Talk:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018092350/http://www.musee-marine.fr/cartel2.php?id=55 to http://www.musee-marine.fr/cartel2.php?id=55

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV
My edit of the 1st paragraph was reverted, but I am reverting it back for the following reasons: If someone has different ideas, please contribute to the discussion here. --JW1805 03:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think saying "suppression" about the 1789 rebellion is POV, since it is clearly from the Irish point of view.
 * The appropriate Wikipedia article is called "Irish Rebellion of 1798". There is no point having a redirect here.
 * Calling the Irish Parliament "exclusively Anglican" sounds like an Irish complaint about not being represented, so it seems a bit POV. If someone wanted to know the makeup of the Parliament, they can just click the link.
 * "vote itself out of existence" is a silly phrase.
 * "new-found unionism" is a silly phrase, and slightly POV.


 * I don't agree.
 * Without reference to the parliament's composition, the impression is given that union was a popular move among the broader Irish population.
 * "Vote itself out of existence" is exactly what that parliament did. The London parliament did'nt abolish it, it abolished itself.
 * Their unionism was new-found, previously most Irish MPs had opposed union.
 * "Silly" is a silly word to use in describing these phrases. If you think they're badly worded, rephrase them.
 * Lapsed Pacifist 04:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What do you think of this edit? I tried to reword the opening to be a bit better, and added a statement in the Controversy section about how the Union was not popular. This section can be expanded to give more details.  --JW1805 16:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Legacy
I added this section but it still remains inadequate. I think a paragraph about the relationship between the two govenments is needed (Both historical and present day). I think I also so heard once about proposals for a joint british-irish ownership/parliament or something of the like. Perhaps that could get a mention as well. josh 21:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Royal Arms
British Coat of Arms |right The Royal Arms shown is the current version, with the St Edward's Crown adopted by Elizabeth II in 1953. For this article, it is likely incorrect and an older version, probably using a Tudor-style crown is needed. I've had trouble finding information about the styling — the best so far is on [FOTW] — let alone a picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazza 7 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We could use the shield- (shown in the history section- Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom. Astrotrain 15:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems a good idea - I'll do it and see what it's like. Bazza 15:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should use the later version of the arms adopted in 1837 when Hanover left the personal union. This was the arms used in the bulk of the time the UK GB and I existed. Astrotrain 16:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine, thanks. Bazza 17:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Astrotrain seemed to have forgotten the conversation above and changed the Hanover one (in use at the start of, but replaced during existance of, UK of GB & I) with a modern Elizabethan era one, not appropriate at all. I've reverted this but would be more than happy to see the Hanover one replaced with one suitable for the period 1801-1922. Bazza 14:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I forgot this conversation!- I replaced with the shield- what u think ? Astrotrain 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That looks better - nicely done. Bazza 13:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

1921 or 1922
Anonymous user 82.40.101.110 changed most (but not all!) expiry dates for UKoGB&I from 1922 to 1921, citing the Anglo Irish Treaty. My understanding, though, is that the treaty may have been signed on 6-Dec-1921 but did not come into effect until 6-Dec-1922. So the old UK existed until that date. I've reverted 1922 back to 1921 and annotated the article as such. Bazza 14:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Relationship between UKGBI and UKGBNI
The article is phrased such that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (UKGBI) ceased to exist in 1921/2, and that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UKGBNI) is a separately constituted successor state (analogous to the change from Kingdom of Great Britain to UKGBI in 1801).

My understanding of the constitutional position is that UKGBI and UKGBNI are in fact one and the same state, and that the change in the 1920s was purely a redefinition of the state's title following the creation of the Irish Free State and the resultant change in the UK's territory. This could be evidenced by:


 * UK parliaments are numbered from 1801, not 1922
 * There was no immediate change in the status of UKGBI, the titles Act being passed some 5 years later
 * The 1927 act renamed the country's parliament and the style of the then King, but did not explicitly reconstitute the country.
 * There were no elections held immediately following the creation of the Irish Free State in December 1922 (next election was 1924), or the change of title in 1927 (next election was 1929)in order to specifically create a parliament/constituent assembly for a new British state. There were elections in November 1922, but there was nothing out of the ordinary in that, as the parliament of the time had been sitting since December 1918.

I am being frightfully pedantic, I know, but I would value anybody's thoughts on the matter.

Petecollier 14:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Redefinitions of a state's title tend to reflect changes both in territory and government. Here we not only have reduced territory but the negation of the reason the Kingdom was formed back in 1801. Simply ignoring it as you suggest would be inaccurate. User:Dimadick — Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Petecollier is entirely correct. In fact, I was looking at this talk page to propose the exact same change, only to find that it had been proposed earlier today!
 * I believe that the form that this article should take is similar to that of West Germany; it has its own article, uses Infobox Former Country, talks of it as clearly belonging to the past, and covers its economy, culture, history, and so on in the same way that it would cover any truly extinct country. Thus, the introduction would begin:
 * "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the formal name of the United Kingdom from 1 January 1801 until the 6 December 1922. It was formed by the merger of the Kingdom of Great Britain (itself having been a merger of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland) and the Kingdom of Ireland.  The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ended upon the independence of five-sixths of Ireland, when the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty came into effect, creating the Irish Free State.  As a result of this secession, and to reflect its current territorial extent, the country has since been known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a title formalised by the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927."
 * I have made other small changes in the above, including mentioning the RaPTA, but I think the only controversial change is that proposed by Petecollier. Bastin 21:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No. The 1801 Act of Union is not negated since Northern Ireland remains as part of the UK. However I don't think, as perhaps Dimadick fears, that this section of the UK's history should be ignored or merged into the main UK article. The UKGBI is worthy of its own article beyond a doubt, and that article by its very nature needs to be historical. My corncern was, that the article as it stands is factually inaccurate and as such should be edited wherever it refers to the "ending" of the UK or to the UKGBI's "successor states".  There has been no break in constitutional continuity in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, therefore the UK has never "ceased to exist", despite the change in title. Since the UK exists to this day, the use of term "sucessor state," even in reference to the IFS/ROI is similarly incorrect. I am not familiar with the West Germany article, but the analogy is perhaps a good one, albeit (West) Germany increased the territory subject to its Basic Law, rather than decreased it as in the UK's case.
 * I don't want to make any major changes without prior consensus, but I would propose the following opening paragraph, in place of the current:
 * "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the formal name of the United Kingdom from 1 January 1801 until 12 April 1927. It was formed by the merger of the Kingdom of Great Britain (itself having been a merger of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland) and the Kingdom of Ireland.   Following Irish independence on 6 December 1922, when the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty came into effect, the name continued in official use until it was changed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act of 1927. Those parts of the island of Ireland which seceded from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1922 today constitute the Republic of Ireland."
 * While we are all revelling im my pedancy, the section Legacy cites a complete political independence for Ireland from 1922. Not so. The British Government retained the right to advise the King on Irish political appointments until the 1927 Act. There then remained extremely close ties until the new Irish constitution in 1937. The last few political ties weren't finally broken until the Republic was created in 1949.
 * I have not looked at the UKGBNI article, but that might need a couple of tweaks to coordinate with the changes I feel are necessary here?
 * Petecollier 04:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Secession
Obviously UKGBNI follows, but what to are the "Irish" secessors?

Two ways to go:
 * 1) Irish Free State - just ignore the Irish Republic and Southern Ireland
 * 2) Irish Republic & Southern Ireland - in British and Irish constitutional theory these are the next states in secession.

I'm siding with the second way as, in strict historical terms, Southern Ireland seceded from the UK then it established the Free State (the "British way") or the Irish Republic seceded from the UK then it established the Free State (the "Irish way").

Southern Ireland seceded de jure. The Irish Republic seceded de facto. It was the 3rd Dáil of the Irish Republic (or "Provisional Parliament" in British constitutional terms) and the 1st Parliament of Southern Ireland that ratified the Anglo-Irish Agreement to instantiate the Free State - the Dáil ratifying it in December 1921, and the Parliament ratifying it in January 1922.

