Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 →

Contents

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography

Hello UK Wikipedians,

Just a note that I have proposed to overhall parts of the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. The project is a little dated, and lacking in vision and quality. I would welcome any feedback regarding improving this WikiProject. I don't necessarily aim to change the remit of the project, but more so the branding, organisation, systems of check, reviewing, and heirachy of daughter projects. Hope this is well received, -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia bias against UK articles

On 22 October Category:Strictly Come Dancing participants was deleted after this nomination, fair enough you'd think, but then on 31 October Category:Dancing with the Stars (US TV series) participants was nomination for deletion (by me) and subsequently kept after this nomination. I feel this has a place here because it does show a prejudice against UK topics. I think it's probably a subconscious bias without any malice, but it does exist. There is currently a deletion review on the subject if anyone would like to comment. --Hera1187 08:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Shapinsay Peer Review

The article on the Scottish island of Shapinsay is up for peer review. Feel free to contribute suggestions on how the article can be improved. Lurker (said · done) 16:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oldham FAC

Just a note that Oldham is up for featured status nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oldham. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

UK Infobox in Scotland

There have been questions raised as to the relevance of the UK places infobox regarding the use of the Scottish saltire flag in the Inverness article. Someone has proposed that a number of changes, basically (in my humble opinion) plastering flags on said infobox and removing references to the United Kingdom contrary to established consensus. I'm sure you're all capable of sustaining your own viewpoints, however. Anyway, the discussion is ongoing at Template talk:Infobox UK place/doc/examples.--Breadandcheese 03:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who this person who is proposing the removal of references to the United Kingdom is. There's nothing of this nature on the page you linked to. You are already deaf to requests to be civil, and I can't be bothered getting into a wikiquette discussion, not with someone with your track record on this issue. But basic honesty is something I am afraid I will have to insist on. Lurker (said · done) 14:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you have a look at Ben MacDui's writings under the "Fields" section of the Template Talk discussion linked to. I'm certainly not making it up. As for Wikiettiquette, presumptions of good faith can only go so far - particularly when consensus and objectivity are being openly sacrificed. --Breadandcheese 01:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Manchester

Just to let people know that Manchester is up for WP:FAC! Please add any comments with support or opposition (with details why please) on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester if you have not significantly contributed. Thanks in advance! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 01:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Shapinsay FAC

The article on the island of Shapinsay is now a Featured Article Candidate. Please go to its nomination page to give your opinion. Lurker (said · done) 13:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


