Talk:Anglo-Scottish border

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland High‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

North East England Low‑importance

	North East England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England 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.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Maps Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography 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.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trade Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade 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.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Travel and Tourism Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles 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.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Picture Usage

The current railway picture is of a time when the border sign was partially broken, i.e. missing the Thistle. Here is a picture of the Border Sign repaired or undamaged, can someone replace the current one with it?

http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/04/28/69/4286947_fb5bf88f.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.94.198 (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long been the de facto border?

"Although it had long been the de facto border, it was legally established in 1237" – from memory, Cumbria was part of Alba / Scotland in the 11th century, and it was a deal in the 12th century that set the present border. The eastern part of the boundary was set earlier, 10th century? I'm rather pressed with other projects just now, but it would be good if someone more knowledgeable about history could put some dates on it, and perhaps mention the earlier Brittonic / Pictish border. All the best, .. dave souza, talk 11:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what Hadrian's wall is doing in this article, and what is there is nonsense. Caledonia was the part of Scotland north of the Antonine Wall, not Hadrian's wall. I agree with Dave souza re the dubious "de facto border". But the earlier Britonnic / Pictish border is thought to be much further north than the current border. --Dumbo12 (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Former counties"

Can we use the term "traditional counties" please? The names are still very much in use. Few people would describe themselves as coming from "Grampian" or "Strathclyde", and few people in Banff associate with Aberdeenshire. The only people who use the new terms are the penpushers. There is also strong resistance to the term "Cumbria" in some quarters. --MacRusgail 18:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YESYESandmanygoals 10:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Border changes for future

When Union is over and some years have passed i think it is possible that England will push borders more north, maybe try to take Glasgow and Edingurgh, maybe? YESYESandmanygoals 09:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TALK – this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not idle speculation. Also, remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. .. dave souza, talk 10:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone from Glasgow, I certainly hope so. The traditional border between England and Scotland was the Firth of Forth, and since all that has changed since those times is that people north of the Firth of Forth effectively 'became English' there is literally no reason whatsoever for lands south of the Firth of Forth to be siphoned off from and excluded from England, and little more reason for lands north of the Firth of Forth to be either by this point.

Time hasn't remained frozen in the Middle Ages, languages and cultures have shifted drastically, there has been immense movements of people all throughout the British Isles and indeed INTO the British Isles from outside of it. 92.7.131.41 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK mates, they i say article has too much talk of Scottishness and is tad bit biased, no?

Anglo to English

Mais Oui, i bet you will not reply as this is technique of you many times.

Anglo is offensive word and many times not good, i also proposed on my edit so you could read that i will discuss reason on yoru talkpage - you have ignored this (bet you say i never seen this) and said i gave no reason, remember GOOD FAITH policy and stop reverting on site.

Please discuss in future and not just revert, shows many ignorance on your part. Thanks. YESYESandmanygoals 14:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change from Anglo to English proposal

Spoke with admin person and i am requesting vote on changing name from Anglo to English, English is more acurate and everyone knows what it is in this way, also i think Anglo in these time has maybe some political motives.

