Jump to content

Talk:Wales/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Archiving

I think it is now time to restore bot archiving. Sometime in June or July of last year, amidst the "country" debates, it was removed. The old archiving configuration (as at 7 June 2008) follows: 

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 7
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Wales/Archive %(counter)d
}}

Any thoughts? -Rrius (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea to restore archiving bot. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
For once we are in complete harmony. Page is far too long. Set for 30 days? Enaidmawr (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. -Rrius (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


Just make sure you install the bot properly. Its owner never responds to people who cant get it to work and assumes everyone is as computer literate as he is…Obviously…--Frank Fontaine (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Country categories

There have been several recent changes to the categories to which the countries of the United Kingdom belong. Discussion is being coordinated on Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom. Editors are invited to participate. Daicaregos (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been too busy to take part in that debate, but I see that this has in any case been pre-empted by User:Kotniski who has created and populated the "Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom". In my opinion this is unacceptable as
1) the debate mentioned by Dai is still in progress, and
2) the new category name has the rejected term "constituent countries" and is therefore contrary to a decision reached after a long discussion and contradicts the main article's name (Countries of the United Kingdom) and the term found in most other relevant articles.
Personally, I don't see why Wales et al should not be categoried as 'European countries'. I am certainly against this unilateral reversion to a contentious and rarely used term that has been rejected here. I'm also somewhat suspicious as to what is going on here. This all started as the results of edits by a "new" contributor, TDSDOS (who seems remarkably familiar with wikipedia editing and terminology) whose few edits thus far are mainly concerned with the status of the three countries of Britain (and a bit of Ireland). Then we have the unilateral creation of this category. Am I the only one who thinks this is more than fortuitous? Be that as it may, this new category is not acceptable and a consensus decision would also be needed for the logical alternative, i.e. 'Countries of the United Kingdom', if the need for it is proven and accepted. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox - Government

The previous discussion on this subject did not reach a conclusion. The only change was that 'Legislature' was added to the infobox. The "official gateway to Wales" (as Wales.com is styled) has an 'About Wales Fact File' here, which doesn't mention anything about the UK government. The only references I found on the site about the UK government was #1 under FAQ here - Is Wales a Country or a Principality? which says:

Wales is not a Principality. Although we are joined with England by land, and we are part of Great Britain, Wales is a country in it's own right.

We have a long history that goes from the old Welsh kingdoms and the middle ages. We have had a 'Prince of Wales' from 1301, when Edward I created the title. The title is given to the eldest son of each English monarch.

Our Prince of Wales at the moment is Prince Charles, who is the present heir to the throne. But he does not have a role in the governance of Wales, even though his title might suggest that he does.

On 18 September 1997, we voted in favour of devolution in Wales. Before that, we were run entirely by the UK government in London. We were then given the powers we need to make secondary laws that affect us by an act called the Government of Wales Act 1998.

In 2006, we expanded on this act and have gained more powers for our country with the Government of Wales Act 2006. Our government's document 'One Wales' refers to us as a country or nation in it's own right.

and #2 under the government of Wales here:

In Wales we elect 40 members to the UK Parliament where responsibility for some non devolved policy areas for Wales resides. On a European level, we elect four members to the European Parliament which produces legislation for member states of the European Union.

