Talk:History of Great Britain

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to History of Great Britain. This is also a forum for spreading libelous rumors about the article's subject. This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

"However, in 1978, Featheringstonehaugh and Smyth discovered that British dialects vary based on the amount of sex that the speaker has experienced in their lifetime. The more intercourse the speaker has enjoyed, the less consonants they will utilize."

That's too bloody funny...or should I say, "'oo blee'in' funny"? -Fred

The borderline racism throughout this is a bit worrying, anyone care to get rid of it? This is uncyclopedia, not the daily mail

This whole article sucks, I'm gonna try to rewrite It. -FeargusMcDuff

Good Lord! How can the motherland of our beloved Oscar Wilde have such a crappy page... as an immigrant I'm not qualified to improve it (until I've memorised the study book for the citizenship test), but until then someone, please, do something already! -Soul101

I agree. The quotes are quite funny though...

Actully Wilde is irish but hates his birthland.

Just did a bit of rewriting

Completely rewrote the opening paragraph and deleted the "New Breakthroughs" bit, as it was just stupid and not really that funny.

I'm a beginner on here, tell me if I did wrong.--James-sibley 18:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked your edits and I think you did mostly good --Zarbag 19:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Doesn't anyone find it a bit funny how in an aricle about Britain, 90% of it has to do with Americans? Jesus Christ, talk about an inferiority complex, the Brits don't even allow the article about them go without American bashing.

American Bashing? What about Brit bashing? I get the impression barely any brits have had anything to write on this page. It all seems to be non-british humour. Sure there are some very good bits, ie "3 quid a pint, your havin a laff" but I get the impression that people are trying to make a point of what they think of us rather than having a genuine laugh about us. Not to do with the article, but do Americans get upset when they here a normal British accent. Is it just not English enough?

This article is, quite plainly, shit. It's not funny. This is Americans ripping into the English, not the 'Brits'. Mind you, no-one really cares about the UK (including it's consituent countries) anymore.

Pathetic article. Insulting, not funny.

---

I've changed a few things. I got rid of the references to Chuck Norris which were just plain stupid. I added the Road Etiquette section under Culture. --Benbo 13:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We Yanks in Britain keep forgetting not to drive on the right side of the road. Declaring independence, saving ye arses in two world wars and had our fighting men sleep in your private quarters (a big reason for the American revolution: we didn't want the Brits sleeping in ours). Now we have American British wannabees from Gwyneth Paltrow to Madonna to Mike Myers (oh wait, he's Canadian) think how dandy the British isles are, enjoy the rain and pain of Bri-tain. + 71.102.2.206 02:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Army Section

Did a bit of rewriting.

Keep or revert?

So yeah...

Why is this article not written by Americans like it should be. The whole entire America page is written by Brits so why isn't this...

Intro could be shortened

I think the intro is too tedious. There are funny things in there, but I think most of it needs to be deleted or moved downstairs. However, I'm too lazy to do it at the moment ;)

Also, a statement I'd like to add at some point goes something like: "Great Britain has spread democracy more effectively than any nation on Earth."

Joeyadams 02:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

tea kwon do

There should be a part about teakwondo. it was mentioned in the page taekwondo saying it was invented in Britain.

Recolonisation Requested

Ok let me have a go on this one (see VFD where this was requested). --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 13:04, January 20, 2010 (UTC) A further add. As this will be the History of Great Britain, anything here that refers to the other article on Great Britain will be linked and removed there to prevent duplication. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 15:29, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. MrN 15:32, Jan 20

History of England

I see there was a recent article titled History of England which looks unfinished. Should this one link with that as well or merge it with this one. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 15:13, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Tricky call. Probably merge it into this one and redirect it to here. MrN 15:44, Jan 28

There are some good jokes in that article. I have left a message on the author's page to see if he is interested. We can either split this History of Great Britain in the way Wiki has done it or go the old historical way which was to write the History of Great Britain when it was really about England with some kilts, leeks, shamrock and bigots thrown in. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 18:27, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Currently working up to meet Zarbag's article (Henry VIII) and make a join. This is like digging the Channel Tunnel. At the moment I am just trying to do a first write through before going back for a polish/edit and the adding of pictures. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 19:51, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Finished first run through to Henry VII (1509. The article looks very long and overlaps in some areas with articles about some of the Kings mentioned like Richard the Lionheart.

