This is an archive of past discussions about Newport, Wales. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Could knowledgeable editors please clarify the name for me. The OS map shows Liswerry[1], but there's a Lliswerry school and leisure centre. Searching the Council's website, I get numerous hits for both forms of the name. Was there ever a formal decision to change the spelling? Pondle (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Studing the 4 place name books I have it claries the name as Liswerry. This is also show on O/S maps. It is the official name of the Ward as registerd with the Electoral Commission. I therefore believe the name should be Liswerry. With regard to Lliswerry School - the school has a "right" to spell its name however it wishes as technically it is a brand name. The Welsh version of the name (which the English is no doubt a corruption) is spelt Llyswyry for the reasons detailed in the article Alecs casnewydd (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
There are many examples of Welsh place names first being more fully anglicised, in English language documents, before being converted back into a supposedly "Welsh" spelling which does not coincide with actual correct spelling in Welsh. For example, the town was anglicised as Carnarvon before being changed, in English usage, to "pseudo-Welsh" Caernarvon, and only recently to the correct Welsh spelling of Caernarfon. Also Tryleg (Welsh) > Trelleck (English) > Trellech (pseudo-Welsh). I suspect that Llyswyry > Liswerry > Lliswerry shows a similar pattern. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Churches?
"Newport has more than 50 churches". Hmmm, maybe, but where are they? Apart from St.Wollos Cathedral, not a single one gets any mention in this article, not even as a notable building or as a gallery image. I was looking for somewhere to mention BBC's Songs of Praise of 23 May 2010, which was recorded at The King's Church in Newport, but I am at a loss to know where it might go. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Now looking much better. But perhaps the main churches/ mosques of each denomination deserve individual mention? Also notable buildings where a disused church has been put to new use, e.g the Hussaini Mission at 1 Commercial Street (the bottom of Kingsway near Gilligans Island), which used to be the Welsh Chapel? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I think this is definately worth of inclusion in the article, as Newport based Rap group Goldie Looking Chain have released a song, "You're not from Newport", attacking the original song "You probably never been there either, I bet you a fiver, You're not from Newport" Can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx8CZyFM4b486.24.162.140 (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Newport (Ymerodraeth State of Mind)
Reference to a viral video on YouTube:
"Newport is the subject of a 2010 song Newport (Ymerodraeth State of Mind); a parody of the Jay Z song "Empire State of Mind." It was directed by MJ Delaney, written by Tom Williams and Leo Sloley, and performed by Alex Warren and Terema Wainwright. Published to the web on 20 July 2010, the video went viral and by the middle of August 2010, nearly 2.5 million people had watched it on YouTube."
has been removed, with the edit summary “Remove non-notable WP:RECENTISM” (at least you're using an edit summary this time Owain). The policy referred to suggests considering the 'ten-year test': i.e. In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? IMHO the fact that there have been more than 2.5 million views (ref) of the video, the subject of which is Newport, makes it notable. Any event making an impact on that number of people should be mentioned on the article. That it happened would still be notable in 10 year's time. Daicaregos (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I would certainly support it being mentioned, given the viral success of the video (someone even sent it to me!). The fact that Newport will be getting a lot of transatlantic hits in the run-up to the Ryder Cup needs to be borne in mind. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it definitely needs a mention. The saga isn't over yet though [2], and I also saw a mention somewhere that its due to be released as a single. At this rate it will be notable enough for its own article eventually! Jeni(talk)14:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
We now have User:Welshleprechaun deleting details and refs to the removal of the video from YouTube - which is an issue that has received mainstream attention on the BBC and in newspapers. It is a notable copyright-related issue, in my view. Comments? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not against including info on the song at all, but the fact that the video was removed from YouTube doesn't seem to be that relevant Welshleprechaun10:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Coat of arms copyright problem
I had to remove much of the Coat of Arms section as it was copied from here. The text was first introduced into the article 14 May 2004, here. A December 2003 archive of the webpage shows we took from them.--NortyNort(Holla)03:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
South Wales
There is a longstanding consensus that Newport can be referred to as being in South Wales. The term "East Wales" is misleading, and rarely if ever used. I have reverted and warned the editor concerned, and reported him/her at WP:AN/3. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlike Cardiff, Swansea etc the only reason to include a location for Newport (city) within Wales is to distinguish from Newport, Pembrokeshire. South Wales or South East Wales are arguably correct. East Wales is misleading as that suggests anywhere along the border from say Prestatyn/Wrexham to Chepstow with Newtown/Welshpool roughly in the middle. Having said that, the Newport city page has a location map showing its location within Wales so is a textual decriptor really needed anyway ?Pwimageglow (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd certainly keep a textual description, regardles of map content. Personally I don't have a problem with South East Wales, it might even be argued to be more precise. But convention, both here and elsewhere, seems to more strongly support South Wales. East Wales, however, seems to me quite wrong. In fact, I was surprised that it was even needed as a separate article. Where does the National Assembly place Newport? Or is that irrelevant? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It's included in South East Wales here. I'm happy with South East Wales, rather than South Wales. The IP edit warrior has been blocked, by the way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Corn Exchange/Old Post Office/Telephony Exchange
