Talk:United Kingdom

Remove Archaic Terminology

Potentially remove or add a note to the term "briton" from the infobox, As it is largely now archaic and used in historical (or sometimes ethnic) contexts, Not casual or professional speech about the UK as it has been replaced by BritishYooperhunter2022 (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not tagged as an archaic term by the Cambridge Dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/briton) or Collins (https://grammar.collinsdictionary.com/english-usage/what-is-the-difference-between-britain-british-and-briton). Dgp4004 (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Also still in regular use [1][2][3]. CMD (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Archaic? Here's the BBC using it 6 days ago. And here's the Guardian using it 10 days ago. DeCausa (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Coats of arms

The current infobox text explaining the coats of arms presents the coat of arms of the UK on the left (visually first) and of Scotland on the right (visually second), and yet the text below highlights the use of the Scottish coat of arms first, directing the reader to look at the arms on the right, and then highlights the usage of the coat of arms of the UK, directing the reader to look at the arms on the left.

This seems visually messy. Is there any way of cleaning that text up, something like:

"Coat of arms of the UK (left), and the coat of arms used in Scotland (right)"? AuthorOfOne (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I have swapped the placement of the words to "Used elsewhere (left) and in relation to Scotland (right)" WhatADrag07 (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The United Kingdom itself has two coats of arms, one for England (and elsewhere), and one for Scotland. From the earlier editing dispute in the edit history between @A.D.Hope and @Bazza 7, I highly suggest just putting Coats of arms since the UK has two of them, and not one for the entire country. Ligh&Salv (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I think I'm right in saying the UK has a single coat of arms with two versions; both are the royal arms and carry exactly the same authority, the only difference being that one version is used in relation to Scotland and the other in other contexts. This isn't how coats of arms usually work, of course, but the royal arms are something of a law unto themselves.

The caption should ideally explain this briefly. The current wording is flawed in that it mentions the versions in the opposite order to which they're displayed, but this isn't an insurmountable problem. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I've just looked at the monarchy's website and it does refer to "a" coat of arms with two versions. But I'm not really clear on what is the substantive difference between 2 versions of a coat of arms and 2 coats of arms. It seems just semantics. Curious. DeCausa (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

As I understand it, the two versions of the royal arms function as a single coat; they represent exactly the same authority and are effectively interchangeable, albeit by custom the Scottish version is restricted to Scottish contexts. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes I do agree they function as one coat and represent the same authority (the King), but they are not one coat, they are two seperate coats for two seperate usages. Ligh&Salv (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

The royal arms is a bit like one of those reversible coats with a different pattern on each side. It's one coat, but with two designs. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

For the purposes of this discussion, do we actually need to agree on the technicalities? We agree there's two versions of the arms, the question is how to address that in the caption, if at all. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, now that we agree, I'm thinking we put "Coats of arms" as the caption but a efn explaining the rest. Ligh&Salv (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@A.D. Hope Do you agree or want a compromise Ligh&Salv (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

The United Kingdom does not have a single coat of arms for the entire country, whether it be two versions or not, the UK has two coat of arms, one for England (and elsewhere not including Scotland), and one for Scotland. The UK does not have one, single, unified coat of arms for the entire country, as does the United States or other countries. Ligh&Salv (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@LightandSalvation: It was not an editing dispute. @A.D.Hope made a change and I reverted it, with a reason given in the edit summary. @A.D.Hope redid their edit, although without following the spirit of WP:BRD; I would have started this conversation subsequently if I had not been beaten to it.

Summarising what has been said:

• The United Kingdom does not have a coat of arms.
• The monarchy has two coats of arms: one for use in Scotland, one elsewhere, including outside the UK.
• The coats of arms of the reigning monarch are sometimes used by government and other agencies to signify "the United Kingdom".

I suggest two solutions, in my own order of preference:

1. The images are replaced by text to the effect of "There is no coat of arms for the United Kingdom. The coats of arms for the UK's reigning monarch are often used when a symbol of the country is required."
2. Leave the infobox as-is, and suffix a footnote to the "Coat of arms" header.

