Jump to content

Talk:Elenydd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that Desert of Wales be merged into Elenydd. The term Elenydd is widely used in English-language sources to describe the area covered by the Desert of Wales article - for example here, here, and here, as well as at the Wicipedia article. We also have Category:Elenydd. I'm aware that the SSSI only covers part of the area, but that is not a problem - the point is that the term is used for a wider area. I had intended to propose simply renaming the Desert of Wales article, before discovering that this article exists - hence, I believe it should be merged into this one. Views? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- not only do the two articles cover different areas, but there are equal number of references in English to the Desert of Wales. The desert of Wales is not about it being an SSSI but about a large very lowly populated stretch of upland moorland within Great Britain. I seriously doubt that any English speaking user of Wikipedia would search on Elenydd whilst they might well do so on Wicipedia. The content of the two articles would strongly suggest a reverse merge of Elenydd into Desert of Wales which I would support as the SSSI is within and part of the desert of Wales.  Velella  Velella Talk   16:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They do not cover "different areas" - as you say, the SSSI is within and part of the area called "the Desert of Wales", an area which is also called Elenydd in English-language (as well as Welsh-language) literature. The "Desert of Wales" is not a neutral geographical name for the area - it is, as the article says, "a term invented by English travel writers in the nineteenth century". That is, a literary or poetic term, not a common name. The alternative to merger seems to me to be to expand the Elenydd article to cover the sources that use the term, but that may well lead to overlap with the "Desert" article. Merging Elenydd into the "Desert" article would seem to me to be highly unencyclopaedic. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - different areas, different subjects, and differing attitudes - the Desert of Wales is a historic, cultural geographic construct not an SSSI. Chienlit (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support - I'd note though that there is an article at Cambrian Mountains which describes briefly both the wider extent of the Welsh uplands as the Cambrian Mountains but also the seemingly more modern application of the name to the area of mid Wales which has been variously proposed as national park and AONB and which overlaps considerably with both Desert of Wales and Elenydd. How do we best deal with this too?
In addition, it frustrates me that there are a number of articles the text of which refers only to their being SSSIs, but whose titles suggest something rather broader such as 'Elenydd'. I do realise of course that it is open to me either to change the title to '~~ SSSI' or else to add other content. The Elenydd were there long before the SSSI was designated. cheers Geopersona (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no consensus here, I suggest that one way forward would be to develop the articles on Cambrian Mountains and Elenydd, which will then make it more obvious that the term "Desert of Wales" is essentially a literary and/or promotional one, rather than being the proper name of a geographical feature or designation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd support that approach. cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - one of my reasons for keeping the status quo, is the geo-morphological homogeneity of the area encompassed by the Desert of Wales. The Cambrian Mountains article talks of sedimentary rocks such as Old Red sandstone (as in the Brecon Beacons and elsewhere ) and carboniferous limestone (as in the carboniferous belt crossing below the old red sandstone). However the particular qualities of the Desert of Wales is that that is underlain by relatively immutable Ordovician and Silurian mud-stones which promotes a particular, and sometimes spectacularly uniform, ecology dominated by acid bogs and mires with thin acid soils elsewhere. Lumping it in the wider purview of Cambrian mountains fails to acknowledge this point. As a long time walker over all these hills from the Brecon Beacons to Holyhead Mountain the distinction between the Desert of Wales area and the rest of the Cambrian Mountains is very clear (even though such an opinion cuts absolutely no ice here on Wikipedia!). It is also worth noting the Elenydd is restricted to Ceridigion whilst the desert of Wales extends significantly farther north - an archetypal location being Drygarn Fawr in Powys. Velella  Velella Talk   19:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the point about the different nature of the various upland massifs and do recognise the distinction between those uplands referred to as the 'desert of Wales' and other ranges. There's certainly also a difficulty with the change in perceived meaning of 'Cambrian Mountains'. I was raised on school geography texts which usd the term to refer to the entirety of the Welsh uplands though I would now myself distinguish this broad sense from the narrow sense approximating to the failed national park.
Re 'D of W': might a section within a more elaborated 'Cambrian Mountains' article titled 'Desert of Wales' suffice, along with referrals from the Elenydd article? I agree it is important to retain the 'desert of Wales' as a presence at one level or another. Ultimately I'll not lose sleep over it, more important perhaps is that between us we raise the collective information profile of the uplands of mid Wales which, it might be argued, has hitherto been underplayed. cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They are two completely different areas. It is like saying one should merge the Cardiff and Swansea article because they both cover South Wales. Aldwynson (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elenydd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elenydd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elenydd&oldid=1195378019"