This shows how the WAG consider Wales should be described. We should reflect this in the infobox, and provide a full explanation in the article text. Daicaregos (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Easy enough to explain in the body of the text. How would you want to put it across in the infobox without using too many words. Jack forbes (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
How about something like this: Infobox? Daicaregos (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I like the fact that the Government section is reserved for the Welsh Government, Wales being the topic of the article. The Legislature section is a great idea (never noticed that before) with the UK government rightly being included. Jack forbes (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Aye, that's the picture. :) Daicaregos (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with the legislature bit in either order is fine with me. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It did not reach a conclusion because it got bogged down in a dispute about trying to remove the Prime Minister which some people can not support. It appears this new attempt to make change is also going to have to be opposed. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I have the same question as Jack, please explain what exactly it is you are proposing we should put in the infobox and remove. Im reserving judgement at this point, but im guessing there are two words im going to have to say again very soon. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep i thought i was going to have to use those two words again. I strongly oppose the idea we remove the Queen and the Prime Minister from this articles infobox. What the Wales website says in those sections, which sounds like it was written by a 5 year old or for a 4 year old to understand should not determine what we put in the infobox. Its like story time! BritishWatcher (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Before jumping to conclusions, please consider that this has the advantage of simplifying the information given in the infobox - it shows the government of Wales - while immediately below the government section it gives information on 'legislature' i.e. that it is primarily the UK that make the laws (or should that be changed to the EU?). Everyone's a winner. Daicaregos (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I can see the benefits to just saying those associated with Wales, although i note the Secretary of state of Wales is absent too. That atleast is consistent unlike the attempts to remove the PM but keep the monarch. However i strongly oppose the removal of the Queen and Prime Minister from the infobox. I thought the version we came up with before we go stuck into the fighting over trying to remove the PM was a good improvement. Its ashame it wasnt adopted atleast whilst further debate took place over possible removals.
But as i said the last time we had this debate, i will oppose ALL changes to that infobox if it means or leads to the removal of the Queen of Prime Minister. Why do these things always come up just as im making my final sweep of articles before going to bed! grrr BritishWatcher (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
We could of course still have the Prime Minister included as shown here. Jack forbes (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The Queen and Prime Minister must be listed, i wanted something like this one BritishWatcher (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing like a bit of compromise, and that's nothing like it. I'm off to bed, g'night folks. Jack forbes (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Queen must not be deleted from the Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why's that GoodDay? Daicaregos (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The UK monarch reigns over England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Do you have a view as to how the EU's responsibilities should be reflected in the Wales infobox? Daicaregos (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The EU shouldn't be reflected in the Infobox. If anywheres, have it at United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Your argument is inconsistent. The EU has responsibility for laws that affect Wales. If the queen is noted, so should the EU. Daicaregos (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand, the EU over-powers London within Wales? GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The European Union does not have powers over Wales or the UK the way the UK parliament, Prime Minister or Queen does. The UK parliament has supreme sovereignty over the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That parliament has the constitutional powers to withdraw us from the EU, ignore EU rulings, ignore international laws, it has the right to do what it likes basically. The EU there for does not need to be listed, and considering its not listed in other EU countries, you can not be serious that it should be added here. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh and the UK parliament has the power to suspend devolution. Taking away every single power the Welsh assembly / government has with a click of the finger if needed, there for the Prime Minister who controls the majority in the UK parliament has huge powers over Wales. Thats ofcourse ontop of the fact the PM is responsible for the national security of Wales. There is no justification what so ever for the removal of the Prime minister. There are different and extensive reasons listed in the previous debate about why the monarch must remain. This is not going to be approved. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
If other EU members don't have it, then neither should the United Kingdom (including all the UK's countries). GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Very good reasons where stated at lenght about why she should not be removed, and infact the last time the proposal was just to remove the PM. It died down for a little while i dont see why the whole debate must start again when the reasons are stated above. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The European Parliament is certainly not to be placed in that infobox and i aint even getting into a debate on that one, the French article doesnt even list it. Perhaps if its listed there then the UK article should get into a debate about it. But whilst other European countries dont have it we certainly shouldnt, so lets leave Europe aside for the time being. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleting PM Brown is acceptable, if he's also deleted at England, Scotland & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Really, the Welsh Secretary should be in the infobox, since Welsh Assembly laws and LCO requests are filtered through that office. In any event, I still object to including the top-level internet domain and currency being in the infobox. It doesn't make sense to use those in the infobox to begin with, but it is even more silly to include them when we are excising other UK-wide information on the ground that it is not Wales-specific. -Rrius (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy for a new legislature section to be added, as Daicaregos proposes. However, the main problem with the rest of Daicaregos' proposal is that it works on the basis that the Assembly is the sole, or at least major, body responsible for the government of Wales. That just isn't the case. Many of the responsibilities (finance, defence etc.) of government are retained by the UK government, whose ministers, as well as the ministers of WAG, are appointed by QEII. That is broadly the same (obviously the details differ) as in Scotland and in NI. (The EU point is an issue that applies across the EU states and needs to be addressed centrally at Template talk:Infobox Country, if at all.) It is important that this article, and the Government section of the infobox, sets out the position as it actually is, not as anyone (either here or at the Assembly) would like it to be. While the complexities of the details are best left to the article text, the infobox should summarise the article as best it can. It needs to be as accurate as it can be, and not present a partial picture. In my view (see lengthy discussion above), to be accurate, the Government section should contain references to QEII, the UK PM, and probably the SoS as well - as it does now. The Assembly website only deals with Assembly functions, and in any case is not necessarily reliable in referring to itself as a "participative democracy" - which is of debatable accuracy (in what ways is it more "participative" or "democratic" than Westminster?), and in any case only applies to its own functioning and not to the other arms of (UK) government that apply to Wales. (By the way, I'm very reluctant to accept as reliable any source that can't even get the word "its" right!!!) So, for all these reasons, I support maintaining the Government section as it currently is, while adding the Legislature section proposed by Daicaregos. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ghmyrtle - anyone incapable of using apostrophes correctly should be ignored as a matter of course, as being either deliberately irritating or simply too ignorant to deserve any notice taken of them. Daicaregos (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Try responding to the actual points Ghmyrtle made not the part put in small text which didnt even state we cant consider the source as reliable. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Broadly agree with Ghmyrtle. The EU should not be mentioned in the Infobox - Wales is not a separate EU member-state (some legal experts suggest that Scotland, and I guess by inference Wales, would have to make a new application for EU membership if it became independent[1]). Despite devolution, the UK remains a unitary state where sovereignty rests with the Crown in Parliament, and a large number of political issues are still the sole preserve of Westminster. Pondle (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Confusing religious statistics

