The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I have reviewed this situation, and am somewhat familiar with past controversies of this nature. The closure summary is No consensus for mass changes, and bulk changes of articles should cease.
Per Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS there is not a solid site-wide style consensus on nationality descriptions with regard to the UK.
Per our bot policy, which also applies to manual systematic bulk edits, mass changes require solid consensus.
For these reasons, the bulk changes should stop until such time that a solid consensus is formed to make them. Gigs (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I have been abused across the wiki (ANI, BLPN, third-party talk pages) by an editor for changing England, UK to just England. I regard UK as unnecessary verbosity. I refer back to the UKGEO guidelines original discussions [1] and [2] as a dose of common sense. None of the discussions at the other notice boards fell in favour of the complainant. Do I need to reconfirm here that UK is not needed, or can I get back to improving things? Your comments would be appreciated and I will abide by a new consensus if it is different to the old. Narrow Feint (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that there are few if any circumstances where we would need England + UK, or English + British, etc. Just one is enough. But I suggest that we should wait before expending too much energy over agreeing a consistent practice on which label to use until after the Scottish referendum. If that results in a yes vote it will have ramifications in areas we have not even thought about and various WP guidelines that will keep us busy, and arguing, for years. --AJHingston (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
But if the consensus that home countries dont need the UK then one would expect that Scotland (without the UK) would be independence proof. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
As the editor that the OP is alluding to in his original post, I haven't abused anyone and I resent that implication. The OP is a single-purpose editor (700+ identical edits), consisting entirely of removing "UK" from BLP articles, and furthermore, removing it solely from English addresses. Here [3] he removed "UK" from an English address and left it on a Scottish address. This is what my original query to him and others was about, and this is what led at least one admin (User:Nyttend) to wonder whether Narrow Feint is here for purposes other than improving the encyclopedia. Contrary to what he says, I received some considerable support (though not unanimous) in discussion from editors and admins, although no action was taken. The documentation at Template:Infobox person asks for the sovereign state to be included in addresses, and there is no guideline or policy supporting his actions. All of his edits could be technically reverted to conform to the recommended parameters of the infobox though I have not done so. What he regards as unnecessary verbosity is the name of a sovereign country and should not be removed en masse on mere style grounds without a guideline or a strong consensus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd say that we should do the following: (1) Don't generally include UK in text, because England (and the other components of the UK) really is pretty much as well known as the UK, and I can't remember ever seeing "England, UK" or "Northern Ireland, UK" in print or online, whether with US publications or Liberian. (2) Include UK whenever a sovereign state is demanded by infoboxes or whatever, because we don't want to supply incorrect information or to leave blank an obvious parameter; building the Semantic Web is highly important. (3) Include UK in those rare situations when it's ambiguous, e.g. a guy who emigrates to southwestern Indiana from Scapa Flow, if the wording of the sentence demands it. (4) Always be open to modifying these standards whenever it's necessary for the context. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
'England, UK' is utterly redundant in almost all circumstances. It is non-standard usage elsewhere, so Wikipedia shouldn't be using it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree I still think that "England, UK" in the infobox looks odd to English readers, "England, United Kingdom" would be better but still looks wrong, not including it would be best, if the sovereign country rule can be broken for pre-1920s Ireland then why cant that be expanded to the other home countries. MilborneOne (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that's because Ireland is a very controversial subject with regard to the UK. As far as I'm aware, blocks are given out to editors who persistently fiddle with Irish addresses, adding or removing UK. I'm really not sure why the UK should be the only sovereign country in the world whose name is redundant. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I think there is a potential POV issue if we're just removing the UK en masse from articles - particularly when it's only in the case of England and not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS (an essay) makes it clear that changing nationalities, while not wrong, should be done with care - and I wouldn't characterise removing the "UK" en masse from this many articles as careful.
There will be cases where a person's association to the UK is significant - perhaps more significant than their association with England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. We shouldn't be trying to impose uniformity in this matter.
In terms of international publications not using "England, UK" or similar approaches - bear in mind that the writer in many cases will not realise that "England" and "UK" are not synonymous. I'm not inclined to take this as definitive. Kahastoktalk22:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that's a very good point regarding a person's association to the UK vis-a-vis their association with one of the home nations. Tony Blair was born in Scotland yet his strongest association is clearly with the UK, and his birthplace in his infobox reads "Edinburgh, United Kingdom". While I wouldn't necessarily advocate leaving out "Scotland", I think mentioning the UK is more than relevant. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Unless someone can demonstrate that 'England, UK' is common usage elsewhere (which it isn't, even remotely), Wikipedia should not be using it, end of story. We don't invent terminology to suit the concerns of Wikipedians. WE follow standards set elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This issue is covered in several articles in Wikipedia itself, but in a nutshell England is a well-known and well-understood country that is part of the UK. I don't believe that anybody reading the English language version of Wikipedia would be confused as to what "England" was as a concept. It is unusual (but not incorrect) to say "England, UK" or "England, United Kingdom" because England is a constituent nation of the UK. However, it is generally regarded as being redundant. If people are confused then there are plenty of articles explaining the somewhat arcane differences between the UK, Great Britain, British Isles and all the constituent nations and dependencies. Put another way, I believe that the use of either "England" or the "United Kingdom" alone is an accurate descriptive use of the English language, rather than being a logical prescriptive use which is not commonly used. But one way or another, it's not the End of the World. Shritwod (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Even if we accept this point, it does not imply that the only possible resolution is toward "England", and not "UK". I'm saying we shouldn't be unthinkingly blanket-converting "England, UK" to "England", because there are many cases in which "UK" will be equally or more appropriate.
But apply the answer to another country for a minute - Barack Obama was born in "Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.". Richie McCaw was born in "Oamaru, North Otago, New Zealand". Cate Blanchett was born in "Melbourne, Victoria, Australia". Leslie Nielsen was born in "Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada" and died in "Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA". In all of these cases, I think people would argue that this is at odds with local style. But in all of these cases, you get - and would expect - the sovereign state at hand. I don't see why the UK should be any different. As to the point that England is well known - I was pointed at WP:The Pope is Catholic earlier today, which I think gives an idea of the concern with this.
There is also the issue that this is an England-specific change, not affecting usages "Scotland, UK", "Wales, UK" and "Northern Ireland, UK", raising concerns about the POV being applied. Kahastoktalk23:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that England is just being used as an example any suggestions also apply to the other home countries (although for some reason not pre 1920s Ireland) MilborneOne (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we should be consistent. We should also go by common usage. 'Scotland, UK' is as redundant as 'England, UK', and just as rarely used. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
That was my point originally – Narrow Feint is not using England as an example, and he's not applying this to the other home nations – he is specifically avoiding doing that, as per the example I gave. Maybe he should make similar edits en masse to Northern Irish articles and see what happens. I'm surprised how few editors and admins have even raised an eyebrow at this. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I assumed that this discussion was about what was correct usage. If you have an issue with Narrow Feint's behaviour, this isn't the place to discuss it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been there, and you were there. Nothing happened in true Wikipedia fashion – let's make some rules then ignore them. If this removal of "UK" is to become policy, then it has to be applied across the four home nations. Narrow Feint isn't talking about that, he's only talking about England, and that's obviously relevant to this discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Given that Narrow Feint raised the matter here, and given that s/he has made no edits at all since the matter was first raised, I think we should allow him/her tell us if this was supposed to be about England alone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely, I agree. I have had perfectly civil exchanges with Narrow Feint until he came here and accused me of abusing him. I shall continue to be civil. I'm sure he means any guideline or policy to apply across the board, but nobody can deny that his 700+ edits are all concerned with England. If the other three home nations are to be included in this, then editors involved in the relevant WikiProjects should be informed to gain the widest consensus possible. Then there ought to be a guideline drawn up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Time to elaborate on my original statement and reply to all of you who have come along since then. My point is that the weird-to-me "country" status of the four parts of the UK is enough for us to use the name of one of them like we'd use "USA", "Canada", "Australia", or "New Zealand" in the examples given above. All four of those are at variance with local style, because nobody in Dunedin needs to be told that Oamaru is in New Zealand, and everyone in Saskatoon knows that Regina is in Canada, but we need to use them because the guy in Saskatoon may be unfamiliar with North Otago and because the guy in South Island may be unfamiliar with Saskatchewan — not to mention the guy in Yerevan who has never heard of any of these places but knows vaguely where Canada and New Zealand are. Since they're often spoken of as if they're separate countries, and since they're officially countries in some way that I don't understand, we can use the names of the four parts of the UK without putting "UK" afterward, except for the rare ambiguous cases; Andy, your argument makes no sense, because the point of things such as WP:NOR is not to prohibit us from making needed clarifications, such as the hypothetical guy I mentioned who goes from Scapa Flow to Scotland, Indiana. Finally, note that everything I've said is supposed to apply equally to all four parts of the UK; removing "UK" just from England or just from Northern Ireland is disruptive if you're planning not to do the same for the others. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
To the OP: I work a lot with British articles but I don't always edit the individual component nations' in equal manner or equal number. Like most of the other editors here, I believe that saying "England, UK" is indeed utterly redundant, and I often remove "UK" in this as well as other similar instances. I would have no problem that someone is only removing those for "England, UK" only because once that rule is made clear, someone will come along and remove them for the others. It's no more disruptive or POV than an editor who works exclusively on football articles. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa?04:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
All we need for British locations is 'city, country' i.e. Manchester, England or Glasgow, Scotland etc. No need for 'UK' afterwards. GiantSnowman09:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
There needs to be some clarification if there's going to be a rule – either "England, UK", "Scotland, UK" etc are unacceptable and should be removed on sight, or it is an acceptable (though unusual) format and can co-exist with other formats. If it is unacceptable, it needs to be forbidden in a guideline and a bot created to wipe out "UK" in Wikipedia articles. If it is allowed to co-exist, then it shouldn't be OK for someone to make a Wikipedia career out of enforcing one format over the other. Otherwise someone can just come along and re-insert it everywhere he feels like.