I haven't yet found a definitive history of this site. My grandfather is 99 and always knew it as the Corn Exchange which seems to have existed until 1907 - there's a painting from this time here:, though 1907 could be the date of the painting ie a retrospective ?. Currently the offices within the facade, the car park to the right of the facade and the offices/shops to the left of the facade all have the address 'The Corn Exchange', High Street. The doorway on the facade has 'Corn Exchange' in the masonry so it appears this was incorporated in the Post Office frontage (now facade) when it was built on the Corn exchange site.Pwimageglow (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The old Telephone Exchange (Savoy building) was the building to the left of the facade which was demolished and rebuilt as the current shops/offices hence the Old Telephone Exchange is wrong as a description of the facade. See here:Pwimageglow (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Was the more usual name "General Post Office" (GPO) rather than "Head Post Office"? But it might be more historically correct to refer to the facade as belonging to the "Old Corn Exchange"? An image of the blue plaque would be useful here I guess. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, although of variable quality. That bottom one, labelled "Savoy Hotel and Post Office Newport", looks quite good, although undated. As they are postcards, does that mean they are free of copyright? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
, South Wales
Fulton J Sheen
I'm no expert on religion but does Fulton J Sheen warrant inclusion in the Newport Religion section?. As far as I can see (and I could be wrong) he was given a title that was ceremonial only for 3 years (1966-69). As an American TV preacher I'm guessing he was living/writing in the USA and had nothing to do with Newport, South Wales ? I'm happy to be corrected if anyone has further details.Pwimageglow (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
He himself is quite notable though, so although the link is somewhat tangential, it is still worthy of a mention. Considering that "notable people" sections just seem to list people who have once lived there and other tenuous links I think this link is easily worthy of inclusion. Owain (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
It's still not clear to me if any another people held this title, or when it was created, or even if it's now defunct. I guess it could even have its own article? Presumably, though, if there are/were others, they haven't found their way here as they aren't/weren't tele-evangelists! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, he seems to be notable in his own right but I guess the question is does he (or indeed the honorary title) have anything at all to do with Newport and hence the Newport article? Did he ever visit Newport or write/preach about Newport ?Pwimageglow (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the Titular See of Newport has more singificance to the Catholic Church than to Newport or its people. But I would not object if more detail could be included to explain it. I guess it would be more notable of he had been the only one. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Is distance from London of any relevance in this article ? I think the distance from Cardiff has some relevance as Cardiff is the next closest city but wiki isn't a travel guide. Other city articles eg Cardiff, Swansea, Bristol etc don't state distance from London - it seems irrelevant to me.Pwimageglow (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I think we should bear in mind that articles here have a global audience, and many readers won't have heard of anywhere in the UK outside London. So, I support keeping it in. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
In most cases, only the distance to the nearest major town or city (or cities if roughly equidistant) is sufficient, in this case Cardiff and Bristol. Welshleprechaun18:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I would have thought it preferable that all Welsh places had distance from Cardiff, Scottish places had distance from Edinburgh and (especially) No'rn Ir'nd places distance from Belfast. But I guess I'd be accused of being regionalist. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence of the Newport article links to South Wales article which in turn links to UK and then Europe articles - all these articles include location maps. Hence I can't see distance from London adds any value at all. It would be pointless to add 'distance from London' (or any other Capital) to every article for every city, town, village in the UK. There is perhaps some minimal benefit including distance from Newport to Cardiff - but only as Cardiff is the next closest large city. Distance from Bristol is irrelevant ie 32 miles from Newport (googlemaps).Pwimageglow (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
First class, Pwimageglow! I agree with everything that you have written here, especially regarding omitting Bristol. I think 12 miles from Cardiff should stand. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Disagree. London is the capital of the United Kingdom. It's all very well saying one can find out the information by following two internal links but that isn't really the point. Read simply as prose the reader is still none the wiser if they don't know where "South Wales" is. As a point of fact, the Infobox UK place template does have a field to list the distance from London for all UK articles. Owain (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I suspect this discussion has gone down the lines of 'which capital is more relevant, London or Cardiff' but, with respect, neither are because that would potentially mean eg adding 'distance from Washington DC' to the article intro for every city, town and village in USA...and so on for every country capital with all the contention/dispute that leads to in many countries, no point. For me the only question is whether 'distance from Cardiff' is relevant in the Newport article intro as the next closest large city....and conversely would we include 'distance from Newport' in the Cardiff article intro ?.Pwimageglow (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree, a common sense approach in an international encyclopædia would be to include distance from London. Readers from outside the UK will not necessarily know anything about UK geography. Owain (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
".. a common sense approach in an international encyclopædia would be to include distance from London." - so is this the consensus? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Newport, like Chepstow, is a major transport hub for traffic into South Wales from Southern England and the Midlands. The distance from London is entirely relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm unsure what 'transport hub' means but, with respect, I think you mean the M4/Severn bridges (and the issue is covered in those articles), the town of Chepstow certainly isn't a transport hub. This talk page is Newport - again, unless there is a reason to include distance from Capital cities in every worldwide city/town/village article in wiki then this is pointless to single out Newport. See Wiki guidelines - wiki isn't a traffic guide or travel guide. A quick trawl around wiki I've found the vast majority of cities/towns don't have distance from London unless there is a specific reason Oxford. The precedent is set with the other S Wales cities Cardiff, Swansea where distance from London is not included.
