Talk:United Kingdom

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2024

The United Kingdom is not a country, but four countries united in one democracy. The article needs to reference that England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Island are all countries in their own right with centralized governments and borders, and can also independently vote to leave the United Kingdom at any time if they desire. 173.59.11.65 (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CMD (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The UK is single country with one central government, i.e. a unitary state. It has four sub-divisions which would be better described as states. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have regional governments, who conduct specific governmental affairs on behalf of the central government. England does not have its own government.

The regions cannot vote to leave without approval of the central government, as they have no sovereignty. GAAEditorIE (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Scotland, England and Wales are not states. They are countries in their own right. Ref: https://www.history.com/news/united-kingdom-scotland-northern-ireland-wales 80.3.204.125 (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The intro for this article is fine, concerning E/W/S/NI. Anyone who wants to know what they're described as? may go to their individual articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistent writing of "Postwar"

In order to remain consistent, the writing of "Postwar" in the subsection title should either be changed to "Post-war" or the other way around (i.e., all instances of "post-war" should be changed to "postwar").

I already wrote about this issue in the thread "Revert", but it didn't caught much attention there, so I'm asking again in a separate thread how we should do it. Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I now amended it myself. Like I wrote, you may simply change it to "postwar" if you like that more, that's complete legitimate and I don't care about it as long as you remain consistent throughout the article. What would not be legitimate, however, is restoring the inconsistent version of the article by simply undoing my change, so keep that in mind. Thanks in advance. Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2024

Under ecomony, The aerospace industry of the UK is the second-largest national aerospace industry in the world depending upon the method of measurement is incorrect. THe UK has the second largest aerospace industry in the world. Please add this source: https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/united-kingdom-aerospace-and-defense 2A0A:EF40:E01:DB01:E5AB:5482:5697:2594 (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 09:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Reference to Flodden in the lead

The 2nd paragraph of the lead links to the Battle of Flodden under the text “domination of Scotland”. Putting aside whether the battle of flodden is notable enough for this article (or the dubious text), the battle is not mentioned in the main article. Is this not a Wikipedia "DON'T" as per this guidance? Jp2207 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2024

The United Kingdom is a Union of 4 countries, it is a sovereign state. It is not a country in it’s own right. 80.3.204.125 (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done please review archive this has been discussed many times .....see also Country#Statehood.Moxy🍁 18:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Non-relevant or misplaced images

@117PXL: Hello, we have recently reverted or reinstated each other's edits of three images, and I have started this discussion to follow WP:BRD.

1. In this edit, you inserted an image of a bird with a catch of fish; the caption states it is endangered, when it is not. I reverted your change, citing MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and MOS:SECTIONLOC, because I could not see how the image illustrates United Kingdom § Climate, where it was placed. You have reinstated the image: please follow WP:BRD by removing it, and explain why you think it should be placed in the article as you did; in particular whether it is relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative, and has a clear and unique illustrative purpose.
2. In this edit, I removed an image of Concorde. You reverted the removal stating that technology advancements were originally explained, but I cannot find any reference to Concorde in United Kingdom § Transport, United Kingdom § Science and technology, or any other sections in the article. Can you say why you think the image should be retained when it is not mentioned in the article?
3. In this edit, I moved an image of HMS Invincible returning from the Falkland War because it was in a paragraph about the UK's nuclear weapons article, rather than the one about the war. I also placed it on the preferred right-hand side. You reverted the move despite my edit summary quoting MOS:IMAGELOC which states that images should be in the most relevant article section, not placed too early, and preferably right-aligned. Can you explain why this image should remain in its current place?

Regards, Bazza 7 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Technically Puffins are endangered in Europe and vulnerable globally on the below links. In Europe, the population size is estimated to have decreased by 68% over the past 50 years. The UK reference I used states that they are on a red list. The below links could be added if needed or the caption changed slightly.

https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22694927/166290968

https://www.birdlife.org/news/2022/04/06/seabird-of-the-month-atlantic-puffin-fratercula-arctica/

Endangered species are such due to the habitat loss, climate change, overexploitation etc. The last paragraph is about climate change, also overfishing makes ecosystems more vulnerable to climate change affecting their habitats and therefore their populations.