It says that 72% of the 3 million people in Wales are Christians. Yet the "biggest" organisation is the Presbyterian Church of Wales which claims to have only 32,000 members? It also says both Catholics and Anglicans make up even smaller numbers. So what are most Welsh Christians? - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine that if asked, a largish percentage of the population would say they were Christian (72% seems high) but the numbers in each denomination would not add up to that. I think the Catholic Church has the highest number of attendees these days. It needs a bit of research --Snowded TALK 07:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree - most would be "unattached" in that although most may describe themselves in the census as Christians, many aren't members of, and presumably don't regularly attend, any particular church. It's one of the problems of using stats from different sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The census never asked about denominations, except in Northern Ireland.[2] The categories available for the rest of us were simply Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Sikh, Other or No Religion.[3] 72% of people in Wales (98% of those with a stated religion) reported themselves as Christian.Pondle (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Llywelyn

Surley Llywelyn is the accepted spelling for our princes? Llewelyn used early in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.149.26 (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't call him Surley. I'm sure he was quite friendly most of the time <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, no bad jokes on here allowed. One more from you within a 24hr period and you will be blocked. This is a new policy that has been implemented very recently. You have been warned! :)Jack forbes (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Guess I'm doomed then. I can ignore opportunities to add my tuppence worth to a pointless argument, but who can pass up the opportunity to perpetrate a really good bad joke... -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Terribly sorry I meant Shirley... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.149.26 (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't call him Shirley! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC: calling Northern Ireland a "country"

An RFC has been opened inviting comment on how to describe Northern Ireland in that article. All comments are welcome. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Restore coat of arms/standard?

I put the argument for restoring the Llywelyn standard to the article here a while ago; I provided evidence for the use of this device to represent Wales but there were no replies to the post in which I did this. The .svg image second from right in the inset could be used as the basis for the graphic. However, if I may advance the argument a bit further, I think the coat of arms (far right) would be a better choice than the standard, despite the precedent set on the articles England and Scotland where historic royal standards are shown. The unfamiliarity of the banner to some users compared with e.g. the three lions of England is what caused the suspicions of undue importance in the first place and led to its removal. If we include the device as a shield rather than as a flag it's a bit clearer what the relation between the two symbols (red dragon versus four passant lions) actually is: one is the national flag, the other has become, by convention, the armorial representation of Wales, although in this form it has no official status. (But then nor, of course, do the English three lions.) Ham 12:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any reference/s to show that the shield "... has become, by convention, the armorial representation of Wales ..."? Daicaregos (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
See this image file (an engraving from 1872, caption: The Arms of Wales) apparently predating any use by English or British Princes of Wales. Then it was used as the basis for Edward VIII's arms as Prince of Wales (held by every subsequent Prince of Wales), Prince Charles's standard for use in Wales and the 2008 Royal Badge of Wales. In this online gallery it appears as the Welsh coat of arms alongside those of Scotland and England. Ham 17:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
You will end up with the Royal Badge if any any, best avoided --Snowded TALK 18:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
But no-one seems to know the status of the Royal Badge, whether it's for the use of the National Assembly only or for Wales. One more for luck: the coat of arms is used by the University of Wales Press. Ham 19:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
First, one historical point. The English and Scottish arms became, very quickly, associated with the state. They are normally considered arms of the monarch ex officio, whereas Wales never made that jump. It is really the "arms of Wales" as the arms of the Prince, rather than the other way round. Saying this, this is more about whether we want to, rather than we can. I'm not convinced it should be given a leading role in the article. Incorporated somewhere, but not at the top - it simply doesn't help the reader enough. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Testing the water

