Talk:United Kingdom

Reader feedback: UK is not a country it is a ...

46.7.165.103 posted this comment on 4 February 2013 (view all feedback).

UK is not a country it is a membership of nations. England has its own flag, Scotland has its own flag, Wales has its own flag .Each nation has own national team ie.Rugby ,Football extra in four years time scotlands citzens will be voting on staying within the union of Great Britain .One things for certain UK is not a country and would you please respect that fact Ireland is island in which only 6 counties that are part of united kingdom. Northern Ireland has over 400'000 nationalists who mainly only see themselfs as irish ,remaining citzens within the 6 counties of Ulster are Northern irish they to have own flag and see themselfs different nation to England ,Scotland,Wales but they are all members of the British union and the flag for such is Union Jack a membership not a country .Rep of Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom & is not a member state .Please correct the above its no wonder so many Americans can't pin point own nation on a map, when wikipedi has the UK down as a country. Scotland is not England .One can test that fact just go tell a native scot that England is scotland and i be very surprized if they agree . Please correct the above UK is not a country .

Any thoughts?

Istuart0 (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In that case, Belgium isn't a country because it has 2 parliaments (not assemblies but parliaments), neither is the USA. According to your thought process, America isn't a country because it has 50 states. So let's go on. According to you, Italy, Spain, Australia, Russia, Germany, Canada etc etc etc. none of these are countries!!

As we know, the UK is indeed usually referred to as a country. It's not a Wikipedia invention, and reflecting that fact does not imply that "England is scotland" or that "Rep of Ireland" is a "part of the United Kingdom". Nor does the page say either of those things explicitly at any point AFAIK. In fact, I'd argue that this page and other related ones for the most part currently describe and set out the complex arrangements and distinctions that apply between the UK, Britain and Ireland fairly well. There might be issues with emphasis sometimes but I've rarely seen outright errors stay for any length of time. N-HH talk/edits 12:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a nation state, but is considered a country in its own right. The difference between 'Nation' and 'Country' is slight and as such they have become interchangeable. Consider that 99% of the British population consider the United Kingdom as a country and so do the rest of the world, therefore why is it wrong to refer to the UK as being a country here on Wikipedia? In addition, there is much literature referring to the United Kingdom as a country. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

nb or note?

Not sure what 'nb' means, but I've noticed 'note' is used on many articles. Is there any preference? Personal, I think 'note' shows the reader what exactly the tag is, whereas 'nb' is a little confusing. Regards, Rob (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

NB essentially means 'note'. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally I've never heard the term 'Nota bene' be used, thus had no idea what the tag was until I viewed it. I think 'note' is more appropriate, and understandable, but I wont change it without consensus. Regards, Rob (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Nota Bene — translates as Note Well.
The phrase first appeared in writing circa 1721.
Often abbreviated as "NB", "N.B." or "n.b.", nota bene comes from the Latin roots notāre ("to note") and bene ("well"). It is in the singular imperative mood, instructing one individual to note well the matter at hand. In present-day English, it is used, particularly in legal papers, to draw the attention of the reader to a certain (side) aspect or detail of the subject on hand, translating it as "pay attention" or "take notice".
While "N.B." is often used in academic writing, "note" is a common substitute.  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 20:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Latin abbreviations such as nb are commonly used in encyclopaedic and academic works for convenience.  —Sowlos  20:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

After I moved from the UK to the US, I noticed that a lot of Americans do not understand "NB", "ie" and "eg" Bluap (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd have said that those are the three abbreviations that are most common and most commonly understood in the English language (even if people don't know exactly what they stand for, they know what they mean). Maybe that's a bit UK-centric of me, and there may indeed be a US-UK element to any confusion, but I wasn't aware that was the case and assumed that held good for all varieties of English. N-HH talk/edits 12:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I know it's not a big deal, I really just wondering for when editing other British English articles and trying to keep consistency. As a Brit, I personally didn't know what 'nb' meant and was confused when I first came across it, and 'note' is not exactly long winded. Also taking into account wikipedia policy that international recognised terms should be used, it may be advisable not to use it if it's a British thing. If it's as per consensus, I will change it, if not, then I will try to use 'nb' across British English articles. I'm currently working on some articles about historic states and including notes/nbs in the info-box to get rid of the long notes section at the bottom. Regards, Rob (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a British thing; it's just a bit formal. (It may be that the average British person is more likely to recognise it than the average US person, but that's not quite the same thing.) It certainly appears in US legal and academic writing, although I'd say it's becoming less common both sides of the Atlantic. garik (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

My preference for Wikipedia is for "note". My reasons are two fold:

1. I am surprised how few (even educated) Americans know what it means. Whilst this article should be written in British English that doesn't mean we should not be courteous and avoid terms that are obscure to readers accustomed to other dialects.
2. NB (which should be capitalised as an abbreviation) means note well or take special note. Advising people to take "special" note (as opposed to just normal note) of innocuous facts such as what other countries drive on the other side of the road or also have uncodified constitutions looks to me as being OTT.

In any event, if NB is used, can it please be capitalised as an abbreviation?

--RA (✍) 19:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would someone be looking for the Great Britain article?

Gareth Griffith-Jones, Why would someone looking for the Island of Great Britain article end up at this article? Why would they search 'United Kingdom' or click on a link to the 'United Kingdom' if they were looking for the Island of Great Britain? The Island of Great Britain is never called the 'United Kingdom', correctly or by accident. Regards, Rob (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

If Britain was a straight redirect to this page, such clarification would definitely be worth keeping, as someone looking for the island could easily end up here. However, as Britain is currently a disambiguation page, I agree that's unlikely. That said, the nomenclature issues here are of course complex and I can't see that the hatnote guideline definitively prohibits its inclusion. Given all that, I'm fairly ambivalent about what we actually do here. N-HH talk/edits 16:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