I keep seeing people saying "UK" is redundant – redundant for who? Of course it's redundant for everyone who knows that England and the UK are not synonymous, but not everybody in the world knows that, or I wouldn't have to keep explaining it to non-Brits of my acquaintance. Let alone the fact that Scotland is having a referendum of independence because yes, Scotland is not already independent... Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Can you point to any external sources that consistently use the 'England, UK' format? I certainly can't think of any, and Wikipedia should not be using a format that isn't used elsewhere.AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Even in cases where the UK connection is more significant? I don't support a blanket ban on "UK" - because even if we accept that "England, UK" is unacceptable (and I don't think it necessarily is), there are cases where it's the "England", not the "UK" that should be removed. Kahastoktalk18:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The idea that "everyone knows" that England is a country in the UK is moronic, apart from being flat out untrue. There are kids who live in the UK (let alone the rest of the world) that don't have the faintest idea what the UK's relationship with the home nations is, and an encyclopedia should never assume prior knowledge. I don't think Andy's argment applies either – just because it isn't a common format does not make "England, UK" incorrect, and it fully clarifies the situation for those not fully conversant with British political geography. I am not saying that simply "England" is wrong – but to make "England, UK" unacceptable is short-sighted. Both formats should be able to co-exist without large-scale switches from one to the other. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Systematic removal of UK from articles is always unhelpful, and especially when such edits are not accompanied by an edit summary. Tim! (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
From looking at examples of this previously, I gained a strong impression that what had happened was that someone had added 'UK' to articles without any summary. I'd have to check further, but I had a strong impression that an IP had been doing this systematically, over some time period. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
WP is not a postal envelope. Please minimise redundant clutter, whether in space-poor infoboxes or in the main text. If a seven-year-old child who speaks enough English to use this site doesn't know that England is in the UK (or that London is in both), that's just too bad. I'd prefer "Manchester, UK" to "Manchester, England", but I don't care much. Just don't clutter it up with both unless there's a particular reason to include them. Tony(talk) 06:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I also would personally prefer to see "Manchester, UK" rather than "Manchester, England" for the simple reason that many times I have had to explain to people that England is not synonymous with the United Kingdom or UK. Coincidentally, these people have often been USA citizens and some even become irritated and argue back when (in one instance) I corrected someone who wrote words to the effect "I will be travelling and staying entirely in England for the next two weeks. Can someone advise me on good places to visit near to my hotel in Edinburgh?". The problem has got a little less, but it still persists and some get testy on having some clarification offered to them. However, I don't want to make a big deal about it, except to point out that we write these articles for others to read who may like to be informed, and I think we can usefully try to correct some misconceptions by careful use of descriptors of where a place in the UK actually is. I dislike the form "Manchester, England, UK" and think it is better if one or other of "Manchester, UK" or Manchester, United Kingdom" is used, though I prefer the latter with or without the simplification of "UK". DDStretch (talk)07:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Personally I adopt the same approach, and I would never write both. But I repeat my preference that we let this whole issue lie for now at least until after the Scottish referendum. If the outcome of that is secession it will force all sorts of things on us, not least because 'UK' will be ambiguous certainly as regards use that could be before or after the break and we may have to adopt a new term, the use of the word Britain will need to be carefully regulated in WP and all pre-cession use will need to be checked because of the different ways it has been used hitherto, etc. On the other hand, to adapt our practices now against what we think the outcome might be will just produce even more argument that may prove utterly wasted. --AJHingston (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
As a follow up, though slightly off-topic, because I now live in China, I have found that the confusion underlies what standard Chinese uses for the country. A straightforward translation of "United Kingdom" would be in simplified characters "联合王国" (pinyin: Liánhé wángguó; lit: "in union king country" ) though this can also just be a general term for a kingdom that is united in some way. However, the Chinese do not use this. They use "英国" (pinyin: Yīngguó) which literally translates as either "English land" or "brave land". However, if they want to refer to "England" specifically, they use "英格兰" (pinyin: Yīng gé lán) which is a phonetic translation of "England" into as close Chinese as possible, so translation of the individual characters is usually not helpful (it could be "brave/English square/frame/rule/legal case,etc orchid/fragrant thoroughwort/lily magnolia", which isn't helpful). It is clear to me, after chatting with an educated Chinese close relative of my wife that the Chinese made the best of a mix up brought about by USA mis-naming in the past. The Chinese names for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are also mostly phonetic ones (apart from the "Northern" for which "north" or 北 as in Beijing or "north capital" is used): They are 苏格兰 Sūgélán, 威尔士 Wēi'ěrshì, and 北爱尔兰 Běi ài'ěrlán, respectively. As I said, it is off-topic, but is shows the pervasiveness into other languages of the misconception that "England=UK". DDStretch (talk)16:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Japanese has a similar mix-up. The kanji name for the UK is the same as in Chinese ( 英国), however the pronunciation is Eikoku. This, however, is not as commonly used anymore as katakana transliterations. Igirisu (イギリス) is used to mean "Britain" or "UK", even though it derives from the Portuguese inglês. To refer to England specifically, one is supposed to say Igurando (イングランド), a direct transliteration of England. It really is a mess. RGloucester — ☎17:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it is my own personal colour that makes me say so, but I've also always preferred, for example, "Edinburgh, UK", rather than "Edinburgh, Scotland". The state is what matters, not the geographical indication, unless disambiguation is required. But I know this won't work, because Scots nationalists will often protest at "Edinburgh, UK" without the "Scotland", even if Manchester would be written "Manchester, UK". That's my own experience, anyway. But as a declaration of my own interest, I'm "from Scotland" and of "Scottish ethnicity", yet I do not consider myself Scottish, but British. I live in the US now, and I too have to frequently deal with the whole mix-up with regard to England as a substitute for the UK, &c. In that manner, I prefer that we be as informative as possible, and write "UK" rather than anything else. RGloucester — ☎15:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
As a follow-up example, look at the article for Edinburgh. The lead says "Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland", but doesn't even mention the UK. That annoys me to no end. RGloucester — ☎15:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
That Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland is one of the most significant facts about the place; of course it's going to say that in the lede. It is the what of the UK though? That some people don't know Scotland is in the UK may be true but we can't and shouldn't legislate for gaps in peoples' knowledge at every turn, plonking in qualifications left, right and centre throughout Wikipedia, and in every article section in case people miss mentions elsewhere in the article. There are numerous mentions of the UK elsewhere in the Edinburgh article, including the infobox. Your "own personal colour" in the matters you refer to is fair enough but to classify everyone who disagrees with your preference for "Edinburgh, UK" over "Edinburgh, Scotland" as a nationalist is spurious. National identity as Scots is similarly prevalent amongst unionists and those that identify as neither unionists nor nationalist and I'm sure many (possibly most?) non-nationalists would have a different preference to you if the choice is one or the other. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I well and truly agree with you say, and I'm aware that I'm in the minority, which is why I made that declaration. However, the fact the state in which Edinburgh resides is not mentioned directly in the lead of the article is rather a bit odd, don't you think? It implies that "Scotland" is a state, when it isn't. I'd be perfectly content with something like "Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland, part of the United Kingdom" or some such other contrived nonsense. RGloucester — ☎17:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
England is a subset of GB which is a subset of UK which in turn is a subset of the EU. But the real question for me is whether it would be misleading or ambiguous for someone to refer to "Salisbury, England" (or indeed any other English town in that form "Town, England") without resorting to any of the superset names? Ditto for "Greenock, Scotland" or Monmouth, Wales. In the absence of such ambiguity, we can surely drop these, and avoid the clutter. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa?02:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that ambiguity is the only concern here. We can entirely unambiguously say that Milwaukee is in Wisconsin and leave out the US, or say that Thunder Bay is in Ontario and leave out Canada. I feel that there is benefit in distinguishing England from the UK, and I have yet to see a convincing rebuttal to the principle behind the essay Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic: yes, it's obvious to all of us, but is it really obvious to every potential reader? When it is routine even in Europe to treat England and the UK as one and the same, I doubt it. Kahastoktalk22:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
England and the UK aren't the same. Ever. England is however part of the UK, which makes 'England, UK' redundant. And no, we don't need to cater for every possible thing that every possible Wikipedia reader might not know. Other sources don't routinely insult their readers' intelligence, and I don't see why we should. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
No, they aren't. But try to explain that to a Frenchman and see how long it takes for his eyes to glaze over. And at the end he'll still probably refer to the entire UK as "Angleterre". And it's not just France - it's hardly an unusual assumption, all in all, even in English-speaking countries. It is useful to make people aware that there is a distinction. We do it in every other case internationally. And if we were not in the business of stating what we might consider the obvious, we would just say "Edinburgh" or "Leeds" or "Manchester" and not bother with any disambiguation at all. Kahastoktalk22:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
It would be redundant if there wasn't the common misconception that the UK is England. I suppose the WikiLink might be assumed to solve this problem, however, having to deal with this problem on a regular basis might inform my opinion that being didactic in this instance is necessary. RGloucester — ☎16:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
If we use the form “Footown, UK”, those labouring under this misapprehension will then think that e.g. “Edinburgh, U.K.” is in England and if we use “Footown, Homenationland, UK” we are using unnecessarily clumsy language. We should not be attempting to force in the alleviation of every common misconception throughout Wikipedia because an opportunity arises to plonk it in if this is at the expense of expressing matters in a normal fashion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you in practice. Merely in concept. However, as we are discussing practice, it is best to let it be left as it is. RGloucester — ☎17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
It looks like I started this discussion and then cleared off. Actually I watched it and then when I was ready to post after it settled, my machine threw its hand in. My reading of the above is that UK is not needed in general. I will read & digest & reply in a couple of days. Ta. Narrow Feint (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
There may be a slight majority that prefer not to see "UK" in addresses, but there are arguments for it as well. What I do not see is anyone advocating mass removal of "UK" from articles, and there is clearly no consensus to do that, nor to draw up a guideline. There doesn't seem to be a consensus to do anything. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Given the complete lack of any evidence that reliable sources use 'England, UK' (something I've repeatedly asked for), I have to suggest that removing it is entirely justified. Wikipedia shouldn't invent non-standard conventions just to satisfy the arbitrary obsessions of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
(e/c) (To Eric Corbett) "No rational arguments for it" per your edit summary. In other words, "everyone who disagrees with me is irrational". Very constructive. Presumably though, you at least do other things on Wikipedia and you don't make it your life's mission to eradicate the name of the UK from the project. Note that Narrow Feint didn't actually ask the pertinent question, "Is it OK if I do nothing on Wikipedia except systematically remove "UK" from English addresses while leaving it on Scottish and Welsh ones?"
