Talk:Culture of the United Kingdom

Article title

Hello editors,

I think this article and the subsequent content might be accidentally conflating two slightly different topics. Although the article title refers to 'Culture of the United Kingdom', the article then opens by calling the topic 'British culture', suggesting the two are interchangeable.

However, the two are not interchangeable. For example, Irish Catholic culture of Northern Ireland would fall under the category of Culture of the United Kingdom (and the definition provided by the lead, but certainly not British culture. On the other hand, there are aspects of British culture which fall outside the idea of the Culture of the United Kingdom. The Channel Islands, Isle of Man and British Overseas Territories are not part of the United Kingdom. Therefore their cultures do not make up part of the Culture of the United Kingdom. Their cultures do however make up part of British culture.

I therefore propose one of the following: (a) The article is moved to 'British culture' and content on non-UK British culture permitted, or (b) the reference to British culture in the lead is replaced with 'Culture of the United Kingdom'. I did not want to make any changes without consulting the wider community first. Thank you. Jèrriais janne (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The article is far too long

The culture of the UK is a large topic and a small article cannot be expected to cover it. Nevertheless, the editing guidelines suggest breaking out parts of articles over 100kB. This page is currently at 364kB, or 194,695 characters.

There are several sections that could probably be condensed quite easily without affecting their quality. 'Regional accents', for instance, does not necessarily two paragraphs of examples when a link to Regional accents of English could direct readers to a much more comprehensive article, leaving only a summary on this page. Eleanor_of_Aquitaine 23:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Regards 100kB size, that doesn’t include references. Cat Hudson (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It would still be far too long even without them. As a rough comparison, Culture of France is 80kb, Culture of Germany is 52kB, and Culture of the United States is 126kB. That's not to say they're better articles, but it does indicate this one does not need to be as long as it is. There may well be justifiable reasons for this article to be over 100kB, but we can't assess that until a thorough edit has been completed. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2019

Reducing the article length: plan and principles

Having attempted to edit down several sections of the article, I would like to propose a few general principles to be followed when doing so, as well as an overall plan for anyone who wishes to contribute. This is not me laying down the law, but simply what I have found useful. I'd appreciate any help greatly.

Editing

1. Sections of the article should act as overviews – there is no need for them to be complete articles in themselves as most topics already have a full article, which can be linked to. A few paragraphs is enough for most.
2. A thematic approach is generally better than lists of examples. A list of composers in the 'music' section is less informative than a description of British classical music, for example.
3. Excessive examples or detail are not needed. This article is an overview, not an in-depth description of every part of British culture.
4. Where a topic is particularly lage, as with the music or sport, it is better to divide it into short sub-sections with links to the appropriate main articles.
5. Until the article has been entirely edited down, using more than one image per section or sub-section should be considered carefully, as they significantly increase the article size and do not always improve legibility.

Plan

I have been working chronologically through the article and not moving on to a new section until the current one is edited down to a reasonable size, is legible, and provides a reasonable thematic account of its area. I have been through the entire article to remove images and restructure it into a form I consider more logical. My long-term plan once the article has been edited is to revisit each section and look at where it can be improved – through citations, rewriting, and improved focus in particular. Current sections should not, therefore, be taken to represent their final form, but simply a reasonble standard at which to leave them for the moment.

Finally, I'd like to stress that editing this article will take the work of multiple editors, and I do not assume that my standards or decisions will be shared by everyone. My goal is simply to streamline an article that has become too large to effectively convey the information contained within it, and maybe even upgrade its rating in the process. If you have any comments please reply to this post.

Eleanor_of_Aquitaine 18:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Subsections is an issue. Go back through article history, it’s been tagged for having too many. Examples are fine so long as they don’t become lists, which is (was) the case in the article. Cat Hudson (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Examples are not fine when there are many of them and they do not add to the overall understanding of the topic. Even singling out one person/group/concept as exemplar should be done carefully when discussing the culture of an entire nation. While I agree that the article shouldn't have too many subsections, until the whole thing has been edited we won't know which can be combined or possibly removed. The contents may have to be long for a while. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2019

The article as it looks now, with your edits, is a mess. Not just the plethora of subsections, huge spaces, cramped text. There’s the material that’s been removed: an example, Hitchcock’s British films (including the first British sound film) removed, the films that made him world renowned and also took him to Hollywood. Why are you signing in under two different names btw? Cat Hudson (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That's because I'm mid-way through editing the overall 'Arts' section. The big space at the end of 'cinema' is there because I intended to move straight on to 'broadcasting', but was not able to. It's my mistake for leaving it there, but I have usually only published edits when the edited content is at an acceptable standard. Since there's a lot to do mistakes will happen. I don't understand what you mean about cramped text, or your objection to subsections – dividing the 'music' section into three seems an efficient and logical way to cover the different types of British music. The section is now shorter and more concise than it was without the subheadings.

This article is not about Alfred Hitchcock, and there is no need to include a summary of his films – mentioning his significance is enough. His first sound film is probably worth a mention, but because it is the first British sound film, not specifically because it is a Hitchcock film. Where I have mentioned individual films it is because they won the best picture Oscar, the BFI has ranked them highly, or because they are a significant example of an important genre. I do think the section needs more work overall, though.

