1135:, I definitely appreciate where you are coming from: it is a very difficult task to choose which parts to retain and which to remove; unfortunately, however, assuming we agree that does need a substantial reduction in length (I would say by half at the least), that means that we are going to have to make difficult choices. It is inevitable that many examples will need to trimmed significantly, and many others will need to be dropped entirely. We should endeavor to ensure that we include only the most culturally important references, as every example we include reduces our ability to describe the topic as a whole.
944:‘Other countries’ is not a good yardstick given the significant contribution of British cinema in comparison. In a ‘world culture’ article your edits would be more apt..although even then it would be lopsided, underplaying the British role and cross pollination in world cinema. Using that one example I mentioned, Hitchcock’s British thrillers set the tone for an entire genre. In music, heavy metal (with its origins in Birmingham, England), gone. Nursery rhymes, vanished. There’s trimming, which is needed, and then there is eradicating. Again, British culture, that’s the emphasis here.
1181:
reads much more like a history of UK cinema (which rightly would have a strong US component) rather than the cultural aspects of cinema within the UK and its own influence elsewhere. Obviously the US had a great influence, but each paragraph within the cinema section has at least one reference to the US in it, with most of them revolving around
American investment; the last half of the section seems to be dominated by that aspect. Certainly US investment in UK cinema deserves some mention, but it does seem a bit heavy. That being said, I think it is still an improvement!
538:
299:
278:
309:
1058:
no lists and no in-depth information on a specific topic that is already covered by its own page. I'm certainly not averse to my edits being re-written and improved upon, but simply restoring the article to its previous cluttered and unorganised state seems counterproductive. A solution to this could be for me to justify my edits on the talk page, which will give everybody a place to comment on them and raise objections or suggestions. Thoughts?
473:
216:
1094:
401:
383:
247:
803:
at an acceptable standard. Since there's a lot to do mistakes will happen. I don't understand what you mean about cramped text, or your objection to subsections – dividing the 'music' section into three seems an efficient and logical way to cover the different types of
British music. The section is now shorter and more concise than it was without the subheadings.
725:
form I consider more logical. My long-term plan once the article has been edited is to revisit each section and look at where it can be improved – through citations, rewriting, and improved focus in particular. Current sections should not, therefore, be taken to represent their final form, but simply a reasonble standard at which to leave them for the moment.
582:
668:
fall outside the idea of the
Culture of the United Kingdom. The Channel Islands, Isle of Man and British Overseas Territories are not part of the United Kingdom. Therefore their cultures do not make up part of the Culture of the United Kingdom. Their cultures do however make up part of British culture.
1109:
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on
Culture of the United Kingdom and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh
894:
I don't think that's fair, particularly if you're referring to my overall editing. The major references to other countries in the 'cinema' section reflect the US influence on
British film, the use of the Oscars as a general guide to notable films, and Alfred Hitchcock's career (which I still think is
1057:
If you don't feel this represents your case then please give me your side. Assuming it does, I think we can resolve the dispute quite easily. What I would like to see is an agreement on how new material will be added or how old material will be reinstated to a better standard. In practice this means
802:
That's because I'm mid-way through editing the overall 'Arts' section. The big space at the end of 'cinema' is there because I intended to move straight on to 'broadcasting', but was not able to. It's my mistake for leaving it there, but I have usually only published edits when the edited content is
729:
Finally, I'd like to stress that editing this article will take the work of multiple editors, and I do not assume that my standards or decisions will be shared by everyone. My goal is simply to streamline an article that has become too large to effectively convey the information contained within it,
994:
We don't need in-depth references to heavy metal or nursery rhymes, this is a summary article. A sentence about heavy metal in the context of
British rock would be useful, as the genre originated in the UK, but many genres did and we cannot include them all. Nursery rhymes may warrant a sentence or
775:
The article as it looks now, with your edits, is a mess. Not just the plethora of subsections, huge spaces, cramped text. There’s the material that’s been removed: an example, Hitchcock’s
British films (including the first British sound film) removed, the films that made him world renowned and also
724:
I have been working chronologically through the article and not moving on to a new section until the current one is edited down to a reasonable size, is legible, and provides a reasonable thematic account of its area. I have been through the entire article to remove images and restructure it into a
667:
However, the two are not interchangeable. For example, Irish
