Talk:Geography of the United Kingdom

Where to start

See Geography of Ireland for ideas on where to start! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - I pinched the structure :) Good luck on WP:FAC. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From 'todo'

Does that first sentence 'located in a nation' make any sense at all? The idea that the UK is inside a nation is a bit to deep for me to grasp. If so, I'd be grateful if someone could clarify what it means. If not it should be changed but I didn't want to do so without checking first. ('Located in North West of the European continent' I could understand.) Jerry 02:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fixed - the UK is the nation. It comprises one main island, part of another island, and many smaller islands. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

' (although, being a fractal, the length of the coastline will increase as the unit with which is it measured decreases).' Is this correct? Sounds like Zeno's paradox. Is the coastline theoretically of infinite length? Jerry 03:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes and no (you can't have an infinitely small ruler - there is a whole section in fractal on this). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Parliament of the United Kingdom, and is divided into four main political regions, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Each of these has its own brand of regional government:' Another ungrammatical and vague sentence, but I'm afraid that I don't have time to fix it! As of now, the whole article could do with a good copy edit. Jerry 03:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for being ungrammatical and vague. At the moment, I am concentrating on gathering the material together. Please copyedit at will! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aloan - and apologies from me for suggesting that you were - I appreciate that it's best to get the material in place first! I'm afraid I'm suffering from Larium (an anti-malarial) induced insomnia and was feeling a bit ratty when I posted that comment. Jerry 14:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - no offence taken. I've just been doing quick 'dumps' of information already on Wikipedia without too much of a quality check. Copyediting and fact-checking are definitely required! -- ALoan (Talk) 18:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Geology - caves link

Do we really need a link to the list of caves page so prominently in the main geography page? Caves are just one of hundreds of types of landforms that we could potentially list, it doesn't make sense linking just one of them at the top of the geology section. --Joe D 13:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moved to 'See also'. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

External links

For the length of the article, we should be able to find more see also's and external links that apply to this subject? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've had a start with the 'See also's. Someone also needs to work on the categorisation - Category:Geography of the United Kingdom just contains Geography of the United Kingdom at the moment. Presumably some of the "main articles" could be added there, as well as Category: Geography of England, Category: Geography of Wales, Category: Geography of Scotland, Category: Geography of Northern Ireland. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Political and human geography

The pie chart seems to be taken from the CIA world book figures, but according to the Office of National Statistics (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=764), they are wrong and under-represent the number of non-white residents. On the other hand, the ONS figures don't break it down by English/Scottish/Irish etc so I'm not sure what to do. Redlentil 16:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think to divide the figures by English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh is a bit daft anyway because most people are a mixture of two or more of the above. It is important to properly represent the figures of ethnic minorities in the UK though and because of the numbers involved, perhaps a separate pye chart illustrating the breakdown of ethnic minorities in the country? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not to denigrate the helpfulness of a pie chart, it loses a bit of definition at the (roughly) 5% level. The statistics speak for themseleves (whether CIA or census) - perhaps just a table setting out both sets of numbers? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK. here's the census data in table form. I'm unsure about (ie I DON'T KNOW sob sob) how to insert it so that it floats on the left, so if someone else would like to help out ... (Still can't believe only 2% are Black or Black British, but that's to do with where I live).

Ethnic groups in the UK

White	92%
Mixed	1%
Asian or British Asian	4%
Black or Black British	2%
Chinese	0.5%
Other	0.5%

Redlentil 19:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(I edited this into wikimarkup and added style="float:left") --Joe D 20:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

C o o l. I've replaced the pie chart with the table but now we need someone with a more stylish eye to tidy it up. To change the subject - back at the top of the page, the word Chunnel: does anyone actually use this? Redlentil 20:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chunnel: now I haven't heard that word for a number of years! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Small point, but Slough is not and never has been a New Town.Icundell 20:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Geology map

Image:Geological map of Great Britain.jpg

I've uploaded this old, but generally accurate, map of GB and don't know whether to add it to this page because I'm not sure if it would add anything to the page, and I'm not sure if this page should have any maps of the UK missing NI. Any comments? --Joe D 18:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it is worth it, until something better comes along. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up a bit.Naturenet 12:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Last minute amendments

Are there any last minute amendments that anyone would like to make before this is nominated for FAC? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:07, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I applaud your enthusiasm, but it is really not good enough yet! In particular, geology is quite good because I cribbed it from the excellent Geology of the United Kingdom, but there are lots of gaps in the rest of it. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:59, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some suggestions

One of the factors that really seemed to make the Irish article work was the fact that the geological development was set in a contect of continental drift, so that the climate factors that went ointo the formation of the landscape really made sense. I was fortunate in having on a shelf at home Reading the Irish Landscape, which was a great source for this information, and I'm sure that similar data is available for the UK (should be almost identical, in fact).

Also, the idea of the climate table which came up during the FAC process was a great improvement and might be worth replicating in a UK context. I would also suggest that some of the sections that are currently mainly lists need to become prose in as much as they can.