Newport is the first city and "landing point" in South Wales for both road and rail services - even before Cardiff. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
That depends where you are travelling from - from Hereford or Birmingham it would be Monmouth or Abergavenny. Midlands to Swansea you would probably use the A40 Heads of the valleys road avoiding the M4/Newport/Cardiff. If you are travelling from Cornwall, South of England, Glasgow, Birmingham, Yorkshire (or indeed anywhere except London) to Newport (or Chepstow for that matter) the distance from London is useless. However, again, this discussion is irrelevant - wiki policy is that wiki is not a travel guide and the M4/Severn Bridge articles cover the east/west motorway significance. The question is whether Newport has any particular connection (history, trade, politics, sport etc) distinct from other UK cities that would justify including 'distance from London'. In common with Cardiff, Swansea and the vast majority of other villages, towns, cities in UK the answer is No, it serves no purpose.Pwimageglow (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The Lead: A rewrite
Rewrite completely The proximity of Newport to other cities is largely irrelevant in this context and they should go. The lead is quite unbalanced at the moment as it doesn't even mention the most significant aspect of the town's location - that it is a port on the coast. The lead instead keeps harping on matters like this absurd edit war and the fact that it's a unitary authority, which it says three times. The lead should be completely rewritten to summarise the rest of the article per WP:MOSINTRO: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.". Warden (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Fine, go ahead. But keep distance from London, which I think, belongs "in the context of the lead" ... and Monmouthshires' "county town" is Monmouth (not that Newport is in Monmouthshire, of course, as we all know). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that distance from London should be kept, but the courts were originally held alternately in Monmouth and Newport and the Shire Hall was also in Newport for a period. Monmouth is clearly the traditional county town, but Newport has a claim to that title too. Oh and by the way don't confuse administrative areas with counties! ;) Owain (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Those who insist on including the distance to London should logically support its inclusion in every one of the thousands of UK settlements articles, or could be accused of having double standards. Is this the case? Welshleprechaun12:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Rewrite. I agree with Warden. We have clear guidance on the lead at Wikiproject UK geography, which states that we should mention a place's distance from the county's main town (unless it *is* the county town) and/or position at a rivermouth, and indeed this is the approach taken in The Penguin Encyclopedia of Places, which describes Newport as "a town (it's an old edition) on the river Usk 8km above its entry into the Severn estuary." Without looking it up, I think the Encyclopedia of Wales is pretty similar.--Pondle (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Wales’ third largest city with a population 140,200, Newport has been a port since medieval times and grew significantly with the industrialisation of South Wales in the 19th century. Until the rise of Cardiff from the 1850s, Newport was Wales’ largest coal-exporting port and seat of the country’s principal Catholic diocese. The city was the site of the last large-scale armed insurrection in Britain, the Newport Rising of 1839.--Pondle (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
It's reasonable to trim the census and geographical detail from the lead, but it should still be retained somewhere in the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree. And the lead should be expanded a little, to give a slightly fuller summary of the article. I can have a go in a few days time, but not before, so others might like to go first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I've now added some historical and other information to the lead, with the intention of giving a more balanced overview per WP:UKCITIES#Lead. I removed the reference to the former Catholic diocese as, frankly, I don't think it's that important. I've retained the reference to distance to Cardiff in the lead, as I believe there is a consensus for that (it is the nearest bigger city, after all), but not the reference to London. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I had thought this was (originally) a discussion about distance from London in the opening section. But by re-adding this to the Geography section, it appears that I am now being "very devious", and it has been hastily removed as having "no consensus" for inclusion. So can I just ask, again, what is this agreed consensus about distance from London either in the opening section or anywhere else in the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I supported (above) removing the excessive detail about geographical and census information from the lead. However I'd still support the distance from London in the lead as the sort of lightweight factoid that's of no interest to someone from Newport (who may well read the whole article in detail) but is of interest to a casual reader from afar who is unfamiliar with the place. I'd support this distance from London for Newport, Cardiff, Chepstow and even (should anyone care) for Magor & Rogiet.
