Talk:Betws-y-Coed

Traditional County

Owain reverted a recent change with the remark 'traditional counties are present tense'. I don't understand this assertion, in what sense is something from the past 'present tense'?

Since more than just the tense was altered, I am reverting the article back to its former state. Chris Jefferies 29 June 2005 11:52 (UTC)

What it means is obvious. Your assertion 'It formed part of the traditional county of Caernarfonshire' implies that it no longer does. That is incorrect. Please read the traditional county article(s) - They have nothing to do with local government, and as geographical areas is clearly to be referred to in the present tense. Reverting. Owain 29 June 2005 17:50 (UTC)

The policy is clear on this. It states We should not take the minority position that they [traditional counties] still exist with the former boundaries. I am therefore returning the text to the form that complies with the agreed Wikipedia standards. Chris Jefferies 30 June 2005 09:23 (UTC)

The policy that you hold up as the holy grail of truth is self-contradictory. It may well state that, but it goes on to list 'acceptable things' such as "Coventry is in the West Midlands, and within the traditional borders of Warwickshire". I used that EXACT wording here: "Betws-y-Coed is a town in the county borough of Conwy, within the traditional borders of Caernarfonshire" and you STILL reverted it to a factually incorrect version. If you want to stick rigidly to an inflexible policy at the expense of the facts then this is fine. Owain 30 June 2005 11:05 (UTC)

Owain, I understand your frustration, but let's try to agree on some basic points.

I do not 'hold [the policy] up as the holy grail of truth', I hold it up as something that was agreed by a vote. If it is faulty in some way we can hold further discussion and another vote to improve it. You have the right to initiate that if you wish, but you do not have the right to simply ignore it and continue editing articles as if the policy didn't exist.

As I've already said on the Cardiff talk page: How can you you have a vote when you don't know what you're voting on? And what place to votes have in a factual encyclopaedia anyway? There are facts that need to be presented, and I'm trying to find a compromise that allows all the facts to be presented, whereas others are trying to suppress facts and introduce inaccuracies. I am trying to work within the limitations of the policy here. Owain 30 June 2005 13:45 (UTC)

'Coventry is in the West Midlands, and within the traditional borders of Warwickshire' may be noted as an acceptable thing, but perhaps it doesn't belong in the lead section of an article. I have no problem with wording like that in a section on a place's history or geography or wherever seems it to fit in the main body of an article.

That seems a little disengenous to me. That wording sounds like a perfect opening sentence, and is the exact style employed by the Encyclopaedia Britannica: The opening sentence of the Coventry article is http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9026653 : "city and metropolitan borough, metropolitan county of West Midlands, historic county of Warwickshire, England."

It is your opinion that the earlier version is incorrect, you are entitled to that opinion. But I am entitled to my opinion too, that it is correct. But the fact that our opinions differ doesn't take us forward very far.

It is not my opinion. The administrative county of Glamorgan was created in 1889 and abolished in 1974, whereas the traditional county is an entirely separate entity. Any changes to one have no effect on the other, otherwise they would be the same thing! In any case, both Cardiff and Swansea were county boroughs independent of the administrtive Glamorgan, so its abolition would have had no effect on either of them. These are established facts. The policy tries to dumb this down into "there is only one type of county that has changed borders over time". This is a fundamental problem with the policy that leads to these disputes. Owain 30 June 2005 13:45 (UTC)

I do not wish to 'stick rigidly' to anything, but neither am I prepared to see Wikipedia policy disregarded by someone with a minority POV. Chris Jefferies 30 June 2005 11:26 (UTC)

I am not disregarding the policy - in fact I used a wording that is a direct cut and paste from the policy!
I do not have a minority point-of-view - Wikipedia itself has articles about administrative, traditional and ceremonial counties, not one article that says "There is only one type of county whose borders have changed over time". Owain 30 June 2005 13:45 (UTC)

Assessment

There is no way this article is B class, not even C class. Reassessing to Start. Also as not a town in Wales dropping to low importance. Please add discussion if you disagree. Thanks FruitMonkey (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the male female ratio in the village

We need to know the male female ratio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenfarrargay (talk • contribs) 20:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Betws-y-Coed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081121202902/http://domesdaymaps.com/WPN-B.htm to http://domesdaymaps.com/WPN-B.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]