To Andy the Grump - do you advocate systematic removal of "UK" from all articles, text and infobox? Note that this discussion has specifically not been about that. It's one thing to prefer one format over the other, it's another to enforce one over the other. If that's what we're going to do, go ahead and propose a guideline. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hold on, "arbitrary obsession"? In case you haven't noticed, the only person with an obsession here is the person who has made 700+ edits here, all of them doing the same thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
If it isn't arbitrary, where is the evidence from reliable sources that it is used elsewhere? As for removing it, if I see it, and I can't see any obvious justification for it, why not? I'm not proposing to systematically remove every occurrence myself, but if someone else wants to, that's fine by me. And fine by the spirit of Wikipedia policy, which is to follow sources... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I know you keep mentioning it, but I really don't see what reliable sources have to do with this. We're not talking about a fact here, it's a style of formatting. Some sources will just use England, some will just use UK, some will use other formats. So which reliable source do we follow? Neither, both? What? An encyclopedia maintains its own manual of style, and there's nothing in ours to favour one format over another, therefore nothing to justify systematic enforcement of one over any other. That's why I object to it, note not the occasional change, but systematic changes. Admin Tim! has already stated that systematic removal of "UK" is unhelpful. Systematic enforcement of any format would be unhelpful for the same reasons. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
We are talking about a fact here. The fact that the 'England, UK' format is almost never used outside Wikipedia. As for what Admin Tim said, he doesn't have the right to unilaterally determine such issues - and frankly his assertion that it is "always unhelpful" is itself unhelpful, given that he entirely fails to explain why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
That is not the type of fact that requires reliable sources. To twist it slightly, one fact is that England is in the UK, and this format satisfies that fact, whereas other formats do not. But I reiterate I am not against changing the format (as you put it) if you find it somewhere and can't see an obvious justification for it. You won't find me reverting that. It's the systematic nature of it that I object to. But in simple terms of reliable sources, "Xtown, England" is used widely, as is "Xtown, UK", so which reliable source do we follow, and why is it OK for someone to systematically enforce one over all others when there are reliable sources for both? I'm not suggesting Tim has the right you suggest, but he is an admin and he no doubt has justification for his view. I hope he comes here and explains what that is. Meanwhile, Narrow Feint has so far failed to answer your invitation to explain why he only changes English articles and not Scottish or Welsh ones. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I have said at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Narrow_Feint&diff=prev&oldid=576783636 that the reason I don't change Scotland/Wales is that I am not looking for them. There is not any kind of agenda with regards to nationalism, separatism or unionism. I look for "Town, England, UK" (there isn't a category for it, you know) and then repair it as required. Looking for the others (Scotland etc) would take longer without a proportional hit rate (the others have fewer hits). I can do my best to change Scotland & Wales in articles where England crops up. Narrow Feint (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
This isn't about the merits of "Xtown, England" vs "Xtown, UK", it is about the arbitrary usage of "Xtown, England, UK" - which is contrary to normal usage. If someone wants to mass revert it, I will support them. There is nothing in policy to say they can't, and a great deal of precedent in the formation of policy to say that they can. You may not care about facts - but Wikipedia clearly does. As for any dispute you have with Narrow Feint, that is between you and him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Saying something like "you may not care about facts" devalues your argument because you are verging on getting personal. You select one fact and ignore a bunch of others. Why does a style edit require a reliable source? Where in WP:RS or WP:V does it say this would need a source? You talk about reliable sources, yet you support someone who systematically enforces one reliably sourced format over another, regardless of the other format in this discussion. The fact is that this has nothing to do with reliable sources. Narrow Feint is not mass reverting, he is mass changing. Not many of the articles he's changed were ever "Xtown, England" in the first place. If, for example, I went to every article and changed it to "Xtown, UK", who could argue? You couldn't, given your input so far. Is it constructive? Of course it isn't, and it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. It's also ridiculous to ignore an important part of NF's editing methodology in a discussion specifically about his entire editing raison d'etre, which I hope he clarifies here. It is certainly not just between me and him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Given that you are systematically misrepresenting what I said, my last comment here is that I will continue to support any removal (mass or otherwise) of the arbitrary non-standard "Xtown, England, UK" usage from Wikipedia unless and until it can be demonstrated that this is common usage in reliable sources elsewhere. As for the merits of "Xtown, England" vs "Xtown, UK", though I suspect the former is more common, it isn't the topic under discussion here. And as for Narrow Feint's behaviour, if you think it violates policy, raise it at WP:ANI. Citing the relevant policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe I have done that and apologies if you feel that way. Your argument is that you object to "Xtown, England, UK" format because you consider it non-standard. My response to that is there isn't anything in the MOS, policy or guidelines that forbids that format or encourages systematic enforcement of any format at the expense of another or all others. The "Xtown, England" vs "Xtown, UK" is not under direct discussion here but it might as well have been – the concept is exactly the same. ANI is an option, obviously. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
That ANI report was basically asking whether there was a guideline to back up what you were doing, which there isn't. You were not actually named in that report, despite your claim that I abused you in it. The overwhelming response at ANI was asking me to engage you, which I did. Any further ANI report would specifically not refer to the relative values of each of the placename formats; that is not really my objection. It would refer to continued mass changing from one format to another. I don't believe there is a MOS guideline or policy to allow for those mass changes, unless you have found one. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
So, I have read it again, and there seems to be clear reconfirmation of an old consensus for not using "England UK" but preferring "England". I will *do my best* to avoid creating inconsistencies in Wales & Scotland. Narrow Feint (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Having had my attention brought to this debate from the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, I have to comment that I have recently noticed the proliferation of "England" as an additional descriptor in UK place names and been puzzled and not a little irritated by it. For a start, since the nationality of the subject of a biographical article is normally identified in the opening sentence, there is absolutely no need to state in which country they were born unless (a) they were born in a different country, or (b) there is ambiguity in the place name. Furthermore, England is a region of the UK, not a nation state, therefore "UK" is a more meaningful descriptor. English people naturally tend to identify themselves as "English", to the exclusion of everyone else in the UK, but there is no reason to carry this over into an international encyclopedia. I therefore have to agree with Bretonbanquet. Deb (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is from the perspective of whether the "UK" bit is necessary when "England" has been stated, rather than the other way round. Not only do many English people identify as English but Scots as Scots, Welsh as Welsh etc. and there is not necessarily any implication of them relating this, excluding or otherwise, anything regarding the UK. And describing them as "regions" will be causing (at least some) jaws to drop (or was this a deliberate attempt to stir things up?). Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
To me, it's the same discussion. Is it necessary to mention "England" if "UK" is also there? It would be nice to use a word other than "region" but I fear non-UK readers do find the status of the constituent countries of the UK hard to understand. What do you call a country that is a constituent part of a state but doesn't have its own parliament? Perhaps you know of a parallel. Deb (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Related surely, but a reversal/widening of the original one. Per above, having both would be redundant, so drop one or other (see above the cases for which of the two be dropped). Such readers have come to an encyclopedia so presumably would prefer the matter to be covered rather than it being avoided or over-simplified. Usually just a country, but a constituent country if there is a perceived need to distinguish it from a nation state. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. It's the only project that bothered to form any kind of consensus on the matter – shame other projects didn't follow suit. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
It's a bloody good job that projects generally don't form local consensus, against which we have a specific policy. Consider what happens when one project (perhaps this one; perhaps a subject specifc one such as 'Lakes or 'Trains) forms a consensus, and another project interested in a shared article reaches a contrary decision? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits17:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mentioning a British person's "Catholic" background, but not their "Protestant" one?
I'm not sure if this is the place for this observation but as an outsider I notice that articles on British people have a disturbing tendency to highlight the subjects religion when they are Catholic, but omit reference to their religion when they are Protestant. To take one example of very many, take former 20th century Poet Laureates. Carol Ann Duffy has her Catholicism mentioned, but none of her Protestant predecessors - Andrew Motion; Ted Hughes; John Betjeman; Cecil Day Lewis; John Masefield; or Robert Bridges have their Protestant denomination mentioned. Interestingly, the first poet laureate of the 20th century Alfred Austindoes have his Catholicism mentioned (as does Betjeman's wife's Catholicism). This highlighting of a person's Christian background only when they are Catholic can be seen across biographies of British people on Wikipedia. Leaving aside subconscious prejudice, how is this justified? 79.97.64.240 (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting indeed. Britain is a Prod country, so being a Catholic would be a fact worthy of note. Similarly, a Spaniard or Italian who is a Prod would make the fact worthy of note. I don't think it necessary to mention religion at all if the subject is from a disestablished or agnostic state. -- Ohc ¡digame!02:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC).