Propose change name of article to "English-Scottish border". YESYESandmanygoals 14:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide any evidence to back up your claim that the Anglo- prefix is considered offensive by anyone? Having lived in England all my life, I can't say that anyone I've ever met has thought Anglo to be offensive, and I doubt the Scots really care that much what we call ourselves (though I've known a few who have their own choice descriptions for the English). Articles across Wikipedia use the Anglo- prefix (such as Anglosphere and the entire series of UK Bilateral relations articles. The article on the Anglo- prefix in Wiktionary (wikt:Anglo-) makes no mention of it being considered offensive by anyone. Further, Anglo- is also widely used in literature both online and offline in much the same way as Sino- (Chinese), Hiberno- (Irish) and Franco- (French). I have a distinct feeling that this is just a case of taking political correctness far too far. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Anglo-Scottish border". It has 15200 Google hits [1] and "English-Scottish border" has 11000.[2] We have many articles starting with "Anglo" [3] including Anglo-Scottish Cup which was an official tournament name. I have never heard "Anglo" should be negative. PrimeHunter 22:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just googled Anglo-offensive and found some results, the term is offensive for many, fortunately the term "Anglo" is not for wide using so you generally people wont know enough about it to be offended, Anglo referes to Anglish people, and the term is to degree redundant. YESYESandmanygoals 13:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo- is from Latin, like luso-, hispano-, franco-, germano-, italo-, russo-, etc. Are those offensive too? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Googling found a few people who found it offensive if somebody says "Anglo" as a general term for non-English white people but that's irrelevant to Anglo-Scottish border. PrimeHunter 15:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruso, Germano, Franko or things is not offensive to me and is not the area i would know abouts, speak with peoples of them to find it out. "Anglo" like "Scotch" is not right. Anyway, main point is that surley "England" is better? no? is describing this most better than Anglo, which is outdated term about Germans, and we all want to make better for Wiki. YESYESandmanygoals 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They used to talk about an Inner German border. So, since we musn't forget Wales, how about Inner British border (northern)? Works for me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Scottish border seems fine to me. --John 21:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus it is good compromise maybe, most part needing removal is "Anglo" so i am supporting anything better than Anglo - as it can be offensive, if you want to propose that i would favour it. YESYESandmanygoals 08:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Inner British border" only has a single Google hit [4] and that is not about Scotland. Titles should be common names when possible. There is still no evidence than anybody other than YESYESandmanygoals thinks Anglo about English is offensive. PrimeHunter 11:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further examples of the anglo- prefix in third parties: (Encyclopaedia Britannica, New York Times, The Guardian). For heaven's sake, one of the largest corporations in the world is called Anglo American. YESYES, if you want the article moved, please provide evidence beyond vague unlinked google searches that the use of Anglo as a general prefix for the English is considered offensive by any significant group of people. Note that search engine numbers are not going to be (in themselves) sufficient. A quick search for pie offensive turns up more results than Anglo offensive, but that doesn't mean we're going to rename Pie. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine 'Anglo' being held as offensive in this context, although I do think it is rather specialised terminology. While "English-Scottish border" turns up less hits than "Anglo-Scottish border" on Google, the numbers are massively in favour when "English border" or "Scottish border" is used. Personally I'd have gone for that, but there seems to be a consensus for other border pages to use the noun rather than the adjective form, so that seems not to be a problem.

"Pie" can be used in an offensive context, as many an obese Scotsman will be able to testify. --Breadandcheese 14:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support the idea. It's more understandable, and moreover Anglo is often used for all of the UK, not only England. I'd actually go the whole way and change it to England-Scotland border in commonality with the other pages in Category:borders. There's a few fairly plausible arguments for the idea, and the only opposing ones seem to be that it's OK as is. For all the effort, I'd suggest we do it. --Breadandcheese 15:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Support --YESYESandmanygoals 10:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Oppose Nothing offensive about "Anglo".GordyB 13:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as far from the only argument at hand. --Breadandcheese 03:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the meaning of "Anglo" is clear here there is no ambiguation and the current name sounds better than English-Scottish or England-Scotland and is more common.GordyB 13:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have imagined that a title which was sound English (such as Anglo-Scottish border, which uses adjectives and noun appropriately) would be preferred to barbarism (England-Scotland is not normally an adjectival phrase). English-Scottish border is not especially euphonious, but it's a damn sight better than England-Scotland border. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordy B, it sounds better? haha, is most comedy moment of Wiki, thank you much. YESYESandmanygoals 19:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breadandcheese suggests not using Anglo for this article as it "is often used for all of the UK". That would be the very instance I can think of when Anglo is offensive, i.e. to those being termed Anglo who are from the UK but not from England. However this isn't the way it's being used in this article, so in itself not a reason to change it. Mutt Lunker 00:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

