This template is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears
This template is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Moonraker-2011-01-30T23:27:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Range_of_years-2011-01-30T23:27:00.000Z","replies":["c-Moonraker-2011-01-30T23:27:00.000Z-Range_of_years","c-Fishiehelper2-2011-08-14T18:38:00.000Z-Range_of_years"],"text":"Range of years","linkableTitle":"Range of years"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Moonraker-2011-01-30T23:27:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Range_of_years-2011-01-30T23:27:00.000Z","replies":["c-Moonraker-2011-01-30T23:27:00.000Z-Range_of_years","c-Fishiehelper2-2011-08-14T18:38:00.000Z-Range_of_years"],"text":"Range of years","linkableTitle":"Range of years"}-->
Fishiehelper, we have a separate Template:GB year nav to cover the Great Britain years. Great Britain was not the United Kingdom, and copying the whole content of the GB years template into this one defeats the point of having it, and indeed undermines the structure of all of these related pages for each year, which (as you know) are in different series for good reasons. I do not fully understand your desire for the United Kingdom to take over, retrospectively, one of its predecessor states, but whatever is going on this is not the way to proceed. Moonraker (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-30T23:27:00.000Z","author":"Moonraker","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Moonraker-2011-01-30T23:27:00.000Z-Range_of_years","replies":["c-Fishiehelper2-2011-02-06T12:00:00.000Z-Moonraker-2011-01-30T23:27:00.000Z"]}}-->
Hi Moonraker. I'm afraid I disagree with your interpretation of history to some extent (as I believe reliable sources disagree with your interpretation) - let me try to make my position clear. The United Kingdom that exists today has not always existed with its present borders, but in determining when it began, we need to look beyond territorial issues to the basis idea of the state. My point is that the origin of the United Kingdom was the original merger of the kingdoms of England and Scotland to produce the state that was formed in 1707. Though Ireland merged in 1801, and most of Ireland left over a century later, the idea of the United Kingdom has continued for 300 years. I believe this interpretation is supported by, for example, the UK parliament website among others. This is why I believe it makes more sense to have smoother links between 'Great Britain' (which was referred to as both the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' and as the 'United Kingdom' in the Treaty of Union) and the United Kingdom. I thought the way I had done this, by having the years 1707 - 1801 under a separate sub-heading had achieved that. I agree that "copying the whole content of the GB years template into this one defeats the point of having it" since I don't actually see any point in having it! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-02-06T12:00:00.000Z","author":"Fishiehelper2","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Fishiehelper2-2011-02-06T12:00:00.000Z-Moonraker-2011-01-30T23:27:00.000Z","replies":["c-Chrisieboy-2011-02-12T16:13:00.000Z-Fishiehelper2-2011-02-06T12:00:00.000Z"]}}-->
Your agenda to change the term Kingdom of Great Britain to "United Kingdom of Great Britain" throughout Wikipedia is becoming destructive to the project. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-02-12T16:13:00.000Z","author":"Chrisieboy","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Chrisieboy-2011-02-12T16:13:00.000Z-Fishiehelper2-2011-02-06T12:00:00.000Z","replies":["c-Fishiehelper2-2011-08-06T15:09:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2011-02-12T16:13:00.000Z"]}}-->
I have not come by this aricle for some time and now that I do, I see that some other editor has also inserted, and had reverted, years from the period 1707 to 1800. Earlier today I made a comment on the United Kingdom talk page in response to a question about whether the United Kingdom was founded in 1707 or 1801. It is clear that there is confusion on this point because different articles take different approaches. Since I take the view that 1707 marks the genesis of the 'United Kingdom' project, though the words United Kingdom were not added officially until 1801 when Ireland joined, I feel it would be helpful if the years from 1707 were included though under an appropriate heading. Perhaps an explanation could even be added that some editors believe that the years from 1707 to 1800 should not be included. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-08-06T15:09:00.000Z","author":"Fishiehelper2","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Fishiehelper2-2011-08-06T15:09:00.000Z-Chrisieboy-2011-02-12T16:13:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