I know this will sound like a stickler but the United Kingdom was created in 1801 out of a merger of two states: Great Britain (1707—1800) and Ireland (1542—1800). Anything before 1801 isn't the United Kingdom (it's either Great Britain or Ireland).
While no reliable source will treat the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom as being the same. There are sources which do count prime ministers, etc. of the UK in this way. However, I think we should align more strictly with the start-and-end of the different periods/states. Thoughts from others? --Tóraí (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Great Britain was often referred to as the United Kingdom and was described as such in the Treaty of Union. Zacwill16 (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The opposite has happened on British North America, where a user has changed "United Kingdom" to "Great Britain", with the edit summary "use historians' style in history article". Is there a guideline somewhere to that effect? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in Europe may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer(Talk)18:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Leaflet For Wikiproject United Kingdom At Wikimania 2014
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
Who will author the future of King’s Cross? You are invited to join us for an in-person and on-location collaborative update to Wikipedia’s entry for King’s Cross Central. We will consider the contents of the existing article and identify what is missing and why. Throughout the afternoon, we will update the Wikipedia entry to more fully reflect the history and contemporary dynamics of King’s Cross from a variety of perspectives. This event is part of the Contested Spaces forum at Central Saint Martins and will be immediately followed by a panel discussion on the theme of Gentrification and Regeneration.
Is there a current template for linking to Ofsted's reports for a school (not necessarily in the school's article, eg infobox, but perhaps in the article on the location)? See my note at Template_talk:Ofsted#Needs_update.3F. Thanks. PamD07:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at Prehistoric Norfolk ? There's 6 different kinds of references going on here, and references and content running into each other, several separate references sections in the middle of content sections. It's rather a mess, and has been since atleast 2009. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
tl:dr - Wikimedia UK and Demos are looking to community-source a submission to the Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy and we need your help! Get involved here
Recently the Speaker of the House of Commons established a commission to investigate the opportunities digital technology can bring for parliamentary democracy in the UK. This consultation is a public exercise which attempts to explore various themes relating to digital democracy.
Wikimedia UK and Demos, working with Wikimedians, have been exploring whether the norms and values of the Wikimedia community can be applied to this kind of consultation, especially the consensus-based approach to writing and enacting Wikipedia policy.
The experiment has been going well and led to a community-sourced submission to the first theme which was looking at how technology can facilitate better scrutiny of the work of Parliament. You can view this submission here – https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Connecting_knowledge_to_power:_the_future_of_digital_democracy_in_the_UK_(Archive_1). The talk page is also worth a look as the discussion offered some really useful insights into how the content was reached.
However, we need your help. The second theme of the consultation has now been published and it is about digital representation. We would love for as many people to take part in this exercise as possible. The Commission was really appreciative of the efforts of the community first time around and it would be great to come up with another excellent community-driven submission. You can view the questions that are being asked, and participate in creating the submission, here.
A third theme will follow in the next couple of months and a similar approach will be taken then. Finally, once the Commission closes for submissions, Demos and Wikimedia UK will write up a comprehensive report on the process and what we have learned which we will, of course, make available to the community.
I did ask about a template but the WLM experts said that was not needed this year (when I believe Grade II will also be allowed) as a new wizzy uploading system which takes account of EH (and Scotland, NI & Cadw) numbers. I've made a start on List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset etc just using a table but the format for each of the lists which exist already are different. NB the numbers involved in SAMs & Grade II listed buildings are massive. If you go to The NHLE list & choose advanced search you can specify a county (but I would suggest going down to district/Unitary Authority level because of the numbers involved - others have split them by date) - & then under heritage category choose scheduling to get a list.— Rodtalk16:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Not needed for WLM purposes, perhaps, but there are plenty of other good reasons to use one (uniformity of presentation, emitted metadata, ease of editing, ease of parsing by scripts, potential for integration with visual editor, etc.). I've marked up Scheduled Ancient Monuments in Birmingham using the above template - note that the footnotes will need to be changed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits17:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Rodw, that's a helpful page. I think {{EH listed building row}} covers the main points, and there is an optional column for notes so more information about a particular site can be added. They might not be essential for the competition, but they'd still be a good addition to the encyclopedia. I'll see if I can add some lists for the North West over the coming week. Nev1 (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks both, however I don't think it is quite that easy. If the EH listed building header template is used (and presumably it needs to be if EH listed building row is used in the table) then we get columns like "Date Listed" and "List entry number". Ancient monuments are not listed they are scheduled. If this were changed for SAMs then wouldn't it affect the loads (? hundreds) of listed building lists we did last year? Category:Monument list templates lists lots of different templates for similar designations - would some template expert be able to adapt them to create similar header & row templates for SAMs? (and then ideally have an automated way of applying this to existing lists)?— Rodtalk18:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, looks OK to me (although I doubt if things like architect will ever be used for SAMs). I will give it a go in a sandbox & let you know any issues I find.— Rodtalk19:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be working OK - just one question... if you have an image but there is no relevant commonscat the More Images link automatically appears but leads to a weird page "Category:Category on Commons, *without* Category: prefix".— Rodtalk19:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll have a look at that, later, I've also added a column for "Wikidata" (see the Birmingham example, above) which will be particularly useful for sites (monuments or listed buildings) which do not have their own article (that may be of interest to User:Magnus Manske, who recently created lots of Wikidata entries for listed buildings with no article). The architect column can be suppressed, BTW. Again, see the Birmingham example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits20:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict):::::::::Yeah thought of that but I have nearly 1,000 to do in Somerset so trying to automate as much as possible - recycling those already on Grade I listed building lists & changing title & UID.— Rodtalk21:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to draw people's attention to the years in United Kingdom pages, where I've pretty much been updating news events by myself for the last couple of years. Recently I've been working on other stuff, so 2014 in the United Kingdom became a little neglected. I've just updated the page with August events, but thought it would be worth mentioning here to hopefully encourage a few more contributors to add events. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Calling UK photographers: the Wiki Loves Monuments contest starts on Monday 1st September
This is your chance to take part in our annual photography competition to improve Wikipedia.
Wiki Loves Monuments UK is aimed at the UK's listed buildings and ancient monuments, and starts on Monday 1st September. The contest is supported by the Royal Photographic Society, English Heritage, and Wikimedia UK.
We've got lots of pictures of Tower Bridge and Stonehenge, but there's so much more of the country's heritage to celebrate. There are tens of thousands of eligible sites, so check out the UK competition website (http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org.uk) and see what's nearby. As well as prizes for the best image, we have a special prize this year for the best image of a listed building on one of the 'At Risk' registers.
It doesn't matter when your photos are taken so long as they are uploaded during September 2014. If you took some stunning pictures back in April, or five years ago, you can still upload them. And remember that this is part of an international effort. Check here to for links to contests in other countries.
Wanted: Wikipedia articles for sculptures, monuments and memorials in London
Following is a list of sculptures, monuments and memorials without Wikipedia articles. User:Ham and I have put this list together and we believe the links below reflect the most appropriate article titles based on naming conventions. I have been creating many articles for London artworks since my recent visit to the city, but I welcome other editors to please assist with the creation of these articles to help improve the encyclopedia.
Volunteers needed to help pre-screen Wiki Loves Monuments UK entries
As you may know, the Wiki Loves Monuments competition closes tonight, and over the next couple of weeks we need to decide on the winning entries. In the UK, we expect to have around 7000 entries, from which we need to select the 500 best for formal judging by the jury.
I'm seeking volunteers to help out with the pre-screening process, which we have to complete within the next two to three weeks.
Can you help us, please?
To help, you’ll need the following:
A minimum of few hours free between now and 14th October
A good level of ability to distinguish high-quality photography from lower quality (guidelines will be provided)
A fast broadband connection for downloading to your local computer several hundred high-resolution images (we’ll tell you how to do it)
Suitable software (eg Adobe Lightroom or some other photo-review software) for reviewing the images at full screen size.
You don’t need to be based in the UK to help.
If you can help, please get in touch now! Either reply directly to this posting, or contact me directly by email.
I figured you may be interested in joining the page move discussion as the topic may be UK-related. If you like, you may improve the article Stephen Hector Taylor-Smith. This person was an Anglo-Indian rocket scientist. He was born in British Raj. I hope for great improvements there. --George Ho (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi folks, any of you may please verify the claim made in an 'edit semi-protected' request on Talk:Deaths in 2014? It is related to a biography of living person (supposedly) -Victor Winding, who is said to have been demised by 9 October 2014 (sourced by requester, The Guardian, 18 October 2014, page no. 57). However, I'm unable to find any such news online, even on The Guardian online archive of that particular page on the said date. Anupmehra -Let's talk!07:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
BBC Genome
Great news: late yesterday, the BBC launched their Genome, an online database of listings from (almost) every issue of the Radio Times, back to 1923.
Giving the actual location of a person's birth/death should (IMO) include the country (sovereign state) in question whether it be the UK or whatever.