... furthermore the term/s "Great Britain" and "GB" do apply to this country (United Kingdom)— and we should always remember that this project is an encyclopaedia for all nations on planet Earth  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 18:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The terms may apply to this country however the term 'United Kingdom' or 'UK' does not apply to the island. Currently Britain, Great Britain and GB do not redirect to this page, nor does the title of the page suggest that this page would be the location of the article about the Island of Great Britain. I still don't understand how someone would end up at this page while looking for the article about the Island of Great Britain? In what scenario would that happen? Regards, Rob (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Britain and Great Britain are common synonyms for the state. But United Kingdom is not a synonym for the island. There's no need for a hat note from this article to Great Britain because no confusion is likely to occur. --RA (✍) 19:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Rob (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Kww, see above. Regards, Rob (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with the level of knowledge you expect readers to have. If you went to the average American in the street and asked them to tell you the difference between "England", "Great Britain", and "United Kingdom", they would give you a scornful look and tell you that they were all different words for the same thing. Certainly our articles should work to alleviate this ignorance, but the navigation aids shouldn't rely on such ignorance magically disappearing.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This should not be determined based on the average readers knowledge of the terms used to describe the United Kingdom, but instead the average readers knowledge on term used to describe the island of Great Britain but who will also be likely to look for an article about the island of Great Britain. In what scenario would someone looking for geographic information about the island of Great Britain search the term 'UK' or 'United Kingdom'? I don't think someone looking for information about an island wouldn't know the name of it, and I highly doubt they would mistake it for the name of a state called the 'United Kingdom'. Maybe someone may think the island is called 'England' but I can't see even the average American calling it the 'United Kingdom'. Regards, Rob (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Most Americans believe the terms to be fully interchangeable. Any arguments based on "why would they look for x when they meant y" implies that they were aware x and y had distinct meanings in the first place.—Kww(talk) 01:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Kww(talk) — exactly my point. That is the reason behind my reverting Rob (talk)Cheers!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 08:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The point about confusion over terminology is of course right; but the point is surely more a technical/practical sub-point about specific redirects and the hatnote. As noted, even if someone might well type in "Britain" or "Great Britain" when looking for this page, surely even the most confused person would not type in "United Kingdom" if they were looking for the specialist geographic page we have on the island – they would be looking for the page on the state. And the link to that island page is anyway provided in the second sentence here. N-HH talk/edits 09:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The point of the hatnote is to redirect users who are looking for an article with geographic information about the island of Great Britain who have arrived at this article by searching a term they relate with the island. I don't think anyone who is looking for an article with geographic information about the island of Great Britain would relate the term the 'United Kingdom' or 'UK' with the island. Your average American, along with anyone else who is completely unaware of the name of the island is highly unlikely to be looking for geographic information about the island, thus would never use the hatnote making it useless. Regards, Rob (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's easy enough to test. Have the hatnote go to a new DAB page, which itself goes to GB. Then, see how many clicks the hatnote gets in a month. If it gets traffic, it was obviously useful to users. Why don't we just test it and find out rather than theorizing? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Currently there is not source to suggest that it is being used, I don't have to provide a source to remove unsourced material, and there is good reason to believe it isn't being used, whereas there is little reason as to why it is. Regards, Rob (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, several very good reasons have been provided above - namely that Great Britain is often used as a synonym for the United Kingdom. You may note that the license plates for British cars are marked "GB". In addition, there are dozens of redirects to the UK page, so you don't know what someone may have typed to end up there. A redirect to the island of GB at the top is perfectly reasonable, in the same way we do so for Ireland due to the naming complexities. Sources have nothing to do with hatnotes, btw. Are you willing to test your theory that it's not being used, or do you prefer to just continue guesstimating? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Non of the terms are redirected to this page, and so a reader would have to click on a link to the 'United Kingdom' while looking for Great Britain. The only reason why someone would arrive at this page while looking for the article about the island of Great Britain would be if they though either 'UK' or 'United Kingdom' was the name of the island. So to suggest this, you would be suggesting that someone who would be looking for geographic information about an island, would think the island may be called the 'UK' or 'United Kingdom', and I highly doubt someone looking for that kind of information would not know that 1. the 'United Kingdom' is only a political entity (which the phrase suggests) and 2. that Great Britain was the name of the island that they were looking for geographic information about. Someone looking for geographic information about an island might not know the name of it? Really? Rob (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Doubt all you want Rob. Great Britain and Northern Ireland, for example, links to the UK page, and if you were to take a poll of Americans I seriously doubt many would have the nuanced understanding of all of these terms that those from there have today. I think many people coming to this page may not know exactly what they are looking for - ideally they want info on a country, and if I'm looking for info on Iceland, I go to the Iceland page - to find out about the government, AND the volcanoes. In the case of the UK/etc, there's a weird mapping between states and islands and "countries" within that requires complex venn diagrams to explain, so I'm still quite boggled why you insist that a notification to the reader uptop is of zero use whatsoever. In any case, this discussion about whether the hatnote is theoretically used or useful is not worth continuing IMHO. I've changed the link to point to a scarcely used redirect. As such, I suggest we see how many hits it gets over the next month then decide if the hatnote is worth keeping. Experience trumps theory, almost always.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No one's disputing that Great Britain is indeed an often used synonym for the UK, or that the terminology as a whole is confusing, but United Kingdom is not an often used synonym for the island of Great Britain. You can't just reverse the logic on that specific point. Sure, it's only guesswork, but I tend to agree with Rob that someone who is at the point of genuinely looking for the island itself is unlikely to end up here in error, whether through redirect or a straight typed search. Equally, anyone here who does want to move on to the island page has the link in the second sentence of the lead. Btw, on a related point, I'm not sure the switch to "usually" from "strictly" here is for the best. It kind of gives the impression that when someone says Great Britain more casually, eg Obama saying "we value our relationship with Great Britain", they are likely to be excluding Northern Ireland from the political unit they are referring to. N-HH talk/edits 17:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, we don't need to theorize. Let's just sit back and see how many hits the redirect racks up.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The number of hits on your redirect will give you a clue how many people might want to go from one page to a related topic, but it doesn't tell you anything as to whether it is a valid hatnote. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There exists no harm with the articles current revision.Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that hatnotes are for navigational purposes, the number of hits will indeed indicate that such a hatnote is useful. We have 3 different editors claiming a possibility of confusion here; others disagree - so the evidence from the page hits will let us know whether users use that hatnote, and if they do, I think it should stay. Others have claimed that no users will ever need such a hatnote - but if users click on it, then I guess they're wrong.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A hatnote, as currently defined at Wikipedia:Hatnote, exists specifically to deal with readers who have arrived at the article containing the hatnote "because they were redirected, because the sought article uses a more specific, disambiguated title, or because the sought article and the article with the hatnote have similar names." It is not intended to cover more general cases of related topics, see WP:RELATED. There are other links in the article which cater adequately for readers interested in related topics, and you don't need to misuse a hatnote to do that. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Just on an issue from a recent edit, not sure we need the "sometime used, particulary in the United States" it is slightly misleading as it is sometimes used by a lot more people than just Americans including people in the United Kingdom itself. Having been used as a synonym for over two hundred odd years the wording should reflect that and remove the "particularly in the United States" bit. The use of Great Britain to just mean the island in common usage is a fairly recent and still very limited mainly to officialdom. Whatever we say here it is unlikely that people using Great Britain as a synonym would even consider they were talking about the island, or that they would be excluding Northern Ireland in the real world. MilborneOne (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Surely the most recent edit deals with that, in that it removed the longstanding claim that it was solely "foreign usage" and replaced it with the more general observation that it is "sometimes" seen (ie everywhere, including in the UK). It nonetheless retains the additional point that it is "particularly" used in the United States, on the very plausible basis that is indeed more commonly used there than in other places. N-HH talk/edits 12:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure that it is more common in the United States it makes it sound like an Americanism when it is fairly common everywhere particularly in the United Kingdom. MilborneOne (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

