I think Anglo-American is only used because that's the more often used variation, I don't think this is true for this topic. -- Joolz 19:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think Anglo- is generally used eg Anglo-Irish Agreement. Secretlondon 00:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest Anglo- too: BritMedia Google search for British-SpanishvAnglo.... But I suppose it depends on what you're thinking of including. I presume you're going to do a few hundred years of history in which case Scotland would require its own relationship with Spain to be separate, no? (Way out of my depth ;o). --bodnotbod 14:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also think Anglo- is correct. As bodnotbod writes, Scotland persued its own relations with Spain before the union with England. In my opinion, a main article Anglo-Spanish relations should be created and, when anyone is interested, Scotish-Spanish relations could be created for relations between these two countries prior to Scotland's union with England.
No, not "Anglo-": "Anglo-" obviously holds connotations that the relations are between Spain and England and thus can be misleading. But bearing in mind that everything is biased towards the English anyway, it'll probably end up being "Anglo-". the Great Gavinireindeer post 11:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Originally nominated for AID, but it's better focused here. Humanities topics like this are what we need to improve. A quick random glance at this article makes it look all right - relatively long, nice images, and so on. But a closer look shows that it's a jumble of unorganized information, mostly name-dropping/"play-dropping", and by and large very poorly written. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can the article on Censorship only mention Mary Whitehouse once in passing? Not mention Alf Garnett and the show Til Death Us Do Part? It only passes on the former censorship duties of Lord Chamberlain's Office, and the end of the office's censorship. No real mention of the relaxation of censorship laws, and what led to it. Surely Kenneth Tynan should get a mention, the first guy to say "fuck" on TV, as well as shows like Porridge which used neologisms to get around censors. Sinn Fein should also be noted, they were censored and had TV stations had to used actors to dub over their comments. There's already some good information on there, it's not a stub, but I still think it can be expanded on a lot. - Hahnchen 01:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Mal 04:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC) I believe all of this information should be included. The Lady Chatterley event, Kenneth Tynan and the Sinn Féin voice ban should perhaps be in either a history section or a broadcast/media section.[reply]
It is a list of other Wikipedia articles because there are two different education systems in the United Kingdom. Perhaps merging some parts of the articles together to provide a summary of education in each country in the UK would be better while keeping the list to provide a more in-depth view of each?
At the moment this article is basically a lead section and nothing else. It ranks pretty highly in google and I'm sure we can do better. -- Joolz 15:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Francs2000 | Talk 16:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC) Yes it would be controversial, but I think it would be worth it.[reply]
Comments
This topic could be problematic, like List_of_ethnic_groups. There are over 60 ethnic groups defined by the UK census, which is by no means a comprehensive list. Many of the categories are problematic, and a lot are simply nationalities and countries. You'll also get people including 'Geordie', 'Scouse', 'Cockney', 'South Londoner', etc. I will probably support a more clearly defined topic, but at the moment I can't see how Ethnic_groups_of_the_United_Kingdom will differ from List_of_ethnic_groups. zzuuzz(talk) 12:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to be groups in the UK List_of_ethnic_groups is all around the world. Also, it won't just be a list. --βjweþþ (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree I'm afraid. We have minorities of pretty much every group in the UK - we don't have a grip on ethnic group within the context of the UK anyway. Do you need to have a connection with Modern Celts to qualify? Secretlondon 11:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is linked to from United Kingdom and is just stuff from the CIA fact book. There is loads of stuff that could be written about this - for example we have lots of stubs on television masts like Emley Moor which don't obviously link in anywhere. This needs to cover stuff like BT's network, NTL/Crown Castle, military networks (there is loads on MOD comms you'd be surprised), internet topography etc. I think all major links on United Kingdom should be prioritised. Secretlondon 28 June 2005 09:43 (UTC)
There are a lot of people groups that have no article. And they all deserve one. Falphin 01:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, after we've done the Welsh people, the Cornish should be next. An interesting group, in linguistic, cultural, and political terms. -- The Anome 11:29, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
I thought this should probably be at Winter of Discontent as it is a proper name for the time period (like Middle Ages for example). I didn't want to move it as I wasn't sure - thoughts? Talrias (t | e | c) 29 June 2005 12:39 (UTC)
I agree, I think "Winter of Discontent" is the better title. I don't think anyone's objecting to moving it so I'll do it in a few hours, if nobody beats me to it -- Joolz 30 June 2005 10:45 (UTC)
Just did it; redirects redirected ... --Vamp:Willow 1 July 2005 11:18 (UTC)
hehe, I knew if I stretched those few hours out enough someone would, thanks :) -- Joolz 1 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)
Sadly lacking in the background, history, current issues of the subject. Also, a major link on the page for the United Kingdom. (Nominated by Mark Lewis) -- Joolz 15:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is a lot still to be said here, especially with recent legislation on ID cards, terrorism and the UK's past history during wars, etc.. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a skimpy list of events for a major part of British culture. Project could be expanded to take in Post Office Ltd etc. 82.43.137.103 02:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) User:davidbod
Support. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(originally nominated as Licensing law in England and Wales)
So that those German spies can blend in the bit better. Actually, it's sort-of an interesting subject, certainly something confusing to tourists (and, TBH, I'm not very sure of it myself), and it's just recently changed and is sort-of in the news (see Licensing Act 2003. "In E&W" as (a) people get upset when you (correctly) refer to the area in legal terms as just "England", and (b) I understand that both S and NI have seperate rules). James F.(talk) 11:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the whole of the UK could be covered, just in different sections? -- Joolz 15:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree, perhaps Licensing law in the United Kingdom. I think there would be a fair amount of duplication between the three articles if we had one for Scotland and N.I. as well. Sections would be best IMHO. Speaking of that, there isn't a general licensing law article (just Alcoholic beverage#Legal considerations). Talrias | talk 15:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is one of the foremost political discussion shows on UK television and the article is just a couple of paragraphs long. I've added some information but there's still lots more which could be said IMHO. Talrias | talk 20:34, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Look, I know this horribly violates the "stub" rule, but it is so close to being a featured-standard article. All it would need is a little TLC to get it there (and someone has nominated ParisonWP:FAC today: it is in a similar state to London, and we wouldn't want to be beaten by the French again in one week, would we...) ALoan(Talk) 16:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support, as long as History of London is included, that needs much work. G-Man 21:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A.K.A.47(Talk) (The world's greatest city - pity about the article) 20:39, 10 March Feb 2005 (UTC)
21:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]