Thus, skipping these does not give a true telling (in anyone's history) of the secession order of Irish states. --sony-youth pléigh 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Southern Ireland did not secede, and was not an independent country, but an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland with home rule. Hence, just as Northern Ireland wasn't a successor, neither was Southern Ireland.  I would, therefore, suggest the former of the two options.  The latter would suggest that it split into the Irish Republic and the Irish Free State, which is far worse than the present situation. Bastin 22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Northern/Southern Ireland were both colonial-type administrations along the vein of Canada or Australia. See Government_of_Ireland_Act_1920. Reserved matters were very limited (defence, foreign affairs, etc.). We're not talking home rule like in Scotland or Wales, more like Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. (And yes, technically this was the case too in Northern Ireland until 1972 although the parliament there never wanted to exploit its freedom to pursue/express independence - instead using them to remain under London rule - its clear that the Southern Government did.) --sony-youth pléigh 23:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't the same as Canada or Australia (or the Crown dependencies) because they weren't (or aren't) part of the United Kingdom. For example, they weren't (or aren't) entitled to send MPs to Westminster, whereas Southern Ireland was. Bastin 23:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. You're right. Sorry. Moment of madness. --sony-youth pléigh 19:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Blood Hell.

The Irish Republic (1916-1921) was a declared State.

The Government of Northern Ireland was provisional Home-Rule assembly (not a country).

The Government of Southern Ireland was provisional Home-Rule assembly (not a country).

The former voted explicitly to remain within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (the country), and the latter voted to seceed (to form an Independent country).

Since the stronger power (i.e., United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ) granted the pathway to independence its legal framework must be respected and adhered to. The "Republican" view is secondary and is not the valid interpretation.

Timeline

Various local Realms (pre-1170),

The Lordship of Ireland (1170-1541),

The Kingdom of Ireland (1541-1800),

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1921)

The Government of Southern Ireland (not a country), (1921-1922),

The Irish Free State (1922-1937),

Eire (1937-1949),

The Republic of Ireland (post-1949).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 13:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Since the stronger power (i.e., United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) granted the pathway to independence its legal framework must be respected and adhered to. The 'Republican' view is secondary and is not the valid interpretation." (Edited to remove emphasis) - Is this Wikipedia WP:POLICY?
 * Please read prior discussions before posting a whole lot of stuff in bold and blue . The matter had been sorted. --sony-youth pléigh 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sony-Youth. The Name of the Country is placed in blue so people will not confuse the long-form name with the short-form name (i.e, the whole Dominon of Canada versus just Canada debate).

Next, in 1921 the British Forces battling the original Irish Republican Army (IRA, not todays terrorists) were faced with a decision,


 * (i). cut the "Anglo-Irish Agreement" of December 6, 1921,


 * (ii). escalate the "tactics" in Ireland to Boer War (1899-1902) methods.

I assume that most people see the wisdom in choice (i).

ArmchairVexillologistDon 17:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strange answer to my question. Or was it an answer? Who can tell, eh? In any case, post 1937 only one state has existed. The long and short form is simply Ireland (or Éire if you prefer, though its unusual to do in English so except to disambiguate the state from the island between its creation and 1949). The Republic of Ireland Act did not create a new state or change the name of the existent one. You could also add the Confederacy and the Commonwealth too. Also don't forget that the Gaelic order (sorry, bad page, little time) was by-far-and-away the de facto polity except for the Pale until the end of the 16th century. See here.
 * Anyway, my question was about what you wrote about "stronger power", "pathways to independence" and one-view-or-another being "secondary," "not valid" etc. I just wonder if this is new WP:POLICY? I hadn't heard of it before. Thanks. --sony-youth pléigh 18:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sony-Youth. Brass-tacks .... Eire (1937-1949) was the Irish spelling of Ireland. It is a point-in-fact that the Irish leaders were pissed off at us "Anglos" totally accepting and refering to the "26 Counties" as Eire.

It was NOT an English word, so us "Anglos" said "Yaa whatever, they could call it the Peoples Republic of Shamrockland, who cares?"

Additionally, your "be-knighted nation" started the idiotic practice of refering to itself only via its short-form name. You see, Eire (or .... Ireland ) is by definiton, only a short-form name''. Your "blessed-little-land" has NO OFFICAL long-form name.

You dopes started this wholes mess eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Goodness! An even stranger answer this time around. Tá rud éigin mícheart leat, sílim. Chonaic mé go raibh fadhb agatsa leis freisin, a Bh. Fanfadh mé amach uaidh ar an chéad uair eile! --sony-youth pléigh 20:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Stranger than the de-facto language of the Republic of Ireland being English?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * de jure (Article 8.2) --sony-youth pléigh 23:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope ... English is de-facto.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we can split hairs. Depends on your dictionary (exclusive, not exclusive). But surely that "nope" doesn't mean you're denying it's je jure? --sony-youth pléigh 23:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Ok ... ok. Peace :)

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Peace :) --sony-youth pléigh 00:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Irish Free State is the successor whatever way you look at it SI was a devolved state in the UK and the UK did not recognise the Irish Republic so that rules them out, and the only reason the UK of GB&I granted the pathway to independence as you put it was because their was a war and it lost. -- Barryob   Vigeur de dessus  20:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the Anglo-Irish War (1918-1921) was inconclusive. The "peace" was a conditional one.  If the Irish Republicans had won outright they would of had "the Republic" immediately (and the whole Island of Ireland).


 * ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but the UK still lost 26 counties of Ireland because of the war it was hardly a case of the UK just deciding to let them go. -- Barryob   Vigeur de dessus  14:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? The UK decided to allow the 26 Counties to vote to seceed after a very affect guerrila war by the IRA. The UK still could of chosen not to let them go and escalated to Boer War tactics in Ireland. The British forces were still strong enough to do this, but they did not want to pay the very high price.

Compare it to the American Civil War. The Union really had to stomp the Confederate States of America to conquer them. And the Confederates chose NOT to employ guerrila tactics after April 1865.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Who needs Boer War concentration camps when you have the Black and Tans -- Barryob   Vigeur de dessus  23:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not the most ingratiating image – for the enemy that stood watch over the death of a million people and the fleeing of a million more as refugees, that forced 4 out of 5 of Irishmen and -women from their homes never to return, that slashed the population in half over 70 years, cutting the relative population of Ireland vis-à-vis England from 50% to 15%, that permanently pocked the demography of these islands – to be looking back over its shoulder at the 26 counties muttering something about concentration camps and scorched earth.


 * Of course, as Barry points out: whatever were the black and tans? why were 1 in 3 MPs for Ireland marked as fé ghlas ag Gallaibh ("imprisoned by the foreign enemy") at the sitting of the first Dail? As things were, we know that that policy didn’t work against the Boers either – not such a convincing victory - but when 50 years later there were still field hospitals lining the Irish border to treat British citizens fleeing their own government, you must ask:– do some people ever learn? --sony-youth pléigh 08:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

1922/27 - Free State
First, this article doesn't really deal with a "former" country, as this country still exists, just without the 26 southern counties of Ireland. That's my reasoning for having 1922 as the date, it take it up to the period until the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Is there any reason other than the the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act to say it lasted longer?

Second, the Irish Free State seceded from this state. Granted, I screwed up on this one before, but giving only the current UK as the secession link is bizarre. --sony-youth pléigh 23:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The date that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland legally changed its name to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland was 1927, this is my reasoning for using that date, futhermore, I agree with you that it isn't really a former country, and this is my exact reason for not putting the Irish Free State on what you call the secession link, as it is not supposed to be a sucession link and sucessions shouldn't be on it. Only states that one state broke into should be on it. Since the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland didn't break up, the only logical thing to do it to link it as continuing only into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Supertask 02:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposition for Merger with the article on the modern UK
It is really a creation of Wikipedia this seperation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the United Kindom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is supposed to represent the UK with southern Ireland and without it, but the names don't accurately fit this. southern Ireland succeded as the Irish Free State in 1922, but it was five years later, in 1927, that the formal name of the UK was changed from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It was a act of paliament ment to acknowledge the change. It certainly doesn't warrant two seperate Wikipedia articles. The state simply changed it name, it stayed the same, contrary to what the article on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland shows in the info box above the map, the state the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland didn't split into the Irish Free State and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As has been said, for five years, 1922 - 1927, the Irish Free State and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland existed alongside each other. I hope after this I have made it clear there is no technical reason why they should be seperate. Now for a final note: yes, it may be a convenient way to distinguish between pre-Irish Free State UK and post-Irish Free State UK, but, as the five year gap shows, it is not accurate. Since there is no other reason why the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be seperate, they should be merged into one United Kingdom article - with a note that it changed its formal name in 1927. Really what we have at the moment is one state with two seperate articles, documenting its history pre 1927 and post 1927 as I hope I have demonstrated, this is illogical and should be resolved, so I would like to put forward the proposition that this article be merged with the main UK article, to be reviewed and discussed by all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertask (talk • contribs) 00:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It covers the period when Ireland was part of the Union, it's definately not the same country with a different name. Loads of countries have seperate articles for different periods of their history, which is made easier if they had different names/land. This article deals with that period of "British Isles" history. Would you like the Nazi Germany page merged with the Germany page too? Didn't think so. --Kurtle (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is definitely the same state. Just with a different name and less territory. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Map Error
The map shows both the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands as being part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, however, they never were. They should not be highlighted in green. Could someone fix the map? 98.221.129.66 (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Scrap this article
This is a false article. What is the rationale for it? The UK of GB&I was not a separate state to the UK of GB&NI. There is total continuity in everything except the territorial extent and name. Mooretwin (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the name of the UK changed? If so, do other countries have separate articles each time its name has changed?
 * Because the Free State seceded (five years before the name change)? Are there separate articles for Denmark before and after Schleswig-Holstein seceded to Germany? What about for Pakistan before and after Bangladesh seceded?