Martin and Andy are entirely correct, and WelshLeprechaun's edit summary, accusing another editor of being "devious", was deplorable. I've reinstated the statement in the Geography section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
So, with that minor point settled, could we now have a poll on whether distance from Cardiff and/or distance from London should appear in the lead? If so, I guess no need to repeat in the Geography section. My response is Yes to both. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how that is a valid poll - there's no reason to include it in Newport and not other place articles so surely the poll would be to include or not include the distance from capital city in the wiki page for every city/town/village in the world ? Pwimageglow (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Geggy. I'm not discussing "every city/town/village in the world." This is the Talk Page for Newport. My question concerns Newport. The poll concerns Newport. Provided we are not contravening explicit MOS, I think such wider questions need to be posted and discussed elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes to including both Cardiff and London, either in the lead (preferably) or in the main text. Re Pwimageglow's point - that is not up to us here to decide more generally, but I'd support that proposal. To the rest of the world (our readership), London is probably the only place in the UK they have heard of, and distance from London is increasingly significant in economic terms. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes to Cardiff as the regional capital, its closest major city, and as the capital of Wales. No to London as 95% of settlement articles do not feature the distance to their sovereign capital. This is not a unionist vs. republican, historical vs. contemporary debate. This is common sense. You cannot simply ignore the fact that if we add the distance to London, we will have to add it to the page for every settlement in the United Kingdom, subject to another debate of course, one which proponents will overwhelmingly lose. Moreover, Cardiff is well known internationally; obviously not as much as London, but enough to merit its inclusion solely. There is a map provided on this page for readers to judge the location of Newport if in doubt. Welshleprechaun18:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
You're just dangling the "every city/town/village in the world" straw man again. That's not what this poll is about. And the map? um, it shows Newport's location in Wales. Not much help if you're trying to find London? I don't think you have a monopoly on "common sense". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
No to either in the lead on the basis of the WP:UKCITIES guideline, which helps make for consistent articles. A qualified yes to both in the geography section, although personally I would have preferred to cite the distance from Bristol rather than London. Bristol is the closest large city to the east and the Newport economic development strategy, for example, is full of references to its proximity as both an opportunity and a threat.[3]--Pondle (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment The second part of the poll question "If so, I guess no need to repeat in the Geography section." cannot be correct as the lead should summarise the rest of the article and so should not introduce facts which do not appear there. Keith D (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Quite correct Keith, thanks. Do you have a view about the lead? The Geography section had seemed to be uncontentious. So I think it's really only the lead we are voting on. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
( I see Daicaregos has now retired, alas. But maybe there are other interested parties whom anyone may know might wish to comment or vote. I guess there is no rush. Thanks). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
No to distance to London in lead or body. The thinking behind giving distance to London is that it would locate the place in the mind of the general reader. However, if a reader is not familiar enough with UK geography that they did not know where south-east Wales would be located, then knowing that Newport is located 138 miles (222 km) west of London is not going to pin-point it more accurately for them. If you did a survey of UK residents and asked them to point on an outline map which area was 138 miles west of London you would get a more varied and less accurate response than if you asked the same people to point to south-east Wales. Tell readers in which notable region a settlement is located, and provide a link to the region so people can check where that is if they are not sure. Adding quasi-specific data which is only useful if you are already familiar with the background data (size of the UK in miles) simply bloats an article, turns readers off, and can violate policy. SilkTork✔Tea time23:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the general reader necessarily wants to "pin-point" anything. He just wants the basis for a rough comparison. As for policy violation - I don't think these one or two values is "indiscriminate", I think it's highly considered. Do your objections also apply here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Note: Just to clarify, the guidelines at WP:UKCITIES#Lead state that the lead should include: "Distance from the district's or county's main town or city (unless it is itself the county town or such, in which case it should then be stated)." It's silent about whether distance to any capital should be included. The question here also relates to the article text, where the guidelines say that the Geography section should state: "Where the settlement is in relation to others. Include the distance and direction from the constituent country's capital, or London, or both. Include the distance and direction from the settlement's relevant regional or district capital, or county town."Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
So that seems quite clear. London and Cardiff both belong in Geography. Cardiff belongs in the lead. (I'm not sure how Silk Tork can say no to those). And we seem to be just left with - should London appear in the lead? So far we have Yes = 6 (including Deb below, who does not object), No = 6. Is that correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Don't have any strong feelings on this. I could live without the information but I can see an argument for including it. Deb (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, although I am not normally a ditherer, I really am neutral on this one. I must admit that I don't think it is worth falling out with one another over it! :-) Deb (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment I may be talking nonsense here. I believe the whole issue is about the significance of Newport's geographical position: it is the first significant place that one reaches when driving into Wales on the motorway. For that reason, and the fact that the same motorway originates in West London, the distance should be included. However, the accepted spot in London to measure distances to other places is Charing Cross, where the West End meets The Law Courts area. Having made that observation, I would use the words, "approximately 140 miles from London". The Lead should include this, together with the distance from Cardiff. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a reasonable point. Although some settlements might get a rought deal from such blatant "road-ism". Maybe it explains why Bath gets a mileage from London as well as from Bristol, in its lead. Swindon has Reading, Bristol and London in the lead. Reading has just London. Chippenham has Bath and London. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
No to both in the lead for me, I find it does not help define the article. I have noticed that there is on option in the infobox to have a 'distance from London' or 'distance from Foo' which I find acceptable. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks FM, although I have no idea where Foo is. Those parameters don't seem to appear yet in the box template. But this might provide an acceptable compromise to all parties. There's not been much input at UK geographyMartinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I've seen the Scottish articles use them, Aberdeen has a parameter for 'Distance from London' and 'Distance from Edinburgh', maybe we would need to do a bit of infobox building, but a 'Distance from London' and 'Distance from Cardiff' could be embraced. FruitMonkey (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Andy is basically correct; but the coordinates in the article were far too precise for something the size of Newport (giving coordinates to the nearest hundredth of a second is specifying a location to within 20 centimeters or so), and there was no need to use both the infobox and a {{coord}} template for the coordinates in the article. I've tweaked the article accordingly and deactivated the {{geodata-check}} template above. Deor (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move. It appears there's a solid consensus that this city is not the primary topic of the term "Newport", and that moving the dab page to the base name will better help readers navigate the articles. In closing, less consideration was given to arguments based on use in sources, as contradictory evidence was presented. However, the page view evidence presented supports the argument - it's clear more people are looking for other Newports than are looking for this one specifically, meaning that keeping this one at the base name has the potential to confuse readers. The problem was somewhat mitigated by including the Rhode Island Newport, but it seems the consensus finds the current arrangement inadequate.