Re-merge British cuisine articles

The cuisine articles (of Britain) originally started out as British cuisine but for presumably nationalistic reasons someone decided to split out Scottish, Welsh and Irish/Northern Irish and rename the old British article to English cuisine. I think this was a mistake. There is so much crossover here that it makes sense to discuss them all together and then have subsections explaining English/Scots/Welsh/Irish/Cornish etc specialities. I was particularly annoyed when someone removed references to the fact that "Britain became a net importer of food" from the English cuisine article because they, they said in the edit summary "British isn't English", they also removed referenced to Gordon Ramsay because he was born in Scotland. This is where it becomes plain silly and the problem would be solved by simply remerging the articles. Jooler (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I also note that the disambiguation now at British cuisine doesn't even mention Northern Ireland, but does mention Gibraltar! Jooler (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree, at least in the case of Scotland (I can't comment on the others). While there is certainly such a thing as British Cuisine, there is also a unique Scottish cuisine as well. Certainly there is more than enough material to fill a series of articles on Scotland's food. Merging the articles seems to be a retrograde step. In any case, wouldn't the talk pages of the relevant articles be a good place to initiate discussion? Leithp 12:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Porridge? Certainly a Scottish dish but widely eaten in the rest of the UK one one would expect to see it if you were offered a full English breakfast menu in a hotel. Smoked Salmon? Some argue the best comes from Northern Ireland. Kippers? There supposed to have originated in Northumberland and probably the most prized kippers in the British Isles come from the Isle of Man. I could go on, but just read the Scottish cuisine article. I think it could all be discussed in a British cuisine article. Where references to the Industrial revolution and the move away from the land, the introduction of the Potato, Fish and Chips, World War II rationing, and Chicken tikka masala (was it invented in Glasgow or Birmingham? The jury's out on that one) in context. Ohh I have raised this for discussion on the talk pages of the various articles without reply as of yet. What is the noticeboard for if it's not to bring to light discussion about UK articles? Jooler 00:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you honestly want a list of food unique to Scotland? Try reading The Scots Kitchen by F. Marian McNeill. The various articles could be improved, but you know, we are Wikipedia, a work in progress. Leithp 11:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there is a uniquely Scottish cuisine and as such think there is a very viable article there. There is also certainly a large body of very British cuisine which cannot simply operate as a redirect and must be readily interlinked with the more local articles. The problem arises with an English article - there is not a great deal of exclusively English cuisine which does not cross over into being associated equally or moreso with Britain. I actually think we may well be better in this case redirecting English cuisine to British cuisine, and then having yet more local pages for various English dishes associated with counties etc.--Breadandcheese 12:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend that someone with a sound knowledge of the various national cuisines take a look at this. Certainly there are recipe books on British, English and Scottish dishes; enough, I'm sure, to build strong articles out of each. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, The solution is not to attempt to merge two or more fairly lengthy and quite different articles, but rather to add summaries of the individual UK national cuisines to "British Cuisine" with the usual 'Main Article' tags and provide more information about the "crossover" there. If there is no genuinely distinctive English cuisine (which I doubt) then yes, that could be replaced by various regional pages. It may be over-complex to have the regional pages summarised at English cuisine and then re-summarised at British cuisine. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The above seems like a sound suggestion to me. --Breadandcheese 22:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I’d agree, to merge all these articles into the British cuisine one would result in a huge cumbersome monster of an article. As more material is added on these topics in our work-in-progress it makes sense to have an appropriate level of detail at each stage in a hierarchy, as now with British cuisine linking to the various nationalities etc. At a later stage in the project what would be the problem with, e.g. "British cuisine" linking to "Scottish cuisine" even to "Fife cuisine" to "Cuisine of Auchtertool", if of course there is enough distinctive and notable material to warrant it? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, after all.
If you reckon nationalism is at the root of this, you could argue a merger is just the flip side of that same minefield (excuse the mixed metaphor). Or you could keep all national divisions out of it and merge all European cuisine articles into one super-article. All political issues magically vanish…hmmm.Mutt Lunker 20:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Ben MacDui's solution seems to me to be the most sensible one that solves the problem that was raised whilst maintaining the very real distinctions between the different cuisines under discussion. It should be implemented.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Re-reading Ben Macdui's suggestion, there are parts that I can interpret in more than one way. I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing, just unclear about quite what is intended. Are the “various regional pages” entirely new articles regarding cuisine of individual regions of England? What are they to potentially replace: the “summar(y) of the individual UK national cuisines” for England if there is in fact nothing “genuinely distinctive” to list there? Mutt Lunker 23:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Ben MacDui's solution seems good to me. I would happily help with the base British cuisine article GameKeeper 00:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

List of historic buildings and architects of the United Kingdom

The List of historic buildings and architects of the United Kingdom is a huge, ungainly list of buildings and architects, listed by period. Aside from the impossibility of listing every historic building in the UK, the list also mixes in architects, and the later sections list buildings by architect, rather than alphabetically as further up. In short, its a mess. I propose creating a separate List of British architects, listing the architects by period as here, and then seeing if the remaining list of buildings can be trimmed down any. There are already such pages as list of castles in England, abbeys and priories in Scotland, Roman sites in the United Kingdom, etc, etc. See Category:Lists of buildings and structures in the United Kingdom for more, though not all. The page may eventually become a list of {{main}}: links, though the arrangement by building style may be problematic. Any comments or suggestions on how to deal with this page are welcome. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck 11:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Wales