Catholic culture of Northern Ireland would fall under the category of Culture of the United Kingdom (and the definition provided by the lead, but certainly not British culture. On the other hand, there are aspects of British culture which
1180:
My apologies, I did fail to mention one issue that I agree with Cat Hudson on: I do have to concur that the cinema section seems to focus a little too much on the United States. I absolutely agree that UK cinema is practically impossible to discuss without mentioning it, but what was written here
691:
Having attempted to edit down several sections of the article, I would like to propose a few general principles to be followed when doing so, as well as an overall plan for anyone who wishes to contribute. This is not me laying down the law, but simply what I have found useful. I'd appreciate any
859:
Bearing in mind the article is concerned with UK culture, the emphasis is on the UK, or should be. Your editing has given a significant non UK slant. I’m not
British, so when I read about British culture I don't expect to read X did X outside the UK. If you looked at the article as it stands you
755:
Examples are not fine when there are many of them and they do not add to the overall understanding of the topic. Even singling out one person/group/concept as exemplar should be done carefully when discussing the culture of an entire nation. While I agree that the article shouldn't have too many
671:
I therefore propose one of the following: (a) The article is moved to 'British culture' and content on non-UK British culture permitted, or (b) the reference to
British culture in the lead is replaced with 'Culture of the United Kingdom'. I did not want to make any changes without consulting the
1138:
I do think that A.D.Hope's work thus far is a great improvement, and I think the plan they have included here in the talk page is a good one. I would definitely recommend starting with A.D.Hope's last set of contributions and working from there. If there is essential content missing from that
895:
over-emphasised). These are all relevant references, and generally linked to wider movements in the British film industry. The paragraph on British influences on Hollywood films was more of a list; if it was added back in it would have to be in a restructured form that actually gave context.
1124:. First I would like to thank you both for your hard work on this article. I've read both it as well as the many edits you both have made over the last several weeks, and I hope I can help provide a fresh perspective to the issue of article length and how best to accomplish any changes.
663:
I think this article and the subsequent content might be accidentally conflating two slightly different topics. Although the article title refers to 'Culture of the United Kingdom', the article then opens by calling the topic 'British culture', suggesting the two are interchangeable.
825:
specifically because it is a Hitchcock film. Where I have mentioned individual films it is because they won the best picture Oscar, the BFI has ranked them highly, or because they are a significant example of an important genre. I do think the section needs more work overall,
1264:, per previous talk threads. The literature section may benefit from greater breadth in comparison to other sections, I don't know, but I don't think it needs your additional detail about how exactly one specific book, Johnson's dictionary, was commissioned.
519:
Attempt to reduce the length of the article to no more than 100kB. This can be done by removing the lists that feature in many sections and by restructuring them to present a more concise introduction to a topic rather than being a complete article in
1046:
I'm trying to reduce the length of the article by editing down each section in turn. Once this is done I intend to return to each section and assess whether it can be improved in terms of content. I'm editing for length now, and for content
990:
reference to US cinema, because the two are intertwined. The 'cinema' section is not focussed on 'other countries', but does reference them when appropriate. As I say the section needs work, but I don't think it lacks a British focus as it
820:
This article is not about Alfred Hitchcock, and there is no need to include a summary of his films – mentioning his significance is enough. His first sound film is probably worth a mention, but because it is the first British sound film,
1139:
version, I think bringing it here in summary form for discussion is an excellent idea. It may be helpful to discuss each section individually, but make sure to do it here on the talk page and not via edit summary. Yes, this process
166:
1052:
You believe that I have removed relevant material, added unnecessary subsections, and have not focussed enough on Britain in the 'cinema' section specifically. You have tried to rectify this by reverting my edits in their
562:
701:
Sections of the article should act as overviews – there is no need for them to be complete articles in themselves as most topics already have a full article, which can be linked to. A few paragraphs is enough for
714:
Until the article has been entirely edited down, using more than one image per section or sub-section should be considered carefully, as they significantly increase the article size and do not always improve
737:
Subsections is an issue. Go back through article history, it’s been tagged for having too many. Examples are fine so long as they don’t become lists, which is (was) the case in the article.
566:
705:
A thematic approach is generally better than lists of examples. A list of composers in the 'music' section is less informative than a description of British classical music, for example.