Concerns about the disambiguation options are well considered. It's clear that neither "Newport, Wales" nor any other suggested alternative are ideal. However, this concern is not enough to turn down a move a large majority of participants find necessary. This city will move to Newport, Wales currently; of the options it has the most support, and in fact it has already redirected here without incident for years. I will, however, add Newport, Pembrokeshire to the hatnote, as suggestion. No prejudice towards another RM if a better way way of disambiguating the article is found. Cúchullaint/c16:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
– This may be the largest or most important place called Newport, but that doesn't mean it's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Indeed, if you look at page views and coverage in sources, there's good evidence that not having the dab page at the base title is causing more trouble than it's preventing. Let's start with page views. This one had a respectable 15,083 views last month. But as we continue down the dab page, it becomes clear that the Welsh city isn't "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." In that same span of time, the three Australian places had 2070 views. 815 for the two Irish ones, 4944 for the English ones (this excludes electoral constituencies and places whose name isn't just "Newport," like Newport Pagnell). So far, that's 7829 views for the other pages. The Welsh lead crumbles as soon as we get to the US, however. Newport, Rhode Island's 13,784 views are pretty close alone, and without the benefit of being at the base title.
What about sources? Maybe parochialism is promoting obscure places over a clearly prominent Welsh Newport. Nope. I gave up after going through the first 10 pages of results (!) for newport -wikipedia without seeing a mention of the Welsh city. My first thought was that this was at least partially attributable to Google Americanizing my results, but I tried the same search in a private browsing window and saw essentially the same results. In a Google Books search, the Rhode Island city predominates. I don't think that that city is a viable primary topic; I do think that this evidence, taken together, pretty clearly demonstrates that there isn't one.
Support Newport doesn't appear to have a primary topic if the Rhode Island city has almost as many pageviews as the Welsh one. It's also worth mentioning Newport (cigarette), which had over 5000 views in the last month and is further evidence toward the lack of a primary topic here. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation23:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Support, the Wikipedia page views are almost identical for Newport and Newport, Rhode Island (though presumably some of the Newport searchers will be trying to find a different location) and I don't see the logic of some of BDD's stats. My search for the name "Newport" on Google comes up predominantly with the South East Wales version (though I believe Google possibly skews results to the viewer). The bigger problem is finding a suitable disambiguation name, because there are two Newports in South Wales, while the city of Newport is part of its own Newport unitary authority (so I don't think it's accurate to call it "Newport, Gwent", for example). I've no great love of Newport, South East Wales, but considering it is far larger and older than any other Newport I think it will be easier to leave things as they are. Sionk (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I've argued myself around to supporting the proposal! This Newport has by far the strongest claim to the title "Newport, Wales" and, in any case Newport, Wales already redirects here (which is a particularly compelling reason). A hatnote can be put on this article pointing to Newport, Pembrokeshire. Newport will still remain supreme in its own domain and the Americans here will be satisfied too. Pragmatism wins the day? Sionk (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
No, this Newport is still the primary topic of the phrase, "Newport, Wales", since all of the others are merely variations on this one. bd2412T14:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I would redirect it to this city's article. It's still primary topic for "Newport, Wales" just like the Alabama city is primary topic for Birmingham, United States even though there are other, much smaller Birminghams that that title could refer to. British style likewise is apparently not to disambiguate by country but rather by county. In any case, way to go with proposing the move. Red Slash03:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Even if Newport were not primary for the term, which it is, it has been settled since at least the Bronze Age, was accorded borough status c. 1120 and received its town charter in 1385. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPICA topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. As for the proposer's results (!) for newport -wikipedia , the first item to appear when I tried was Newport City Council homepage. Furthermore, Newport has a population of 145,700. Newport, Rhode Island, a population of 24,672. Daicaregos (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I knew Google localized results, but I thought private browsing could eliminate that. I suppose it still works through IPs. Anyway, neither being the largest or oldest city of a given name has much to do with primary topic. See, for example, Richmond and Rochester (no primary topic) or Boston (primary topic is a younger city). --BDD (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
It is as good an argument as any other, considering WP:PRIMARYTOPIC begins "there are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists". The three examples you give should each eb taken on their different merits. Sionk (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
There may be "no absolute rules" for making the determination, but the determination to be made is either that one topic is "much more likely than any other topic" to be the topic sought, or that it has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic"; I can't see this being the case with as widely used a name as "Newport". bd2412T02:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Firstly, Newport, Wales is ambiguous, as is Newport, South Wales, and both Newport, Gwent and Newport, Monmouthshire are highly debatable (Gwent was a short-lived and largely forgotten local authority; and Monmouthshire has several definitions - its current boundaries exclude Newport) - not a good start to a disambiguation process. The only other contender as a possible primary or secondary settlement is Newport, Rhode Island, which is linked directly from the hatnote for this article. Why would we want all searchers for Newport - any Newport - to go to an inevitably confusing dab page, when the vast majority would be satisfied either by finding this page, or - by one further click, clearly signposted in the hatnote - going to the Newport, RI article? Much better and less complicated for the great majority of readers to leave things exactly as they are. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