'The term Great Britain strictly only refers to the island of Great Britain' contradicts 'is sometimes used, particularly in the United States, as a loose synonym for the United Kingdom as a whole'. How can it strictly only refer to one thing, but sometimes refer to another. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Rob, I think you may be interpreting "strictly" to mean something like "exclusively" or "without exception", which I'm pretty certain is not what was intended. The sentence means "In strict usage, the term Great Britain refers only to...". The sentence could have been better written, of course. garik (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"Strictly" is perfectly good English I'd have thought and is quite a common way of highlighting a distinction between what is technically "correct" and common usage. I'm not sure changing it to "in strict usage" is necessary for clarity or making it "better written" particularly. As for "Americanism", the "particularly in America" point could easily go, but I think it arguably adds something and as phrased it simply does not suggest it is used only in America or that it is an American invention. N-HH talk/edits 12:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Lord of The Rings is not a "Hollywood movie"

At "Cinema" it says: Many Hollywood movies have been based on British stories or characters, like Titanic, Lord of The Rings.. Lord of The Rings are written by an English writer and the movies are written directed and produced by British and New Zealand people and companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.90.17 (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it could be argued that "Hollywood movie" in this context means the Hollywood style of movie (akin to Bollywood etc) as opposed to actually being made/commissioned/financed by a Hollywood studio. WaggersTALK 14:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It was a U.S. production (New Line Cinema). TFD (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Great Britain (disambiguation) merge proposal

I'm proposing merging Great Britain (disambiguation) to Britain. See Talk:Britain#Merger proposal. Regards, Rob (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Why on earth would anyone choose to do that?
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

See discussion. Regards, Rob (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I'm unhappy about the reference to the UK being "a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe." In one sense it's obviously true; the problem is that it mixes a geographical description with a political one. The state is in Europe, politically. It is located on islands which are, geographically, "off the coast" of the continent. The wording used in this article is being used on other disambiguation pages, where the scope for confusion is much more apparent. Suggesting that the state itself is (or can be seen as) in some way separated from Europe by a stretch of sea is, in my view, a particular political POV. I've changed the wording accordingly, but anticipate further discussion here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the fundamental problem with identifying a political entity by reference to its geographic location. The two concepts are not entirely discrete after all, and a state occupies a space. I also don't see anything incorrect or even egregiously POV about suggesting the UK lies separate from continental Europe (although the emphasis on that point can be argued to lean towards a POV). Equally, if we're going to lead with describing the UK as being in a part of Europe, one could make a case that the UK is in "northern Europe" as much as it is "western Europe" when those terms are simply contrasted with southern and eastern Europe respectively. That said, and given that we're not talking about "right" or "wrong" descriptions as such, I equally don't see anything wrong with the change, not least because it offers a bit more detail. N-HH talk/edits 17:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The original statement was more accurate and correct. The UK is in both northern Europe and western Europe, it is both north and west from the centre of Europe. It's even located in the UN's Northern Europe region so to say its more politically correct is wrong. It also doesn't take into account the fact that the UK is located on islands, and it is debated as to whether islands are part of continents or not. It also explains that the UK is located on islands, and how far from Europe it is located. The whole idea is to give the reader a decent idea of where the state is located, the original statement made this far clearer. Regards, Rob (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree - but the problem is less with the wording of this article, than with the argument that identical wording needs to be used on disambiguation pages like Britain - where the need is to disambiguate between meanings rather than wording definitions in a potentially ambiguous way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

... the problem is that it mixes a geographical description with a political one.

I must also disagree with this. All sovereign states are tied to geography. If this was not true, speaking of where states such as the UK or Czech Republic are located would be incomprehensible nonsense.

Rob, be careful about using the UN geoscheme in this case. The UN has clearly indicated it is for statistical convenience only and should not be considered to indicate political affiliation or the most proper geographic grouping for states. —Sowlos  10:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: I've reverted Ghmyrtle's rewording. All opinions raised thus far seem to disagree with it for one reason or another. I—personally—am not against tweaking the wording if it bothers some, but it obviously needs more discussion first. —Sowlos 

You seem to be ignoring N-HH's comment...("I equally don't see anything wrong with the change, not least because it offers a bit more detail....)... but, anyway, obviously I agree that some locational description should be used. What I object to - and it is clearly a non-neutral POV - is the suggestion that in some way the UK is not part of Europe. It is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not suggesting that the UK is not part of Europe. I don't know why you think that. It's also not suggesting that it is part of Europe. Whether the UK is part of Europe is debatable, as islands are only part of continents by convention, and not by the actually definition of a continent. (being a continuous landmass) Also, north-western, western and northern Europe are huge regions. The north-western coast of continental Europe is a very specific location, with only two sovereign states located there.