England and English are also often used for all of the UK. My Googling found an Irishman [5] who found it "really offensive" to be called Anglo. PrimeHunter 00:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

England or English for the entire UK is simply wrong, however Anglo is used officially and is not in itself wrong, it can mean more than simply English --Breadandcheese 02:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have more difficulty finding someone Irish (or Welsh or Scots...) who didn't find it at least a bit offensive. Same goes for England/English use for UK. Again though, this isn't the usage here. Mutt Lunker 01:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the term Anglo has been used officially to mean British but this does not mean that it is correct, accurate or inoffensive. It's just lazy usage of a handy but inaccurate prefix since "Brito-" or whatever doesn't exist. Actually though, having re-read the Irish guy's letter I'm not sure I entirely agree with him as this is in regard to the American usage which equates more to "anglophone" in distinction from., e.g., Spanish-speaking. But once again this is all a red herring here since the usage is plainly referring to England and not Britain.Mutt Lunker 09:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Anglo means German man who invade, yes? people of England is not German, just queen and some people from south-east - saying England is Anglo is like saying Scotland is ginger or Ireland is leprechaun etc American is fat, Polish is immigrant etc etc Stereotypes can be fun, but also offending. YESYESandmanygoals 12:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo comes from the same root as "English" and we use that root ourselves a lot e.g. Anglican, East Anglia and also Anglo–Scottish border. The idea that it is offensive to English people is one that I cannot fathom, I doubt that more than one person in a million would object to it. If saying "Anglo" implies German ancestry then so does "English" - they mean exactly the same thing.GordyB 16:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo- is the usual suffix for the Anglo-Scottish border. Possibly the noun "Anglo" (if that noun exists?) would be rather offensive and pointless. Also why wouldnt "Anglo-Saxon" be offensive if Anglo-Scottish is? 92.235.178.44 (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corresponding image?

Is anybody in a position to take a photo of a "Welcome to England" road sign, à la File:Border Scotland.jpg? It would be nice to have images of both signs, rather than just the one. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. Whilst I cannot contribute to the request, I wonder if anyone has an image of the new (and more colourful) "Welcome to Scotland" signs that have popped up in recent times. Macarism ^{(Talk to me)} 09:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old merge and rename discussions

I am placing two links: (/Archive 1#Merge and Talk:Scottish Marches#Merge into Anglo-Scottish border) into this section, so that if anyone in the future wishes to discuss the name and format of this page they can find and read the previous discussions on these topics. -- PBS (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of York did NOT Establish the border.

See the Wiki page on the Treaty of York for the facts about the treaty. It did not, as claimed here, (and in lots of other places too) establish the Anglo-Scottish border.

By the terms of the treaty the King of the Scots got 'given' or rather was 'granted' (to be held as a feudal subject of the English King, his brother-in-law ) a huge swathe of nothern England and its English inhabitants, an England whose borders back then ran up to the Firth of Forth, including, not least, Edinburgh. This feudal grant of land was personal to the Scots king in exchange for his fealty, it was not a gift to the Kingdom of the Scots. In other words the lands involved clearly remained part of England and the border did not change.

But it seems the Scots just never handed the land back!

The long term consequences however were profound, since from then on 'Scotland' which had previously been the Highland-based Gaelic-speaking Kingdom of the Scots became ethnically, linguistically and culturally a second or parallel 'English'or least Anglo-Saxon Kingdom - one with an ever declining and irrelevent Gaelic 'Scots' component still located in the Highlands.

The Gaelic word sassenach by the way means 'saxon' and originally meant the Anglo-saxons or English of the kingdom of Bernicia, people who ever since the 6th century had inhabited (and in effect still do inhabit) what are now the Scottish lowlands (prev part of Northumberland i.e England).