 * Exactly, so this chronicles the constitutional history of the United Kingdom in that period. See, for example, Dominion of Pakistan, United Kingdom of the Netherlands, and - most notably - West Germany.
 * Probably, were it not for the overlapping nature of the Dominion of Pakistan and 'Greater' Pakistan, there would be an article on the latter; however, because the constitutional status is reflected by the article on the Dominion, the information on non-constitutional issues is in West Pakistan and East Pakistan respectively. Which is appropriate.
 * Fundamentally, if a country's character changes (even if the country is constitutionally the same), the literature will reflect this as treating the country differently. That will be grounds for a separate article per WP:Notability and WP:Reliable sources Bastin 12:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So why does this article continue to 1927, when the country's "character" did not change in 1927? Mooretwin (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article does treat the end of the UKGB&I as being both 1922 and 1927 (see infobox paragraph in the introduction, discussion later, and so on). And there's a reason for that, because cases can be made for either; the reason it continues to 1927 is because the name that the article bears was changed in 1927.  One could make a case for an article concerned strictly with the period up to 1922 ("History of the United Kingdom when all of Ireland was part of it" or another equally snazzy title), but I think this arrangement is better. Bastin 22:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's the point the other editors are making - Irish succession did not not mean the United Kingdom became a seperate country, merely altering its official name to acknowledge the change in territory. 1922 is a false epoch. This would be better offer as a redirect, as the article about the contemporary state is far more comprehensive than an article about the UK which really only covers Irish succession. This article doesn't chronicle the history of the UK betweeen 1801 and 1922 at all - maybe it should be rewritten and moved to United Kingdom and Irish succession, or something like that, but with the redirect to United Kingdom. YeshuaD avid   •  Talk  • 19:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That move would serve no purpose. This article name is infinitely preferable to a clumsy wording like that. Bastin 21:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If moved then to Union of Ireland and Great Britain, of which the article is the history? Why scrap it, any more than other passing unions, such as Chekoslovakia or Yugoslavia? Osioni (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Chekoslovakia and Yugoslavia cover the full histories of those states; this article, about a full century of British history, just covers the UK's relations with Ireland. YeshuaD avid   •  Talk  • 21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Article contains defined and notable subject matter. DrKay (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Its a clearly defined period in history common to both current countries.-- Snowded TALK 07:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - obviously a valid article which should not be scrapped or renamed (renaming would be even worse) BritishWatcher (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - have you lost it?--Vintagekits (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, why bury history? Tfz     12:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, indeed why bury history? GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you lot are voting for, it's not like we've put this for WP:AfD. But you do see the disparity between the article's title and mandate, and what it actually covers, right? YeshuaD avid  •  Talk  • 17:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

99.164.50.34's comment
im not satisfied with this UK artikle case it does not have a map showing the UK that breaks down the population by ethnic majority and show it by county like there is one with the USA arical this would be of great research importance to everyone i know that there has to be more than one ethnic group in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.50.34 (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2009


 * This article is about the United Kingdom between 1801 and 1927. For the current sovereign state, please see United Kingdom. Hayden120 (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As a rule 'ethnic groups' are of little or no importance in the UK and it has taken us around a millennia to realise that such distinctions merely cause trouble for all concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Irish history series
I have opened a discussion on a reorganisation of the series of articles dealing with Irish history at Talk:History of Ireland. --RA (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Aspects of the United Kingdom met with popularity in Ireland
In this section you use the fact that 210,000 Irishmen fought in the Irish regiments in the first world war as proof that aspects of the United Kingdom was popular in Ireland but there are many reasons why people go to war mainly economical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain meurig (talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Presumably getting on a boat and going to live somewhere else where they could make a living was less attractive to these Irishmen than joining the armed forces of a country they supposedly hated and then risking life-and-limb for said country fighting far away from home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland → Ireland in the United Kingdom – The current title, I think, creates a number of mis-conceptions. The most important of these being that it creates the impression that the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1922/27 was a different state to the United Kingdom of today. In fact, the two are one and the same state (as explained by the hat note on this page).

This misconception is borne out, for example, though the succession links from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Kingdom of Ireland (both of which ended in 1801) which lead here instead of to United Kingdom (which was created out of them in 1801). Frequently, references to this article are also found throughout the 'pedia apparently under the impression that it is a distinct state.

Since the article deals solely with the (notable) topic of Ireland in the United Kingdom, a simple renaming would sort this problem and clear the issue up.

This title (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) should then be redirected to United Kingdom (in the same way that United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is), which would fix up unexpected links.

