Talk:List of United Kingdom–related topics

On one hand, we agreed that the link should be "Jedi census phenomenon'", because 'movement' sounds too unified, where it's mostly considered a joke. However, what the article said about Jedi not being a religion in 2001 was unnecessary. There are people that legitimately claim to be Jedi and though I'm not one of them, I've known several personally, and it's not entirely a joke. So, while I think it's important the census should be mostly attributed to a prank, you shouldn't claim or imply "it's not a religion." Even saying "it's not an official religion" isn't necessary, as the Jedi phenomenon link says that as well, and stating Jedi (DONT WORRIE, NOT A RELIGION!!!) seems rather tawdry, as if you're trying to ensure that people with "real" religions reading it aren't going to be offended.

Oh, one thing, though. Someone'll have to check the source on this, but I believe the Census said "Jedi Knight", though I'm not sure what they include, whether it's "Jedi Knight", or just "Jedi", all as one group. Nathyn 10:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Follow America into war with Iraq ; talk:Iraq
the weather(!)

Move[edit]

For the sake of consistency, let's move this to List of United Kingdom-related topics. --Jiang 10:44, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Let's not. Mintguy

Why? --Jia ng

If you are to engage in a move war with me, then please justify your position. --Jia ng 09:23, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

from User talk:Jiang:

What is your argument for moving "United Kingdom topics" (Google 400+ hits, admittedly a number of clones of Wikipedia) to "United Kingom related topics" (Google ZERO hits!)? Please don't put me in a position of defending a move back to a logical title, when no good argument was proposed for the move you made. Consistency is no argument. I can give you a loads od examples of inconsistent article titles. If anything you should make the consistentcy work the other way round. I created the UK topics page long before there were pages about other countreis. Mintguy 04:11, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My argument is above. I don't see how you can dismiss it. Is consistency bad? What's wrong with consistency? It doesn't really matter that the other location has more google hits because the pages redirect to each other. Soon enough, this will have more hits too. If I remember correctly, you created this page at UK topics, not List of United Kingdom topics.

Under your argument, all page moves should not be permitted if it is indexed by google. It makes no sense.

If can find loads of other example of inconsistent article titles, then please do. Let me know of them.--Jia ng 07:07, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Barring a glitch, this article was started on Apr 26 2003, while List of China-related topics dates back to November 2002. --Jia ng 09:12, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jiang. Google hits are only really an issue with articles dealing with proper nouns; the point is to make the article title match what most people will be searching for. Thus, consistency takes second place, which is why major Taiwanese are listed with different romanizations than major Chinese, following popular usage rather than consistency. With lists on the other hand, people will generally try searches matching the pattern of the other lists of the same type they've seen, so consistency makes sense here. And as for enforcing consistency, whatever "pattern" of name (With -related or without) shouldn't matter (and as Jiang pointed out, the original name of this page was UK topics), what matters is what's most used, since that leads to less work in making everything consistent (assuming both alternatives are roughly equal in merit, and I don't think anyone's disputed that here). --Xiaopo's Talk 09:06, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)

The original name of this page was not UK Topics. UK Topics was created as a redirect in July of 2003. The page was first created as Wikipedia:WikiProject UK on 19 Jun 2002 and was then cut and paste moved the same day to United Kingdom/Basic Topics. On 10 May 2003 [[1]] I made this a redirect to a page I had created in April at List of United Kingdom topics when I was unaware of the existence of a similar page. I have no desire to continue this dispute but to my ear "List of XXX-related topics" sounds awful. Mintguy

We really should get round to having pages on each parliamentary constituency current and former. http://www.leighrayment.com has a pretty comprehensive list, if someone wants to do the leg work. Mintguy (T) 17:31, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)~

Note for non-British visitors to article page[edit]

Non-British people should note that The 1707 Act Of Union and two subsequent Acts made the people of the U.K. one nation, but that is not allowed to be listed on The Wikipedia due to the political views of the people that control it.WikiUser 21:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suggest referring to our excellent articles on nation and state. If you are familiar with them, or with any general text in political science, I think you will agree that England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland qualify as "nations" if not sovereign states. At the very least, there is a solid argument in favor of considering them nations which has nothing to do with politics or race. Jwrosenzweig 21:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you refer to reality and the law and history of my country which my father fought for in the war. The U.K. Also you've got a nerve trying to "answer" me at all considering your targetting me for gratuitous abuse when I joined The Wikipidia. There's no "argument" involved. It's the law and fact, same as the U.S. ain't still called a French colony, and a British colony etc.WikiUser 18:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're being very silly, WikiUser, and worse, gratuitously rude and insulting. England and Wales have different systems of law from Scotland; England arrangement of government differs from Scotland differs from Wales differs from Northern Ireland ... you've yet to adduce any explanation beyond bluster and insult for your frankly odd views. Until you do so, because of your intemperate behavious, you can expect to be treated with contempt and derision by other wikipedians. --Tagishsimon (talk)

UK magazine category?[edit]

I have started making entries for magazines and notices we don't have a 'UK magazine' category. Would making one be an idea?

Vodex 19:42, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but I'm only an occasional visitor to this page. Any others for a consensus? Berek 13:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree to this proposal - Mahadevan Subramanian 07:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

areas[edit]

note that 'sea areas' are the divisions that are famously read out on the Shipping Forecast, so i've renamed the section to 'coastal areas', and included a link for the actual sea areas (also known as 'weather areas'). sheridan 11:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion[edit]

Object - proposed deletion not discussed in advance on talk page. Considerable work has gone into building the page, so opportunity for improvement should be given. Categories are not the same as lists. May now be obsolete, but let's discuss it at greater length first. --mervyn 19:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pending discussion, I removed the deletion notice which read:

{{dated prod|concern = {{{concern|Per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of topics by country and region]]. Consensus reached in similar cases, ex. [[Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board/Archive_8#Wikipedia:List_of_Poland-related_topics]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brazil-related topics]]. Not updated and obsoleted by categories.}}} --mervyn 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I object to the merge, because the List of basic United Kingdom topics was designed specifically for the set of country lists at Lists of basic topics, and it matches the country lists there in coverage and format. Its planned scope is limited compared to that of the List of United Kingdom-related topics, which may grow to be comprehensive. Also, links that are not part of the set are routinely removed from the main basic topics page, and so merging the List of basic United Kingdom topics would effectively remove it (it would no longer be basic), which would create a gap in coverage in the basic topics subsystem of Wikipedia's contents system. ;) The Transhumanist 08:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]