(In fact I'll change the main text to read 'it is often said, incorrectly, that...') — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.8.105 (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone mustn't like the edit and has deletetd it. But click on the link the Treaty of York to read what it actually said! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.5.161 (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intestingly even the document to which the quote "Although it had long been the de facto border, it was legally established in 1237" doesn't say "legally established" but only "agreed". That of course is incorrect too, but at least it's a bit less incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.17.46 (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sentence

This section of a sentence is unclearly expressed in a number of repects: "the continuing border situation would be dealt with first by reviving the old laws, and then repeatedly continuing them for various periods of time", why "first"? Did they do something second, etc.? What "old laws"? What is meant by "reviving" them; had they been repealed and were then reinstituted, were they always there but hadn't neeeded to be applied for some time? What is intended by "repeatedly continuing"? Applying them several times? Adding new laws repeatedly? Why "for various periods of time"? At various points? Were they implemented then repealed then passed and implemented again? Is something else intended? Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a go at rewording this but the sentence is still not as clear or clearly phrased as it might be. I'll take a guess at what is intended and make the suggested rephrasing from "Following the Restoration and indeed until the late 1750s, the on-going border situation would be dealt with first by reviving the old laws, and then by continuing them with eleven other acts, for periods ranging from five to eleven years." to "Following the Restoration, on-going border lawlessnes was dealt with by reviving former legislation, renewed continually in eleven subsequent acts, for periods ranging from five to eleven years, up until the late 1750s." Does that reflect the facts? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, reasonably reflective. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. I will create the redirect. Dekimasuよ! 09:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Scottish border → England–Scotland border – Per England–Wales border. Unreal7 (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support holy cow let's make this simpler Red Slash 23:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Should be Anglo-Welsh border. Srnec (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, put a redirect in if you want the Philistine version. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to "England–Scotland border". I'm fond of "Anglo-Scottish border" but that's not what the sources use. Also WP:UCRN. Tammbeck (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is, as I've cited below. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: yes, keep it simple.---Ehrenkater (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but agree with John Maynard Friedman, just redirect JJNito97 14:38 29 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJNito197 (talk • contribs)
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. See this Ngram. Should indeed be Anglo-Welsh border. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but on that basis we have a clear winner - "Scottish border". Look at this one. Tammbeck (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that would be POV, since it's also the English border. Most of those references will originate in England, where it's not necessary to specify that you're talking about the border with England, just as most references to "English border" will originate in Scotland or Wales. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

From the vicinity of The Cheviot southwestwards to Kielder, the border follows the watershed save for a diversion southeastward at Coquethead and a more substantial one involving the headwaters of the Scaup Burn SE of Wauchope Forest. I wonder if any editor has knowledge of the reason behind those curious diversions and, if of sufficient interest, can a referenced account be given in the article? thanks Geopersona (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tweed is only small part of the border in the east

This article states the Tweed remains the border but that is only true for a very small part of the border in the east, otherwise towns like Jedburgh, Hawick and Selkirk would be in England; they are south of the Tweed but in Scotland.

Rename to England-Scotland Border

While there's nothing necessarily offensive or incorrect about using 'Anglo' in lieu of 'English' (or British), I'm not really sure what the point is here in using a far more vague, dubious term which can often have a broader meaning in this context when we're clearly talking about something specifically English/England. Seems needlessly confusing, perhaps not to native English-speakers, but certainly so to others. The England-Wales border has been renamed to such, I see absolutely no reason why the England-Scotland border shouldn't be given the same treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.131.41 (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC) I mean I really don't get it, why borrow a Latin word for English that just has the same root etymologically. Angl/Engl and just changing the suffix to an -o instead of an -ish. Why? What's the point in it. And since you all acknowledge Anglo is a vaguer term with potentially much broader implications, why on Earth would we use it for the boundaries of England specifically. Extremely confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.131.41 (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change lead image

Image 1

Image 2

I propose replacing the current image (Image 1, of the border on the A1 road) with Image 2, of the border on the East Coast railway.

Support Image 2, as proposer.Tammbeck ^talk 21:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]