Hope this makes sense; it's always easier to suggest improvements than it is to make them. The core of a really good article is already there, but I feel it does still need some work. Filiocht 12:10, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC) Filiocht 08:34, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Observation and a proposition

The heading Political and Human Geography is tautological. Political geography is a subset of human geography (if it is not physical goegraphy, it is human geography). That is my observation. I came to this because I was unable to find a sensible place to fit in an Economic Geography section, which I would quite like to draft. Thus my proposition: Change the heading Political and Human Geography to Human Geography, Local government to Political Geography and add Economic Geography once the aritcle is written (Demographics is fine). Climate should probably by under Physical Geography by the way.Icundell 15:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So will anybody take mortal offence if I go ahead and do this? Icundell 18:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Be bold, I don't have a problem there. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Population Centres

Why are some of the population centres listed cities, and others conurbations? For example, Greater Manchester is counted as one item, but Leeds and Bradford are separate. Birmingham is listed in its own right, separated from the West Midlands conurbation. What do contributors feel shoud be here? Or should it simply link to other articles? Steven J 16:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Lowest point of the Fens

Can anyone provide a citation for a point in the Fens as much as 4m below sea level? As far as I know, the lowest point is at the Holme Fen in Cambridgeshire, widely quoted as 2.75m bsl. The Ordnance Survey Benchmarks listing ( http://benchmarks.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/pls/htmldb/f?p=111:3:10931302934820100014::NO::P3_HIDDEN:true , enter TL2089 as km square ) gives the height of the flush bracket on the Holme Fen post as 1.62m below Newlyn datum, and gives the height as 0.6m above ground level (as at 1962). That makes about 2.22m below sea level, plus whatever shrinkage has occurred since then. 143.252.80.100 14:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Islands - England

Does anyone understand the logic of this list? It does not seem to bear any relation to the largest either by size or population in List of islands of England. Pterre (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Has this 'top-importance' article died?

With no edits to the talk page for 4 years, have others just looked at this article and thought 'what's the point?/where do I start? It's perhaps one of a number of significant articles of inferior quality which could really do with an effort to improve it in a systematic way. But will any of us be bothered I wonder? Part of the problem may be the redundancy when it comes to describing the constituent countries of the UK then almost duplicating the material with 'GB' articles then again with UK articles. cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

An interesting and pertinent question. As it stands, this article begins reasonably well, but then diminishes into a series of lists; maybe to contributors it does appear to be too big a task to expand the information in some of those (e.g. the list of headlands), or maybe it seems pointless, seeing as they've all got their own articles. I would argue however that as a 'mother' article for smaller and more specific nested articles, some sort of overarching overview is required at this level, and the list format should be aborted. Another issue is the GB/UK/Wales/England/NI/Scotland one. I personally feel a decision should be reached about this issue, not just here but for other related articles such as geology; there was the beginnings of such a discussion on the 'Geology of Breat Britain' talk page recently, though it fizzled out for seemingly no reason. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In attempting a resuscitation, I'm being bold and removing or deleting some of the lists to other locations - the information is still accessible with the links added and makes for a more readable article on the UK's geography. A good article does not consist of a bunch of lists; prose is more appropriate, with the reader directed towards dedicated lists where this is appropriate. There are extensive lists on various aspects of the UK's geography at numerous other pages - their incorporation, or partial incorporation, into this article would, it seem to me, serve no useful purpose. cheers Geopersona (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just took a longer look at the geology section. Big sigh . . . There's a lot of work required there before much of its makes sense. I'll get around to it at some point though I'm hoping someone beats me to it. cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I've had a bash at it, in a cheating kind of way - I did a cut-and-paste from the intro of the Geology of Great Britain article, as that strikes me as being more systematic (well it was a sort of cut-and-paste, as I rearranged and condensed it a bit). Now I'm not a geologist, and I haven't studied physical geography since school really (over 25 years ago...), but I'm thinking it could probably do with a bit of fleshing-out in terms of the history, without going into as much detail as it does in the "Geology of Great Britain" article? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Which Area stat. should be used?

The second sentence of this article states:

With a total area of approximately 243,610 square kilometres (94,060 sq mi), the UK occupies the major part of the British Isles archipelago and includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern one-sixth of the island of Ireland and many smaller surrounding islands.

with < ref >Oxford English Dictionary: "British Isles: a geographical term for the islands comprising Great Britain and Ireland with all their offshore islands including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands."< / ref >

However https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Area contains a total of areas of regions of the UK that seem to have with many of the stats having references to the Office of National Statistics. Which stat should be used?? Gregkaye (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Border with Republic of Ireland

Frenchmalawi has changed the length of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland from 360 kilometres (220 mi) to 499 kilometres (310 mi), with a source from the Ordnance Survey replacing the previous source from the CIA. However this new length seems questionable; it is roughly the same as the distance between London and Keswick. I am wondering if the new length and source figure is in error? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:PaleCloudedWhite - I welcome the discussion. My change was based on the OSNI source I included and the secondary source I also provided. However, there are other sources for 448km and for 485km too, e.g.:

• "The only land boundary that the UK has with another country is the 488-km (302 mile) border with Ireland." [1] - Contemporary Britain By John McCormick; Palmgrave MacMillan 2012.
• Same lengths cited in "British Civilization: An Introduction By John Oakland" [2]
• 448km is supported by another source too - Anderson & Bort "The Irish Border - [3] - p.g 96.