In respect of the UK, there are TWO items, i.e. the current (since 1922 - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) or the previous UK (1801-1922 - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland). Before 1801 the term "United Kingdom" did not exist. (Kingdom of Great Britain - 1707 (Act of Union)-1800 - England, Wales and Scotland)
There has been a discussion on whether the 'UK' part is needed, see here. The closing remarks are there, but the important part is that mass changes should stop until a consensus is formed. There was also a discussion at WP:ANI, archived at here (please don't edit either of those discussions). So, you should stop making these changes without the consensus. I will copy these posts to Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board, please continue the discussion there. You should sign your talk pages posts with four tildes, i.e. ~~~~ Mr Stephen (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is the important aspect – that systematic changes of this type should stop, whether it be adding "UK", removing it, or anything else. It is unconstructive. That said, where the UK is mentioned, the nomenclature should match the subject, e.g. don't use "UK" in the modern sense for a subject born in the 1600s. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
This article from the Observer points out that it will be the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta next year (15 June 2015) and suggests there will be various TV and radio programmes (and books etc) to coincide with the significant date. I note this article regularly gets 150,000+ page views per month and this is likely to increase. Would it be worth trying to get a collaboration going to get it to at least GA or even FA standard before the anniversary?— Rodtalk18:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The British Newspaper Archive (BNA) is a newspaper database gathered from the British Library's holdings of newspapers (for more information on what gets digitized see the discussion of the partnership). This database includes the newspapers listed at the "Available Newspapers" subpage and these resources are particularly suited for 18th, 19th and early 20th century British and Global news events and people content: their current collection includes mostly regional papers and very few titles go beyond the 1950s, many stopping in the early twentieth century. The initial pilot generously offered offered 100 accounts distributed in July 2014 and was expanded to 200 accounts in October 2014. All accounts will be issued for a full year.
20th January 2015 is the 750th anniversary of the first English Parliament.[6] However the article De Montfort's Parliament is not eligible for Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 20 because it's tagged with refimprove. Does anyone have the references at hand and knowledge to clean this up?
The BBC [7] are planning a "Democracy Day" of live events, discussions and debate, produced in partnership with the Speaker’s Office of the House of Commons, including broadcasts from inside Westminster. Whizz40 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I have a project page up at Wikipedia:GLAM/Thinktank where you can keep track of progress, and use the talk page if you have any questions or suggestions, or requests for help.
Royal Artillery Band Article and Royal Artillery Mounted Band Article Improvements
I am continually being prompted by Wikipedia to improve my articles, by for example, including "inline citations", with comments such as "this article may include original research".
My aim is to continually improve these articles, and to add to them, and to amend them, particularly when my research uncovers facts or records which refute or revise previously believed information, whether documented or inherited.
Yes, these article do contain original research, and indeed Wikipedia is the only organization that seems not to want original research, but rather information copied from the research carried out by others. In all other publications, and in examinations and projects, I have been reminded that plagiarism is either not permitted, or not desired.
My pedigree as author of both Wikipedia articles could not be better. As a member of three Royal Artillery bands, during my 25-year career in the British Army, and as Chief Librarian and an instructor at the Royal Military School of Music, Kneller Hall, I also served as Historian to each of those bands, and to the School. I could not have been in better circumstances or surroundings to carry out my research, and am fortunate to own original copies of all of the books that have ever been written about music in the Royal Artillery, as well as many rare and highly sought-after books about military music and bands, not to mention many hundreds of music programmes, leaflets, flyers, and official photographs, and letters and artefacts, all of which support the information included in my articles. Many of the facts included are those which were inherited by my colleagues and ancestral colleagues through the ages, and therefore may not have ever been written down.
I can understand the desire for Wikipedia to publish accurate information, but am filled with dismay by the endless prompts, and removal of photographs for which I had been given official permission to use.
Nevertheless, I wish to continue to improve my articles, and such ongoing improvements may take considerable time to make. I welcome assistance and direction from other users, but fail to see how I can provide all of the required "inline citations" if they are no longer obtainable, or unrecorded. For example, many of the facts are those of a witness, namely myself, who was present, and in attendance at many of the events covered by these articles. As a musician standing to attention on parade, for example, I am able to see and hear things about those occasions, which would not be recorded, but instead remembered, both by my fellow colleagues and me. If such information and facts is not worthy for inclusion in you articles, I must assume that you are only satisfied with what has previously appeared in print, whether by reliable or dubious authors.
On that basis, I must regard all articles within the pages of Wikipedia, regardless of their subject matter, to be suspicious at best, because they favour the use of plagiarism.
Now that I have made my point, I sincerely appeal to anyone who can help me, or advise me, towards improving these two articles, but in a constructive way. Telling me that there are insufficient inline citations, is not very constructive. Wherever I can amend this situation in the future, I will, but in some cases, I shall have to leave what I have written for the reader to accept or, if he has reliable evidence to the contrary, refute.
I look forward to hearing from anyone who genuinely can help me to improve these articles.
The focus will be on the museum's science and industry collection. We will have an exclusive preview of (and be able to photograph) exhibits recently acquired for the forthcoming new Spitfire Gallery, plus talks, and the opportunity to work with curators. Assistance will be available for new editors.
An IP has made these apparently good faith edits regarding the pronunciation of Salisbury and Shrewsbury. Immediately beforehand they had made pronunciation edits to Kirkcaldy to list spurious but occasionally-heard spelling-pronunciation/mispronunciations of that town's name as though valid alternatives, accompanied by the removal of some formatting etc.. Being less familiar with the pronunciation of Salisbury and Shrewsbury I don't want to simply assume the edits are likewise dud but someone more knowledgeable on the matter may want to check them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
An editor has created a load of stubs for Urban districts, apparently by copying the information from Urban_districts_formed_in_England_and_Wales_1894–95 but without adding any sources or even making the text into a sentence.
They've got as far as Cornwall, Madron, which I've upgraded from this version to this one. I reckon it takes about 10 minutes to upgrade each stub, but I'm not that interested in obsolete local government districts so don't plan to plough through them all in the near future. The editor may now have taken their bat home after some discussion on both our talk pages, in which case they won't be adding any more.
I think these are probably worth retaining as distinct articles, rather than redirecting to their successor authorities as has been done for one or two already (and of course in many cases there's not just one successor but a more complicated scenario), because there's information which can be added about where their archives are to be found, and scope for expansion. Vision of Britain is useful as a source. So if anyone fancies a constructive little cleanup project, there are a whole batch of these to be worked on - just start at Amlwch in that list (actually that one is at least a full sentence, so better than most of the rest). And after fixing up the existing stubs, there are plenty more redlinks on that list, waiting to be created. PamD10:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I am old enough to remember when "United Kingdom" was not in normal usage, as opposed to "Great Britain" or "Britain" (at least in the U.S., where I live). I feel that the latter should be used instead of the former in contexts of bygone years: For example, the colonies rebelled against "Britain," not against the "United Kingdom." Likewise, it was Britain that fought against Germany in World Wars I and II, not the UK. Comments? GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting chart. Thanks. Nevertheless, I am talking about common usage during the WWII and pre-WWII periods. I don't even think that British people starting referring to their country as the UK until after the war. I don't remember Churchill ever doing so. "Some chicken . . some nUK!" Nahhh. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
We still call the state "Britain". "UK" is not a place, but a description of the state. As such, it is not really appropriate to use it to describe people. "Great Britain", on the other hand, only refers to the island of "Great Britain". The reason that "Britain", "British", and "Britons" have been ever so slightly usurped in recent years is because of a certain squeamishness that certain people have about the concept of a "British nation". The concept of "Britishness" has been in decline since the era of Lady Thatcher, so-to-speak. As such, some people that do not associate with "Britain" prefer "UK", as it has no such connotations. Some organisations have had the term "British" replaced with "UK" by the same token. Regardless, in common usage, British and Britain remain dominant, if slightly less so. RGloucester — ☎01:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I see that this year there is going to be a women's race as part of "The Boat Races", in 29 days time, but our The Boat Race article only mentions this way down the article under The_Boat_Race#Other_boat_races_involving_Oxford_and_Cambridge. The logo on the official web page now includes an "S" on "RACES", not the version used in the article. I'm no expert on rowing (I just watch the race each year, along with the London Marathon, the Grand National and a bit of The Championships as the totality of my sports tv-watching outside the Olympics). Someone interested in rowing might like to update the article to reflect this year's changes, the addition of the women's race. I've left similar notes on the "Rowing" and "Women's Sport" WikiProjects. PamD09:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Good catch, Pam. I expect this will attract a lot of attention so it would be good to get this up to DYK level, at the very least, by 11th April. I have made a start at Women's Boat Race and have also started a page for Amy Gentry who seems to have organised something similar in 1927 — there's an interesting Pathé newsreel about it. To cover the general sport, I have also restarted women's rowing which had previously been deleted! There seems to be lots of room for expansion here but that's all I have time for right now. Andrew D. (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Happy to help if I can. I haven't really touched the main The Boat Race article, I was leaving that until I'd completed proper and good articles for all the boat races thus far. I have noted that coverage of the womens' race is sorely limited, almost to the point where standalone articles aren't really viable, but I haven't checked paper press for that. As you can see, I'm doing my best to ensure the "race becomes races" thing is covered in the 2015 article. If we spin off to a main article for the women' race, cool, and I'm happy to help there too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
For page contents fitting the second category I would personally prefer the use of any of the following title formats:
"British people who also have X nationality"
"British people of X ethnicity"
"British people of X descent"
"Xs/X people in the United Kingdom"
but I think that either of the last two options would be easiest to manage. My problem with current titles is that I don't know how much we can claim. In the case of the article British Albanian Rita Ora is the only person cited with the citation from a video but even in this case she only goes as far as says that she was born in Albania. I do not think that, even here, we can infer that she identifies with being "Albanian" or that she would categorise herself as either "British Albanian" or "Albanian British". In other cases we have even less information.
I also think that it might be useful to convert all (or as many as possible) of the "British X" titles to disamb pages. I think that many if not all of the titles can probably work both ways.
