethnic groups template since this issue arose (groups in the United Kingdom&diff=178531149&oldid=178069004 diff) - albeit mainly by one IP contributer. There has to be some sense to this, otherwise we'll end up with 198 articles, one for every country in the world ... and then everyone can be British! I mean, seriously, Saint Kitts and Nevis!? I know there's not article on this yet, but it has been added to the template. Just how notable is the impact of migration from Saint Kitts and Nevis to the UK that a "Kittitian and Nevisian British" article might in future have merit? There has to be some limit to this. Some common sense, please. --sony-youthpléigh 18:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Here's a suggestion then. The titles wouldn't be perfectly standardized, but that's OK since we'd be trying to use the common names
If we do this we can create the ground for some genuinely interesting articles rather than the scrappy unsourced things at present. Cop 663 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I would collapse Eastern and Western Europe into just European immigration to Britain. Is there any great benefit to dividing it? And I predict trouble in drawing a dividing line. I would call Australasian immigration to Britain Australia-New Zealand immigration to Britain if what is meant is Australia and New Zealand, let's not confuse it with the rest of Asia. I'd move Irish Briton back to Irish community in Britain (the common name despite

reasons cited for the move, which are actually contradicted by the article). Or British Irish community which would keep it in line with the British Afro-Caribbean community and, so long as a hyphen doesn't appear between British and Irish, it can be read anyway you like.

I would be careful also when using Black British, Asian British, etc. as these terms have technical meanings in the UK census, if I remember correctly. Black British people are black and British. They are not black immigrants. Similarly, Asian British, just as White British doesn't include French people living in the UK. --sony-youthpléigh 23:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Australasia - agree.
Western/Eastern Europe - I think there are major historical differences between the migration of peoples from the two Europes due to the Cold War that might require separate articles, but I agree it could be just 'Europe' for now.
Black British/Black Asian, yes they are British, but the articles as they stand already tell the entire history of Black and Asian migration to Britain, including the Roman army and the slave trade; they're not only describing those who are British citizens, so it isn't necessarily a problem. Cop 663 (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Can we use "migration" rather than "immigration" (if we are to persue this system)? "Immigration" suggests that the article will be from the perspective of the pre-existing inhabitants. I expect there will be an element of the article that discusses the emmigration process for the migrant(s).
Simillarly, I presume we intend to use "United Kingdom", rather than "Britain"? Other than that, I think we're getting somewhere. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
'Migration' instead of 'immigration' is a darn good idea, much less restrictive. But 'UK' restricts us to post-1707 history, while 'British' is preferable because it's looser, methinks. Cop 663 (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
"Western/Eastern Europe" - that's a point alright. Maybe then a "European migration to Britain" with a 'main article' for ex-Soviet Union countries (or Eastern European if that is a better name)?
"Migration" is better. I think "Britain" is better than UK in this context, but can see either side.
RE: "Black British", my main point was whether something for example recent Nigerian migration to the UK would be included in that, or whether that would be "African migration to Britain". --sony-youthpléigh 16:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, hard to say. Technically 'Black British' refers to British citizens who are black, so recent African migration phemonena might be discussed in the 'African migration' article instead. But I imagine some overlap would be unavoidable. Cop 663 (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(Un indent) How are we getting on with this? Any plans to action these changes? I have been prompted to return here as I have come across User:Stevvvv4444 (who I have invited to join the discussion), who has been creating more of these articles, including Cuban British, British Pacific Islanders, Latin American Briton, British Malaysian and Singaporean British. This issue may need tackling by us as a team asap, once we've decided on the route to take. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion made seems acceptable with some small changes (see above). I'm on vacation and can't do any work until the new year, but the best way to start, I think, is to create the redlinked articles above as stubby placeholders, and then start merging the smaller articles into them. Cop 663 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the naming of the articles are fairly un-distinctive, and could mean many things. I have tried to make this clearer by stating the meaning on the actual article. I believe that many of these articles could be merged, but not entirely deleted, or made in to one huge article based on immigration to the UK. This will lead to every community in the country loosing its identity. If anyone sees a problem with the current arrangement and names of the articles, they should also consider articles such as Somali American and Nigerian American which are based on the exact same principles as the articles about the respective communities in nthe UK. (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The principle is a good one - the problem is the title. Terms like "Nigerian-American" are common in the USA, but "Nigerian-British" or "Nigerian Briton" are not common terms in the UK, so "Nigerian immigration to the UK" is more appropriate. All that will happen here is that the small or badly-sourced articles will get merged and the longer, well-sourced ones won't, they'll just get summaries and links from a central repository article. Cop 663 (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Small ethnic groups: moving forward