If anyone can help, still needed is an article about the History of the Jews in Wales to complete the History of the Jews in Europe. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

National parks of England and Wales

I've started looking at National parks of England and Wales as I've been editing Exmoor trying to get it up to GA & was looking for ideas. I'm amazed that this is still a FA with no inline citations to verify the information given, which may not have been required when it became an FA in 2004 but is now. I'm happy to do some of the work on improving this if others are willing to help - otherwise would it be best to put it up for Wikipedia:Featured article review on the grounds that it fails 1(c) of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria which says "that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate." Putting it up for FAR may get a wider audience & more people to work on it, but before this is necessary would anyone from this wikiproject be willing to help?— Rod talk 13:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Flag categories

Is there a possibility that Category:British colony flag images and Category:Flags of British overseas territories be merged into one category. The former has only three images, with one related image inside both categories. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest merging into Category:Flags of British overseas territories, it's a more open name - looks good to me. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Renaming of articles on minor ethnic groups in Britain

Recently, the article Spanish Britons (about people of Spanish ancestry who live in Britain) was nominated for deletion on the grounds that 'Spanish Britons' is a neologism used only on Wikipedia. The result of the discussion was that the article should stay, but it needed a more appropriate name. There are numerous other similarly-titled articles including 'German Briton', 'Latin American Briton', etc etc, all of which equally need to be renamed. As one editor wrote, "Karl Marx would never have called himself "British", yet this is what is implied by the term German Briton; he was in fact a German living in Britain". We need a name that covers both British citizens with XX ancestry and people from XX country who live in Britain. Here are some suggestions (using 'Spanish' as an example but the same applies to many others):

  • People of Spanish ancestry in Britain - accurate, but very unwieldly
  • Spanish community in Britain - more concise, although may not be ideal, since it is possible to have Spanish ancestry without feeling like one belongs to a 'community'
  • Spanish presence in Britain - this is my favourite - it can cover many aspects of the impact of Spanish people in Britain

I wouldn't apply this to articles such as Black British or British Asian, as those are commonly used terms that are not neologisms. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? Cop 663 (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable to me. Perhaps a full list of offending articles would be of use here? This may help us identify problem articles and possible scope for merges.
By co-incidence (possibly?) there has been alot of activity from User:90.210.0.163 (contributions) today who has been renaming and realigning some of these articles. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Template:UKethnicgroups provides links to all of them, but I'll see if I can make a list. Cop 663 (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
How about "Foo settlement in Britain" per Welsh settlement in Argentina, Arab settlement in the Philippines, German settlement in Australia ... et al? Man vyi (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I could live with that, although to me 'settlement' sounds odd in relation to modern Britain; it sounds more like what people did in the age of exploration. But it would certainly be consistent with those other articles. Cop 663 (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I would be a little uncomfortable with the word 'presence' since this word can sometimes have other connotations, especially relating to a temporary state of affairs and a sense of an unwelcome 'other'. The article currently has a section titled "History of Spanish settlement", which looks about right. However, settlement only refers to those who have settled (ie permanently). I would presume this article should also cover transient populations such as students. This would normally be included under the term 'immigration', so I would also suggest something like Spanish immigration in the UK. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)\
'Immigration' is mostly good although might seem odd in some historical contexts (e.g. it doesn't describe Catherine of Aragon very well, and is even less appropriate to the Vikings, who were invaders rather than immigrants. A broader word might be more useful. Cop 663 (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, "Spanish presence in Britain" implies something like an occupying army to me... Shimgray | talk | 16:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! I guess words imply different things to different people. I'm thinking either 'settlement' or 'immigration' at the moment. Cop 663 (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list. At best, they're inconsistent, at worst, they're useless neologisms that don't tally with the article's content; e.g. Scandinavian British discusses the Vikings, who could never have been labelled such a thing! Cop 663 (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be tempted to redirect some of these to Briton, others to Black British. A bit of WP:COMMONSENSE won't do much harm here I think. I also like the idea of "X settlement in the United Kingdom" for some of the more verifiable of these articles. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely support this move, but have similar concerns to what was already raised about "settlement" and "presence". I can understand the problem with "community", which was up until now my preference, when not actually talking about a community. I would also say that "ancestory" is also a bit off since it's "taken" already by the US experience, which is different to the UK's.
Maybe the simple Spanish people in Britain? Or Spanish people in the United Kingdom, which follows common naming of articles about the UK but can lead to historical inaccuracy pre-1707 (or 1801, depending on your side of that debate!). --sony-youthpléigh 21:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought of that too, but it's too limiting. Michael Portillo is not a 'Spanish person in Britain'. He's a British person descended from Spanish immigrants. He would belong in an article called 'Spanish immigration to Britain' (because he is the product of it) but he would not belong in one called 'Spanish people in Britain'.
Damn, words are difficult! I'm coming round to 'immigration'. I guess even the Vikings were 'immigrants' in one sense, since they settled, built farms and towns, etc, even if they were also into pillaging. Cop 663 (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
We do have a Immigration to the United Kingdom (1922-present day) article with which I'd be inclined to redirect some of the smaller articles. How about that? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
And Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh wow! This is more of a mess than I realized! Cop 663 (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Some of them are a bit random, but I wouldn't support merging them all into Black British. I think Poles in Britain could be an interetsing article as many people think it is only a recent thing.. Secretlondon (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
British African-Caribbean community is a featured article - certainly not one to be deleted! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I recommend the following as a soloution to this problem: I would provisionally like to see Jamaican British redirected to British African-Caribbean community, and South African-British, Zimbabwean British, Nigerian British, British Somalis, African British, Ghanaian British and Kenyan British to Black British.