I also accept that the CIA gives 360km as its length but the CIA are not, in my view, as reliable as the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland [4].

Doubtless there are loads of other sources citing these figures too. Again, I welcome discussion. There seems to be little authoritave support for the 360km length that was referenced before, that much seems sure. All in all, I think OSNI are pretty much THE most authorative source...Well, Ordnance Survey Ireland would be equally authoritive in my view too but I don't have their figure. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

One more thing I would add in for PaleWhite (although not on topic): Agreed the border is suprisingly long! The background to this is that when it was devised, it was only to be a border between two parts of the UK. They never thought then that it would be an international border...so they simply followed extremely irregular "County" boundaries. The Boundary Commission established in the 1920s ultimately ended in a bit of a fiasco and all sides decided to just live with the very long, extremely irregular border. The Boundary Commission in its (aborted) remcommendations had intended to cut back the length of the border by I think around 20% but that never happened... Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for your detailed reply. You have obviously scrutinised this topic and I am satisfied that 499km must be the correct figure - however strangely long it may seem to the casual observer such as myself! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Map of the UK

I wonder if someone who knows about maps could produce one which showed the whole of the area covered by this article ie the United Kingdom - the present one omits the northernmost part of the UK ie Shetland. thanks Geopersona (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Geography of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070322044739/http://www.gosw.gov.uk:80/497666/docs/220636/309014/swkeyfacts to http://www.gosw.gov.uk/497666/docs/220636/309014/swkeyfacts
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140419171751/http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/statistics/wales-figs/env/land/?lang=en to http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/statistics/wales-figs/env/land/?lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Geography of the United Kingdom. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gosw.gov.uk/497666/docs/220636/309014/swkeyfacts
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gos.gov.uk/gose/ourRegion/aboutTheSE/factsAndFigs/?a=42496
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gos.gov.uk/gonw/OurRegion/?a=42496
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gowm.gov.uk/gowm/OurReg/?a=42496
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gos.gov.uk/gone/ourregion/regional_profile/?a=42496
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gol.gov.uk/gol/OurRegion/?a=42496
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/statistics/wales-figs/env/land/?lang=en
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/documents/interim2/mcz-factsheet-why.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041011015401/http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/freefun/geofacts/ to http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/freefun/geofacts/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Area?

The areas in the intro and the info box are different. Don't know which is right... Malick78 (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

British Isles end some 30 miles off the southernmost tip of Jersey island. (British Minkies)

The selfsame herein article endlists under References...

"Oxford English Dictionary: "British Isles: a geographical term for the islands comprising Great Britain and Ireland with all their offshore islands including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands."

...therefore the article needs to bear better maps that also clearly show the Channel Islands as coming under the meaning of the British Isles/ United Kingdom. Furthermore, be aware that the British Isles further downstretch 30 whole miles south of southernmost Jersey island. The Islands and reefs being known as the British Minkies and bigger than Jersey at low tide. British Minkies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.168.203 (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 12 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Retargeting the redirect or creating a new article at the redirect is an editorial decision, and discussion of those possibilities can continue as necessary independently of this close. Dekimasuよ! 15:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Geography of the United Kingdom → Geography of Great Britain – Geographically it makes sense to have an article about the geography of the island of Great Britain. As well as we already have an article Geology of Great Britain and a similar all-Ireland article Geography of Ireland. What are your opinions? 'Geography of the United Kingdom' should then redirect to the United Kingdom#Geography. Privybst (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment: If this is true then it makes littles sense to have any 'Geography of <nation>' articles, and yet they all exist. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment: In terms of physical geography (as with geology) it makes quite a bit of sense to talk about about the whole of Great Britain i.e the British mainland and its associated islands, just as it does to talk about the whole of the island of Ireland with its islands. In terms of human geography (a broad subject if ever there was one), it is much less obviously advantageous to do so. As noted above, it would be an odd situation in which a nation (the UK here of course) did not have a geography article associated with it, in its entirety. The political/administrative situation in 'these islands' is complex and dare I say messy; we should not expect there to be neat WP answers to how their component parts are described. Geopersona (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

+1. Political and physical geography are different things. YorkshireExpat (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose based on comments above. Should Geography of Great Britain be an article anyway though? YorkshireExpat (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – Geography of Great Britain can be redirected to Great Britain. cookie monster 755 06:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.