Talk:United Kingdom

Full official name in the LEAD

I was going to just be bold and make this edit myself, but it seems like it's something that's probably been argued about here before. Isn't the full official name "His Majesty's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" rather than just "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? Should the LEAD be changed to that instead? SI09 (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi SI09, I searched the archives for "His Majesty's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" both with and without citation marks and I came up with nothing. So it seems that this wasn't discussed yet. If you have a good source confirming that full name, I cannot see why you shouldn't make the edit! Lova Falk (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh FFS. The usual response is WP:RS please. But who on earth has ever claimed that the "official" name is "His Majesty's United Kingdom"?? Good grief. Just to be clear: absolutely not. That's nonsense. DeCausa (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

DeCausa Not appreciating your FFS at all. Furthermore, I did say: good source. Lova Falk (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Note l - Britian

I suggest specifying in Note l that "Britian" is also commonly used to refer to the Island of Britian specifically, rather than the UK as a whole (excluding Northern Ireland) Jdftba (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jdftba, please write the text that you would like us to add, and give a good source confirming your text! Lova Falk (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Lead revisited

Seeking clarification. An editor recently changed the lead, adding "four countries" to describe England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I've reverted that change, with the understanding that the consensus is

"...comprises England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."

in order to avoid confusion with the UK's description. Is this still the consensus? GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, seems fine to me. Dgp4004 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

May I ask where this consensus could be found? Goodreg3 (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

This talkpage's archive 37 & 38, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

It's tedious that this gets re-opened yet again. Changing it adds not a jot of value to the reader. There's so much else that could be improved with this article but this is what gets the attention... DeCausa (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

No one is saying that it is getting re-opened yet again though, are they? Goodreg3 (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2025

File:Brexit Protestors Westminster.jpg

Template:Edit extended-protected Can we change the image of Boris Johnson under 21st century to an image of protesters, like this one? 2A0A:EF40:F57:CD01:C07F:281E:FD86:5A36 (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Remsense 🌈 论 23:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I will leave this up for others to have their say then. 2A0A:EF40:F57:CD01:C07F:281E:FD86:5A36 (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Is it really balanced to portray the 21st century as more front-facingly unrestive than the 20th? the 18th? the 17th? 11th? Remsense 🌈 论 23:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

"United Kingdom's" listed at Redirects for discussion

File:Information.svg The redirect United Kingdom's has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 9 § United Kingdom's until a consensus is reached. A1Cafel (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

"UK's" listed at Redirects for discussion

File:Information.svg The redirect UK's has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 9 § UK's until a consensus is reached. A1Cafel (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2025

Template:Edit extended-protected Add source to the text The UK space industry was worth £17.5 billion in 2020/21 and employed 48,800 people

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-space-sector-income-reaches-175-billion-as-jobs-and-services-grow https://www.ukspace.org/uk-space-sector-income-reaches-17-5-billion-as-jobs-and-services-grow/ Wikidotimprove (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Template:Done tony 19:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

"Kernowyon Unys" listed at Redirects for discussion

File:Information.svg The redirect Kernowyon Unys has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 14 § Kernowyon Unys until a consensus is reached. Paradoctor (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

"United Queendom" listed at Redirects for discussion

File:Information.svg The redirect United Queendom has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 14 § United Queendom until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2025

A couple of minor adjustments:

• Replace the word massive in “a massive industrial capacity” with a less loaded term (per MOS:PUFFERY), such as extensive, large, substantial, or major, etc.
• Consider adding a brief mention of the American Revolutionary War and the independence of the Thirteen Colonies from the British Empire, as this is a significant event for the country. A possible phrasing could be: “In the late 18th century Britain lost its Thirteen Colonies in North America following the American Revolutionary War.”

Best regards, JaierRT (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

For the first: Template:Nd. Massive is exactly as descriptive as your alternatives, and this amounts to personal taste in word choice. It's not an exhaustive list in your linked guideline section, but not only is massive not included in it, it remains merely a "word to watch" if it were. Please keep that in mind going forward per the introduction to the guideline.

For the second: Template:Nd. These events are mentioned in the article body, of course. Not every point can appear in the article lead (which ideally summarizes the aspects and points made in the article body in a proportional and balanced manner), especially one for an article with such a broad scope as this one, and you've made no actual argument based in representation in sources why we should consider rebalancing the lead. Remsense 🌈 论 16:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe both decisions are noticeable mistakes, but I respect your opinion and your choice. JaierRT (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe in just telling people no to be a tyrant, and I appreciate your patience under scrutiny from an editor who is quite fallible. The point I would make for point 1 is: can you really articulate what about extensive or substantial or major denotes more objective information than massive in this context? I cannot. Indulging in the etymological fallacy, massive and substantial literally indicate the exact same property (high quantity of substance). Remsense 🌈 论 17:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I’ve always felt that massive sounds a bit too exaggerated compared to what I perceive as more elegant alternatives, though perhaps that’s just because English isn’t my native language.

As for the American Revolutionary War, I’ve always regarded it as a fairly notable and impactful 18th-century conflict worth mentioning in relation to Britain, but again, that may simply be my own foreign perspective.

In any case, you made fair points. JaierRT (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Add footnote noting no official de jure language

“Note that the English language does not have official status anywhere in the United Kingdom.”https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/toponymic-guidelines/toponymic-guidelines-for-map-and-other-editors-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland--2#fnref:1 Sec.6.1 Ems0712 (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Mistakenly added a topic instead of edit request; keeping this topic instead of creating duplicate request Ems0712 (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

No, that's a myth and it would be incorrect to state that. The article currently states the opposite - and cites for example Template:Cite journal