What do people think? I was also wondering about changing all of the words following "British .." to plurals as in British Albanians.
Does anyone know of a userbox of the "It is approximately 4:49 PM where this user lives." type which automatically adjusts for BST - or perhaps can be fed a list of dates ahead of time, rather than being one more thing to remember to change along with all the other clocks (not forgetting the one in the car)? PamD15:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Keith D: Thanks, that's just what I wanted. I knew there had to be something out there! That's two less jobs a year to remember to do. PamD21:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The good article reassessment of British Bangladeshi is going to be closed without anyone apart from me (who requested the reassessment) having commented, unless someone does so soon. Would anyone be able to take a look at the article and provide comments on how it measures up to the good article criteria? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Forthcoming chemistry editathons
You are invited to attend one or both of two forthcoming editathons:
It would be helpful to have some input from British users at the requested move at Talk:Guy Fawkes Night. Currently, the main article is at Guy Fawkes Night with a disambiguation-style page at Bonfire Night that includes some content from Guy Fawkes Night and some information about bonfire celebrations around the world. In addition, there are suggestions that the coverage at Guy Fawkes Night is not representative of the event today and is being controlled by a small group of editors. Some assessments would be encouraged. 81.152.36.213 (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Getting UK OTRS approval for using image of AAIB head office
Are any UK Wikipedians familiar with getting OTRS approval for use of certain images from the UK government? I found an image of the UK AAIB head office on the AAIB website: https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/feature/image/36014/s300_AAIB_Default_News_Image.jpg - It is necessary to get OTRS permission for a free license for this picture because normally a person cannot access the area to photograph the building. A UK Wikipedian told me the closest he could get was the entrance gate and an AAIB road sign.
I don't think any permission is needed. Most of the content on gov.uk is covered by {{OGL-3.0}} and this image doesn't appear to an exception. Nthep (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
What?Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
When?June 2015
How can you help?
1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
Wikimedia UK are looking for nominations for UK Wikimedian of the Year. It is an annual award to thank those in the UK or abroad who have helped the UK Wikimedia movement.
We seem to be missing a few - no area projects for East Anglia or the East Midlands, for example, and probably other regions. Are they thought unnecessary, or are they just not started yet?
Philculmer (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Simply not started yet. It typically takes a group of interested editors to create a regional or county project. I feel that admin functions such as the automatically cleanup posting for each project makes projects worthwhile even if they have no active members. Nev1 (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
It has been proposed that the two articles on Leeds, Leeds and City of Leeds, be merged. This has been brought up several times and it has been 6 years since a discussion resulted in retaining the split. Please share your thoughts here. Keith D (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
UK EDUCATION
There is a Wikipage devoted to UK Education, treating the UK as one unit.
This is inaccurate in the extreme.
There has NEVER been a UK-wide education system, for the 1707 Act of Union reserved Education in Scotland to Scottish authorities. Thus school curricula, exams, certificates; university and college entry requirements and courses were and are regulated and determined by the relevant Scottish bodies, with no reference to what is done in England.
This is simply for information. I am not a contributor or logged in.
Gordon Johnson, Caithness, Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.166.99 (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Should new categories ending in "... in the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, and Crown Dependencies" be created? That way BOT/Crown dependency stuff are grouped with UK but the same time acknowledge they are not in the UK. This can be done across various topics.
@Mrh30:@BrownHairedGirl: (this way there can be a broad consensus across various topics)
I know this is a political and sometimes highly charged topic. It took me a while to get my head around the claim that Gibraltar & the Falklands are "more British" than the Channel Isles & Isle of Man (this was in the context of "home student" fee status for entry to English universities - but it applies to all sorts of areas & BOTs may be topical in relation to tax avoidance).— Rodtalk19:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, technically British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies are not in the UK, but they are dependencies of the UK. So for navigational convenience all Foo in/of British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies categs are subcats of the relevant UK category. (Note that per WP:CAT, en.wp categories are all about navigation. They are not intended to be a perfect Linnean taxonomy.)
@Nilfanion: yes, there are missing links. If there is a consensus to stick with the structure I partly built (see below), we should bridge those gaps. But right now I think we need to explore where the consensus (if any) is. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
As others rightly point out above, British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies (let's abbreviate to BOTCD) are a slightly different case, in that in purely constitutional terms they are clearly not part of the UK. The practical reality is a little different.
For example, Crown Dependencies are theoretically personal possessions of the monarch rather than part of the UK, but in practice the Queen does not maintain offices of her own to oversee their affairs. Instead they have significant oversight from within the UK govt, largely via a unit which has migrated over the years between the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department , the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Ministry of Justice (see Crown dependencies#Relationship_with_the_UK). As is often the case with the UK's unwritten constitution, there is some gap between constitutional theory and de facto practice.
We could debate how much weight to give to constitutional theory vs actual practice, but I think that would be missing the point. Per WP:CAT, en.wp categories are all about helping readers to navigate between articles. They are not intended to be a perfect Linnean taxonomy.
So it seems to me that the question to be decided here is how best to help our readers navigate between categories "in the UK" and categories "in places ultimately controlled by the UK".
When creating these categories, I took the view that the best way to help readers navigate between these categs was by direct subcatting. It's simple to create (just one entry on one page), and it works in a way which is familiar to readers. I didn't seek prior consensus, but the first objections I have been aware of in the last 11 months have been in this discussion, so I am satisfied that my WP:BOLD idea wasn't wildly controversial. Maybe not the best possible option, but it wouldn't have remained largely intact for nearly a year if it didn't have some merit.
Since there are objections now, I think we should seek a consensus on a consistent approach, and then implement that consensus consistently.
Use {{Category see also}} to create a hatnote link between Category:Topicname in the United Kingdom and Category:Topicname in BOTCD. That is harder to set up and maintain, because it involves 2 entries for each link (one on the UK cat page, one on the BOTCD cat page), and it's v hard to monitor that with tools such as AWB. It's also a bit intrusive to readers, and it seems to me that placing BOTCD bolded and above things which are actually in the UK gives WP:UNDUE weight to the BOTCD.
I'm sure that there will be well-reasoned critiques of my assessments, and there may be other options. But please let's try to achieve a consensus so that we make a consistent, stable solution.
I think the 4th option is the only viable one - Its just a question of how that should be clarified, and what supplementary text is needed. While we are discussing that, we should also confirm a related point: Should the individual territories/dependencies be treated as countries, and be included in the relevant Category:Topicname by country or Category:Topicname in/of Continent? I'd say yes, even though strictly speaking they aren't countries either.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the individual territories/dependencies should be treated as "countries". The concept of "country" is much broader and more fluid than it might first appear, and since categs are about navigation I don't think it would in any way help navigation to take a narrow view. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Definitely see your points. And certainly there are closer ties to the UK in many cases than just suggested by the personal possession of the Crown. When someone's looking for information on 'United Kingdom', it would be good for them to be able to serendipitously discover the related information about the BOT & CD, but also agree with you that 'See also' all over the place might wind up clunky and hard to monitor. As you say, it's probably a case of several non-ideal options. Great work by the way on initially setting up all those categories! Mrh30 (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Can you help us review images for Wiki Loves Monuments UK 2018?
Hi all
Wikimedia UK is supporting the annual Wiki Loves Monuments contest again this year, and I am looking for 20-25 volunteers to help review and filter the entries.
The contest finishes at the end of September, with reviewing and judging taking place immediately after that. We normally have several rounds of reviewing during October, enabling us to reduce the expected 10,000+ entries down to a long list of a few hundred from which the winners are selected by our panel of judges.
You'd need to be able to commit to a minimum of 5-8 hours online reviewing, spread out over the month of October. As reviewing is done online, volunteers can be based anywhere in the world and you don't need to have any UK connections. We’re not looking for expert photographers, but you should have a basic ability to be able to distinguish a good photograph from a poor or mediocre one. Training in the online reviewing software is available.
I know that in names such as Ralph Vaughan Williams, David Lloyd George, and George Bernard Shaw, the second and third names are treated as a compound surname. Is this practice common in the UK or does it depend on the wishes or family conventions of the person? Thank you. Jmar67 (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
You might find some information at Double-barrelled_name#British_tradition. This article in the Guardian may also be interesting and suggests that 11% of newlyweds will double-barrel their name. Un-hyphenated names are going to be less common than hyphenated ones, but are "increasingly common". You'd think if there's a family tradition then they'll follow that, but see also Simon Baron-Cohen. -- zzuuzz(talk)20:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I created, in the Executive agency article, a map of executive agencies with head offices outside of London which cover/serve all four countries (England, Wales, N. Ireland, and Scotland). Please take a look!