-- RA (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose The suggested name and subject matter would appear to mirror the article History of Ireland (1801–1923). This article covers a different subject and should mirror comparable articles like French Third Republic, Weimar Republic, Batavian Republic, etc. France, Germany and the Netherlands are still states today but these articles describe the histories of those states during specific periods. DrKay (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The states you mention are actually different states, with different constitutions, etc.. The French Third Republic, for example, ended (effectively) in 1940 and the fourth one was constituted in 1946. The United Kingdom didn't end in 1922. It was constituted in 1801 and it is still going.
 * There is also the issue that this article doesn't actually talk about that state. I just mirrors, as you say, "History of Ireland (1801–1923)". I considered proposing a merge with History of Ireland (1801–1923). And I'd support that too. -- RA (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The "former country" format with flags and successor states is quite misleading. What should be at this lemma is a brief explanation of the terminology. Kauffner (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Which would also resolve the problem, as I see it, to a good degree. -- RA (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Much of the text in this page could, indeed, be merged to History of Ireland (1801–1923), as the page at present is far too focussed on Ireland, but per DrKay the United Kingdom which was created in 1801 and existed until the inception of the Irish Free State is a notable subject and both merits and needs an article of its own, just as Second French Empire and Kingdom of Great Britain do. I know that many users wish to simplify, simplify, but the history of the British Isles is exceptionally complicated and cannot be made clear without a suitably complex approach. For instance, in some historical contexts linking the words "British" and "United Kingdom" to the United Kingdom page has a strong potential to mislead which linking them to this page does not. Moonraker (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of mis-conception that I mean: "...the United Kingdom which was created in 1801 and existed until the inception of the Irish Free State..." Eh, no. The United Kingdom that was created in 1801 still exits. Unlike, say, the Third French Republic, or the Weimar Republic, and so on. The only new state created on these isles in 1922 was the Irish Free State. The British state created in 1801 did not go anywhere, only its borders shifted. This is different to, say, in 1707, when the Kingdom of Great Britain was created, or in 1801 when the United Kingdom was created; and when the respective states of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland (in 1707) and the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland (in 1801) ceased to be.
 * Example citation:"'The 1921 Treaty between the British government and the provisional government of Ireland, which led to the setting-up of the Irish Free State, was embodied in legislation in Westminster in the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act of 1922. The Act amended the Act of Union by excluding the twenty-six counties of the Irish Free State from its jurisdiction. When Northern Ireland exercised her right not to join the Free State, she retained her position under the Act of Union of 1800. Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom derived from the creation of the United Kingdom in 1801, but it was the 1920 Government of Ireland Act which became the Constitution of Northern Ireland.'"The secquence of states created on these islands are as follows:
 * Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, Principality of Wales, Lordship of Ireland: we'll take these as our starting point
 * 1542: (Principality of Wales is annexed by Kingdom of England)
 * Kingdom of Ireland: 1542 (Lordship of Ireland ceases to exist)
 * Kingdom of Great Britain: 1707 (Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland cease to exist)
 * United Kingdom: 1801 (Kingdom of Great Britain and Kingdom of Ireland cease to exist)
 * Irish Free State: 1922 (seceded from United Kingdom)
 * Ireland: 1937 (Irish Free State ceases to exist)
 * -- RA (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose this only covers the period of UKGBI, not the entire period of UK and GB's existence, since King James, when GB/UK came into existence (as England already was in Ireland). Remember Lord Protector Cromwell and Ireland? 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * !? - Cromwell as during the period of the separate kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland. I'm withdrawing the RM per WP:SNOW but it is obvious to me from the comments made that the misconception this article creates runs very deep. That needs to be addressed some way. -- RA (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I just want to reply to RA 's comment "This is the kind of mis-conception that I mean: "...the United Kingdom which was created in 1801 and existed until the inception of the Irish Free State..." Eh, no. The United Kingdom that was created in 1801 still exits." I agree of course that the present-day United Kingdom is the successor state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but it is a dramatically different country, smaller and with a parliament no longer obsessed by Irish questions. From 1801 the term "United Kingdom" meant Britain and Ireland together. In 1922 it became clear to all that that kind of "United Kingdom", the one created in 1801, no longer existed, and indeed the term "United Kingdom" was quickly dropped from the Royal titles and from many other official uses. In the mid-1920s Encyclopædia Britannica even started to call what was left of the British state "Great Britain". In 1927, after a long period of uncertainty, the term "Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" was adopted, and "United Kingdom" staged a comeback in official use, but it was obviously a term used to abbreviate a different name. The pre-1922 and post-1922 United Kingdoms must be distinguished from each other in many contexts. Moonraker (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, life was different in the 19th century and the United Kingdom is a dramatically different country today.
 * However, in 1922, the only new state created on these islands was the Irish Free State. That state was created by the Anglo-Irish Treaty (or more specifically the subsequent acts of parliament). The Irish Free State seceded from the United Kingdom, which was created in 1801 by the Acts of Union. The secession of the Irish Free State from the United Kingdom was a significant event (not to mention loss of territory) in the history of the United Kingdom but the only new state it created was the Irish Free State. Strictly speaking, the UK of today is the same state that was created in 1801, though significantly altered by the creation of Northern Ireland in 1921, the secession of the Irish Free State in 1922, and devolution in Scotland and Wales in 1999.
 * The UKGBNI is not a successor state to the UKGBI because the UKGBNI was not a newly created state. It was the same state, just later renamed, reflecting a changed reality. (Though, interestingly, even that change of name is not actually explicitly stated anywhere.)
 * In a similar way, Denmark, for example, did not cease to be — or become a new state — when Iceland seceded from it in 1918. And with regard to "sucessor states", Iceland is a successor state to Denmark; Denmark is not a successor state to itself. -- RA (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Runs waaayy too deep for most non-Irish-history-obsessed editors to grasp and appreciate. --HighKing (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * RA says above "Though, interestingly, even that change of name is not actually explicitly stated anywhere." This is incorrect, as the new name was stated in the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. In the House of Lords debate which led to that Act, Lord Birkenhead explained that the effect of it was to change the name of the United Kingdom and its parliament. See the debate here. Moonraker (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Just what the hell is this article all about?
The note at the top of this article tries to claim that This article is about the historical period during which Ireland and Great Britain formed a single state. When you read its content however, and then read History of the United Kingdom, you conclude that this is nothing but a bare faced lie. Based on its contents as of now, this article is about nothing except Ireland's position in the UK from the period between union and partition. It is idiotic in the extreme to presume anyone clicking on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is only wanting to know about the Irish topics alone, so something has to change. Scanning the reasons above for this situation developing, I see various ways forward. I list four below:

1) Move any content in here that's not duplicated elsewhere to a suitable place, then redirect this title to History of the United Kingdom

2) Expand this article to include all the information in History of the United Kingdom from 1800 to 1927 leaving only a summary there, in the process renaming this article History of the United Kingdom (1800-1927) and redirecting United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to United Kingdom

3) As 2), but keep United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland pointing at History of the United Kingdom (1800-1927) as a redirect, with a note directing people to the contemporary UK article

4) Completely rewrite this article along the lines of West Germany, covering the history, politics, culture and economy of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland during the period the UK was known by that name

I have no preference which one happens, except maybe 1 as the quickest or 4 as the most logical if the title cannot be a rediect, but one of them has to happen as the present situation is so offensive to the senses, so totally and utterly illogical, that doing nothing is not an option in my opinion. FerrerFour (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support 1, 2 or 3, with a preference for 2. West Germany is an interesting counter argument to my points in the section above. However, at a practical level, since the article has not developed along those lines in the 10 years since it's creation, it would be wishful thinking to imagine that it would start now. -- RA (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I prefer 4. There is sufficient information for an article on the topic. Even without writing a full article, it is a simple matter to shorten the article to a definition of the term with a brief outline of its adoption and eventual abandonment. DrKay (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "eventual abandonment" - ? -- RA (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The term was abandoned in 1927. DrKay (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. So this article is about a term, like Great Britain or Éire? And not about a state, like Kingdom of Great Britain or Irish Free State? The article is about the term, 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (which was abandoned in 1927)? I could deal with that. A premise like that could tell everything about the term, including the context of the creation of the adoption of the name and it's eventual abandonment.
 * (A wider article, like Names of the Irish State, to do with "Names of the British state" (or another more suitable title) would be very interesting too.) -- RA (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the history and culture is largely covered in other articles (or can be moved to them), leaving an explanation of the term as the main point of this one. DrKay (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest #5 -- move all the Irish-material to its own new article then follow option 4. option #6 retitle this article "Ireland and the U.K. of Gt B & Ire" Rjensen (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * RE: #6, see History of Ireland (1801–1923). -- RA (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * With articles such as Kingdom of Scotland, Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Ireland existing, i strongly oppose any of the options that simply would redirect this article to History of the United Kingdom or similar articles. This should not be treated in the same way as we handle articles on terms/names for the state, this is about a country and state that existed for over 100 years. I do not see the need to repeat lots of the history already contained in other articles, such as of the Uk and the Ireland one mentioned above. I dont see a problem with the article keeping its current title and focus. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think 4 is most appropriate. I may be willing to take a look at expanding the article if no one else wants the job.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 10:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support option 4 provided it did not result in history or elements being removed from other articles such as United Kingdom which does not just cover the period from 1922, instead going back to 1707. Maintaining a similar format between this article and Kingdom of Great Britain would also be very useless.  BritishWatcher (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "...this is about a country and state that existed for over 100 years." Yes, "over 100 years". 211 years and counting to be precise :-) The United Kingdom was created in 1801, not 1927. -- RA (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I must admit my preference is slightly for keeping the page intact as an article rather than redirecting, but I definitely see no mileage in re-writing this page to only talk about the name. If someone wants to create Names of the British state as a partner to Names of the Irish state, by all means go for it, but I don't think people would expect to find under this title a mere sub-article of that topic, not least when as has been pointed out, we have Option 4 type articles at Kingdom of Great Britain etc. Sabrebd, if you want to expand the article along the lines of option 4 then by all means do so. But please commit to doing so in a reasonable timeframe, otherwise something else will have to happen in the meantime, most likely a simple redirect to United Kingdom. Option 4 could then be implemented as and when you had a passable draft ready, because as someone pointed out, the evidence is not compelling that this will happen without someone committing to it though, and this page will remain in this awful state. FerrerFour (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support 3 because there are already many links to this page that would need to be redirected to History of the United Kingdom (1800-1927). Rob (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think both option 3 and 4 would be best with preference to 3. I disagree with option 1 because of the high amounts of information on this page that would not be appropriate for other articles. I also strongly disagree to option 2 due to the disruption it would cause to other articles. Between Option 3 & 4, i don't think it will really make any difference, as long as it is made clear that this is not a separate state to the United Kingdom. Rob (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

✅, Regards Rob (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I also support 4 and oppose 1, 2, and 3. There is a gigantic difference between what could be called the "original United Kingdom", uniting Great Britain and the whole of Ireland, and the smaller United Kingdom which has existed since the creation of the Irish Free State. Indeed, for several years after that separation the term "United Kingdom" was largely abandoned, in recognition of the new political reality. In hundreds of Wikipedia articles which refer to the earlier period, it would be quite inappropriate to link the term "United Kingdom" to the article United Kingdom, so this article is needed as the destination for the term. Having said that, I agree that the present article is weak and is too much focussed on Ireland. Moonraker (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I deleted a lot of duplication and excessive detail on Irish issues that are better covered in other articles. Rjensen (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