I also don't understand what you mean by 'need is to disambiguate between meanings rather than wording definitions in a potentially ambiguous way.' How is the description used on this article inappropriate for use on disambiguation pages?

Regards, Rob (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You claim that "whether the UK is part of Europe is debatable". That illustrates precisely why I am concerned about this series of edits. It is not debatable at all. It's not part of continental Europe, but it is unquestionably, by all definitions and all reliable sources, part of Europe. The basic definition of the UK needs to make that clear. It needs to make clear that it is located on islands that are separated from continental Europe by a stretch of sea. But, the UK as a political entity - which is the only meaning the term has - is part of Europe, and its definition should be unequivocally precise about that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Its within Europe both politically and geographically and we should amend it to make that clear. Sounds like trying to win a 'get out of Europe' referendum by proxy ----Snowded ^TALK 19:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The European Union and Europe are too completely different things. Europe is a geographic region and I personally think the UK is part Europe, but I don't think that is 'not debatable at all'. Regards, Rob (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Why does it need to make that clear? The fact that a political entity, the United Kingdom is part of a geographic entity, Europe is not important at all. The point is to make clear the location of the state, in relation to other geographic entities. Not to describe what geographic entity it is part of. I think that the current statement describes the location of the state much clearer then the proposed statement. Regards, Rob (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I also have no idea how Europe is a political entity. It's use in a political sense is obsolete, the only pan-European organisation I can think of is the Council of Europe. Regards, Rob (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a very limited definition of "political". Perhaps "socio-cultural" would be a better term. "Why does it need to make that clear?" - because we are writing an encyclopedia, and "making it clear", not confusing readers, is what we are here to do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be upfront about this. I really don't think you're considering my points, but rather picking out little things that really don't matter. My key problems with your suggestion are:

• The UK is in north-west Europe, it is both north and west of the centre point of Europe, north-west Europe is a smaller region then west Europe and thus is more informative. So if we were to change the terminology, 'north-west Europe' would be more appropriate.
• The current terminology does not suggest that the UK is not part of Europe, if anything it suggests that it is by the use of the term 'continental Europe', if it wasn't part of Europe, you wouldn't say that it was off the coast of continental Europe, but instead that it was off the coast of Europe.
• The current terminology also is more informative overall, it explains that the UK is located on islands, and how far from continental Europe it is located. I don't see how the fact that the UK is part of Europe is even important. What is Europe? A region of Eurasia in which the only political entity operating solely across the region is the Council of Europe. How is this important? I agree that it's the best region to describe that it is inside of, however why is describing that it is inside a region any better then describing that it's next to a region?

The fact that I see no reason to describe the state as inside Europe, and the fact that describing it as being next to continental Europe is more specific without increasing the length of the lead by a significant amount, I don't want to see the lead changed. Apologies for my rudeness, Rob (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

But you do want reference to it being a part of Europe removed from other pages. Europe is the recognised geographical and political region, something you can't really escape from. Continental Europe smacks of the famous "Europe Cut off" headline in the Daily Express. You have said elsewhere that the language should be the same on multiple articles, well then this one needs changing. Any modern geographical reference uses Europe, not 'off the coast of continental Europe' and that really does settle it, unless the motivation for this is a political dislike of Europe? ----Snowded ^TALK 05:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Both versions mix "a geographical description with a political one". If people decide they wish to first describe the UK's relation to Europe in wholly political terms, the sentence should describe the UK as a sovereign state within the European Union. Whether such a statement is more important in the lead than describing where the entity lies, is a matter for debate. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I inadvertently confused people by referring to a "political" definition of Europe. What I meant was the conventional socio-cultural definition of Europe, as shown on that map over there >>>>>>>>>>>>>

The UK is not "off the coast" using that definition. It is coloured white, within Europe. I agree with Snowded that the argument that the UK is not part of Europe is one that is pushed by a particular political party, so it needs to be treated with caution as a non-neutral POV. The problem, incidentally, is less with this article than with other articles, such as the disamb page for Britain, where Rob is seeking to confuse rather than clarify by insisting that a definition identical to the one in this article should be used for disambiguation purposes. The solution is either to refute that argument on that article's talk page, or to accept the validity of the argument by using a more precise definition in this article, along the lines of the wording I have suggested here: "The United Kingdom... is a sovereign state in western Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands, located off the north-western coast of the continent." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, the current terminology does not suggest that the UK is off the coast of Europe. I don't why you think it. If anything, it suggests that it is part of Europe, as I explained above. I also am not insisting that on disambiguation pages a definition identical to that on articles should be used, I've said twice now that 'Although the description on this page doesn't have to be identical as the one there, it should be based on it.' This is in order to keep consistency and ensure the best description is used on all pages. As Sowlos has said, this discussion is taking on a circular nature, and it really isn't helping by completely ignoring my reasoning and suggesting that my opinion is somehow politically motivated. Regards, Rob (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Many good points have been made, but the discussion appears to be taking on a circular nature. If I may, I suggest we slow slow down, start over, and make sure we're all on the same page and arguing about the same things. Lets start with:

• The UK is a northwestern European state
• The UK is composed of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and several other associated islands
• The UK is physically located a short distance off the coast of continental Europe

1. Is there disagreement over any of the above three bullets?
2. Do we agree that all should be communicated in the lead's introductory sentences?
3. If 'yes', in what way do you see the current lead as effectively or ineffectively communicating the points?

 —Sowlos  17:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that the fact that the UK is a European state should be communicated in the lead, even though it does already suggest this. Although I agree that Europe is the most predominate region that the UK is part of, I see no reason as to why we need to describe that it is located in a region, when instead we could describe what region it is located near as this is more informative in this case, as I have explained above. Regards, Rob (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that, for a global audience, it needs to be communicated, first of all, that the UK is in Europe - not "off the coast" of Europe. One definition of the UK is that it comprises Great Britain and Northern Ireland. No more and no less - a point that is communicated in the full name of the state. An alternative phraseology is that it is located on the island of Great Britain, part of Ireland, and smaller neighbouring islands. However, it is confusing to state that it is "composed of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and several other associated islands", because those "other islands" (Anglesey, Shetland, etc.) are themselves part of either Great Britain in a political sense (that is, England, Scotland and Wales), or Northern Ireland.