That's funny, because the great majority of readers who are looking for a "Newport" are looking for something other than this city. Red Slash03:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I believe that the disambiguation notice at the top is adequate. This Newport is the largest and most populace by a long chalk, is of far greater historical importance, both medieval and industrial. Plus as stated by other editors the disambiguation is a problem. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
"largest" False. "most populace" (sic) Not true. "greater historical importance" Not supported by any facts or sources anyone has provided. "disambiguation is a problem" But difficulties in figuring out how to disambiguate is never a criterion in determining primary topic. Red Slash03:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Of course the difficulties of disambiguation are a factor, because the whole point of PRIMARYTOPIC and disambiguation is to make it easier for readers to find the correct article. Some people here seem to be putting 'procedure' before common sense. Sionk (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
You don't know what nationality contributors are so the only one putting nationalism before common sense is you. Stick to the subject. Pwimageglow (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes. It's so hard to click on a username to see their userpage. Anyway, there are currently seven users opposing this move. All either indicate that they are from Wales or a member of the Wales Wikiproject. Coincidence? I think not. Hot Stop03:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I don't want to make too much of this, because I'm sure most or all of us supporting this move aren't Welsh, but so far, it does appear that all in opposition are Welsh. I'm not even sure I'd go so far as to suggest "nationalism" so much as personal biases, whereas Wikipedia should be a neutral, global encyclopedia. --BDD (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
It looks like the exact same discussion was had in 2006, with the exact same points raised, and was inconclusive. Maybe a different approach is needed. Personally I can't think of a sensible/accurate alternative name for this article (and none have been proposed yet). Though there could be a strong argument to say that this Newport has a very strong claim to the PRIMARYTOPIC of "Newport, Wales" (over Newport, Pembrokeshire)... Sionk (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you on the last point. Newport, Wales already redirects here, and I think it should continue to do so even if the article isn't moved as proposed. --BDD (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose for all the common sense points made by previous 3 posters. Nothing to be gained by a move. A silly and pointless wiki discussion - move onPwimageglow (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Firstly, all alternative names are less than ideal. As noted previously Newport, Wales would require further disambiguation, Newport, Monmouthshire is just plain wrong (Newport has only been part of Monmouthshire for some of the time and is not part of Monmouthshire at the moment), and although Newport, Gwent is technically correct (Newport is part of the currentpreserved county of Gwent), I suspect most readers are not aware of niceties of preserved (aka ceremonial) counties. Secondly, the guidance at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't particularly seem to be written with geographic place names in mind, and there seemed to be a discussion on the Geography project some years ago, which petered out with no conclusion. A quick survey of names in English speaking countries seems to point to a usage of the place name on its own for the most significant place, with the intro pointing to other significant places with the same name, and then a pointer to a disambiguation page. If we make this change for Newport there are many other place names that should be renamed... Thirdly, I'd rather be writing and editing than discussing this...Robevans123 (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Support. It is clear that there is no primary topic as explained by several editors above. If there is a problem at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then discuss your the issues there and get it fixed. But until it is changed we use it. Several editors seem opposed based on the target name. That is not a reason to reject the proposed multipart move. If there is consensus, we do both moves and the closer can choose to list the first one for a seperate discussion. The ambiguous nature of this name needs to be fixed without delay! As to pointless discussions, WP:ILIKEIT is not in any way, shape or form an arugment to not move both articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
There are many self-appointed Wikipedia police, unfortunately, it's the nature of the beast. However, Newport is such an incredibly common name for many new ports around the world (none of them connected to this one), so I agree with Vegaswikian it's an issue that needs to be resolved somehow. Most people living in the UK will know of this Newport, but almost all people living overseas are unlikely to have any reason to know of it. Newport, Wales already points to this article and noone has been bothered enough to challenge that until now. Sionk (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Umm, I think your copy-paste abilities were impaired here. Also, clearly the Rhode Island city is more populous, not less I am capable of making enormous mistakes and making arrogant assumptions based on them. Red Slash01:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
AHHH that's ridiculous! I misread the Welsh city's population as 14,570!! I'm going to scale down my support to a mild support. This may be more significant than all the others; at least it's a LOT more of a fight than I first thought. Thanks!! Red Slash02:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Support both moves. The discussion above is itself good evidence that there's no primary topic here. To me and many other musicians, Newport is wherever the Newport festival of your particular fav genre occurs (all of them in Rhode Island as it turns out). And to a surfie, it's Newport, New South Wales I guess, and to a rail buff it's where the Newport Workshops were. Andrewa (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The fact that there's a discussion does not evidence anything - that's the point of a talk page. Your point would apply equally to Boston for example (or any other city). Do we point every wiki page for every city to a disambiguation page ? Pwimageglow (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the fact that there's a discussion, but rather about the nature of the discussion above.
But you raise an interesting issue with Boston, which took several RMs over several years to move from Boston, Massachusetts. There are several relevant discussions in its talk page archives, see Talk:Boston/Archive 2#Requested Move: Boston, Massachusetts -> Boston, Talk:Boston/Archive 3#Requested move (note there is also a later discussion there by the same section name) and Talk:Boston/Archive 4#Requested move. I particularly note the comment from the last of these discussions What these exceptions have in common: (1) they are older, more well-established cities, (2) they are better known than the states they are in (ask an Italian which state Chicago is in.). Boston matches these criteria. (My emphasis.) The second of these is not directly relevant, but Newport (Wales) would fail the corresponding test. It might pass the first criterion.