A 'historical period' being 'Disestablished'?
In the info-box, under the history, it suggests this 'historical period' was 'Disestablished' which i don't think really makes sense. Should be change it to 'Irish Succession'? Thanks, Rob (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Rob (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's secession, but is it necessary to pipe at all? DrKay (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. Thanks, Rob (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Edits on 11 October 2013
Hi Quis separabit?. Apologies for not leaving edit summaries. I made 4 changes: 1. Adding image_map_caption 2. Removing a link from a term already presently linked earlier (as per MOS) 3. Included dates to show when the two anthem variations were used 4. Removed or modified note tags copied from United Kingdom as I believe they had little to do with the actually topic. I'd appreciate your thoughts on these. Regards, Rob (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks, Quis separabit?  18:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Info-box
The info-box of this article is highly misleading. This was not a former country, and it is uncommon to use the former country info-box for historical periods so it causes confusion. Although it does have useful information, its not the appropriate place for it, and it isn't included on articles such as History of the United Kingdom (1945–present). Most the content is dublicated from United Kingdom, and all the other content is covered on more appropriate articles such as List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and List of British monarchs. Rob (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a standard former country, like the French Third Republic, not a historic period. It isn't included on the article History of the United Kingdom (1945–present) because that is another era entirely. (1801-1922/1927) vs (1945-). Dimadick (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * See consensus at Talk:United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland. And I was referring to the fact that History of the United Kingdom (1945–present) doesn't have an info-box showing the United Kingdom's 'info' during the period it covers, whereas this one does. Rob (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * They are completely different articles. One is supposed to cover a state, with its demographics, geography, politics, culture, and historical legacy. The other is supposed to be covering a specific historic period of a state, functioning as a sub-article. Also its state is still extant and doesn't belong with the articles of the WikiProject Former countries.
 * If History of the United Kingdom has to have something connecting it to other articles, then it should be with a template such as Template:History of Germany and Template:History of France. Curiously we do have a template called Template:History of the United Kingdom, but it is used in only one article: History of taxation in the United Kingdom. Dimadick (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is covering a 'specific historic[al] period of a state' called the United Kingdom. Like I said, an agree consensus was reached 6 years ago. If you would like to reopen that discussion, then go ahead, however I doubt you will change the consensus as there are no sources proving your statements. If you do decide to reopen that discussion, this discussion can be postponed awaiting the outcome. If you are not willing to reopen that discussion, then this discussion will continue based on the current consensus that this article covers a specific historical period of a state. Rob (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus, because the discussion you linked to was about the status of the article as a historical article. Not about a historical period. Re-read the arguments. And I seriously doubt that me and two other users could form a consensus in the first place. Consensus implies a wider discussion.Dimadick (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland are the same sovereign state.
 * This article refers to a historical period in which the whole of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom.
 * Here's some of the editors who have signified in some way that they agree with these statements:
 * "My understanding of the constitutional position is that UKGBI and UKGBNI are in fact one and the same state, and that the change in the 1920s was purely a redefinition of the state's title following the creation of the Irish Free State and the resultant change in the UK's territory." -Petecollier
 * "Petecollier is entirely correct." -Bastin
 * "The UK of GB&I was not a separate state to the UK of GB&NI. There is total continuity in everything except the territorial extent and name." -Mooretwin
 * "The United Kingdom was created in 1801, not 1927." -RA
 * "rewrite this article along the lines of West Germany, covering the history, politics, culture and economy of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland during the period the UK was known by that name" -FerrerFour
 * So there's at-least 6 editors who agree on the current position. That is consensus.
 * Rob (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) I have read over the 2007 discussion and, like Didamack, I don't see any suggestion, never mind a consensus, that this was an article on a period, not a place. What the discussion was about was the belief that the article was badly phrased, creating the impression that the UKGBNI was a completely different state to the UKGBI. In other words, it was about content. As regards the infobox, I will quote Bastin8 from that discussion:
 * I believe that the form that this article should take is similar to that of West Germany; it has its own article, uses Infobox Former Country, talks of it as clearly belonging to the past, and covers its economy, culture, history, and so on in the same way that it would cover any truly extinct country.
 * West Germany was, of course, the Federal Republic of Germany, which is still in existence. Since nobody disagreed with Bastin8, we may reasonably conclude that there was a consensus that that was the form the article should take.
 * I do think, however, that the article should not just be a "History of the UK 1801-1922". It could be improved by highlighting the differences between the nineteenth-century UK and the current one. For instance, there could be a "Government" section showing that there were two distinct systems in the two islands: Britain had a government chosen by a democratically elected parliament and responsible to the Crown; Ireland had a government appointed by the British and effectively responsible to the British parliament, although nominally responsible, through the Lord Lieutenant, to the Crown. There were similar differences in local government. Land ownership and tenure also differed between the two islands, and to an extent the financial administration of the two islands was different. Although Northern Ireland was not completely integrated into the UK, neither were its political, administrative and social systems the same as Ireland's had been in the UKGBI. I don't have the time to research and write up any of that, but I offer it as a course you could take if you wanted to make the article more meaningful. Scolaire (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If this article wasn't about a separate sovereign state, but instead the United Kingdom between 1801 to 1922, then this is about a historical period of the United Kingdom. All the suggestions you have made, don't change the fact that the article is about a historical period of the UK, even if you compare it with the state today. Personally, I think this article should be deleted as I don't think the secession of 10% of the state is significant, although I know most editors are against its deletion, however I am not against its expansion in the ways you have suggested. Like I said though, I think it will prevent confusion if we remove the info-box, which does not seem appropriate for an article about a historical period of a state. Rob (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Repeating yourself endlessly doesn't make what you say more meaningful. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was a state, not a time. Whether it is the same state as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in no way affects the fact that it was a state. Articles about time periods have some sort of time-related title; "kingdom" does not have any element of time in it. Incidentally, "I don't think the secession of 10% of the state is significant" has to be the most laughable statement I've heard in a long time. It was the beginning of the end of the British Empire! The UK post-1922 was a different place altogether from the UK pre-1919, whatever its legal or constitutional form.
 * The infobox was suggested by Bastin8 – one of the editors you quote as supporting your view – in 2007. It was adopted then and has been accepted ever since. It has never been shown to cause confusion. Scolaire (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't quoted any editors in supporting removing the info-box. I have quoted them in supporting the view that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are the same state. I don't know why Didamack decided to start a discussion on that in this discussion, I advised him to reopen the previous discussion when we were discussing that at his talk page.
 * I don't understand the distinction between a state and a time. How exactly is this article any different to History of the United Kingdom (1945–present)? They both cover periods of the United Kingdom.
 * Rob (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, to clarify, I don't think the periods in the history of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1922 is insignificant, I just don't think this article is how that information should be presented. Most the information on this article was copied by me from History of the United Kingdom. My proposed changed to the History of the United Kingdom article (removing all pre-1801 content) would mean that this article and that article would be incredible similar, as most of the information would be identical, however this is all dependent on whether my proposed changes go ahead. Rob (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So...you copied the content from History of the UK into this article, and now you're saying that this article is duplicating content from History of the UK and that's not how it should be presented? What can anybody answer to that?