A discussion is taking place over the lede of Northern Ireland with some editors objecting to the current wording which is consistent over Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. One possible change which appears acceptable to some of the objectors is to replace "X is a country which is a part of the UK" to "X is one of the four countries of the UK". My purpose here is to test the water and ask what would be the reaction to such a change if it was made consistently on all four articles. --Snowded TALK 05:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, those who "objecting to the current wording", "object" it in relation to Northern Ireland only (and want a more nuanced and topic-appropriate approach in relation to that article). A matter was raised that the lede must be consistent across all four articles. That is not necessary in the opinion of those who "object" to it on the Northern Ireland article. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the pipe-link would be "one of the four countries of the United Kingdom" (the alternative is "one of the four countries of the United Kingdom"). That is fine by me, and is closer to my originally preference for phrasing it. I was still happy with "part of" however, and had a consensus for a whole year - which should not be knocked, and it proved a great deal. It is of course still the present edit with all four countries, and the challenges against 'country' at NI are very much minority-lead as far as I can see. (Detailing of 'province' etc should be the last parag of the intro IMO - but that is an argument for NI talk.) Matt Lewis (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Or do you mean actually lose the 'countries of the United Kingdom' pipe? (ie change to "one of the four countries of the United kingdom")? Matt Lewis (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Whatever else happens I think Countries of the United Kingdom is a key article to hold material --Snowded TALK 21:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion the pipe would become [[countries of the United Kingdom|country]]. It's not really necessary to link country directly from Northern Ireland, where we don't have much historical justification to do so. But there doesn't seem to be much support for the idea that NI must have precisely the same first sentence as the other three articles, anyway, and I don't see why we should disrupt this article with this question. Hans Adler 23:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Hans; this degree of consistency across the four articles isn't necessary. Ham 17:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, changes made to Northern Ireland don't necessarily require changes here. My feeling is if the UK government itself isn't consistent with the terminology, we don't need to enforce such strict terminology here.--Cúchullain t/c 18:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Islam and Paganism

I believe 31,000 is larger then 30,000 which would mean that is Islam is NOT the second-largest non-Christian religion but rather paganism. I think the article should be changed to reflect this.--68.192.182.192 (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

30,000 people stated Islam as their religion in Wales. 31,000 people in England AND Wales reported their religion as Pagan, therefore unless all the Pagans are in Wales and none in England, then Islam is still the second largest religion in Wales. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction required in Law section

{{editsemiprotected}}

The second paragraph of the Law section currently reads:

The court system is headed by the House of Lords which is the highest court of appeal in the land for criminal and civil cases (although this is due to be replaced by a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom).

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has now replaced the House of Lords as the highest court, and so the paragraph should now read:

The court system is headed by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom which is the highest court of appeal in the land for criminal and civil cases.

--Sg gower (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 15:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Celtic nation"

Matt Lewis has a problem with the reference to the "Celtic nations" in the lede. Over the past while the contention has led to some changes to the text which I feel are erroneous or otherwise inferior. Most recently, this has resulted in exchanging the phrase "one of the modern Celtic nations" for "one of the modern Celtic nations today". This change is not obviously different, and by no means is it any better. It implies, in a way that the previous version did not, that all Welsh are "modern Celts" and can speak a Celtic language, rather than simply belonging to one of the "Celtic nations", in which a Celtic tongue is or was spoken by members of that nation. At any rate I've reworded it somewhat to (hopefully) make it clearer why we're talking about this at all - namely that the modern Welsh nation traces its origins to the ancient Britons, from which group it evolved over the centuries. The preservation of the language is one of the key points of the modern Welsh national identity. Comments?--Cúchullain t/c 20:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

One issue here is the Celtic League, however they are not the only ones to use the term. --Snowded TALK 20:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Preservation of our language? Give me a break. That would be laughable if it wasn't so painfully nonsense - the League of Celtic Nations indeed. This debate is in three places now, so I'm copying my reply to Dai Caregos from my Talk page here:

There is no similar link is on Scotland or Republic of Ireland and it is only still there on Wales out of sentiment. Aren't you bothered that Scotland and (even) Republic of Ireland are clearly better and more-professional articles?