Those that are articles about any other people which involves an ex-British colony (such as British Pakistani, are redirected to Immigration to the United Kingdom (1922-present day) and all others to Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom. How does that sound for an attempt at cleaning this up? Any objections or tweaks? -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Although the overwhelming majority of people of African origin in Britain might identify as black, it might strike some as odd to include non-black South Africans, for example, in Black British. There may be some merit in distinguishing between nationality of origin and race in some cases. Man vyi (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
That seems both reasonable and logical yes. Perhaps that ought to redirect to one of the other two articles? -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it is a bit tricky. My grandfather regarded himself as a Kenyan who had moved to the UK, but he was white. There are lots of white Zimbabweans in the same situation today. It's probably better to keep Black British as it is, and either merge the small African-British articles to Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom, or, perhaps better, create a page called African immigration to Britain that doesn't have the word 'ethnic' in it so it can include all Africans regardless of race. Cop 663 (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes - absolutly. On the AfD for Spanish Britons I questioned just how notable many of these groups are and suggested most would be better treated as part of larger and genuinely notable subgroups like Black British, Asian British, Eastern European migrants to the United Kingdom, or whatever else. Just look at the number that has been added to the ethnic groups template since this issue arose (diff) - albeit mainly by one IP contributer. There has to be some sense to this, otherwise we'll end up with 198 articles, one for every country in the world ... and then everyone can be British! I mean, seriously, Saint Kitts and Nevis!? I know there's not article on this yet, but it has been added to the template. Just how notable is the impact of migration from Saint Kitts and Nevis to the UK that a "Kittitian and Nevisian British" article might in future have merit? There has to be some limit to this. Some common sense, please. --sony-youthpléigh 18:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Here's a suggestion then. The titles wouldn't be perfectly standardized, but that's OK since we'd be trying to use the common names
  • Black British - a common term, so title is appropriate
  • British Afro-Caribbean community - article claims this is the correct term, so OK
  • Middle Eastern immigration to Britain - could include North Africa?
  • African immigration to Britain - could be more like a disambiguation page, linking to Black British, British Afro-Caribbean community and Middle Eastern immigration to Britain, perhaps with info on white African immigrants or linking to a separate page for them.
  • North American immigration to Britain
  • South American immigration to Britain
  • British Asian - this title is appropriate, since it's the commonly used term, even though it practically means 'South Asian', i.e. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh
  • East Asian immigration to Britain - currently 'British Oriental' but the article itself admits that no-one uses this term...
  • Western European immigration to Britain
  • Eastern European immigration to Britain
  • Australasian immigration to Britain - Australia and NZ - probably a rather short article, but can't think where else to put 'em
If we do this we can create the ground for some genuinely interesting articles rather than the scrappy unsourced things at present. Cop 663 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I would collapse Eastern and Western Europe into just European immigration to Britain. Is there any great benefit to dividing it? And I predict trouble in drawing a dividing line. I would call Australasian immigration to Britain Australia-New Zealand immigration to Britain if what is meant is Australia and New Zealand, let's not confuse it with the rest of Asia. I'd move Irish Briton back to Irish community in Britain (the common name despite