 * And you don't understand the distinction between a state and a time? Really? If I said my home was in 2013 or that the current time is France, that would be perfectly comprehensible to you? Well, for the rest of us mortals, the UK is a state, "1945 to the present" is a time period and "History of the United Kingdom 1945–present" is neither a place nor a time, it is a history. Whether this article is different to that one depends on how it is written. If it is written as a history, as it currently is (largely thanks to you), it's not much different. If we were to follow the advice of FerrerFour, quoted by you above, and "rewrite this article along the lines of West Germany, covering the history, politics, culture and economy of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", then it would be very different. But it would still be an article on a place, not a time. Scolaire (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have misunderstood you obviously. Anyway, I made that edit based on the weak consensus at Talk:United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland. I don't think the fact that this refers to a place is relevant, its not a former country, and my comparison to History of the United Kingdom (1945–present) seems appropriate. The information in the info-box is not relevant or appropriate to the topic of the article, which is going over the history of the United Kingdom between 1801 and 1922. Listing the Prime Ministers during the period is not appropriate, as there is an article for people looking for UK Prime Ministers, same with the Monarch. The info-box simply isn't serving its purpose to present a summary of some unifying aspect that the article shares with other interrelated articles. Rob (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why you copied the content is irrelevant. Doing it and then later criticising the article based on what you did is irrational. The rest of your response is just the same old "I think...I think...I think". Nobody agrees with you. I've engaged with you in good faith but I'm done now. You've stated your case and you have your answer. Let it go. Scolaire (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I just made clear my opinion on the article clear to begin with, which really is irrelevant to the discussion on the info-box. Just because I would prefer this article to be deleted, doesn't mean I don't want to improve if it is not to be deleted. It affects readers understanding on the entire history of Britain. I have edited this article a lot, attempting to improve it, and improve readers understanding of the historical changes in the formation of the United Kingdom. This article's use of an info-box is not correct as per Wikipedia policy, is not helpful, and is misleading. I'm not going to end this discussion solely based on your opinion. I doubt I will get consensus on this, however I don't see what's wrong with proposing it if there's a chance other editors might agree. You haven't actually given any reason as to why this article should have the current info-box, except for the fact that the West Germany article also has one, which doesn't mean anything. Rob (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the West Germany comparasion is a good one. UKGBNI and UKGBI are the same state, but the UKGBI is probably significant enough to merit an article by itself (like West Germany vs. Germany). I say probably because I'm not entirely convinced.
 * However, if we do have a distinct UKGBI article then it needs to make very clear that this was not a former state but a period of a current one (just like the West Germany article does).
 * The article's introduction was recently changed here. That appears to have led to series of edits resulting in it becoming less clear (IMO) that the article is about a period.
 * I think the lead should be very explicit that UKGBI was the pervious name of the current UK (as was the case before). --Tóraí (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So, the intro was the consensus version according to until WheelerRob changed it, two days before he opened this thread, citing a "consensus" at #Relationship between UKGBI and UKGBNI as a reason to remove the infobox, although the consensus there was actually to add the infobox? This just gets better and better!  Scolaire (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * When did I cite 'a "consensus" at #Relationship between UKGBI and UKGBNI as a reason to remove the infobox'? I never did. My discussion with Didamack was about whether the UKGBI and UKGBNI are the same state, as he was using that as a reason against removing the info-box, which I'm sure you would agree is incorrect. Rob (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * My edit, "The history of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland began in 1801, under..." made clear this was a the same state as the United Kingdom, by stating that it is a part of the history of the United Kingdom, which was then later edited. This was simply to remove repetition, as the second and third sentences, repeat the first sentence, but in more detail. Also, my edit, in my opinion, better summarised the article, as it stated what the article is about, rather then defining the title, of which is made obvious later on in the lead. Although DeCausa modified the introduction after I edited it so that it didn't explicitly state that this was part of the history of the UK, his edit did improve the rest of the introduction, therefore my proposed change to the introduction would be:
 * The history of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland began in 1801, under the terms of the Acts of Union 1800, by which the formerly separate kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland were united. In 1922 twenty-six of the thirty-two counties of Ireland seceded to form the Irish Free State, later the Republic of Ireland and the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 amended the name of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to reflect the change in the country's boundaries. The Act is conventionally considered to mark the point when the name of the state changed to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
 * I think this makes clear this is the same state as the current United Kingdom, without the repetition.
 * Rob (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is more appropriate as per WP:MOS, and makes clear this was the formal name of the United Kingdom. Why revert Scolaire? Rob (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You've been told why. You have my answer re the infobox, and Tóraí's reasons why the edit to the intro was inappropriate. You saying the same thing all over again does not oblige us to answer you all over again. If you revert back to your version then you are editing against consensus. Linking the successor state to an article section rather than an article, as you did here, was never even suggested on this talk page, so that's doubly against consensus. Scolaire (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Going back to the info-box, possibly taking an approach similar to that at Commonwealth of England would be more appropriate. As the article covers a period, the info-box excludes many of the sections which are not appropriate, such as the Coat of Arms, as these changed throughout the period (as they do here also) and instead includes them further down the article in appropriate sections. Also, things that have no changed from the present day, and therefore are already included at United Kingdom, such as the Flag, Motto, etc, could be removed as they aren't relevant to the topic of the article. This, in my opinion, makes it clearer that this is about a period within the existence of a state, and not a state in its own right. Rob (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The opening of the article is grammatical nonsense and is a Use–mention distinction mismatch. This article is about a thing not a term. The opening of the article should state what this thing is: i.e. a state established in 1801 which changed its name in 1927. (And, by the way, the title of this article isn't "history of" this thing either, so don't say it is in the opening sentence.) Good grief. don't know why this sort of stuff has to be so hard on WP. DeCausa (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is what I have been attempting to change, but is constantly reverted for no reason. Tóraí said the 'lead should be very explicit that UKGBI was the pervious name of the current UK', so from this, I then went on to propose a introduction that was somewhat better then the current one, but Scolaire appears to reverted it again for no reason, claiming that Tóraí statement somehow suggests its not appropriate, which it doesn't. Rob (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Tóraí (there's no need to keep linking user names) was quite explicit in his edit summary. He said the intro needs to be reverted. He then identified this edit and this as the ones that made the intro "less clear". Scolaire (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have clearly justified as to why I think my edit was appropriate, and argued that my edit did not make it more unclear as Tóraí (I think its helpful to alert editors when they are being mentioned) claimed. Like I have said multiple times, the current introduction is not as per WP:MOS, and although not ideal, my proposed intro was more appropriate (again as per WP:MOS) so unless there is a better alternative, then it should stand. Rob (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no reason why it should stand. You have unclearly stated why you think your edit was appropriate. Look up WP:Consensus and see whether you think that is a good definition of consesnsus. Dimadick, Tóraí, DeCausa and myself (yes, I forgot about the notifications) have all said plainly that we disagree with your edits, and with the reasoning behind them. Nobody has agreed with you. That means that the consensus is against you. I am not saying this in any triumphalist way; it is just a painful fact that you will have to come to terms with. Editing against consensus is disruptive, and endlessly repeating yourself does not make it less so. Finally, if others do not respond to your most recent post (as happened with your post here on 23 October) it may be it may be only because they think you have brought nothing new to the table, and therefore don't wish to prolong a fruitless discussion any further. Unless they specifically say "Oh right, I agree with you now" it is not reasonable to presume that you have converted everybody else at a stroke. Scolaire (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm aware I didn't have consensus, and my intention was to provoke a response. Other editors are unwilling to address the issue with the current introduction. The lead needs to state what the article is about, not define the title, as per WP:LEAD. Rob (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If other editors don't think there is an issue, then there is no issue, and therefore there is no need to provoke. I have re-read the intro, and I don't see any conflict with WP:LEAD. That guideline says the lead "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points" (emphasis added). Allowing (as we all accept) that the article is pretty poor, the lead does all of those things adequately. I will ask you one last time, then, not to fiddle with the lead or the infobox any more, since you have been made aware that doing so will be viewed as disruption, and not as a good faith attempt to improve the article. The same goes for similar fiddling on related articles. Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Other editor don't think there's an issue? DeCausa summed up the problem, stating 'This article is about a thing not a term'. I don't know how you can deny there is a problem, you need to re-read WP:LEAD. Rob (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Flag
I thought we had agreed somewhere along the line that the Green Ensign isn't an official flag, and therefore should not be used? DrKay (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Why does this article exist
The uk in this period was not a separate state to the uk today not to mention that no other page like lists of monarch promonister parliaments or elections make this distinction178.103.248.184 (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Because it is the predecessor state of the UK that exists today. Same reason why British America and thirteen colonies / United states of America are not the same article.