WhisperToMe (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up! I couldn't find a similar Northern Irish agency or any indication that Met Office has no authority in N. Ireland, so I included them. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Categories being required to use "organization" rather than "organisation"
In case anyone wasn't aware, there was a recent RfC on requiring all categories to use "organization" rather than "organisation", which was closed in favour of the proposal. There is currently a discussion on whether there was sufficient notifications of this discussion. Comments are welcomed. Cheers, Number5720:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes worth around £350 will be rewarded for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and N Ireland and Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating or at least support the concept. We currently have over 44,000 stubs for the UK,and Ireland, let's try to reduce that!.♦ Dr. Blofeld07:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I came to this noticeboard in response to Richard's post about digital meetups. This is the talk page so I took a look at the main noticeboard page: WP:UKWNB. I found that it had an In the News sub-page which was empty. I updated that with some details of the pandemic and started some chat there with editors like Zeromonk and Whispyhistory. But I'm not sure that that is the right place for discussions, I have the impression that the structure of this noticeboard is based on the structure of a portal and so it's confusing. The noticeboard was created back in 2004 by an editor who is no longer active (user:Francs2000) and so I suppose that's why it has a neglected feel. Reviving it for UK coordination seems like a good idea but we could use some guidelines. There's a general page, Wikipedia:Regional notice boards, but it doesn't say much. Is there a good model that we can copy? Maybe other old timers know more? @WereSpielChequers, Johnbod, and Charles Matthews:Andrew🐉(talk) 15:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
In all honesty, I'd be inclined to just have the talkpage. This isn't like the Arbcom noticeboard where an announcement is made and people discuss it elsewhere to keep the original announcement clear and comprehensible; here, we want people seeing any given announcement to also see the relevant discussion. ‑ Iridescent16:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
(ec) Now seems as good a time as any to mention that Wikimedia UK and the Wiki Project Med Foundation are working together to help co-ordinate some COVID-19 related editing at Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/WMUK-WPMEDF Joint Support Task Force. WikiProject Medicine has the medical articles in hand, but there are a lot of articles beyond that which either mention COVID-19 in some way or should do, and we thought that's where the task for could fit in. Though WMUK are involved, it's not a UK-specific project so if there's appetite this could be a good place to co-ordinate UK topics. Speaking of which, Curb Safe Charmer is doing sterling work keeping the article on events in Jersey up-to-date as is Formulaonewiki for Guernsey. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Richard Nevell (WMUK): Can't say I know too much about WMUK or WPMEDF but I certainly will take a look at what you guys get up to. Any place to co-ordinate discussion for UK topics seems a smart idea to me, and it's always nice to see some recognition of contributions to an article, so thank you! —Formulaonewiki16:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I think of this page as being more for the second half rather than the first half of "Wikipedians from the United Kingdom or who are writing about UK related topics." Though I've done a lot of categorisation on Wikimedia Commons of UK, especially English churches and some other topics, my Wikipedia activity is rarely UK focussed. So I don't watchlist this page. When it comes to Wikimedians in the UK, the London meetup moved to Meta over a decade ago to show that it was a meeting for all Wikimedians who happen to be in or able to get to London. Yes, some of the discussion can be UK focussed, whether over freedom of panorama or London Barges, and in normal times we are happy to get requests for photos in London, and I and others have fulfilled some of them. But we are also a forum for Wikimedians who can get to London on a particular Sunday to discuss Wikimedia issues that may be global or not London focussed at all. So my suggestion is that we coordinate any video meetups on Meta, but ideally promote them on Wikipedia and other large projects via geonotices. ϢereSpielChequers10:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
This page did used to be a lot more active, as can be seen from the archives. It was basically the equivalent of WikiProject United Kingdom, I think that the idea of "regional notice boards" actually pre-dates WikiProjects. WikiProject United Kingdom itself was created in 2015 and discussion moved over there. Some discussion has also migrated to the wikimediauk-l mailing list. the wub"?!"20:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Coronavirus in the UK
There are lots of articles about various aspects of the pandemic and some of them are specific to the UK such as 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom for which the top 10 editors are
There may still be gaps too. For example, I've been hearing about the use of proning in intensive care, which seems to make a significant difference. I found that we didn't have an article for that and so I have made a start. Perhaps editors with medical access and expertise such as Whispyhistory and Zeromonk can suggest how we can make ourselves useful. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: I've noticed that not all topics have been covered equally - COVID-19 in pregnancy was neglected, and if anyone has science expertise the page on virus shedding could do with some work. One thing that seems to have boomed in interest, judging by pageviews, is past pandemics and epidemics - some of which have terrible or nonexistent articles (I've flagged them here in an experiment I've created to show people who are new to Wiki ways that they can contribute - I'd really welcome your feedback on that and feel free to join the Dashboard and join in!). Zeromonk (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
This started on the main page for this noticeboard but, now that it's chatty, it seems better here, on the talk page.Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
May I point out that this chart excludes those that added images which don't generate many characters but often perform an important function in articles. (lead image in Social distancing in use in 9 languages) Philafrenzy (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The chart is an extract from the full page statistics. The full list is remarkably long because there have been 478 different editors so far! Many of these names are new to me, including the top of the table, This is Paul. He's in Birmingham and I suppose all those other editors are from all over. This noticeboard seems like a good way of keeping in touch with everyone. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed that a good few IP editors are helping out with tasks such as keeping tables up to date. I've sent the odd welcome note myself, but I'm sure that more invitations to create accounts and thank yous are in order. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/WMUK-WPMEDF Joint Support Task Force
I just wanted to reinforce Richard's previous post about Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/WMUK-WPMEDF Joint Support Task Force which we can use specifically for the tasks surrounding the COVID-19 articles, especially for UK editors (although all are welcome). WMUK is looking to create online training for editors who wish to get up to speed on the finer points of medical articles, but that's not a prerequisite for joining in. --RexxS (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Digital meetups
I've seen a couple of editors discussing replacing the in-person meetups with digital ones since we're in lockdown. If it helps, Wikimedia UK has a subscription to Zoom so we could set up meetups without the 40-minute time limit. Are folks interested in this? I've pinged people who signed up to recent(ish) meetups, but if I've missed any regulars please do let them know about this discussion.
I would be interested. We used Zoom for the last London Meetup, but that relied on one of the attendees having a subscription. ϢereSpielChequers17:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Sounds interesting - yes, although timing would matter to me - term is about to start I'll be busy zooming with classes of children during school hours soon enough... GirthSummit (blether)17:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
(ec*2) Thanks. We had a virtual meet-up last Sunday. The wub hosted on Zoom and that seemed to work without any glitches for myself and the other regulars. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've never tried using zoom (or similar) but given my computer only barely copes with watching youtube livestreams I don't expect it to work well, so I probably wont be joining you. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'd not used Zoom before and was worried that it might need a powerful client to work well. As I mainly use a Chromebook now, I prefer web-based tools and found that mode worked fine for me so I'd encourage you to give it a try. You could also try a smartphone. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Probably not, as current events mean that at the moment I'm much busier than usual IRL and my Wikipedia activity at the moment is largely limited to routine tasks that don't require thinking or energy. As Girth Summit says, timings would also be an issue depending on when you're thinking of holding them. ‑ Iridescent17:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I would be interested having used Zoom and other similar tools - it would depend a bit on timing as various other video conferences & online teaching are happening, on several machines in the house, at various times (sometimes simultaneously).— Rodtalk17:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me - it must be at least four years since I got to a meetup, but I'd be interested. I'm retired, so days and evenings both often work. (I have a paid Zoom account too) --ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Zoom worked well for London meetup last week, would be good if someone could have an account as we relied on The Wub having one to avoi the 40 minute limit. Joseph2302 (talk)17:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I had the link for the Sunday one, but didn't end up joining in the end. Would be interested to know about future ones anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64 and Thryduulf: On a technical level, it is possible to join from a phone like a conference call. As for how well that would work with taking part in the conversations I just don't know since it would obviously be audio only and you're missing out on visual cues such as being able to see who is talking. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
As people have mentioned, we used Zoom for London meetup #153 last Sunday and it worked well. Everyone agreed to try and hold another one next month at the usual time: 1pm, second Sunday of the month i.e. 10 May, and I've just created the signup page for it at m:Meetup/London/154. I'm happy to host this again since I have a paid Zoom subscription and (touch wood) relatively stable internet connection.
Would also be interested in any other digital meetups people want to organise, since I'll have a lot more spare time than usual for the next month. the wub"?!"22:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
i'd love to take part in zoom meetups!!! i haven't got anything else going on atm so i reckon it'd be fun to talk to some other wikipedians :)𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕪𝕖𝕕𝕤 / אפרים (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm up for some of this, if only to find out whether meeting Wikipedians virtually is any less interesting than it is IRL! :D :p ——SN5412917:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Next steps
Thanks everyone for chipping in, it sounds like there's enough interest to make it worthwhile so onto practicalities such as time and date. Any preferences? It probably makes sense to continue with weekends. When we settle a date, it would be worth creating a watchlist notice so that folks who aren't near a meetup get to know it's an option.
I'd also be interested to hear from @WereSpielChequers and The wub: on your thoughts about how well the virtual meetup worked. What went well and what doesn't quite translate to an online setting? I've not used the feature myself, but I understand that Zoom has options for different 'rooms' so if the size of the group gets so large it's difficult to hear each other we can split off for a while. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd prefer after dark, because of the garden, and I need to borrow a working person's machine for a camera. Saturday evening might be a good time, rather than Sunday for a change. In my experience Zoom for general chats gets rather unmanageable above 10 locations, or maybe that's just my sisters. If possible it would be good to switch rooms every ? 30 mins if there are lots of people, as the section above suggests. Also good notice is needed - I wasn't aware of the London meetup until it was on, & I was doing something else, which is why I missed it. Or we could just have smaller meetings more often - any time will be bad for someone. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Richard Nevell (WMUK): It worked well in my opinion. We had about 7 or 8 people there for most of the meetup, so just had one big conversation and didn't split the room at all. I have used the room splitting feature at work before (although not as a host) and it could be a good idea if the group gets larger. The pub meetups often naturally break up into subgroups anyway. Would suggest playing it by ear depending on how many show up and what people feel like in the moment.