Re "...physically located a short distance off the coast of continental Europe" - setting aside the argument that the islands are clearly part of the same geological landmass (Eurasia), I would much prefer a statement along the lines of "the UK is located on islands that are situated a short distance off the coast of continental Europe". But, as I said, I had no real problem with the wording of the opening sentence of this article before Rob started making wholesale edits across a large number of pages of which this was just one. I would prefer a wording that improves the current wording here, but if established consensus is against making changes to this article, then the focus should be on making sure that disambiguation pages such as Britain do disambiguate rather than, as it were, ambiguate.

Rob seems to think that changes to the wording at Britain should follow the agreed wording here. That is wrong - the purpose of the opening sentence of an article like this, to give an accessible overview, is quite different to the purpose of a disamb page like Britain where quite subtle variations in definition need to be distinguished in order to direct readers to the appropriate article. Discussions about Britain should take place on that article talk page, not here.Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't said why you think it needs to be communicated that the UK is in Europe, you are simply repeating your self after I have already explained why I am against this.

Regarding ways of expanding on the current statement that it is 'situated off the north-western coast of continental Europe', I really don't think it needs to be changed as proposed suggestions don't give the reader any better idea of the location of the state. Although concise, the current description gives a very accurate description of the states location because the region 'off north-western coast of continental Europe' is not a very large and pretty much entirely compromises of the UK and Republic of Ireland.

Lastly, you talk about how 'quite subtle variations in definition need to be distinguished', and I completely agree, however I would say this applies to both disambiguation descriptions and lead descriptions as they both have to be concise and allow the term to be quickly distinguished. I think the description here is perfectly suitable for use on disambiguation pages, and is more appropriate then any others however if you disagree then we can have a separate discussion at Britain, effectively repeating this discussion, but taking into account factors that you may think are exclusive to disambiguation pages, however I would appreciate it if you would wait until consensus is reached here, as I believe the outcome will speed up the discussion there.

Regards, Rob (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, like I have said many times before, the current terminology does not say that the UK is located off the coast of Europe and actually hints that it is part of Europe by the fact that it compares the state with a region within Europe, when comparing it to Europe would be appropriate otherwise. Rob (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: "You still haven't said why you think it needs to be communicated that the UK is in Europe" - because this is a global encyclopedia where these basic facts should be set out, and the continents are generally regarded as the clearest first stage in describing the global location of countries. Simply "hinting" that it is part of Europe is utterly inadequate. As I have said previously, I believe it is confusing and misleading to mix political (or socio-cultural) with physical geographical descriptions in a single sentence, in terms such as "...a state located off the coast...". But, if you were to abandon the idea of changing the disambiguation terms at Britain so as to use phrases that could confuse readers rather than clarify, this discussion could be concluded very quickly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a slight preference for Ghmyrtle's wording, though still think that both versions mix political and physical definitions, and that's not in itself wrong in my view. (I also personally think that if the opening line stated that the UK was a sovereign state located within the Eurovision Song Contest, a good proportion of readers wouldn't notice there was anything amiss, but then perhaps I'm being a bit cynical this morning....) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

'continents are generally regarded as the clearest first stage in describing the global location of countries', so we are going to go with whatever most common rather then distinguishing what is most appropriate? I hear this argument too many times on Wikipedia, what other Dictionaries/Encyclopaedias/Sources use to describe the location of this state is not necessarily most appropriate. What is used here, should be based on what we think best describes the location of the state by how understandable, accurate and concise it is, not by how common it is. Also I don't understand how 'Europe' is more socio-cultural, or political then 'continental Europe'. From what I can see, they are both geographic regions, and both are well known however the use of the term 'continental Europe' makes describing the location of the state more accurate and concise. I'm not sure what exactly you are inferring by 'if you were to abandon the idea of changing the disambiguation terms at Britain so as to use phrases that could confuse readers rather than clarify, this discussion could be concluded very quickly', but if you are not against changing the lead on this article as long as descriptions on disambiguation pages are not changed, then you are on the wrong talk page, and instead should debate whether the terms should be changed on disambiguation articles at Britain, however I'm pretty sure I would be arguing the exact same points, as most apply to both descriptions. Regards, Rob (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason as to why we need to describe that it is located in a region, when instead we could describe what region it is located near as this is more informative
— User:WheelerRob

I don't follow your logic. Describing where a thing is located is always more informative then describing what it's near to. Furthermore, communicating that the UK is in north-western Europe is no different than stating that Germany is "in western-central Europe", Ukraine "in Eastern Europe", or Russia "in northern Eurasia". The only motivation I can see behind wanting to break with convention is if you are of the opinion that the UK is not European, but simply a European neighbour, and therefore try to avoid wordings emphasising European-ness.

I believe it is confusing and misleading to mix political (or socio-cultural) with physical geographical descriptions in a single sentence, in terms such as "...a state located off the coast...".
— User:Ghmyrtle

I disagree that the two can be segregated. Firstly, the definition of Europe itself can be considered political. Secondly, the definition of a state is intrinsically tied to geography. After all, there can be no state without the land.
My personal position is: the UK should in some way be indicated to be European (all wordings so far seem to do this), it also should be indicated to be physically detached from the mainland, and "northwestern" is more accurate than "western" in the UK's case. —Sowlos 

The current terminology isn't more informative because it describes what region it is located near, however describing what region it is located near allows a shorter more informative description. As I have already said, the phrase "located off the north-western coast of continental Europe" narrows down the location of the state very precisely, and also makes clear it is detached from continental Europe but is also concise. Current proposed suggestions are either very concise but inaccurate such as "located in north-western Europe" or are very long-winded but don't acutually give the reader any better idea of the location of the state, such as "located in north-western Europe off the coast of continental Europe". Apologies for the confusion. I think maybe using "mainland Europe" instead of "continental Europe" (which could be mistaken as "the continent of Europe") makes clear that the UK is part of Europe. Regards, Rob (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a look at the wording in the articles on neighbouring states/countries would help bring clarity (from south-west to north-east so that the view is more than just London based):

• France officially the French Republic is a unitary semi-presidential republic in Western Europe
• Belgium, officially the Kingdom of Belgium, is a federal monarchy in Western Europe.
• The Netherlands is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, consisting of twelve provinces in North-West Europe and three islands in the Caribbean.
• Germany, officially the Federal Republic of Germany is a federal parliamentary republic in western-central Europe.
• Denmark , officially the Kingdom of Denmark, is a sovereign state in Northern Europe, ...
• Norway, officially the Kingdom of Norway, is a Scandinavian unitary constitutional monarchy whose territory comprises the western portion of the Scandinavian Peninsula,...