160:
860:
would think the UK has no film industry (for a period in the 1970s to an extent that was true); conversely, the part on the British influence on Hollywood itself has been expunged.
57:
1223:
1044:
I'm eager to resolve this and find the crux of the dispute, and as such I think it would be beneficial to summarise our current stances. Mine is laid out above, but in summary
1150:
Again, sincere thanks to you both for your efforts here. I hope this helps provide some clarity! I'll be watching this page in case you would like to discuss this further.
207:
365:
547:
1300:
1131:, I commend your efforts in attempting to consolidate the massive amount of information here into a reasonable summary while retaining as much context as possible.
355:
998:
The article needs more than trimming, a lot of the content is redundant or overly-detailed and can be (re)moved, particularly when a main article already exists.
92:
711:
Where a topic is particularly lage, as with the music or sport, it is better to divide it into short sub-sections with links to the appropriate main articles.
1315:
1305:
441:
203:
1325:
331:
756:
subsections, until the whole thing has been edited we won't know which can be combined or possibly removed. The contents may have to be long for a while.
447:
1295:
829:
I'm signing under two different names because apparently at some point I changed my nickname, and I've only just noticed. I've fixed it now, sorry!
98:
322:
283:
1320:
1127:
I wholeheartedly agree that the article, while very informative, was far too long with too much detail for what should be a summary article.
417:
181:
43:
148:
708:
Excessive examples or detail are not needed. This article is an overview, not an in-depth description of every part of British culture.
537:
112:
1310:
117:
33:
408:
388:
87:
142:
258:
910:
78:
1216:
481:
138:
37:
1231:
677:
188:
215:
198:
1099:
122:
226:
1250:
264:
1212:
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
1227:
635:
898:
477:
154:
673:
628:
621:
614:
607:
68:
1268:
416:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
330:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
314:
1144:
83:
730:
and maybe even upgrade its rating in the process. If you have any comments please reply to this post.
1121:
949:
945:
865:
861:
781:
777:
742:
738:
246:
1246:
643:
174:
1195:
1164:
1063:
1003:
906:
834:
761:
231:
523:
Review and edit to ensure the article presents a British, rather than English, view of a topic.
1276:
642:
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
64:
1271:" in that section, when it's not a Knowledge (XXG) article and seems unlikely to ever be? --
594:
298:
277:
228:
1280:
1254:
1235:
1199:
1168:
1067:
1007:
953:
914:
869:
838:
785:
746:
681:
230:
327:
1289:
1208:
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
1182:
1151:
1117:
1059:
999:
902:
830:
757:
1272:
551:
1245:
I saw that Uk Literature is smaller than expected. In the middle of editing it
304:
986:
I'm still not sure what you mean. British cinema cannot be discussed without
776:
took him to Hollywood. Why are you signing in under two different names btw?
602:
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
413:
400:
382:
1147:. It is much more important to do this right than to do it quickly.
555:
995:
two in the folklore section, possibly as a sub-type of ballad.
576:
532:
463:
240:
232:
28:
15:
634:] The anchor (North of Ireland and Republic of Ireland)
1102:(Dispute over length of article and how best to edit it)
326:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
505:
499:
493:
487:
620:] The anchor (#Most watched special events) has been
613:] The anchor (#Most watched special events) has been
173:
561:
For details on improvements made to the article, see
412:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
187:
446:This article has not yet received a rating on the
687:Reducing the article length: plan and principles
46:for general discussion of the article's subject.
733:Eleanor_of_Aquitaine 18:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
1222:Participate in the deletion discussion at the
8:
1260:This article is currently flagged as being
896:
377:
340:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United Kingdom
272:
1267:Why do you keep uppercasing and linking "
1262:too long to read and navigate comfortably
606:] The anchor (#True ice cream) has been
379:
274:
244:
1326:Knowledge (XXG) pages with to-do lists
1301:Top-importance United Kingdom articles
1261:
7:
406:This article is within the scope of
320:This article is within the scope of
1316:Unknown-importance culture articles
1306:WikiProject United Kingdom articles
426:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Culture
343:Template:WikiProject United Kingdom
263:It is of interest to the following
36:for discussing improvements to the
1143:will take more time, but remember
672:wider community first. Thank you.
14:
548:UK Collaboration of the Fortnight
63:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
1092:
580:
536:
471:
399:
381:
307:
297:
276:
245:
214:
58:Click here to start a new topic.