So if we stick to weekends and go for an (early?) evening so that people have the best chance of making good use of whatever the weather is during daylight hours, we need a few dates. I've suggested some dates either side of the London meetup, so we hopefully don't cannibalise it. People are welcome to add other options to the list. Cast a vote below and let's see what it produces. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I haven't been able to attend nearly as many meetings by teleconference as I could in person before the stay-at-home order, so I might drop by if a meeting is set up, but don't rely on me to be present. Deryck C.20:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
What are the security implications of using Zoom? Are our images, words, and IPs recorded/recordable? It seems anyone can sign up to participate? Philafrenzy (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
When it comes to videoconferencing, there is no such thing as secure software unless every party is using a specially hardened secure system (which unless you work on a secure intranet in a particularly sensitive government department or industrial design unit of a major corporation, you're not), regardless of whether you're using Zoom, WhatsApp, Teams etc. Literally all it takes is one participant using a Windows machine to press window-G to switch their machine into gaming mode, or one Mac user to open QuickTime and select "Screen recording", and a "record" button will pop up which saves all activity to a video file from then on. (It's intended for competitive gamers to prove they genuinely achieved their gaming feats without cheating, but your computer has no way of knowing that Zoom etc aren't games);. If you just want to take creepshots of the other participants rather than video, it's even easier as just pressing the "print screen" button will copy an image of the screen to your clipboard. Plus of course, any participant on even the most secure system could have a camera in the background filming their screen. As with all activity—whether online or in the flesh—the only surefire way to preserve your anonymity is not to be there in the first place; the important thing to consider isn't "could someone take my picture?" but "do I care?". ‑ Iridescent12:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. In the context of counter-surveillance, the adage "Whatever you say, say nothing" applies as much to the 2020s as it did to the 1920s... ——SN5412912:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Yup, that's what I mean. If some hypothetical stalker wanted photos of Wikipedians or recordings of potentially embarassing chat, all they would need to do is attend the relevant Wetherspoon on the day of an advertised meetup with the "record" button on their phone discreety switched on (and the likelihood of capturing something juicy would be considerably more likely in the pub once people had a couple of drinks inside them). If you're worried about your IP address being captured—although all 99% of UK IP addresses will tell you is "somewhere in the UK" since all the big providers assign them dynamically nationwide so geolocation has no relationship to reality (at the time of writing my IP is simultaneously geolocating to an industrial estate in Cricklewood and to the equestrian statue of Charles I in Whitehall)—then just install the Opera browser on your computer and switch the free VPN on. ‑ Iridescent12:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
In theory someone could wander into the pub with whistles, vuvuzellas and pornographic placards, or send a strippogram. But if they did the staff might intervene, though possibly not if someone went to the expense of sending a strippogram. Online the equivalents could happen, without either the expense of sending a strippogram or the inconvenience of having to disrupt in person. Somehow I think the risk of this is minor, at least for the first few virtual UK meetups. One of the side effects of the Coronavirus is that a lot of people who should be at the most irresponsible stage in their lives are behaving very responsibly (vandalism on Wikipedia has been at "unusually Low" every time I have looked in the last month). However it would be good to have a backup plan, which could be as simple as retreating to a Google Hangout if the main option failed. Sometimes the appropriate level of security is minimal. ϢereSpielChequers15:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Within Zoom, the host can record, and an icon will come up on everybody's screen telling them that the session is being recorded. Incidentally, I have been using Zoom for five years now, and have been very happy with it (I never thought about security, I admit) and I was impressed that I saw no degradation when lockdown happened and the number of users and meetings skyrocketed. You often get problems with a particular user's internet, and that user will freeze to all the others, and vice versa; but I've seen no sign of Zoom getting swamped. --ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure this discussion has got the point of why Zoom is being singled out. The danger isn't so much recording by a rogue participant, but surveillance by those outside the meeting. Specifically in the case of Zoom - as opposed to Google Meet, Skype, and WhatsApp - it is known that a surveillance state that is publicly hostile to Wikipedia has theoretically unrestricted access to all Zoom meetings without any meeting participant knowing that their meetings have been watched. Deryck C.20:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Free access this week to Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland
Hello all, I have started a discussion over at WikiProject United Kingdom here about trying to sort out some inconsistencies in describing places in the UK. I wasn't sure if the appropriate place to post it was there or here so please let me know, and post your opinions. Elshad (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Defining a "British international/overseas school"
One thing about UK schools abroad is that I had trouble finding a centralized database from the UK government and/or an associated agency (similar to the German ZfA, the French AEFE, the Belgian AEBE, or the Japanese MEXT)
Would some members of WP:UK mind taking a look at Pakistan–United Kingdom relations#Acclamation for Pakistani Philanthropists? The section was added to the article early this month, and it seems a bit WP:UNDUE given the overall context of the article. The awards and the people who received them might be notable for their own articles (some already seem to exist), but the section itself seems a bit out of place for a general overview article such as this, particularly if there's not a corresponding section about "Acclamation for British Philanthropists" or something similar. I noticed that the editors who added this section to this article have also been doing so for other "Pakistan-XXXX relations" articles so perhaps those might need to be checked too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I completely agree. I noticed the same issue after noticing what seemed to be promotional content about the same person in a different article. I removed that section from that article before I knew about your comment. I think there is a pattern of promotional editing involved here, using multiple accounts. There were also some other prior disputes involving other editors. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
At Wikimedia UK we've got contacts with several Scottish universities, and work especially closely with the University of Edinburgh who are lucky enough to have Stinglehammer as a Wikimedian in Residence. We're working out what we can do to support the Scots community at the moment. Do feel free to ping myself or Sara Thomas (WMUK) if there are suggestions or ideas. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Richard Nevell (WMUK): Much appreciated! To you and @Sara Thomas (WMUK): If there are good online resources for learning Lowland Scots there could be a "beginners guide to the language" on SCOwiki so people interested in contributing can learn some of the grammatical patterns and/or other aspects. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
By the way, it's certainly not wrong to call it Lowland Scots but "Lowland" isn't often prefixed, unless possibly in a context where it's being discussed with people who don't know the difference from Gaelic. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the resources! Much appreciated! BTW I guess I'm I the habit of saying "Lowland" as I'm an American and are often conversing with other Americans who may not know WhisperToMe (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead and e-mailed the University of Edinburgh Scottish Studies department stating that the wiki needs volunteers. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Those of you who keep an eye on such things may know that after a year off Wikimania is back as an online event. It starts tomorrow and runs until 17th August.
Wikimedia UK is offering scholarships to help people take part in the event remotely, providing those who need it with financial and technical support so they can immerse themselves in the Wikimania experience. Participants do not need to be a member of Wikimedia UK, and we encourage all those interested to apply.
Funding is available for childcare, data packages and small IT to enable Wikimania attendance. This fund is open to Wikimedians in other countries where they don't have affiliate funding for Wikimania Scholarships, so please share with other people if you think they might benefit.
My name is Victoria and I work at the cross-party UK think-tank Demos. We bring the voices of the public into policymaking, and a big focus for us is bringing those voices into political debates about the future of online life.
Right now, we’re listening to people who earn low or no pay from their online work, to understand what they think a fair and desirable future would look like when it comes to being paid for this work.
We are looking at this because new technology could make it easier for people to monetise their work online, instead of relying on existing ways of being paid such as advertisers, subscribers, and through traditional platforms. We are keen to hear perspectives both from people who would like to monetise their online work and from those who would not find such an option desirable, for example, those who volunteer their time online, view their content creation as a hobby or feel getting paid would negatively change the nature of the work they do.
I’m posting here to see if there are any wiki editors that would be interested in taking part in this project. We believe perspectives like yours should be included in decisions about how people are paid for their work online. The outputs of this project will be social media content, a short report and a site that highlights the views that come out of the workshops. Through these we will try to shape the debates held by politicians, the media and tech companies about how online payment for work is run.
It would involve joining a 1.5 hour Zoom workshop with others who do work online across various platforms, where we’d discuss as a group people’s experiences and how the systems for being paid for online work could be improved.
We would record the Zoom call for our research but would delete this on completion of the project. We recognise that this discussion would touch on sensitive personal information, and all personal data would be handled and stored in accordance with Demos’ privacy policy, which can be found here. If we use any quotes from you, we will reach out to you first to check if this is okay, and we can use a pseudonym if you prefer.
You would be paid £125 for your time and we would try to organise the call at a time that is convenient for all. At present the workshop is scheduled to run in the week beginning 11 April but there is some flexibility here to move the call forward if that week proves difficult for people.
This project is funded by Grant for the Web (you can read their announcement about the project here), a fund to boost open, fair, and inclusive standards and innovation in web monetisation. Demos itself is an independent, cross-party charity and has control over how the project is run.
Thank you for taking the time to read through this. If you are interested in taking part or would like to learn more, please contact me at victoria.baines@demos.co.uk and I can provide further information.
If this is an inappropriate place to post this invitation and/or you know of a more appropriate avenue, please do let me know.
Vbdemos (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I think that rules aside, the idea of "monetising work" is totally inimical to the aims and philosophy of Wikipedia, and in practice anyone who manages to do so is likely to be banned. Perhaps the postings should be regarded as spam and removed entirely. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I think these last two posts are rather over the top. There are cash prizes for various contests, and payments for research are not new. Discussion of paid editing is not outlawed, & I see no harm in trying to research the many issues around it. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I volunteered for the discussion as a way of influencing policy - although I can no longer do the revised dates. I was not after getting paid for it, but as a way of getting the voice of those who do not think paid editing is a good thing, into the wider arena and potentially influencing policy.— Rodtalk18:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Looking for volunteers to help with screening images for Wiki Loves Monuments
With entries for Wiki Loves Monuments UK closed, the next stage is to prepare a long-list of images for the judging panel to consider. We're using Montage to produce that list, with two rounds of voting. The first round is a straightforward yes/no to filter images with flaws that would prevent them from winning (eg: out of focus, wonky, poor lighting) and the second round involves giving images a score from 1 to 5.
_-_James_Ward.jpg)