reasons cited for the move, which are actually contradicted by the article). Or British Irish community which would keep it in line with the British Afro-Caribbean community and, so long as a hyphen doesn't appear between British and Irish, it can be read anyway you like.

I would be careful also when using Black British, Asian British, etc. as these terms have technical meanings in the UK census, if I remember correctly. Black British people are black and British. They are not black immigrants. Similarly, Asian British, just as White British doesn't include French people living in the UK. --sony-youthpléigh 23:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Australasia - agree.
Western/Eastern Europe - I think there are major historical differences between the migration of peoples from the two Europes due to the Cold War that might require separate articles, but I agree it could be just 'Europe' for now.
Black British/Black Asian, yes they are British, but the articles as they stand already tell the entire history of Black and Asian migration to Britain, including the Roman army and the slave trade; they're not only describing those who are British citizens, so it isn't necessarily a problem. Cop 663 (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Can we use "migration" rather than "immigration" (if we are to persue this system)? "Immigration" suggests that the article will be from the perspective of the pre-existing inhabitants. I expect there will be an element of the article that discusses the emmigration process for the migrant(s).
Simillarly, I presume we intend to use "United Kingdom", rather than "Britain"? Other than that, I think we're getting somewhere. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
'Migration' instead of 'immigration' is a darn good idea, much less restrictive. But 'UK' restricts us to post-1707 history, while 'British' is preferable because it's looser, methinks. Cop 663 (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
"Western/Eastern Europe" - that's a point alright. Maybe then a "European migration to Britain" with a 'main article' for ex-Soviet Union countries (or Eastern European if that is a better name)?
"Migration" is better. I think "Britain" is better than UK in this context, but can see either side.
RE: "Black British", my main point was whether something for example recent Nigerian migration to the UK would be included in that, or whether that would be "African migration to Britain". --sony-youthpléigh 16:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, hard to say. Technically 'Black British' refers to British citizens who are black, so recent African migration phemonena might be discussed in the 'African migration' article instead. But I imagine some overlap would be unavoidable. Cop 663 (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(Un indent) How are we getting on with this? Any plans to action these changes? I have been prompted to return here as I have come across User:Stevvvv4444 (who I have invited to join the discussion), who has been creating more of these articles, including Cuban British, British Pacific Islanders, Latin American Briton, British Malaysian and Singaporean British. This issue may need tackling by us as a team asap, once we've decided on the route to take. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion made seems acceptable with some small changes (see above). I'm on vacation and can't do any work until the new year, but the best way to start, I think, is to create the redlinked articles above as stubby placeholders, and then start merging the smaller articles into them. Cop 663 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the naming of the articles are fairly un-distinctive, and could mean many things. I have tried to make this clearer by stating the meaning on the actual article. I believe that many of these articles could be merged, but not entirely deleted, or made in to one huge article based on immigration to the UK. This will lead to every community in the country loosing its identity. If anyone sees a problem with the current arrangement and names of the articles, they should also consider articles such as Somali American and Nigerian American which are based on the exact same principles as the articles about the respective communities in nthe UK. (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The principle is a good one - the problem is the title. Terms like "Nigerian-American" are common in the USA, but "Nigerian-British" or "Nigerian Briton" are not common terms in the UK, so "Nigerian immigration to the UK" is more appropriate. All that will happen here is that the small or badly-sourced articles will get merged and the longer, well-sourced ones won't, they'll just get summaries and links from a central repository article. Cop 663 (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Small ethnic groups: moving forward