Also the other similar European island nations (excluding those in the Mediterranean):

• Ireland, also known as the Republic of Ireland, is a sovereign state in Europe occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland.
• Iceland is a Nordic island country marking the juncture between the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

-- PBS (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the present wording would be improved by stating up front that the UK is part of Europe, not merely "situated off" the coast of Europe. In my view, Rob is wrong about this. -- Alarics (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, the precise wording is off the coast of continental Europe, which is accurate, even if it can be taken as suggesting distance from Europe politically. As usual with this kind of thing, I'm not sure there's a need to read too much into what are ultimately equally valid alternatives, based simply on which one we happen to prefer. Ghmyrtle proposed a more comprehensive version with this edit, which includes both options. It might be slightly more ungainly overall, but it surely should keep everyone happy? N-HH talk/edits 13:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have made clear why I'm against any change to the current lead apart from changing continental Europe to mainland Europe to reduce confusion. I still see no reason why we need to show that the UK is part of Europe, Ghmyrtle has only justified his claim by the fact that other sources describe the state as being within Europe, and ignoring that the lead is suppose to provide a concise and accurate description of the location of the state. The entire lead should be concise, and the fact that the UK is located within Europe is irrelevant. Rob (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Surely it's a rather germane fact that the UK is part of Europe in a geopolitical sense? I'm not sure one WP editor's insistence that it somehow isn't overrides what serious real-world sources regularly choose to highlight as a defining characteristic. The fact that those others sources do exactly that strikes me as being better justification for our including it here than one person's bald assertion "I don't think it's relevant" is for excluding it. Indeed, per WP practice and guidelines, it's very much exactly the justification we need. N-HH talk/edits 21:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with N-HH. -- Alarics (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I must agree as well. Only one editor seems to be contesting the validity and/or relevance of defining the UK as European. It is clearly relevant (and encyclopaedic) to identify what region a state is part of.

Still, multiple editors have raised issues with the current and proposed intros. I would like to offer some potential compromise intros for consideration. Each places the UK in "northwestern" rather than simply western Europe and each retains mention of the UK's non-contiguous location.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a sovereign state in northwestern Europe, located 20.6 miles (33.2 km) from the mainland.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a northwestern European sovereign state located 20.6 miles (33.2 km) from the mainland.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a sovereign state in northwestern Europe, located 20.6 miles (33.2 km) off the coast of France.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a northwestern European sovereign state located 20.6 miles (33.2 km) off the coast of France.

 —Sowlos  08:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

All those make sense to me, although I'd rather avoid the construction in options 2 and 4, which leaves us effectively with three adjectives in a row ahead of state. Beyond that, I'd prefer 1 I think, maybe amended to say "continental mainland" for uber-clarity. N-HH talk/edits 08:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't support any of those, simply because I think the over-precise measurement of distance is wholly inappropriate for an introductory sentence in an article like this. I reiterate - I don't have a big problem with the current wording in this article. It's not perfect, and I've suggested my preferred wording - "The United Kingdom... is a sovereign state in western Europe. The country includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands, located off the north-western coast of the continent" - but I find many of the other proposals, including those by User:Sowlos, worse than what is there now. What I have a bigger problem with is the insistence by one editor that, because a particular wording is used in this article, identical wording should be used on disambiguation pages. But, as far as I'm concerned, that discussion can take place elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm would prefer the terms 'continental Europe' and 'mainland Europe' rather then 'the mainland' or 'the Continent' as these are ambiguous. Also as Ghmyrtle says, the precision is not needed. I would suggest:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a sovereign state located in north-west Europe. Located[Situated] off the coast of continental Europe, the state includes the island of Great Britain, the north-east[ern part] of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands.

This gives a reasonably accurate description of the location of the state, with the requested inclusion that it's within Europe. (which I still disagree with but, life's too short) I also changed 'north-western' and 'north-eastern' to 'north-west' and 'north-east' to make the lead more consistent and flow better. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That's OK (not perfect, but OK), so long as "the north-east of the island of Ireland" is changed to "the north-eastern part...". Stating that a place is "north-east of..." somewhere suggests it is outside that place. A clearer wording would be, as I suggested, "the north-eastern part of...". "North-west Europe" is fine. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair point about the over-precision when it comes to miles, now you mention it, although I guess that could be tweaked out. I'd be broadly OK with Rob's suggestion too, subject to the "part" addition; although the double "located" and double "Europe" in quick succession aren't ideal. N-HH talk/edits 20:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The double occurrence of "located" is easily dealt with -- just delete the first one of them, as it is entirely redundant. "Located in north-west Europe" just means "in north-west Europe". -- Alarics (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

See edit. Could also changed 'Located off the coast of' to 'Situated off the coast of'? Rob (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think the double 'Europe' is necessary. Calling it 'the Mainland' or 'the Continent' is ambiguous. Rob (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with removing the first "located"; but prefer "located" to "situated" for the second occurrence. I don't think "the continent" is ambiguous given the piping, and it's less clunky than using the full term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

My preference is 'mainland Europe' as I think it is most internationally used, and to some, 'continental Europe' or 'the continent' could be seen as meaning the whole of Europe, as the British Isles are part of the continent of Europe, thus suggesting that the UK is not part of Europe. I agaist 'the mainland' as this is completely ambiguous and its accuracy is debatable. Rob (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think 'includes... ...the north-east of the island of Ireland' could be misunderstood as meaning outside that place. Because it is preceded by 'includes... ...the', I don't think 'ern part of' is necessary. Something including the north-east of something else, would never mean something outside of that. My preference currently is:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a sovereign state in north-west Europe. Situated off the coast of mainland Europe, the state includes the island of Great Britain, the north-east of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands.

