Talk:Culture of the United Kingdom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 To-do list for Culture of the United Kingdom: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
External links |
|
 |
Culture of the United Kingdom was the UK Collaboration of the Fortnight for the fortnight starting on November 14, 2004.
For details on improvements made to the article, see Past Collaborations and History |
Contents |
[edit] Individual country articles
There is a problem with the individual country articles in as much as only the article on the Culture of Wales actually exists. There are more detais at United Kingdom.Andycjp 21st June 2004
I would move the Culture of England etc links to the see also section at the bottom, especially seeing as they're mostly red links. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- True, but hopefully they soon won't be. Part of the reasoning behind this article is that it will be the prelude to articles on each country within the UK. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] UK COTW
To give the overhaul of this article some kind of focus I recommend a look at some of the other "culture of" articles. Culture of the United States has sections like "regional variations" and is quite well organised unlike the current hotch-potch on this page. — Trilobite (Talk) 11:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On second thoughts Culture of Greece is a much better example. It was COTW recently and appears to have blossomed, creating several spin-off articles. It's heavily focussed on Ancient Greece, but in terms of organisation is very good. — Trilobite (Talk) 11:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well sections from the US article that we could do well by having here include: education, regional variations, names, clothing, housing, family arrangements and gender roles, external links, sport. Thinking about some of the differences between the UK and other countries and disspelling some of the stereotypes (bad teeth, football hooligans, roast beef) could also be worthwhile. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Sections
I have started by chopping up the unwieldy overview section that comprised most of the content of the article. The resulting sections are fairly randomly placed for now. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
We will quickly encounter the problem of whether by culture we mean the anthropological/sociological-type concept of how we organise our society, or the artistic concept of literature, music, etc. I'd like to hear people's opinions on what we are aiming for here, and hence which headings we retain and which we consider to be outside the scope of this article. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- I think we mean both - Culture of Greece concentrates on artistic concepts mainly because (I suspect) there are not enough Greek contributotrs to tell us much about Greek society today, whereas Culture of the United States is about contemporary US culture (education, housing, etc) because the arts are in Arts and entertainment in the United States. I think we should try to do both, until we have enough material to spin out either arts or sociology or both.
[edit] Regional variations
What is this section for? It has no explanatory text, just a seemingly arbitrary and incomplete selection of counties, historical counties and government regions... Joe D (t) 14:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I assume it to be regional variations in culture. I started to write something about the south east, how it's overpopulated and the whole commuter culture that is invading the rest of the country from this region, but I didn't know how to word it so reverted my own edit. Other than that I don't know what it's about and I wouldn't be too upset if that section were taken out for now. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 14:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- I added a list the other day as a placeholder to give a structure in which others could add some content - there are clearly cultural variations between the regions, so it would be worth explaining them. Ditto the list of sociological issues as that need to be expanded. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Sociological issues
I've copy-edited the new material to sharpen it and give it an issue focus. The claim about recent research in the last para under Living arrangements needs a cite give the stength and novelty of the claim. Anyone?Icundell 11:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Feel free to edit it relentlessly, I just aded it to get the ball rolling. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Images
With my screen resolution the image of Shakespeare does not clash too much with that of the Beatles, though I can't alter my resolution to check it on other computers. Can someone with a larger resolution please check the placement of the image to make sure the text isn't all jiggered around those two images? If it's a problem either add more to the section or move the Shakespeare image up. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The Shakespeare image covers the lower half of a line of text on my screen, at 1024x768. Not to make anything illegible, it just doesn't look ideal.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 23:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- Well the other alternative is to use a different image, such as that of the Globe Theatre, or make the Shakespeare one slightly smaller. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Theatre
Hi, limeys, I dropped over because I saw Graham on Giano's page. Excellent recent idea to mention Restoration comedy! But, while I appreciated the link to John Vanbrugh, he's not actually a major or famous writer. I took him out and put in William Wycherley and Aphra Behn instead. Their articles are poor :-( where Vanbrugh's is good (featured article), but they're more proportionate to mention here.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 23:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Blame Giano for that one, he asked me to write it and stated in particular Vanbrugh in relation to the Restoration comedy. Knowing nothing about the subject myself I started the section off and don't really mind what gets edited out in the interests of accuracy. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's not my fault John Vanbrugh was a useless writer! Giano 10:49, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Literature
I fixed up the history bit on English literature some, I see it got a bit troubled in being shortened from English literature (also that English literature was a bit troubled to begin with, maybe I'll go interfere with that some other time). Middle English didn't become distinct in the 16th century, it's defined as lasting from the 12th through the 15th centrury. The question of when English literature "emerged" is a battlefield, and I did a kind of workaround. It's not because I want to quibble with saying that it happened in the 16th century and replace it with my own favourite theory, it's just that I think it very important to have Chaucer, a 14th-century writer, in this section.