Bazza 7 (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd say leave it as is. While they may be de jure the monarch's coats of arms, they are de facto used by the government in government statements and on UK citizen documents (passports, driving licences etc.). So it is fitting to keep both as both are used by the state. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Here we go with de jure and de facto oh how I love the United Kingdom Ligh&Salv (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 It's 4 12 am in the morning but I support the footnote Ligh&Salv (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

How about introducing some sourcing into this? Firstly, the coat of arms is that of the monarch. There is one coat and 2 versions (not 2 coats) and are "borne only by the sovereign". See the Monarchy's website for the foregoing.[4] According to HMG's website, the government also use the coat of arms "to denote the Royal Authority by which the Government acts - it is “His Majesty’s Government”"[5]. In fact, you won't see the coat of arms outside royal or governmental usage (except where there's a royal warrant). So for example, national sport's teams won't use it. To call it a de facto national symbol is wrong. (Specifically, the proposed phrasing "often used when a symbol of the country is required." is not corrrect.) It is specifically a royal and governmental symbol only. In fact, if anyone were to try to use it outside of the sovereign or governemnt they would find themselves subject to litigation from the Treasury solicitors! DeCausa (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I can understand the rationale for suggestion one, as in the UK coats of arms belong to individuals or corporations rather than geographic areas, however many coats of arms are associated with geographic areas and the distinction is often ignored. Even Fox-Davies, in his Book of Public Arms, frequently states that an achievement belongs to a town or city rather than its corporation. While the distinction is worth making, an infobox caption isn't the best place to do it.

Suggestion two would allow for a longer explanation of the situation, which is good, however my preference is still for a normal caption if we can find an appropriate form of words. Failing that, we could simply omit the caption altogether, following the precedent of other monarchies such as The Netherlands, Belgium, and Denmark. I would prefer to keep the title 'coat of arms' singular, for the reasons I've given above.

The BRD process is useful and I do recognise that, but it isn't mandatory. The important thing is that a discussion occurs when a dispute arises, and that's what's currently happening here. I can assure you I'm committed to talking things through. (@LightandSalvation: to avoid branching the discussion, I hope you don't mind treating this as a reply to your comment above.) A.D.Hope (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope Dude its 5 am do you guys not sleep? Also I don't mind I just want a verdict out of this discussion Ligh&Salv (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors live all over the world, so your 5am might be someone else's 5pm. There's no great rush with discussions; you can respond whenever it's convenient, within reason, even if that's a few hours or days after the last comment. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

That is right! Ligh&Salv (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree - it is one coat of arms, singular, with two versions. The sources bear that out. So my vote would be for 'coat of arms'. Dgp4004 (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd also add that I don't think an explanatory footnote is necessary either. There's a link to the royal arms right underneath and readers can learn all about it there. Dgp4004 (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh there is? Ligh&Salv (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Above rather Dgp4004 (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Yea I was just gonna say it's above not below. Well since there is a link I guess that can act as the efn. Ligh&Salv (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh well I think this discussion can conclude with the verdict that "Coat" and not "Coats" of arms shall remain as the caption and that no efn is needed since the caption is linked and that serves as the efn. Ligh&Salv (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 , @A.D.Hope, @DeCausa, @The C of E, @WhatADrag07, do we all agree on a footnote and keeping the current caption or a compromise? Ligh&Salv (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

As long as we're leaving the arms in the infobox as they are (ie. no change), then I agree with that. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

No, that wasn't their last edit. See above. No footnote, which I agree with as I don't agree with the proposed wording. DeCausa (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@The C of E Great! Ligh&Salv (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

England and Scotland were leading centres of the Scientific Revolution from the 17th century

This assertion regarding science isn't entirely accurate, and the cited source fails to back it up.

While England was at the forefront of the Scientific Revolution, Scotland lagged behind during this period, lacking notable inventions or scientific advancements.

Although Scotland later made significant contributions, it was not a prominent center of scientific activity at this time, whereas England clearly was. ~2025-34861-26 (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Coats of arms in 1 image.

