Talk:Union
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
As synonym for United Kingdom. The given example is "Treaty of Union", but that is literally a treaty forming a union: it doesn't imply that "Union" means "United Kingdom". If this does pass RFV then it might need marking as obsolete. Equinox ◑ 23:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's not obsolete, but it needs some context to show which union is meant. Typical use is as found in e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Unionist_Party :
- Paisley declared: "This is a small token of the men who are placed to devastate any attempt by Margaret Thatcher and Charles Haughey to destroy the Union".
- On the basis that "the Union" needs context for us to understand which union (and presumably could be used for any union??), I'm not clear whether it deserves a dictionary entry for this sense. Mihia (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- What about this as a def: “The union between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland (later confined to Northern Ireland), which came into force on 1 January 1801 and formed the United Kingdom”? --Lambiam 17:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- The only concern I have is that "the Union" can refer to umpteen different unions, depending on context. A few are listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Union, but I've no doubt more could be found. Is there something about the UK Union that makes it worth an entry, while others are omitted? On the other hand, if the UK Union is seen as a particularly prominent or important use then I guess it doesn't hurt to include it. Mihia (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not sure how to feel. Compare "Kingdom" referring to various kingdoms and people "trying to destroy the Kingdom", or "Kingdom forces/troops/etc" (which does rarely exist alongside the expected "Royal", see e.g. google books:"and Kingdom forces"), "Queen" (as in "the Queen visited Canada"), "Talk:Civil War" in reference to any of them, etc. OTOH, "Union" in reference to the non-Confederate American states feels idiomatic to me. I dunno. (Anyway, as to the question at hand, I'm sure it can be cited.) - -sche (discuss) 20:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- The only concern I have is that "the Union" can refer to umpteen different unions, depending on context. A few are listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Union, but I've no doubt more could be found. Is there something about the UK Union that makes it worth an entry, while others are omitted? On the other hand, if the UK Union is seen as a particularly prominent or important use then I guess it doesn't hurt to include it. Mihia (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- What about this as a def: “The union between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland (later confined to Northern Ireland), which came into force on 1 January 1801 and formed the United Kingdom”? --Lambiam 17:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)