I'm signing under two different names because apparently at some point I changed my nickname, and I've only just noticed. I've fixed it now, sorry! A.D.Hope (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the article is concerned with UK culture, the emphasis is on the UK, or should be. Your editing has given a significant non UK slant. I’m not British, so when I read about British culture I don't expect to read X did X outside the UK. If you looked at the article as it stands you would think the UK has no film industry (for a period in the 1970s to an extent that was true); conversely, the part on the British influence on Hollywood itself has been expunged. Cat Hudson (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's fair, particularly if you're referring to my overall editing. The major references to other countries in the 'cinema' section reflect the US influence on British film, the use of the Oscars as a general guide to notable films, and Alfred Hitchcock's career (which I still think is over-emphasised). These are all relevant references, and generally linked to wider movements in the British film industry. The paragraph on British influences on Hollywood films was more of a list; if it was added back in it would have to be in a restructured form that actually gave context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.D.Hope (talk • contribs) 21:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

‘Other countries’ is not a good yardstick given the significant contribution of British cinema in comparison. In a ‘world culture’ article your edits would be more apt..although even then it would be lopsided, underplaying the British role and cross pollination in world cinema. Using that one example I mentioned, Hitchcock’s British thrillers set the tone for an entire genre. In music, heavy metal (with its origins in Birmingham, England), gone. Nursery rhymes, vanished. There’s trimming, which is needed, and then there is eradicating. Again, British culture, that’s the emphasis here. Cat Hudson (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you mean. British cinema cannot be discussed without some reference to US cinema, because the two are intertwined. The 'cinema' section is not focussed on 'other countries', but does reference them when appropriate. As I say the section needs work, but I don't think it lacks a British focus as it stands.

We don't need in-depth references to heavy metal or nursery rhymes, this is a summary article. A sentence about heavy metal in the context of British rock would be useful, as the genre originated in the UK, but many genres did and we cannot include them all. Nursery rhymes may warrant a sentence or two in the folklore section, possibly as a sub-type of ballad.

The article needs more than trimming, a lot of the content is redundant or overly-detailed and can be (re)moved, particularly when a main article already exists. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm eager to resolve this and find the crux of the dispute, and as such I think it would be beneficial to summarise our current stances. Mine is laid out above, but in summary I'm trying to reduce the length of the article by editing down each section in turn. Once this is done I intend to return to each section and assess whether it can be improved in terms of content. I'm editing for length now, and for content later.

You believe that I have removed relevant material, added unnecessary subsections, and have not focussed enough on Britain in the 'cinema' section specifically. You have tried to rectify this by reverting my edits in their entirety.

If you don't feel this represents your case then please give me your side. Assuming it does, I think we can resolve the dispute quite easily. What I would like to see is an agreement on how new material will be added or how old material will be reinstated to a better standard. In practice this means no lists and no in-depth information on a specific topic that is already covered by its own page. I'm certainly not averse to my edits being re-written and improved upon, but simply restoring the article to its previous cluttered and unorganised state seems counterproductive. A solution to this could be for me to justify my edits on the talk page, which will give everybody a place to comment on them and raise objections or suggestions. Thoughts? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Dispute over length of article and how best to edit it):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Culture of the United Kingdom and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Greetings, A.D.Hope and Cat Hudson. First I would like to thank you both for your hard work on this article. I've read both it as well as the many edits you both have made over the last several weeks, and I hope I can help provide a fresh perspective to the issue of article length and how best to accomplish any changes. I wholeheartedly agree that the article, while very informative, was far too long with too much detail for what should be a summary article. A.D.Hope, I commend your efforts in attempting to consolidate the massive amount of information here into a reasonable summary while retaining as much context as possible. Cat Hudson, I definitely appreciate where you are coming from: it is a very difficult task to choose which parts to retain and which to remove; unfortunately, however, assuming we agree that does need a substantial reduction in length (I would say by half at the least), that means that we are going to have to make difficult choices. It is inevitable that many examples will need to trimmed significantly, and many others will need to be dropped entirely. We should endeavor to ensure that we include only the most culturally important references, as every example we include reduces our ability to describe the topic as a whole. I do think that A.D.Hope's work thus far is a great improvement, and I think the plan they have included here in the talk page is a good one. I would definitely recommend starting with A.D.Hope's last set of contributions and working from there. If there is essential content missing from that version, I think bringing it here in summary form for discussion is an excellent idea. It may be helpful to discuss each section individually, but make sure to do it here on the talk page and not via edit summary. Yes, this process maywill take more time, but remember there is no deadline. It is much more important to do this right than to do it quickly. Again, sincere thanks to you both for your efforts here. I hope this helps provide some clarity! I'll be watching this page in case you would like to discuss this further. CThomas3 (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I did fail to mention one issue that I agree with Cat Hudson on: I do have to concur that the cinema section seems to focus a little too much on the United States. I absolutely agree that UK cinema is practically impossible to discuss without mentioning it, but what was written here reads much more like a history of UK cinema (which rightly would have a strong US component) rather than the cultural aspects of cinema within the UK and its own influence elsewhere. Obviously the US had a great influence, but each paragraph within the cinema section has at least one reference to the US in it, with most of them revolving around American investment; the last half of the section seems to be dominated by that aspect. Certainly US investment in UK cinema deserves some mention, but it does seem a bit heavy. That being said, I think it is still an improvement! CThomas³ (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Alan Turing Aged 16.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)