Difficult to achieve consensus when only one part to the discussion! I'll make changes and perhaps this may stimulate debate. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-08-14T18:38:00.000Z","author":"Fishiehelper2","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Fishiehelper2-2011-08-14T18:38:00.000Z-Range_of_years","replies":["c-Moonraker-2011-08-15T03:45:00.000Z-Fishiehelper2-2011-08-14T18:38:00.000Z"]}}-->
Fishiehelper2, I am with Chrisieboy and C.Fred on this. There is a careful structure to this area of Wikipedia, and it should not be undermined. While Great Britain was a united kingdom, the distinction between Great Britain (which never included Ireland or any part of it) and the United Kingdom (which always has) is too important to lose. Moonraker (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-08-15T03:45:00.000Z","author":"Moonraker","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Moonraker-2011-08-15T03:45:00.000Z-Fishiehelper2-2011-08-14T18:38:00.000Z","replies":["c-C.Fred-2011-08-15T03:56:00.000Z-Moonraker-2011-08-15T03:45:00.000Z"]}}-->
Looking at articles such as History of the United Kingdom, there appears to be a pretty consistent nomenclature: Great Britain was formed with the 1707 act, and the United Kingdom formed in 1801. Based on that, we should exclude 1707–1800 from this table. —C.Fred (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-08-15T03:56:00.000Z","author":"C.Fred","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-C.Fred-2011-08-15T03:56:00.000Z-Moonraker-2011-08-15T03:45:00.000Z","replies":["c-Moonraker-2011-08-15T04:14:00.000Z-C.Fred-2011-08-15T03:56:00.000Z"]}}-->
As I mentioned before, we have a separate Template:GB year nav for use on the year pages in the GB series. Moonraker (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-08-15T04:14:00.000Z","author":"Moonraker","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Moonraker-2011-08-15T04:14:00.000Z-C.Fred-2011-08-15T03:56:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Jason_Quinn-2011-09-01T18:39:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Using_\"See_also\"_section_before_this_nav_template-2011-09-01T18:39:00.000Z","replies":["c-Jason_Quinn-2011-09-01T18:39:00.000Z-Using_\"See_also\"_section_before_this_nav_template"],"text":"Using \"See also\" section before this nav template","linkableTitle":"Using \"See also\" section before this nav template"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Jason_Quinn-2011-09-01T18:39:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Using_\"See_also\"_section_before_this_nav_template-2011-09-01T18:39:00.000Z","replies":["c-Jason_Quinn-2011-09-01T18:39:00.000Z-Using_\"See_also\"_section_before_this_nav_template"],"text":"Using \"See also\" section before this nav template","linkableTitle":"Using \"See also\" section before this nav template"}-->
I noticed that most of the articles using this template also have a "See also" section before the template. This is not desirable and conflicts with MOS:APPENDIX. The "See also" section should come before the "References" section. Also in general there is no reason to use a heading prior to navigation templates. They simply are used after the last normal appendix matter heading. This is to reduce clutter and since the heading adds no value, nothing is lost upon its omission. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-09-01T18:39:00.000Z","author":"Jason Quinn","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jason_Quinn-2011-09-01T18:39:00.000Z-Using_\"See_also\"_section_before_this_nav_template","replies":["c-Jason_Quinn-2011-09-01T18:46:00.000Z-Jason_Quinn-2011-09-01T18:39:00.000Z"]}}-->
I have fixed the first 13 years plus a couple others. I will wait for a while for more any objecting points of view before changing more. I could also use some help in changing the others as there are so many. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-09-01T18:46:00.000Z","author":"Jason Quinn","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Jason_Quinn-2011-09-01T18:46:00.000Z-Jason_Quinn-2011-09-01T18:39:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
Strategi Solo vs Squad di Free Fire: Cara Menang Mudah!