1296:C-Class United Kingdom articles
360:This article has been rated as
1281:15:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
1255:13:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
550:for the fortnight starting on
1:
1236:18:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
544:Culture of the United Kingdom
482:Culture of the United Kingdom
420:and see a list of open tasks.
334:and see a list of open tasks.
55:Put new text under old text.
38:Culture of the United Kingdom
1321:WikiProject Culture articles
429:Template:WikiProject Culture
682:22:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
1342:
448:project's importance scale
366:project's importance scale
323:WikiProject United Kingdom
1068:16:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
1008:23:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
954:22:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
915:21:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
870:20:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
839:19:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
786:19:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
747:18:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
445:
394:
359:
292:
271:
93:Be welcoming to newcomers
22:Skip to table of contents
1311:C-Class culture articles
1200:02:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
1169:02:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
627:] The anchor (#Origin)
21:
1217:Alan Turing Aged 16.jpg
346:United Kingdom articles
622:deleted by other users
615:deleted by other users
608:deleted by other users
253:This article is rated
88:avoid personal attacks
1100:third opinion request
764:) 18:57, 24 June 2019
315:United Kingdom portal
257:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
208:Auto-archiving period
113:Neutral point of view
1145:there is no deadline
118:No original research
563:Past Collaborations
409:WikiProject Culture
1269:British Dictionary
1228:Community Tech bot
511:Updated 2019-06-16
259:content assessment
99:dispute resolution
60:
1175:
1174:
917:
901:comment added by
650:
649:
597:in most browsers.
573:
572:
569:
531:
530:
462:
461:
458:
457:
454:
453:
376:
375:
372:
371:
239:
238:
79:Assume good faith
56:
27:
26:
1333:
1190:
1188:
1159:
1157:
1096:
1095:
1089:
1088:
644:Reporting errors
636:has been deleted
629:has been deleted
584:
583:
577:
560:
540:
533:
512:
475:
474:
464:
434:
433:
432:culture articles
430:
427:
424:
403:
396:
395:
385:
378:
348:
347:
344:
341:
338:
317:
312:
311:
310:
301:
294:
293:
288:
280:
273:
256:
250:
249:
241:
233:
219:
218:
209:
192:
191:
177:
108:Article policies
29:
16:
1341:
1340:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1286:
1285:
1243:
1224:nomination page
1210:
1186:
1185:
1155:
1154:
1093:
689:
660:Hello editors,
658:
646:
600:
599:
598:
581:
527:
526:
486:
472:
431:
428:
425:
422:
421:
345:
342:
339:
336:
335:
313:
308:
306:
286:
254:
235:
234:
229:
206:
134:
129:
128:
127:
104:
74:
12:
11:
5:
1339:
1337:
1329:
1328:
1323:
1318:
1313:
1308:
1303:
1298:
1288:
1287:
1284:
1283:
1265:
1247:Edit the error
1242:
1239:
1220:
1219:
1209:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1173:
1172:
1149:
1148:
1137:
1136:
1126:
1125:
1112:
1111:
1110:pair of eyes.
1106:
1105:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1055:
1049:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
996:
992:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
827:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
768:
767:
766:
765:
750:
749:
728:
717:
716:
712:
709:
706:
703:
692:help greatly.