--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 12:57, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am sorry I was not here sooner. Actually, if you would not mind, I would prefer to keep the history of England article (and gradually work on it with the other editors) as I have no real interest in Great Britain as a whole (only England and the Gaelic areas) and thus would not really be able to do much editing or jokes for the majority of the topics covered here (infact the Old English era is pretty much well covered here too, which is my primary interest) - although I will edit here from time to time, of course. Well, that, and I consider England my own country, and Great Britain as mere geography. Of course, I prefer continuity with the jokes on this sight - humorous realism has always tickled my funny bone - and would suggest linking and borrowing things from each article.

Thank you very for the message and I must commend the editors of this page for their hard work...and time! Carl Gustav Junk 21:10, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Hair Extensions

This article is stretching out a bit. Will have to ask admins if we can do a History of Great Britain in at least three sections. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 13:18, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Don't think we need permission from the admins, just create a couple of new articles and cut 'n' paste the relevant bits.

Personally think the history should be divided into Ancient/Classical (ie 4000BC - 5th century), Dark Ages & Medieval (5th century - Henry VIII) and Early Modern/Modern (Liz I - Now) --Zarbag 07:58, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I like this

Why isn't it featured? We want the finest articles on VFH, we want them here and we want them now...--Sycamore (Talk) 08:58, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

It was a rescued article which I rewrote up to Henry VIII. It's also a bit unequal in sections. Zarbag's work is more abbreviated and the final section is in need of repair too. So right now, I don't think it's a VFH contender in my view. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:44, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Good edits appreciated!

Thanks to everyone like Soggy who have added their flourishes to this article. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 16:17, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility

I have no doubt that plenty of this is great historical satire, but the great girth is an incredibly daunting deterrent. What do you think about dividing most of the content into subpages, then linking to them with accompanying summaries? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 07:01, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

That would be the sensible approach, in the same way Wikipedia sub sections long articles. Zarbag who co-authored a lot of this too hasn't been around for awhile. I had suggested to him we could make three articles at least out of this one. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:25, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Three? There are easily ten in here! In any case, I could help out with this deal in Zarbag's absence. He's one of those sensible crazy people, I'm sure he won't mind. Then people might actually be able to feasibly read your article without stroking out in the middle! -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 15:55, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

I've got an idea as to how to divide the article:

• Article 1: Prehistoric Britain
• Article 2: Medieval Britain
• ...and so on.

Macbeth is probably an object of satire that could make its own article. -- Sir CuteTomCruiseOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 16:01, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Well the article is already mostly divided into eras, I was thinking of just subpaging the level 2 divisions and slightly reworking the introductions. Plus Macbeth already has his own article. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 16:04, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

It's a crappy article. -- Sir CuteTomCruiseOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0) • Stuy'16] 16:08, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite it. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 16:25, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

I have copied a version to my own subpages to see how best to split this up and re-edit it there. User:Romartus/History_of_Great_Britain --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 17:37, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Am I too late to say "No, don't split it up"? :( --Zarbag (talk) 12:39, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Why would you be opposed to it though? We're not getting rid of any content, just putting it into subpages to make it more navigable. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:29, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest splitting. Having a look at Dungeons & Dragons: Real Life Edition, there are times when an article is split and it makes it more feasible for a feature (despite my objections to that being split at the time). Also there are things that could be effectively expanded, and given the juggernaut this is, adding more content would be seen as a bad idea, but I'd love to see at least a mention of Skara Brae, and that's from me only just starting to read the article. This is a fantastic article, and should be a feature, but as is it'll be voted down purely based on size. Nominally Humane! 06:19 25 Jul

High Praise

Holy fucking shit this is amazing reading. Who the fuck wrote this and how do I take your style? Holy fucking shit this article is good. It was Robert Walpole, wasn't it? Risviltsov (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)