Rob (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's more a question of style and, perhaps, grammar. "The north-east of the island of Ireland" is not a construction in common use, and it is capable of being misunderstood. "The north-eastern part of the island of Ireland" is a more commonly used and preferable form of words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a sovereign state in north-west Europe. Situated off the coast of mainland Europe, the state includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of Ireland, and many smaller islands. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

In fact as we state "and many smaller islands" we don't even need to state that Great Britain is one as the end of that sentence should imply that Great Britain and Ireland are islands. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

...or, as we say "includes", we could simply remove the mention of the "other smaller islands": The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a sovereign state in north-west Europe. Situated off the coast of mainland Europe, the state includes the island of Great Britain and the north-eastern part of Ireland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I dont think we should ignore the fact there are smaller islands around the United Kingdom apart from the two main islands. I am also concerned about the implications of that proposed change. That would do away with the current second sentence which starts "The country...". I see a sentence further in the introduction saying the United Kingdom is a country in its own right has already also been removed, not ideal wording at the time i accept but it at least made a clear statement of fact. The removal of country from the second sentence would result in additional misunderstanding by some people, and be yet another example of the UK being degraded and undermined on wikipedia, even though in this case it would be unintentional. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair point, I'm currently with:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK), Great Britain (GB) or Britain, is a sovereign state in north-west Europe. Situated off the coast of mainland Europe, the country includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of Ireland, and many smaller islands.

Rob (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups

Given how rapidly the UK's demographics are changing, the 2001 ethnic survey on the table is quite severely out of date. Can someone please replace it with the 2011 census? Kapitulasjon (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

UK or United Kingdom?

The article refers to the state as both the UK and United Kingdom throughout. Since both are made clear in the lead, shouldn't one be chosen and used exclusively? Rob (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Variety is fine surely? As long as each term is accurate, and each is clearly being used as a synonym for the other, it makes the prose less repetitive to the reader. N-HH talk/edits 11:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Support the variety - no confusion, and consistency is unnecessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Me too. There are cases where this sort of variation is unhelpful, but surely not here. No need for consistency for its own sake. garik (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Units of measure dispute.

A dispute regarding units of measure has been taking place at WP:UNITS. One of the editors involved, User:Wee Curry Monster (WCM) has taken this dispute to this article by changing the order in which units of measure are stated from metric-first to imperial-first, even thought this article has been metric-first (or metric-only) for many years. In my view, WCM has mis-interpreted WP:UNITS. I reverted, but User:FactController (FC) reinstated WCM's changes. I reverted that, so a third editor User:Mabuska reinstated the changes. Until now, neither WCM or FC had ever contributed to this article.

In order to avoid a 3RR ban, I would like the opinion of regular contributors to this article. Martinvl (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

My view is that this edit-warring, which is already happening, should stop immediately, and the involved editors should immediately go to find more productive ways of contributing to the encyclopedia. I note that at least two of those involved in this dispute have had a history of confrontation over the Falkland Islands article. Additionally, there is already a discussion in progress on the talk page for WP:UNITS which has obviously spilled over into the edit warring here! The situation of units of measurement in British articles is not a smoothly consistent one, and this is acknowleged by many. It will not be sorted out by editors previously involved in disputes on other articles or wikipedia pages jumping into this article or any other article that uses metric or imperial units and starting edit-wars on those articles when the discussion should remain and be confined to the wikipedia pages on units until a clear decision is forthcoming. You should all know better than this, because you all have a reasonable length of editing history on wikipedia (one even claims to be retired from editing!) So, I advise those involved in beginning this tedious little spat here to stop, withdraw, and do not bring to this page disputes that are already underway on other pages. Discuss the issues on the talk page thread relevant to WP:UNITS, but confine it there until the issues are resolved or attrition wears you out if you must. If necessary, I will protect this article and may do other things to protect this and other articles becoming dragged into a general kind of edit-warring.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The policy at WP:UNITS seems pretty clear to me: "...the main quantity is generally expressed in metric units", then some exceptions are given. If something is not among those listed exceptions, a pretty strong case would be needed to justify imperial as the primary units. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree that this is, of course, pretty trivial. But whatever one's personal views about which is a "better" system, and despite the fact that the UK has gone semi-metric, it's uncontroversial that distances in the UK are still almost universally expressed in miles not kilometres. As noted, the guidelines reflects that fact in the exemptions by specifying "miles" and "miles per hour" as the "main units" for UK articles in "contexts" such as this. N-HH talk/edits 09:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. As I said, it's very clear. Only someone pushing a POV or displaying incompetence could really go off track. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

From WP:MOSNUM "Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.". I added emphasis to bring a point out.

Also from WP:MOSNUM units are predominantly metric with the exceptions "miles, miles per hour, and fuel consumption in miles per imperial gallon".