I don’t believe the images have to exactly reflect the body text, like most of the pictures on the page. The image improves the page and tells a story if you want to know about UK habitats, Puffins, wildlife, endangered species or animals that can live in that climate.

Concorde was added originally to reflect the technological advancements of the UK in the 20th century, it was cited which explains the huge achievement it was. The UK also produced the first jet passenger plane and the first jet engine but there is not room for everything in the body text. These technological advancements were a major part of the history in the 20th century and where the UK was globally.

It looked like you moved the images from side to side for visual purposes after removing Concorde but some people prefer them alternating and others prefer on the right. I don’t mind which side as long as they are fairly consistent. There is no way to get the images exactly near the most relevant text as lots of editors may have different preferences for location and there may be other images in the way. 117PXL (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Remove the lot as unnecessary and partly wrong filler. Puffins are endangered in Europe not the UK. Refer to Concorde as a UK project after removing the 'e' at the end of the word. Until then it is Anglo-French. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The UK is in Europe and it is clearly in the first link I referenced above. 117PXL (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Rick Astley

Could Rick Astley be added to the section of Uk singers who reached global success Grogler (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Remsense ‥ 论 21:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

"Commonly known as Britain"

Considering Great Britain has had this added too. Can "Britain" really be commonly for two things? (as if one is common, surely the other is not-as-common) Is it better for only one of them to have "commonly"? DankJae 20:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

If you're just asking whether a single term (Britain) can have two distinct referents, e.g. both

1. Britain → Great Britain
2. Britain → United Kingdom

with both senses seeing common use—then yes, that seems trivially possible. Remsense ‥ 论 21:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

In light of the reversion, surely "some" indicates not common use? DankJae 21:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

If the use weren't common, we'd be mistaken to mention it at the very front of an encyclopedia article. Remsense ‥ 论 21:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Hence why it seems a bit contradictory that it is used for two articles, but accept each article in technically independent of each other and Wikipedia has many contradictions and overlaps. DankJae 22:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes we disambiguate articles because otherwise they'd have the same name, it seems similar to mention the same name in multiple articles. CMD (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Typo in Third Paragraph of Energy

At the end of the third paragraph of the energy section, it should be "nuclear fusion reactors" instead of "Nuclear Fusion|Nuclear Fusion Reators research and development." Guardian2k (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2025

London is the capital city of England and is not the capital city of the United Kingdom which does not have a capital city. 2A00:23C6:19AC:7101:908C:565D:9BDC:D226 (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DeCausa (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see the London article: It is the capital of the United Kingdom and of England by convention rather than statute. Cheers, Heart ^(talk) 08:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Great Britan+UK

I think that Great Britan should redirect hear Ben Halfond (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

No, as Great Britain is an island within the UK. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Energy

So to discuss the partial rewrite I did of the energy section...

A huge part of the text was dedicated to coal extraction which has been reduced to zero with no possibility of it being extracted in the future due to emission targets, making the text not relevant to energy in the UK. Obviously the stat of coal extraction declining is no longer correct and would need replacing with my sentence of it ending.

Reducing the size of the text and bringing it up to date makes it relevant and accessible to more readers. Editors are often saying to reduce the size of the page.

City AM is a London based business newspaper and website, it is a credible reference for the fact I was writing about which was shale gas ending. The text was mostly about extracting coal with fracking, rather than shale gas? It does not make any sense, there is no demand for coal in the UK let alone fracking it and destroying the landscape.

My statistics are more up to date. My citation in the wind section has access to all energy data which was repeated a second time for the coal extraction fact.

The only two stats missing are: ...consumed 1,258 thousand bbl/d. ...the UK was the 21st-largest producer of natural gas in the world.

21st largest producer does not mean much if it's in the middle of the top 40.

Current oil consumption is the only stat missing of value, but the rest of the text looked so irrelevant and out of date it needed a complete rewrite. Thus leaving a stray stat which didn't tie in with the new text. 117PXL (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications, I appreciate it. Remsense ‥ 论 21:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)