688:
685:
674:Jèrriais janne
657:
654:
652:
648:
647:
641:
640:
639:
632:
625:
618:
611:
595:case-sensitive
589:
588:
587:
585:
571:
570:
559:
541:
529:
528:
525:
524:
521:
514:
469:
467:
460:
459:
456:
455:
452:
451:
444:
438:
437:
435:
418:the discussion
404:
392:
391:
386:
374:
373:
370:
369:
362:Top-importance
358:
352:
351:
349:
337:United Kingdom
332:the discussion
328:United Kingdom
319:
318:
302:
290:
289:
287:Top‑importance
284:United Kingdom
281:
269:
268:
262:
251:
237:
236:
227:
225:
224:
221:
220:
194:
193:
131:
130:
126:
125:
120:
115:
106:
105:
103:
102:
95:
90:
81:
75:
73:
72:
61:
52:
51:
48:
47:
41:
25:
24:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1338:
1327:
1324:
1322:
1319:
1317:
1314:
1312:
1309:
1307:
1304:
1302:
1299:
1297:
1294:
1293:
1291:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1263:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1241:UK Literature
1240:
1238:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1218:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1207:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1171:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1146:
1142:
1134:
1130:
1123:
1119:
1114:
1113:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1101:
1091:
1090:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1056:
1054:
1050:
1048:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
955:
951:
947:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
916:
912:
908:
904:
900:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
871:
867:
863:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
787:
783:
779:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
763:
759:
754:
753:
752:
751:
748:
744:
740:
736:
735:
734:
731:
726:
722:
721:
713:
710:
707:
704:
700:
699:
698:
697:
693:
686:
684:
683:
679:
675:
669:
665:
661:
656:Article title
655:
653:
645:
637:
633:
630:
626:
623:
619:
616:
612:
609:
605:
604:
603:
596:
592:
586:
579:
578:
575:
568:
564:
557:
553:
549:
545:
542:
539:
535:
534:
522:
518:
517:
516:
513:
510:
507:
504:
501:
498:
495:
492:
489:
485:
483:
479:
468:
466:
465:
449:
443:
440:
439:
436:
419:
415:
411:
410:
405:
402:
398:
397:
393:
390:
387:
384:
380:
367:
363:
357:
354:
353:
350:
333:
329:
325:
324:
316:
305:
303:
300:
296:
295:
291:
285:
282:
279:
275:
270:
266:
260:
252:
248:
243:
242:
223:
222:
217:
213:
205:
202:
200:
196:
195:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
133:
132:
124:
123:Verifiability
121:
119:
116:
114:
111:
110:
109:
100:
96:
94:
91:
89:
85:
82:
80:
77:
76:
70:
66:
65:Learn to edit
62:
59:
54:
53:
50:
49:
45:
39:
35:
31:
30:
23:
20:
18:
17:
1244:
1221:
1211:
1184:
1183:
1153:
1152:
1140:
1132:
1128:
1115:
1098:Response to
1097:
1051:
1045:
987:
897:— Preceding
822:
732:
727:
723:
719:
718:
695:
694:
690:
670:
666:
662:
659:
651:
601:
593:Anchors are
590:
574:
543:
515:
508:
502:
496:
490:
476:
470:
407:
361:
321:
265:WikiProjects
211:
197:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
107:
32:This is the
1116:Greetings,
715:legibility.
552:November 14
520:themselves.
161:free images
44:not a forum
1290:Categories
1133:Cat Hudson
1122:Cat Hudson
946:Cat Hudson
862:Cat Hudson
778:Cat Hudson
739:Cat Hudson
478:To-do list
1053:entirety.
101:if needed
84:Be polite
34:talk page
1129:A.D.Hope
1118:A.D.Hope
1060:A.D.Hope
1000:A.D.Hope
911:contribs
903:A.D.Hope
899:unsigned
831:A.D.Hope
758:A.D.Hope
546:was the
212:180 days
199:Archives
69:get help
42:This is
40:article.
1273:Belbury
991:stands.
826:though.
696:Editing
624:before.
617:before.
610:before.
567:History
506:refresh
494:history
423:Culture
414:culture
389:Culture
364:on the
255:C-class
167:WP refs
155:scholar
1189:Thomas
1158:Thomas
1047:later.
261:scale.
139:Google
702:most.
500:watch
182:JSTOR
143:books
97:Seek
1277:talk
1251:talk
1232:talk
1196:talk
1165:talk
1120:and
1064:talk
1004:talk
988:some
950:talk
907:talk
866:talk
835:talk
782:talk
762:talk
743:talk
720:Plan
678:talk
591:Tip:
565:and
556:2004
488:edit
480:for
175:FENS
149:news
86:and
1226:. —
1141:may
823:not
442:???
356:Top
189:TWL
1292::
1279:)
1253:)
1234:)
1198:)
1167:)
1104::
1066:)
1006:)
952:)
913:)
909:•
868:)
837:)
784:)
745:)
680:)
554:,
210::
169:)
67:;
1275:(
1249:(
1230:(
1194:(
1187:C
1163:(
1156:C
1062:(
1002:(
948:(
905:(
864:(
833:(
780:(
760:(
741:(
676:(
638:.
631:.
558:.
509:·
503:·
497:·
491:·
484::
450:.
368:.
267::
204:1
201::
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
71:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