The original edit meant the article became inconsistent in that unit precedence switched. This edit simply restored consistency per WP:MOSNUM by putting miles first in accordance with the listed exceptions and the prior state of the article. As this was reverted, I clearly indicated I would not indulge in an edit war here, over such a trivial issue. There is no dispute, other editors simply reverted a change that was counter to WP:MOSNUM. You may wish to consider this thread in the light of a more accurate summary, which I would suggest is an utter waste of everyone's time. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The primary way of stating distance in the UK is by miles not kilometers. The guideline even states it as an exception! All of our road signs use miles, our cars have miles stated more prominently than km, the speed limit is in miles per hour. Per the guideline, Martinvl is in the wrong here imposing metric on distances in an article about a country where distance is primarily stated in miles. If you check UK settlement articles, miles is used first when referring to distances between places, i.e. Troon, Tobermore, Bangor, Gwynedd#Geography and Berwick-upon-Tweed as four random articles, one from each part of the UK, where this convention is in evidence. WCM is in the right here with his edit, no matter how trivial it is.. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. My comments, above, were directed solely at the edit warring that was going on (and I don't want any arguments along the lines of "please sir, it was him that started it", either). These points should have been made on this page or elsewhere without initiating or responding further to reversions. I propose that edits are made to establish miles, etc as the appropriate units, and the matter is closed.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@DarkGreen: Are you proposing that the position in this article be changed or that it remain as it was before the conflict spilt over onto this page? Martinvl (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks clear that he is proposing putting miles first. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary - he asked that the edit-war stop. This means reverting everything, unless of course he is being a hypocrite by entering the edit-war and asking that it stop at his favoured position. Martinvl (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the last sentence? Looks like a formal proposal which is how this issue should of went. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Per DarkGreen's suggestion I believe the article is now consistent and in line with WP:MOSNUM, brining it here for comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Whilst the miles for distance is now consistent with the exceptions given in WP:MOSNUM, the exceptions are not an exhaustive list as it states "including". As such I find it wholly feasible and appropriate to also "flip" the units in regards to square km and square miles. In the UK we state "square miles" first and foremost, and in is totally viable to be classified as an exception. It would also make the whole geography section consistent in style. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Will Mabuska please cite the reliable sources that out "square miles" first. If he is English, I suggest that he go to his local library and look at the local structure plan for his district/unitary authority/county etc. In it he will see that area are expressed in either hectares or square kilometres. If he looks at any school study guide (available in any decent bookshop), he will see that everything is in metric units. Martinvl (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Upon reflection you are quite correct, however who said anything about me being English? Not everyone in the United Kingdom is English seeing as it is only a part of the UK or do you not know that? I'm sure you can find a library book or study book that tells you that. See I can give lippy attitude back as well. Though why don't you go and amend the London article, it puts square miles first. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Then again maybe your not correct, Encyclopedia Britannica put square miles first: Armagh, Down, Wiltshire, Isle of Man, England. Search those articles for "square miles" and what comes first? Maybe you should write to them and complain. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I checked Encyclopeadia britanica - yes it uses square miles for the United Kingdom, but also for Germany - being an American publication it is part of their house style to use customary units first for everything, so you observation is invalid. Martinvl (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

1. My i.d. is DDStretch, not "DarkGreen" 2. I asked for the edit wear to stop, and it did. At that point, it is then quite acceptable for me to try to see what should happen. On reading the Manual of Style, it is clear that miles, etc are allowed. That is why I made the proposal. It merely suggest we apply what is allowed in the Manual of Style, and what some others have identifiedc as being quite common in other, related articles dealing with UK issues. 3. Martinvl accuses me of being a hypocrite. I suggest he withdraws that or there may be consequences concerning this personal attack here. It devalues his arguments completely. Just because his edits have not prevailed, there is no cause to begin with insults. I note his behaviour here. 4. That's it.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not being pursued in the correct place now. The discussion (if one can call what is regrettably descending into insult and squabbles) should be pursued on the talk pages of the appropriate manual of style articles: the talk page of WP:UNITS, for example. I urge you to do that if you feel that all articles should start to use metric units.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for using the name "DarkGreen" - I picked it up in error when reading your signature in edit mode.

For the rest, the principle of WP:BRD requires that if we discuss then we revert back to the original state and discuss, not make the change and then discuss. Martinvl (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It was discussed. Your objection was found to have little basis, because the changes you objected to were allowed under the manual of style. So, it was changed. You can perpetuate the discussion if you want, but it seems like delaying tactics to some, I suggest. You don't like using miles, etc. I also don't, in fact, because I favour SI units, but I go by what is in the manual of style and I do not try to changes things in articles when others object. In other words, I get over it and work within what is allowed and with other editors, which means compromise and accepting defeat on occasions. If you want to make a change to the manual of style, go and start or perpetuate a discussion there.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for getting your name wrong DDStretch, I should wear my reading glasses more often as I picked it up from the colour scheme in your signature. To answer Mabuska's query, MoS suggests we maintain the status quo on articles, since areas were predominantly already in Sq km, I chose to flip the one example that wasn't to achieve consistency. And as the article was originally written per MoS to put miles first that is what I did. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I also favour metric over imperial for most things, I too sacrifice my own beliefs to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines many times, which in this case makes perfect sense as imperial is the predominant way of showing distance in the UK. On Encyclopedia Britannica, it's an easy mistake to make based on the name of it, maybe they should rename it Encyclopedia Americana instead 8-/ Mabuska ^(talk) 09:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted all the units of measure changes that were made, ostensibly as a result as changes to WP:UNITS. Changes to that page only affect engineering structures, not discussions related physical geography. Please do not reinsert changes until the current version of WP:UNITS has been clarified. The view of User:RGloucester ([here]) is that " Metric can take priority, except for road speeds, road distances, personal heights and personal weights" - a number of other editors have taken a similar view. Martinvl (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't RGloucester's last word on the subject. In this later edit he said "In most cases, miles should be used for distances. I don't think anyone would say otherwise." This preference for miles is the consensus, and I would remind you that WP:Consensus says "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity", so your dissenting voice doesn't give you a veto, Martin. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite simply, there is no consensus, so the last stable version is the version that must prevail. That is the basis of WP:BRD. (Obviously changes to the article that are unrelated to this dispute should remain). Moreover, the meaning of WP:UNITS should be discussed on that page, not here. Martinvl (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Huh? No consensus? Everyone who has commented AFAICT, except one person, says both the guidelines and real-world usage favours miles. N-HH talk/edits 21:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

ps: I'm loath to get involved in an edit war over this but I have reverted Martin's reversion. I'd seriously advise you to drop this Martin. The consensus here is clear and I really don't see the need for this to take up any more talk page space or article back-and-forth than it already has. Looking further into it, this seems to be some kind of personal mission across the site and even off-WP on the part of one user, and it's very, very boring for everyone else. Please stop trying to impose your personal preferences on everyone else. N-HH talk/edits 21:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't appreciate being quoted for sake of petty disputes over units. Martin, please refrain from trying to use my words to bolster an argument I hardly care about. Furthermore, you were present for that discussion and know well and truly that what you've quoted wasn't the full extent of my opinion on the matter, and misrepresented what I was saying. RGloucester — ☎ 21:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I also dislike (unjustly) being called a hypocrite by Martin, which I note he has not yet withdrawn or struck out, despite it being a clear personal attack.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)