Your point is that musicians, surfies or railway buffs would be looking for another article. That applies to any city eg Boston the band. Boston was the first (not very good) example that randomly came to my mind and I'd support Boston as a lead article. However, thats a massive generalisation about Italians (or any other countries citizens) knowledge of worldwide geography. I'd guess most people in South Africa would know Boston as the one in South Africa and their knowledge of US states/cities would probably vary tremendously across the populationPwimageglow (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but Boston (band) isn't anywhere near rivalling Boston the city in prominence; Those who follow the band would mostly know what they were named after. On the other hand, if you asked the audience at the world-famous Newport Jazz Festival, or even those like myself who bought Herbie Mann's awesome live album (largely and nominally) recorded there but have never attended the festival, many would have no idea that there was even such a city in Wales (with apologies to the Welsh, Cymru Am Byth). Andrewa (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
As a jazz fan myself you are seriously overstating the awareness in the US (let alone worldwide) of the Newport Jazz Festival. Following your Boston (band) logic...Newport Jazz Festival has its own lead page and people would enter Newport Jazz Festival to search for it. In the unlikely event they only entered 'Newport' they would see the link to the disambig page. No problem.Pwimageglow (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I make no claim as to US awareness of the Newport Jazz Festival or anything else musical for that matter (;-> (we got both kinds, Country and Western), but here in Oz it's held in reverence. (Probably second only to Montreux - despite a few session credits on commercially successful CDs my best claim to fame as a muso is probably still that one of my own drum teachers once played there!) The point is not that people would search on Newport looking for an article on the festival, they would search on Newport looking for its site. Big difference!
Yes, with hatnotes and redirects they'll all get there eventually. This is about optimising the process.
But thank you for reminding me about Boston (band), I may even do some work on a cover of More than a feeling. Awesome song which seems to have slipped off the local playlists. My own musical tastes are pretty broad. Sorry about the waffle, it's late... Andrewa (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Support The robustness of the discussion here is, as Andrewa suggests, evidence that no primary topic exists. In the interest of maintaining a spirit of internationalism, WP cannot show preference for any one Newport over the others, especially when the search statistics are as ambiguous as they are in this case. Movement of the disambiguation page to Newport is absolutely needed as the obvious compromise. Xoloz (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
A robust discussion does not in itself evidence anything. You can argue black is white forever but that doesn't change the fact. If the 'spirit of internationalism' is the overriding factor you would need to move every city to a disambiguation pagePwimageglow (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, a robust discussion is evidence, at least in cases like these. According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a primary topic should have more notability than all other topics under that title combined. This means that a primary topic should be clear and obvious to the vast majority of readers. Any robust argument about primary topic status is a subtle factor suggesting that there is no primary topic, and that disambiguation is the best compromise. Xoloz (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but thats nonsense - a discussion on any subject can be lengthy and about total nonsense with no conclusion. Please stop quoting your personal opinion as wiki policy, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states "there are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is". Pwimageglow (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's nonsense. That is, you've made some valid points but they just don't address the issue. As I said already, it's the nature of the discussion. Not its existence, and similarly not its length. Unsure as to what you're suggesting regarding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, you seem to want it both ways... If we don't have rules and don't allow opinions, what's left? Dice? Andrewa (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I don;t need to address the issue because there is no issue. I'm happy with rules to resolve an issue - there are no rules for PRIMARYTOPIC. I'm happy with discussion to resolve an issue but a discussion doesn't prove there is an issue (this discussion certainly doesn't). If the conclusion were 'in the spirit of internationalism' then that applies equally to many other cities. I'm not too bothered if Newport is the primary page or not. The simple fact is there is no issue here, so inventing arguments and non-existent rules to change something that doesn't need to be changed and can't logically be changed without changing many other city articles is a waste of everyones time. It works fine as it is and there's no benefit in changing it - that's the conclusion previous debates have arrived atPwimageglow (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm still unsure as to your point. You just seem to be restating your opinion, and misquoting the guidelines to support it. Andrewa (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Support, per Andrewa, Xoloz, et al. I see nothing to suggest that any one Newport is the clear primary topic for the term, so disambiguation is appropriate. ╠╣uw[talk]11:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Strong Support for Newport (disambiguation) → Newport per the nom, which clearly shows there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. None of the opposes presented so far argue otherwise.
Weak Support for Newport → Newport, Wales. There may be a better destination for this article, like Newport (Wales) - but that can be discussed and possibly improved down the line. --B2C05:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
It's been questioned above whether this Newport is even the primary meaning of Newport, Wales or whether we need even further disambiguation to distinguish this city from Newport, Pembrokeshire.
My feeling is, it doesn't need further disambiguation. A hatnote is all that it required; The vast majority of people who go to Newport, Wales will want this city.
