Why? I mean, I know the difference between them, but why was it disappointing?

The full name of the country is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" - calling it "Great Britain" is just wrong (it excludes Northern Ireland and all other smaller islands). You would also hope an official website can get it correct.

Although entire languages get it wrong - in German the UK is translated as "Großbritannien". Edit: they do have translation for UK ("Vereinigtes Königreich") but I've never heard it said/written yet... I think I'll start using it.

A worse version is when "England" is used to refer to the UK. It's very common, maybe less so in official contexts.

No, calling it "England" is totally fine.

Just as we call The Netherlands "Holland".

Or the United States "Amerika".

It really, really isn't.

To be fair, it is ok to the rest of the world, no one cares outside of the UK or even know the difference, I hope you realize that.

There's a massive difference between the two. The Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish (plus islanders and whatnot) tend to get pretty peeved when you refer to them as English.

I accept that people outside the UK might not care, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. There's also a significant difference between making the mistake in casual conversation and on a formal document.

as conquered nations, the welsh, scottish, and irish are merely unhappy that their unique identities are being amalgamated under the british empire.

Canadians live in America, and get peeved when people call them Americans. Doesn't make them any less Americans, though.

That's fine, when people mix up "English", with "Welsh" and "Scottish".

It's not when people mix up "englisch" with "walisisch" and "schottisch".

There's not a massive difference. These are people who speak (for the most part) the same language, have (for the most part) the same religion (Christianity), live a few miles from each others, listen to the same music, watch the same tv shows and read similar books at home and school. Sorry, but for outsiders, you are the same people and for the most part, they'd be right to think so. People are not that different, especially people who have so much in common as the inhabitants of the UK, get over yourself, you're not that special.

I'm sure you don't know and care that southern Peruvians from Arequipa like to be called Arequipaños and wouldn't like being mistaken with Northern Peruvian from the Jungle etc. Thing is they're the same to any outsider.

So we'll just starting calling all Americans Yankees, yes?

Isn't Yankees a slur? I don't remember ever arguing for using slurs.

To the outside world, most Americans are and sound pretty similar though. Sorry if that offends you.

Calling all Americans Yankees is exactly like calling all Britons English. It's not a slur unless used as one (Yankees are, roughly, people from New England/northeast U.S.) but many people will take offense when incorrectly labelled so - even if "no one cares". You could imagine a Breton's reaction to being called a Parisian to be roughly similar. Or a self-professed Catalonian being described as Castilian. Or an American asking about best place to get currywurst or bangers and mash in Paris, I mean all these places are pretty similar anyway, y'all listen to Eurovision, sorry if that offends you...

better than being called southern redneck. You picked one of the nicer slurs.

I really, really hate, when people try to force other people to speak in the specific manner they are speaking.

You have no right to demand that.

Additionally, you have no idea about the connotations. You may find it offensive, but it is not. Not at all.

It's not offensive. Of course it's not. It's just blatantly incorrect. Your taking a group of 4 countries + some islands and referring to them by one of the 4 countries names. It'll confuse people. They now have to think: when he says 'England' does he actually mean England - which would be the obvious meaning - or is he one of those people that has no understanding of geography and is actually referring to a group of several countries? If you refuse to use the correct terminology, even when you are very obviously wrong, you're just confusing people unnecessarily.

It doesn't confuse people.

This distinction has traditionally never been very important in Germany, so people didn't habitually make the distinction.

That's exactly the point: you have no idea about usage and connotations in German, but still consider yourself an expert who should have the power to prescribe a foreign language.

As an aside: we're also lumping together (dancing) balls and (foot)balls. And lots of other things.

And how do we survive that? Context.

This is the first Germany has been brought up in the conversation. At no point was I discussing use in languages other than English and at no point did I argue that. It seems you argument has fallen apart and you have resorted to changing it.

That's wrong.

I was clearly replying to "Although entire languages get it wrong - in German [...]".

The poster I was replying to was claiming that other languages are wrong.

And I resent your accusations.

The political country I have citizenship in has a name, it's written on my passport - it is not "England".

Maybe you can see the problem if I explain it in this way: you can become British (meaning "UK-ish"), but you cannot become English.

Not only is it technically wrong, but it also contributes to perpetuating the dominance of England over the other parts of the UK.

I try to clear midconceptions/misunderstands of other countries when I know better, I would invite you to do the same now you know more :)

Hopefully I can soothe some your resentment of my accusation too - I have been learning about Germany and the forms it existed in before the unification of the states in 1871 - the culture goes back a lot further than this, I am currently learning German and planning an extended tour by bicycle (when I have learnt enough) so I can get more deeply into this topic.

It's not particularly offensive, but it does betray a certain ignorance about the geographic extent of England the country.

And why does German need to perfectly capture the geographic idiosyncracies of other countries? In colloquial usage?

When the distinction is important we can express it, no problem. But when it isn't?

Because for Swiss people like you, Welsh people like us don't like doing business with Bavarians who call us English. Maybe if you weren't Austrian, you'd understand.

Your examples are completely wrong. The Netherlands is sometimes mistakenly refered to as Holland because this for a time this was the accepted way of referring to the country and its people. It has never been the accepted way to refer to Scottish as English or Welsh as English or Northern Irish as English.

The American comparison would be more suitable if you referred to the whole of the USA as Washington DC.

A better analogy would be calling the United States 'Washington'.

How is calling the Netherlands Holland not a perfect analogy?

Interestingly, it used to be pretty common in the US to refer to the Netherlands as Holland--maybe even the norm. Anecdotally, this usage seems far less common today. I have to confess that I didn't know until I looked it up just now that Holland was a region within the Netherlands.

In English--I have no opinion about other languages--it would certainly seem odd to refer to the entire of the UK as "England." For example, you'll get looked at funny if you say you're going to Edinburgh in England next week.

[Edit: My recollection is that it also used to be more common to refer to the "U.K." as Great Britain.]

Because Holland is a region within The Netherlands. Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales are completely separate countries. Holland is not. NI/S/W are not part of England.

Calling it a kingdom is also wrong. It has only a queen, not a king. But really, I'd be surprised if any typical person outside of UK knew the difference. I'm a British citizen (of the 1st kind) but had no idea till now that Northern Ireland is not part of Britain! Let's all just call it England because that's so common already.

Both are locations and not types of citizenship. 'British' is a descriptor for citizenship 'Great Britain' and 'United Kingdom' are not.

To be picky, there are technically 6 different types of British citizenship:

https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/overview

...and this is a nifty Venn Diagram for all the different land names: http://qntm.org/uk

You can be a citizen (or national) of the United Kindom (of GB and NI) but not simply of Great Britain though.

It also makes it a pain to find, I spent a good amount of time looking through different entries (UK, United Kingdom, British, England, Great Britain etc.).