Why does this page have the coats of arms of the UK in 1 image? Dynamismcool (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not clear what you are trying to say. Are you talking about the images in the infobox? What do you mean by "in the 1 image"? DeCausa (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean why is there the coat of arms of the UK in the same infobox with Scotland's. So yes the infobox. Dynamismcool (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

They're both the coat arms of the UK (actually of the UK monarch). One is for use in Scotland, one for elsewhere. The coat of arms of Scotland is something different: it's this. DeCausa (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2025

Template:Edit extended-protected Under History -> 21st century:

Last sentence is: The UK was the first country in the world to use an approved COVID-19 vaccine, developing its own vaccine, which allowed the UK's vaccine rollout to be amongst the fastest in the world. I would change it to: The UK was the first country in the world to use an approved COVID-19 vaccine. Development of its own vaccine allowed its rollout to be among the fastest in the world. Nitram313 (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't even understand the logic of this statement. Private companies developed vaccines, beginning production at various times. Countries' public health services developed vaccines, beginning production at various times. How is it a given that no private company could have produced and began to distribute a vaccine to one or more countries before some country's own public health service came up with a vaccine and that country began to distribute it? Largoplazo (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I've implemented the OP's request. Existing wording was muddled. Template:U it wasn't developed by the UK's public health service - it was AstraZeneca and a team at Oxford University. I think the point being made is that the UK didn't have to join the line for roll out of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. The UK got priority for the AZ/Oxford roll out. Obviously, you're right if AZ/Oxford didn't complete their development until much later than Pfizer/Moderna, then it would have been irrelevant that the UK had it's own vaccine. But that wasn't the case - as it was, if there had been no AZ/Oxford vaccine the roll out would have been much later in the UK. DeCausa (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

The part that you said I was right about is what the text you copied in actually says. You say "I think the point being made ..." so why not add text that makes that point instead of text that makes a different, and fallacious, point? Largoplazo (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't feel any need to change it because I think you're simply misreading it. But if you think you can improve the wording without changing the current meaning so you are no longer confused, then knock yourself out and have a go. Over to you. But that section is already overlong (WP:RECENTISM) so I wouldn't be in favour of creating additional text. DeCausa (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Religion