Agreed - "Newport, Wales" has redirected here for many years and no-one has raised any concerns about this. Newport city has a far greater claim to the search term "Newport, Wales". I've amended your (Andrewa) hatnote to describe Newport, Pembrokeshire as "coastal town in West Wales" - it's most definitely nowhere near North Wales and certainly almost as far West as you can go in Wales (even though some people would describe it as South or Southwest). Sionk (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, you are quite right... I completely misread the map at Newport, Pembrokeshire (blush). And the hatnote it seems should have been there for many years, the point being, this lack of a specific pointer to the other Newport, Wales was probably far more important than the current RM is so far as reader experience (our bottom line) goes. Andrewa (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The point I take it is that to you, West Wales means that part of the coast containing Aberystwyth (where my Plaid supporter friend who taught me what little Welsh I know came from, by coincidence), and not the part containing Newport? Hmmmm.... but Aber is in UKL14 too... not by much... Andrewa (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Question: how likely is it that this Newport is the one after which all others were named? Would this afford it some degree of primacy that might tip the balance if it's too close to call? Making the original places the primary landing point, such as with Bayswater, York, or Southport I think adds a nice bit of encyclopedic informativeness even if you were on your way to one of the other places (which are easily found through the hatnote to the disambiguation page).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
It's very unlikely indeed. This Newport was - outside its local area - often (if not generally) known as Newport-on-Usk (for example here and here) until its growth eclipsed all the other Newports in Britain in the 19th century. "Newport" was simply a fairly generic name given to any newly established trading place, particularly but not exclusively one that was by the sea. (But, within Wales, it is unequivocally the case that this Newport is now the primary topic.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
But still an interesting question, I think, GFV. I see no etymology at the Newport, Rhode Island article. .. it's not going to be this one is it? Does the name of the Shropshire river one pre-date, I wonder ? Although if it's just a coincidence, then I suppose it doesn't matter. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Newport, RI, was founded and apparently named in 1639 by William Coddington, from Lincolnshire. This Newport would have been a small town at that time, and is 200 miles or so from Lincoln. I can't see any suggestions that Coddington or his fellow founders had any links to this Newport. For anyone founding a new port in a new country, "Newport" would be an obvious (and very unexciting) name. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
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.
Newport Tithe Map
The National Library of Wales have released a high resolution version of the 1840's Newport tithe map to Commons. Perhaps it would be good to include the map/or part of the map in this article. See the full map and high res sections. Thanks Jason.nlw (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
How amazing to see such familiar roads surrounded by fields instead of houses. And a single dock! I'd certainly support inclusion somewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Street names
Palmyra is currently in the news. But I cannot find any information about the origin of the name of Palmyra Place in Newport. The names of other streets nearby do not give any clues. Ruperra Street is another that has always intrigued me. Does anyone have any information on these, or any others? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Ruperra Street is presumably named after Ruperra Castle, which this (p.24) suggests derives its name from the Welsh Rhiw’r-perrai, meaning "slope of the pear tree". Regarding Palmyra, this source implies that the ruins were seen in the late 18th century as those of a sort of idealised city of long-diminished grandeur and sublime beauty. Much like Newport now, in fact. ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd also always assumed Ruperra Street was named after the castle. Nice source from Caerphilly County Borough - Torfaen and Newport should follow its example. Before seeing Ghmyrtle's reply I did a search on Ruperra (it seemed to not be a particularly Welsh name), and came up with "RHIWPERA (the slope of spits; or Rhiw-peraidd, the pleasant slope as alternative meanings" from here.
As to Palmyra Place, it presumably dates from around 1835 (when St Paul's was built. I'm guessing that the exploits of this lady were still in the public consciousness around this time. St Paul's (and Palmyra Place) are shown on the tithe map mentioned in the previous section - on the edge of the expanding town.
As a child, Mendalgief Road (named after the level) and Coomassie Street both intrigued me. Coomassie is also "known as The Garden City because of its many beautiful species of flowers and plants". Much like Newport now, in fact. ;-). Sadly, Spytty Road still makes me smile... Robevans123 (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I guessed it emerged at the same time at St Paul's. Just thought that was quite a strange combination. But many thanks for the enlightening links here. Rhiw is also found in many other place names such as Rhiwderin, Rhiwbina etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Newport, Wales. 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:
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.
The sign by their road entrance is here: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2403025 (Geograph images are freely licensed and acceptable at Commons. Many are already uploaded there.) You might find some others by geographical searching. It's not an exciting building. It's also some distance from central Newport - few people would go there except to visit that building. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Newport, Wales. 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:
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.
I have just modified 2 external links on Newport, Wales. 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.
I have just modified 3 external links on Newport, Wales. 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.
So it's now been moved from Newport (Wales) to City Of Newport, after quite an extensive RM four years ago (see above), without any discussion whatsoever? What has changed since 2014 exactly? And I'm pretty sure that it would be City of Newport not City Of Newport in any case. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 18 December 2018
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 section.
The result of the move request was: retain the stable title, Newport, Wales, after a reversion to it near the beginning of this move request. No consensus to move the page to any other title at this time. Dekimasuよ!20:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
No problem with it being promptly returned to where it was 30 minutes ago. And for any discussion to take full account of the last RM in 2014. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we should still see if better disambiguation can be found, thanks for reverting the move. I don't think its particularly likely to be moved but its worth a try, especially considering WP:PDABs aren't supported by policy/guidelines. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
OpposeNewport, Gwent as it's not in Gwent and no-one understands Welsh counties anyway, especially not in the SE.
As and when anyone cares what shrievalty is, other than probably a reason for a freemason to wear yet another daft hat, then that might matter. As I said, no-one understands Welsh counties anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose: "Newport, Wales" strikes me as the most natural. I also notice it is used a little in the UK govt part of gov.uk, eg [7], [8], though I don't know if that dominates other names or has any semi-official basis. BBC weather uses "Newport, Newport". Rwendland (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
NB I should have added that changing would be quite a bit of work, as there is a large category tree (dozens) using "... Newport, Wales" as a follow on change, and also more in commons. NB I only mentioned BBC weather "Newport, Newport" for amusement value - I see I should have used an exclamation mark to indicate "no way, hosay"! Rwendland (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
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.