the UK in its current form succeeded when the Republic of Ireland gained independence from the UK. Thus why its now called United Kingdom of Great Britain and "Northern" Ireland — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesViBritannia (talk • contribs) 01:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Map error - Polish border
The Polish eastern border on the map appears to be completely wrong. Compare File:Europe-United Kingdom (1921).svg and File:RzeczpospolitaII.png, and see File talk:Europe-United Kingdom (1921).svg. DuncanHill (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom of Great Britain
So it was established on this talk page years ago that the modern-day UK is the same entity as the UKGBI (even though the article sometimes gave the misleading impression otherwise). I just want to make sure the same thing is not happening to the Kingdom of Great Britain article. I've raised the issue at Talk:Kingdom_of_Great_Britain in case anyone is interested. Spellcast (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment on Irish limited independence
I can only assume that the intention of the following: Union of Great Britain and Ireland

A brief period of limited independence for Ireland came to an end following the Irish Rebellion of 1798,...

Is a reference to the period 1782 to 1798 where the Irish Parliament found itself free to discuss matters of it's own choosing due to the Constitution of 1782 rather than those selected by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland who prior to that effectively controlled parliamentary agenda. However, if I was not a well educated member of a line of "spares" rather than "heirs" and therefore know my history, it's unlikely that anyone would be able to determine which limited period, why the period was limited, whether a rebellion caused the limited independence etc...

Elvisbrandenburgkremmen (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"Briton"
Concerning the demonym "Briton", about which there has been a wee bit of argument, the Oxford English Dictionary (online edition) has:

2. A native or inhabitant of Britain, or (now hist.) of the British Empire.

Not in general use in this sense until the early 18th cent., esp. following the union of England and Scotland; in the 18th and 19th centuries often used with allusion to qualities of bravery and fortitude. Black, North Briton, etc.: see the first element.

a1529  J. Skelton Phyllyp Sparowe (?1545) sig. C.v  Ryght so she doth excede All other of whom we rede whose fame by me shall sprede In to Perce and Mede From brytons Albion.

1547  J. Harrison Exhort. Scottes G v b  When these hateful termes of Scottes and Englishemen, shalbe abolisshed, and blotted oute for euer, and we shal al agre in the onely title and name of Britons.

1679  Dryden Troilus & Cressida Prol. sig. b4  See, my lov'd Britons, see your Shakespeare rise.

1736  'Squire Bickerstaff Detected (new ed.) in Swift Misc. I. 205   A Briton born, a Protestant Astrologer, a Man of Revolution Principles.

1740  J. Thomson & D. Mallet Alfred ii. v. 42  Rule, Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never will be slaves.

1760  King George III in G. Rose Diaries (1860) II. 189  I glory in the name of Briton.

1817  C. Wolfe Burial Sir J. Moore in Edinb. Monthly Mag. June 278/1  Nothing he'll reck, if they let him sleep on In the grave where a Briton has laid him.

1859  Harper's Mag. Feb. 392/1  All Britons could not but join in the plaudits for which august hands had given the signal.

1886  Tennyson Locksley Hall Sixty Years After 43   Britons, hold your own!

1902  G. S. Whitmore Last Maori War p. vi   Many of the rank and file had no better conception of the proud and sensitive Maori than was implied in the degrading ‘nigger’ theory, invariably applied by the unthinking Briton to all coloured races.

1938  ‘R. Hyde’ Godwits Fly viii. 139  ‘A little Briton,’ he said, patting Simone's shoulder, ‘game as a regular little Briton.’

1991  Investors Chron. 26 July 11/1  The average Briton received just 38 items of junk mail last year—compared with..over 200 in the United States.

2007  New Scientist 21 July 9/3   Taxing unhealthy food could save as many as 3200 Britons from strokes and heart attacks each year, a study by epidemiologists has found.

Therefore I'm putting "Briton" back. Wikiain (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Demonym
Why are "English, Scottish", etc. in the list of demonyms, when the scope of this article is only the sovereign state. If it goes beyond "British" and "Briton", that is in the scope of home nations and not the sovereign state. By that logic we would have to add every applicable demonym (Glaswegian, etc.). PrussianOwl (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's just been shown in the section above this one that "Briton" only applies to the island of Britain. You can't have it both ways. Either all the national demonyms apply or none of them do. DrKay (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Prove it. For example, the Tennyson quote refers with great emphasis to the whole Empire—specifically, beyond "our ancient island State" to "one imperial whole" as of 1886.
 * Please recognise that the issue here is of historical fact: what the name "Briton" meant in the period 1801-1922, even if that meaning be unpleasant today. Wikiain (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You've just proved it yourself. This article isn't about the British Empire; it's about one part of it: the united state of Ireland and Great Britain. Your argument is equivalent to "the Gold Coast was part of the British Empire and so the demonym for the Gold Coast is Briton" or "the Malay States were part of the British Empire and so the demonym for the Malay States is Briton". You are taking one statement "the demonym for Britain is Briton" (which is a tautology) and another statement "Ireland was once part of the same empire as Britain" (which is demonstrable) and constructing a new statement "the demonym for a state containing Ireland is Briton" (which is not explicitly supported by your sources). It's original research by synthesis. I don't think you're going to be successful in persuading editors to agree to "Briton" being the demonym in every infobox on all former colonies of Britain. DrKay (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * British and Irish should be included. However English, Scottish & Welsh should not. Briton is debatable. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * DrKay, you seem to be confusing synonym with demonym—an alternative name for a country with a name for the people of a country. The colloquial name for (as you say) "the united state of Ireland and Great Britain" was "Britain", and the people of that state were known as "British" and "Britons".  If that was like Americans referring to the present UK as "England", so was it. Wikiain (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Look up "Irish" in the OED. See all those examples from between 1801 and 1922? Yep, that's right people from there were called Irish. DrKay (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course they were called "Irish". There were also "Devonians" and "Glaswegians". Wikiain (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Devon and Glasgow are on the island of Great Britain. Ireland isn't. DrKay (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Consider this - Northern Ireland, a part of the island of Ireland, is still part of the UK to this day. On the page United Kingdom, the only demonyms in the infobox are "Briton" and "British". There's no "Northern Irish" demonym listed there, despite the fact that Northern Ireland is still not geographically part of the island of Britain. PrussianOwl (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The whole argument argument is based on a red herring. The article on the subject states that a demonym is a "word that identifies residents or natives of a particular place and is derived from the name of the place". The question that has to be asked is not "which demonym identifies everyone in the UKoGBI?" but "if you want to identify someone as from the UKoGBI which denonym do you use?". The only word that has ever been used for that purpose is British (or a derivative of). The fact that after 1801 the denomyn wasn't changed to acknoledge the addition of Ireland actually speaks quite elloquently to the relationship between Ireland and the state. -- Eckerslike (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Survey
Should the demonym field be removed from the infobox? DrKay (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and currently there's no source at all that people from Ireland were usually called Britons. Even if a British nationalist source that says every resident of the British Empire from Antarctica to Zanzibar was a Briton is presented in the course of this debate, the balance of sources is still strongly against such a fringe view. Most sources say people from Ireland are Irish. DrKay (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, if English, Scottish & Welsh are going to keep being added. Since the demonym content is going to be constantly disputed, then delete the entire thing. When in doubt, throw it out. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No - wrong question. Nobody is challenging "British". What is being debated is whether "Briton" should also be included.  Wikiain (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No. I agree with Wikiain and -- Eckerslike. Leave in the demonyn and set it to 'British'. They are all British subjects (even the Northern Irish). Jschnur (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Jschnur, I think you've gone partly off the topic. The question is of demonym/s for the UKGB&I, 1801-1922, not the current UKGB&NI.  "British" is right for both.  As to "Briton", I wouldn't support it for the UKGB&NI - it's become antiquated and rare.  But it seems to have been in common use in the UKGB&I, however much many Irish may have detested it. Wikiain (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks for the clarification. It appears "Briton" was once appropriate if regarding the historical context. Jschnur (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then provide a source stating so. DrKay (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See the previous section. Wikiain (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I did. It's not there. Ireland isn't even mentioned in that section. It is mentioned in the next section down where I point out that the source you're using actually says that the demonym for Ireland is Irish between 1801 and 1922. DrKay (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Previous section, "Briton", citing OED on "Briton". And the demonym for Ireland is and was "Irish"—no linguistic problem. Wikiain (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Apart from there being no mention of Ireland under the OED's entry for "Briton", there's no mention of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland either. DrKay (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It happens to be a dictionary of the principal language used in the UK. Wikiain (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ireland too. DrKay (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "Briton" is an odd and almost entirely literary word - ie I don't believe it has every been normal in spoken English. In practice everyone knows that English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh are much more common than British, never mind Briton. The reluctance of the English to describe themselves as British has long been notorious. Include them all or (probably better) drop the lot. British has become more common in recent decades, perhaps as we see more American media. Continental Europeans still tend to talk about the "English government" etc. "Briton" is certainly not needed, as too obscure, & actually a tad difficult for 2nd-language speakers to use, being only a noun, unlike most demonyms - no-one has suggested we use its strict equivalents of "Scot" or "Irishman". I doubt comparable articles include both the noun and adjectival forms, & there is no need for it. France just has "French" despite "he is a French" being as ungrammatical as "he is a British".  As with "French", Briton just redirects to British people. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral with regard to whether the field should be retained, but oppose the inclusion of "Briton". I have never heard that word being applied to any Irish person, 19th-century or otherwise. A Briton is somebody from the island of Great Britain. Scolaire (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep field and both terms. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Briton as "A native or inhabitant of Britain, or (now hist.) of the British Empire", and provides citations for historical uses of "Briton" applied to British subjects not from the island of Great Britain. So, other editors' claims that, even historically, "Briton" referred only to inhabitants of Great Britain, is patently and demonstrably false.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 11:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Page name/move
I have undone the undiscussed move to United Kingdom (1801–1922) by. I do not think such a move should be made without a proper move discussion, and I have to say I would oppose such a move as being to something of a "made-up name". DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I would be more sympathetic to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801–1922). Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801–1922)). I saw the move had been done and was unable to find any discussion at all. Bazza (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