User:SeminarianJohn has just added content decribing how many baptised Anglican and Catholics there are in the UK. Given that most children are baptised before they have much idea of what's going on, and may or may not be praciticing members of that faith today., I fail to see how this tells us anything about religion in the UK today. HiLo48 (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Not an unhelpful fact in itself, provided it is carefully phrased and used alongside other data such as census figures, church attendance surveys etc. Dgp4004 (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Feels like the sort of detail that would work better on a subpage, rather than here. CMD (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I've taken it out for a couple of reasons. First adherence is already covered in the last sentence - this extra sentence isn't needed. Secondly, the already existing sentence is better sourced. The two sources for the new sentence are from publishers dedicated to supporting "preaching" according to their websites. I also think it's not WP:DUE and gives a misleading impression. Parents baptise children for a wide variety of reasons in the UK - not just religion. This would have to be explained for it not to be misleading. And then that would result in too much on this point and be a WP:BALASP problem in a section on Religion. I think it's much better to leave it to the existing last sentence which covers the broader point perfectly adequately already, in my view. DeCausa (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Besides that, when I saw the content being added, I was wondering how anyone could arrive at those numbers. Sure, each church has records of baptisms when they're conducted, but are they then tracking deaths or moves out of the country among the baptized, or the influx of baptized practitioners from other countries? Conversely, in surveys conducted today, when people are polled on their religious adherence, are they also polled on what religion they were baptized under whether or not they practice it today? Largoplazo (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for tagging me, for what my two cents are worth, I agree with Dgp4004 that the numbers of people baptised is useful when put in context; I also agree with DeCausa that baptisms occur for a variety of reasons, not only for religious but for socio-cultural reasons. I think that's why it is important to note although if another subpage is more appropriate, that also can make sense. I do want to clarify some misconceptions about the researchers; they are not dedicated to "preaching." One of the leading researchers is a Harvard professor of religion. She is a leading expert on socio-religious statistics globally. Other researchers include Durham University in England. The World Christian Encyclopedia which is the source for the World Christian Database is published by Edinburgh University Press. Thank you for reviewing my contributions and a fair discussion. SeminarianJohn (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Largoplazo, yes, the researchers do explain and address those questions. One of the leading researchers is Gina Zurlo PhD, a Harvard Professor of religion. She and the other researchers, which also include, in the field, Dr. David Goodhew at Durham University, do provide a detailed explanation of their methodology. Whether it merits including in this article, or as others have suggested more appropriately in a subpage, their academic works are great reads if the subject interests you. I've enjoyed reading them. On another note, I really liked your question about "surveys conducted today, when people are polled on their religious adherents, are they also polled on what religion they were baptized under whether or not the practice it today?" Yes, there are some peer-reviewed surveys on that! There are a variety, but one that I appreciated was research at St. Mary's University Twickeham and they found that half of Anglicans who said they were raised Anglican now identify as "No religion." They found the Anglican (self-identified) population declined from 44.5% in 1983 to 19% in 2014. SeminarianJohn (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that feedback; I can agree with that. SeminarianJohn (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Isn't the Church of England the established church in England or something? Ababajoni (talk|contributions) 22:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Ababajoni, yes, the CofE (Anglican) is one of two "established" churches in the UK; it is the state Church of England. The other is the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) which is not designated as a state church but, rather, as the "national" Church of Scotland. Northern Ireland and Wales do not have established churches. However, being the state church in England does not mean that the majority of people belong to, were baptised in, or currently consider themselves adherents of the CofE. The consensus of the most recent reliable surveys and peer-reviewed research shows that the CofE is not the majority of the English population by any of these metrics. The CofE claims 26 million baptised members, but peer-reviewed research has taken into account changes (deaths etc.) and estimate the number to be closer to 20-23 million and British Social Attitude Surveys have recently shown that only about 12% of English consider themselves CofE adherents. SeminarianJohn (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I am aware Scotland has its own church, and I would agree with the peer-reviewed research as not every resident of England is required (as an actual established religious body would) to be a member of the Church. Ababajoni (talk|contributions) 23:15, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Also I wouldn't support changing Template:Tq to Template:Tq, as was done in this edit, as the United Kingdom is more than just England and Wales and we need clarity to avoid confusion and incorrect interpretation. Ababajoni (talk|contributions) 23:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Other editors have edited based on a consensus of this discussion and that content is not currently in the article; however, that edit was because the article is about the UK not just England and Wales. According to the World Christian Encyclopedia/World Christian Database (online), published by Edinburgh University Press and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary respectively, there are 6.39 million baptised Catholics in the whole UK (4.5 million in England and Wales). SeminarianJohn (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I mean, yes the article is about the entire unified (under the King) country; the United Kingdom, but in that sentence, we are referring to England and Wales since 4.5 out of the 6.39 million Catholics are in those two countries. MosDet (Need help destroying mosquitoes? | Mosquitoes destroyed) 23:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

"That sentence" has been removed anyway for other reasons. See earlier on this thread. DeCausa (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Right... MosDet (Need help destroying mosquitoes? | Mosquitoes destroyed) 00:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

That was in a previous edit; it was changed to the 6.39 million in the whole UK (not only 4.5 in England and Wales). As @DeCausa noted again, that content was edited due to a consensus of this discussion. So, no iteration is currently in the content. SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright then. So since there is consensus for it to stay removed, what's the point of this discussion as of now? MosDet (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 00:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking, but do want to understand. You brought up that reference. @DeCausa and myself have shared that it is no longer there. If you believe more information should be included, that is what this talk page is for. Please, share what you believe should be changed and why and most editors here, the overwhelming majority, will very kindly review and talk about it. SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Capitalising informal region names

As there is a difference of opinion on whether the UK is in "northwestern Europe" or "Northwestern Europe", there is a discussion at talk:Central Europe#Capitalising informal region names to which editors of this article may wish to contribute. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)