The historical part is quite short (appropriately so), what on earth is the point of wasting two lines of it to say that Robinson Crusoe is erroneously thought to have been the first English novel? How is that supposed to be useful to the reader? I've used the same space to mention a few important 18th C novels instead. I actually thought the original was fine, if the "erroneously" could be left out, but I see from the History that there is contention about it. Perhaps the contributor who insists that calling RC the first novel is an error could say why? Do you say that RC is not a novel, or that it's not the first?
I inserted T. S. Eliot as an important poet, I don't know if there are any current edit wars raging as to whether he's to be reckoned non-UK (=American). I think he belongs in this list, and he sure tried to be English, but please remove if considered appropriate. (What, immigrants don't fit? If Eliot goes, Salman Rushdie should go too.) I also inserted G. B. Shaw, I'm guessing that's a faux pas, but he did spend most of his life and his entire dramatist life in London. All Americans, Irish and British out there, please remove any of these you wish, I'm not out to offend you.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 01:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Featured Article Status
I intend to put this forward as a Featured Article candidate - does anyone who has taken part in the recent collaboration have any comment on the article before I do that? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I have a problem, which is making my head hurt, with the literature section. I have refactored and added to it, keeping the references to "English literature", "English novel" etc, originally from, I think, ALoan, and added a couple of my own. There is in fact no mention of "UK" or "United Kingdom" anywhere in the section. That doesn't look good, and I think it needs to be addressed, I'm sure voters would jump on it on WP:FAC. Not sure what to do about it, though. I was hoping others would add sections about Scottish literature etc, that's why I said "English", even though the text does at the moment mention Lord Byron and Dylan Thomas (please remove them if separate Scottish and Welsh sections are created). Alternatively, I suppose I could instead refer to UK literature etc, thereby unfortunately creating redlinks, (and who ever heard of the UK novel?)--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 01:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- My biggest problem is that the art section is so small. My knowledge of art is next to nothing though, unfortunately, so I can't expand it. Rho 02:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Cnyborg has done a wonderful job on expanding it up to the English Renaissance, and I've started to fill in some cracks in more recent history. -- user:zanimum
- Well, for a start, cuisine, education and sport are all a bit thin. There is also very little on differences between England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and sub-divisions of each of them (Cornwall, say, or Tyneside). It would be worth checking whether each section is a proper summary of the relevant "main articles" - I've been meaning to get around to it, but time is an abstract... -- ALoan (Talk) 18:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Art...
in keeping with the debate that is happening in the page art I am going to change the reference under the arts 'Art' to Visual Art. it is a more precise definition and doesnt conflict with anything under that heading as far as I can see.
DavidP 02:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Languages
What is the correct term for the regional languages? Man vyi wants to call them autochthonous, but this ignores the fact that the Celts (and we are surely talking mostly about the modern Celtic languages such as Gaelic and Welsh) themselves displaced previous inhabitants (e.g. Picts speaking Pictish). Of course the modern Celtic languages have developed in their present form in their present regions, but then so has Australian English. In any case, the UN prefers the word indigenous to the word autochthonous. --RichardVeryard 16:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- We can call them regional (per the European Charter), authochthonous or indigenous, as far as I am concerned. What we can't call them (and this was the reason for my revert) is Celtic, because not all of them are. Man vyi 18:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