I'm now ready to start merging the articles that are too short, and renaming everything with the formula "xxx immigration to Britain'. Below is the current plan - please stop me if you don't like it! I plan to put merge tags on all articles for a week to give editors advance warning. This will all take a long time so please join in if you want! I'll cross things off as they're done. Cop 663 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but I'm still concerned about immigration vs. migration. I'd also be inclined to keep Black British (like White British and British Asian) as a stand alone article as this term is verifiable (possibly the only one listed!). It is also an official ethnic classification with which statistics can be attributed to. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Crap, I forgot about 'migration'. I've fixed that. And I didn't mean that Black British should be merged, so I've fixed that. Cop 663 (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
One of the problematic groups has been those from the US. We not necessarily talking about an 'immigrant' group as such, or necessarily a permanant one. After some on page discussion, Cop663 has suggested 'Americans in Britain'. I'd like to endorse this, and suggest that 'Canadians in Britain' also works well. Indisciplined (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
However, I have to say Western European migration to Britain is a complete car-crash. First fatal problem, what are 'Western Europe' and 'Eastern Europe'? Any definiton is arbitary, the terms shifted radically over time. Certain 'push' factors - like political and racial persecution, would have been common to both Germany and Russia in the past (who'd end up in different articles), whilst French migration (now lumped together with German) was essentially economic. Secondly, there is just no narrative to that article. Maybe we could do a general overview on European migration to Britian, but trying to cut-and-paste the national articles onto one article like that just hasn't worked. The Latin American page, on the other hand, has a clear narrative, based on the many points of commonality that underly migration from different Latin American countries to the UK. We cna also talk about a Latin American cultural influence in a meaningful way as one heading - impossible with 'Western Europe'. So, it's not a cut-and-paste exercise. That's the way forward. As a rule of thumb, I suggest that if we can't form a clear narrative for the article, there probably is not basis for an article in the first place. (I really do hate criticising new articles when their authors are putting so much hard work into trying to improve Wikipedia. But if we are to move together to improve this situation we cannot just replace one set of flawed articles with another set of equally flawed articles). Indisciplined (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You raise totally valid points, in my opinion. I believe your input here is invaluable and I too like the "Americans in Britain" approach too (I wish I'd thought of it!). -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've been slowly testing the waters with these ideas, most of which have been uncontroversial, but the "Western and Eastern European" one was pretty stupid in hindsight. I don't think a single, unified system is going to work, instead the different groups and subgroups require different solutions for their different situations. See Talk:British_Pakistanis#Merge_into_British_Asian for another problem: one ethnic group not wanting to be lumped with another due to cultural antagonism between the two. Cop 663 (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

UK not a major power with global influence?

Hello,

I'm making a request for comment at Talk:United Kingdom. There is a debate as to whether the (verifiable - of course) term "major power with global influence" and other simillar versions should be allowed in the article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Union Flag/Flag of the United Kingom

I've made a proposal to merge Union Flag into Flag of the United Kingdom (discussion). This is likely to be a controversial merger. At present there are two articles deal with the the same subject in order to avoid edit warring over the name of the article. I propose that the "standard" naming of flag articles should apply - or at least have only one article on a single subject. --sony-youthpléigh 12:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Scotland peer review

Hi, there.

The Scotland article is up for peer review. If anyone wishes to make suggestions, feel free to do so. All help would be much appreciated. Lurker (said · done) 15:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

About the "move" button on Occupation of the Channel Islands

Hi. The "move" button at the top of the Occupation of the Channel Islands does not appear for some reason. Has someone or something disabled it for some reason? If so, why? Thanks for helping me solve this mystery. IZAK (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been restored. Lurker (said · done) 19:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)