Yes, I was in two minds about posting it for this reason, but decided to in the end because of that.

I used to use Connect - moved to Voyager, which I found to have more useful features, but still have it on my phone. I have just taken a look and Connect shows me the name of the server as well as the community - so I don't know if that is an option somewhere in the settings.

However, yes, I am aware that the name of the community does appear simply as 'nature' in some cases. There isn't much I can do about that, as I didn't set it up.

Still, my original comments stand. The idea that I and everyone else should specify that each story is related to the UK - in a community that is specific to the UK - and would need to editorialise titles and content to do so (which would definitely draw negative comments) is unreasonable. And would that be sufficient for everyone? There are certainly people, for example, who are confused by entities like the UK, England, Great Britain etc and are not aware of how they relate to each other.

I usually browse by subscribed, but if I should choose to browse by all then there are always a scattering of stories that I know nothing about. I wouldn't expect that every one of those should include a wiki guide to the subject in question. I would expect that I would need to look it up myself.

Well, it is posted in the UK Nature and Environment community on Feddit UK. I don't know what you are using to browse with, but everything that I have used on mobile or laptop shows me which community an item is posted in at the very least, so that it was in the UK should have been reasonably clear, I would have thought.

The following is not a criticism of you or anyone else - we all started somewhere, and I would always encourage learning. However, a couple of points to consider:

it takes TO 5 seconds

I think a little longer than 5 secs to find a suitable link, copy that link and format it for Lemmy, and then make it clear that this was not part of the original story, but the main point is that virtually every link that I post to this community mentions some area of the UK. Is it realistic that I (and others) should then either embed a link to info for each one of those locations, or separately write some summary info on each one? If not every one, then where would one draw the line? Caithness in this case, but Cumbria, Dorset, Kinder Scout and Montrose Basin have each featured in recent items that I have posted - and hundreds of other places before them. Which should I expect a significant number of people who are interested enough to be following stories in the UK Nature and Environment community not to have heard of?

And much the same is true of peat. Inevitably, any related story could be the first time that someone somewhere will have heard of peat, but it is not exactly a niche subject: it has been in the headlines for both wildlife and climate change in the UK and elsewhere for a good few years now (decades, at least, in relation to wildlife) and it seems reasonable to expect that the vast majority of readers of items in the UK Nature and Environment community will be aware of peatland. And if I do include a link to more info on that, should I also do so for other habitats in other links? Chalk streams? Lowland Heath? Woodland? Meadows? Again, how could I realistically draw the line?

Caithness - county in the Scottish highlands including the most northerly mainland point in the UK.

Peat - well the Wiki page would be a good start, I imagine.

I am - in the UK - and I think that it should be opt out rather than opt in.

I manage utility services - among other things - for a group of properties - and have had the mains water analysed for chemical and biological contamination at various times. The results have always been absolutely fine. Not just with EU limits, but far, far, far within them for almost everything and definitely well within them for all measures.

I've got no issues at all with drinking tap water in the UK, even given the state of the rivers etc.

The actual reason that we don't is pretty much because of the invention of sewing machines. Once sewing machines were widespread, making coats became sooo much cheaper than they had been. Coats need a lot of tightly made seams which took time and so made coats very expensive. With sewing machines, making these seams was vastly quicker and more reliable.

Coats win over cloaks in so many ways because you can do things with your arms without exposing them or your torso to the rain and cold: impossible with a cloak.

Capes were the short versions - and intended to cover the shoulder and back without seams that might let the rain in, but with the new machine made seams, they were not needed either.

The really big change was when it became affordable to outfit armies with coats instead of cloaks or capes. At that point all the caché and prestige that was associated with military rank disappeared from cloaks and capes and they were suddenly neither useful not fashionable.

Nowadays, of course, they are no longer what your unfashionable dad would have worn: they are quite old enough to have regained a certain style.

An isolated shingle spit nature reserve. We'd lost mains power in a storm some while back and were running on a generator. Fuel deliveries were hard to arrange. We'd finally got one. We were pretty much running on fumes and another storm was coming in. We really needed this delivery.

To collect the fuel, I had to take the Unimog along a dump track and across 5 miles of loose shingle - including one low causeway stretch through a lagoon that was prone to wash out during storms. We'd rebuilt it a LOT over the years. On the way up, there was plenty of water around there, but it was still solid.

I get up to the top ok and get the tank full - 2000L of red diesel - but the wind is pretty strong by the time I have. Half way back, I drop down off the seawall and reach the causeway section. The water is just about topping over. If I don't go immediately, I won't get through at all and we will be out of fuel for days - maybe weeks. So I put my foot down and get through that section only to find that 200 meters on, another section already has washed out. Oh shit.

I back up a little but sure enough the first section has also washed through now. I now have the vehicle and a full load of fuel marooned on a short section of causeway that is slowly washing out. Oh double shit. Probably more than double. Calling it in on the radio, everyone else agrees and starts preparing for a pollution incident.

In the end I find the firmest spot that I can in that short stretch and leave the Moggie there. Picking my route and my moment carefully I can get off that 'island' on foot - no hope with the truck - BUT due to the layout of the lagoons only to the seaward ridge, where the waves are now crashing over into the lagoon with alarming force. I then spend one of the longest half-hours I can remember freezing cold and drenched, scrambling yard by yard along the back side of that ridge and flattening myself and hoping each time a big wave hits.

The firm bit of causeway survived and there was no washed away Unimog or pollution in the end - and I didn't drown either - but much more by luck than judgement.

These days I am in a position where I am responsible for writing risk assessments and methods statements for procedures like this. It was another world back then.

I experience suboptimal viewing by having to watch ads. If I had to pick one or the other, I know which one I prefer.

Whilst I am sympathetic to the overall aim of this, things like this:

She would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain

...do stand out as being a a bit unrealisitic. I mean, how many governors of Roman Britain of any race or nationality can the typical Briton actually name? I'd be surprised if it was more than 1 and probably less than that.

And if the expectation is that anyone would know of this guy only because his chief contribution to history is "being black" then I am not sure what we are gaining here.

Y2K.