"UKOGBAI" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect UKOGBAI. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 24 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Blue Riband► 15:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

UK edits
Hi. I'm not going to revert your edits now, but there was never any dissolution of the UK, therefore no "time of dissolution". The UK of today is actually the same exact state with less land in Ireland. I just changed it to show Europe at a more well known time. Secondly, the coordinates of London are formatted wrong on mobile, check it out yourself, so that should be fixed. SaturatedFatts (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's very considerate of you; reverting my edits would, in any case, go against WP:BRD. "time of dissolution" was the wording in summary, not something I put in the article; I don't think it's an unreasonable shortcut phrase to use for what I meant. You haven't explained how Europe is "more well known" in 1914 than 1921, nor why the map for the former is "more iconic" as you stated in your edit summary. Bazza (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I though it sort of self explanatory, especially for Europeans. The 1914 borders are the famous pre-WW1 borders, that also more accurately reflect the Europe this era of the UK existed in, rather than the immediate post WW1 borders it existed in for a couple of years. What if I make an svg of the UK in 1914, then will it be OK? Also, what are you going to do about the wrong formatting of the coordinates on mobile? Thanks. SaturatedFatts (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (I've indented your reply.) Well, my opinion is that the current map is OK, although I'd prefer one with no European borders at all; they add nothing to the topic of the article. I don't see why 1914 is so special: there were other changes to European countries' throughout the existence of the UKoGB&I, yet we're not considering those. Others may contribute to this discussion and think your idea is better. We'll see. On the coordinates: I'm not going to do anything. I assume you're referring to font size: it's not clear what the problem is. I've looked at the article on the Wikipedia app on my Android phone: the coordinates are fine, as they are in the mobile Chrome browser. The Manual of Style is very clear that small fonts are not allowed in infoboxes because that goes against Wikipedia's accessibility obligations. Bazza (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I should have explained it better. On mobile the coordinates don't wrap so they're just right next to the word London instead of under it like they're supposed to be. The only reason I also made the font small is because it was like that in Kingdom of Great Britain, but that isn't the problem, it's the wrapping. I already made an svg of the UK before WW1, is there any way I can put up a vote or something for a consensus to be made on whether I can use it? Thanks again. Also if the coords look okay on the Wikipedia app, try looking at it on Chrome on mobile, that's where I see the problem. SaturatedFatts (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My phone always displays the coordinates below the capital name in the WP app; in a browser, coordinates are next to the capital name if there's room (in landscape), or below if not (in portrait). There's no "supposed to" given about the position of coordinates in Template:Infobox country, nor anything in MOS:COORDS that I can see. I did notice that the template has a specific parameter for the capital's coordinates so have edited the article to use that; now everything is done automatically and we have little control, which is how things should be for consistency. Feel free to change the article you referred to do the same. If you really feel strongly that the coordinates should be on a separate line then you will need to start a process to edit the template(s) involved; personally, I wouldn't bother putting in the not-inconsiderable effort to recode and test that. For the map, WP doesn't have voting as such: everything is by consensus. If you're feeling strongly about it and have produced an SVG version you like and uploaded it to Commons, then I won't argue about that: we've done the "D" bit of WP:BRD. Bazza (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks so much! What you did fixed the "problem" I was having anyway even if it wasn't a real problem and just something that bothered me. I'm going to go ahead and use my map and hopefully everyone likes it. SaturatedFatts (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Drawing attention to my edit 15 Dec 2021
The first sentence had read, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was a sovereign state that existed between 1801 and 1922.[3]" This was based on a misinterpretation of the Britannica article. Footnote A had already caught this, saying, "The state did not cease to exist after the Irish Free State seceded from the Union in 1922 but continued as the same country..." I changed "1922" to "1927." In my edit summary, I wrote, "Correcting sentence to reflect Footnote A. Britannica article had been misinterpreted. While the UNION officially ended in 1922, the STATE of that name did not end then. It lasted till April 12, 1927. To deny this is to affirm that no state existed in that location for those 5 years." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC65:41B9:E88F:8A7C:6C66:361C (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Per Verifiability and No original research all content should be explicitly supported by reliable sources. Per Neutral point of view, due weight should be given to different views proportionate to their coverage in reliable sources. If most sources choose 1927 over 1922, then that can be used as the main end date. If most sources use 1922 over 1927, then that should be used as the main end date. Other dates given in other sources should be explained in the text or a footnote. The source currently given uses the dates December 6, 1921; January 15, 1922 and May 29, 1953, with 1922 the date "the union officially ended". There's no mention of 1927 in the source given. DrKay (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh. Hi DrKay. I didn't see this before. The source cited is the Britannica. It does not say the state ended in 1922. I can see no reliable sources that say 1922. Do you have any? I have not done any original research. But the 1922 date logically implies the absurd conclusion that no state existed in that location during those five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC65:41B9:E88F:8A7C:6C66:361C (talk • contribs)
 * It says explicitly "The union officially ended on Jan. 15, 1922". Per WP:BURDEN: the burden is on you to provide a source saying the state ended in 1927 not on the editor who has already provided one for 1922. DrKay (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I addressed that point in my original statement. Yes, the particular union that included the whole of Ireland ended in 1922. No one disputes that. But the Britannica doesn't say that union was identical with the STATE. If it had been, then the state itself would have ceased to exist during those years. Do you seriously believe Britannica is saying Britons were bereft of a state for five years? That would have come as a shock to George V. His wiki article sz, "In 1924, George appointed the first Labour Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, in the absence of a clear majority for any one of the three major parties. George's tactful and understanding reception of the first Labour government (which lasted less than a year) allayed the suspicions of the party's sympathisers." So during that period, King George was merrily reigning over...what state? States and unions can be closely related, but those words aren't synonyms. If the South had successfully left the union in 1865, would that have left the North without a state? It's clear Britannica is saying that particular union ended, but the state itself remained under that name until they got around to changing it in 1927. I put it to you there's no reliable source that can reasonably be interpreted as saying the STATE ended in 1922. Clearly, the state continued to exist and was finally renamed on April 12, 1927. Before that date, it still retained its previous name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC65:41B9:E88F:8A7C:6C66:361C (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Between 1801 and 1922, Great Britain and Ireland were united as a single kingdom.
 * The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland encompassed both islands between 1801 and 1922.
 * Ireland was formally part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland between 1801 and 1922.
 * The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland included all of Ireland between 1801 and 1922.
 * Between 1801 and 1922, Great Britain and Ireland formed a single kingdom called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
 * There are various ways the opening statement can be re-written that do not require the insertion of unsourced material or the exclusion of a mainstream view. DrKay (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have seen 1927 being mentioned as the year the UKGB&I became the UKGB&NI. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously, that's why it is in the first paragraph, and the last paragraph of the lead, and the infobox, and the list of monarchs. DrKay (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Defining the UK of GB&I
The article should at the very list include a definition of what the UK was instead of merely saying that it comprised the entirety of Britain & Ireland. TheCelebrinator (talk) 12:30, July 9, 2023 (UTC)
 * Your version is self-defining: stating that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was a period of the United Kingdom. I don't understand how a country can be a period of a country. I've reverted the edits back to the previous stable one. Please continue to follow WP:BRD before changing further. Bazza (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * There are examples of other articles using the "period of" designation, such as the ones for the German Empire, Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany, which all collectively refer to the same country – the German Reich – but in three distinct periods between 1871 and 1945.
 * Therefore, we should replace the words "sovereign state" with another designation as that implies the UKGB&I is a different state/country from the contemporary UK, which it isn't. If "period of the United Kingdom" is too repetitive, then "British state" is another alternative, but the impression that the UK of 1801–1922 was a different country can be misleading. TheCelebrinator (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)