I'm now ready to start merging the articles that are too short, and renaming everything with the formula "xxx immigration to Britain'. Below is the current plan - please stop me if you don't like it! I plan to put merge tags on all articles for a week to give editors advance warning. This will all take a long time so please join in if you want! I'll cross things off as they're done. Cop 663 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but I'm still concerned about immigration vs. migration. I'd also be inclined to keep Black British (like White British and British Asian) as a stand alone article as this term is verifiable (possibly the only one listed!). It is also an official ethnic classification with which statistics can be attributed to. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Crap, I forgot about 'migration'. I've fixed that. And I didn't mean that Black British should be merged, so I've fixed that. Cop 663 (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
One of the problematic groups has been those from the US. We not necessarily talking about an 'immigrant' group as such, or necessarily a permanant one. After some on page discussion, Cop663 has suggested 'Americans in Britain'. I'd like to endorse this, and suggest that 'Canadians in Britain' also works well. Indisciplined (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
However, I have to say Western European migration to Britain is a complete car-crash. First fatal problem, what are 'Western Europe' and 'Eastern Europe'? Any definiton is arbitary, the terms shifted radically over time. Certain 'push' factors - like political and racial persecution, would have been common to both Germany and Russia in the past (who'd end up in different articles), whilst French migration (now lumped together with German) was essentially economic. Secondly, there is just no narrative to that article. Maybe we could do a general overview on European migration to Britian, but trying to cut-and-paste the national articles onto one article like that just hasn't worked. The Latin American page, on the other hand, has a clear narrative, based on the many points of commonality that underly migration from different Latin American countries to the UK. We cna also talk about a Latin American cultural influence in a meaningful way as one heading - impossible with 'Western Europe'. So, it's not a cut-and-paste exercise. That's the way forward. As a rule of thumb, I suggest that if we can't form a clear narrative for the article, there probably is not basis for an article in the first place. (I really do hate criticising new articles when their authors are putting so much hard work into trying to improve Wikipedia. But if we are to move together to improve this situation we cannot just replace one set of flawed articles with another set of equally flawed articles). Indisciplined (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You raise totally valid points, in my opinion. I believe your input here is invaluable and I too like the "Americans in Britain" approach too (I wish I'd thought of it!). -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've been slowly testing the waters with these ideas, most of which have been uncontroversial, but the "Western and Eastern European" one was pretty stupid in hindsight. I don't think a single, unified system is going to work, instead the different groups and subgroups require different solutions for their different situations. See Talk:British_Pakistanis#Merge_into_British_Asian for another problem: one ethnic group not wanting to be lumped with another due to cultural antagonism between the two. Cop 663 (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

UK not a major power with global influence?

Hello,

I'm making a request for comment at Talk:United Kingdom. There is a debate as to whether the (verifiable - of course) term "major power with global influence" and other simillar versions should be allowed in the article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Union Flag/Flag of the United Kingom

I've made a proposal to merge Union Flag into Flag of the United Kingdom (discussion). This is likely to be a controversial merger. At present there are two articles deal with the the same subject in order to avoid edit warring over the name of the article. I propose that the "standard" naming of flag articles should apply - or at least have only one article on a single subject. --sony-youthpléigh 12:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Scotland peer review

Hi, there.

The Scotland article is up for peer review. If anyone wishes to make suggestions, feel free to do so. All help would be much appreciated. Lurker (said · done) 15:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

About the "move" button on Occupation of the Channel Islands

Hi. The "move" button at the top of the Occupation of the Channel Islands does not appear for some reason. Has someone or something disabled it for some reason? If so, why? Thanks for helping me solve this mystery. IZAK (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been restored. Lurker (said · done) 19:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)