WP:COMMONNAME refs of "Celtic nations" would be useless, and effectively 'synthesis', as they refer to 'Celtic' and 'nation' (small 'n') as two words! They do not refer to the 'League of Celtic Nations' idea of 'Celtic Nations' (ie including Cornwall and Brittany etc). I don't even see Celtic Nations as worthy of its own article - it should be under a section in Celts. I pipe-linked to Modern Celts as yet another soppy compromise, if you must know. That should be part of the same section in Celts too. I'm going all the way on this now with AfD's. I see nationalism rearing its ugly head. Out there? Good luck. On Wikipedia? No way. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would not regard the term "Celtic nations" as a term specifically tied to the Celtic League or even to nationalism necessarily, but as a simple description of those places where a Celtic language is spoken or was spoken into modern times. Again, linking "Modern Celts" doesn't offer any improvement over the other. We can of course discuss removing it, but that will require real discussion, not just reverting and shrill edit summaries. Additionally, I was not aware of some wider contention spanning several articles, nor did you previously point out any.--Cúchullain t/c 20:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand this fixation with the Celtic League. The references for "Celtic nation" are the Welsh Assembly Government] and National Museum Cardiff. I haven't checked with the WP:RSN, but I feel pretty confident that either one of these would be sufficient to include the term in any article. btw "nation", in the article "Celtic nation" is lower case, if that helps. Daicaregos (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I think some of the articles originated with Celtic League supporters and their material is used as a source on some of the articles You also have the "nationalist agenda" type response. Overall I think the term is valid, it is historical and not linked to the league. I am not sure it is appropriate for the lede however. --Snowded TALK 21:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
To what degree are you not sure? Would you support removing it? Or linking just to Celts perhaps? You are bang-on about the Celtic League influence in the fork articles. Wikipedia is saturated with Celtic offshoots, like Celtic Revival etc. It all needs cleaning up, and Celts itself will be more of a 'looked after' article (it is a major one of course), so it needs to be done with methodically and with some care. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Cuchullain has rejected the modern Celts pipe-link compromise and has moved the offending Celtic nations line so its two refs are now combined with a separate one on general Celtic history. I'm not happy with that at all, but I won't revert to a previous edit I can't support. He says in his edit note that I seem to be the only one with a problem, but other regular editors like Pondle and Snowded have expressed misgivings, and I always have done. I've stopped compromising on this matter any more - I want the article 'advance', per Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, which do not accept this politically-tainted '6/8 Celtic nations' idea cultural idea in the Intro OR in the main article. As Wales has its Eisteddfod, I'm happy with it somewhere in Wales, providing that it is done professionally (ie stemming from Celts), or at very least a professional Modern Celts) and without any WP:undue weight or implicit political bias.

In the Celtic nations article, Daicaragos has removed "The six territories recognised by the [[Celtic League (political organisation)|Celtic League]] and [[Celtic Congress]] as Celtic Nations.." and put in the Wales refs (one of them of course refers to "8 Celtic nations" not 6!) - but its not enough. Celtic nations and Modern Celts are forks of Celtic League (political organisation) and Celts (except Celts doesn't properly cover the info, which according to policy it should). I'll try and update the Celts article to include a proper contemporary section, and then will put Celtic nations up for AFD. We can work out how to link to a new section at Celts then, and where to do it from. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see any discussion of this on this talk page, from you or anyone, for nearly a year. I think one can safely be forgiven for not following your discussions across other articles, when you never pointed them out. Additionally, I don't consider linking to "modern Celts" much of a compromise; as I said above I think it's not noticeably different, and probably even worse. How's this for a compromise: now that we have a link to the much more apt Britons (historical) article, we just remove "Celtic nations" from the intro? The lede now explains how the modern Welsh language and people evolved from the ancient British ethnic group. We can discuss Wales in the context of the five other regions where a Celtic tongue is spoken or was spoken until relatively recently in the body of the article. Okay?--Cúchullain t/c 13:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Why does anyone need to "compromise" with the opinions of one editor? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
i've no idea how to use this sandbox or whatever but wales isn't actually a country, its a principality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.112.39 (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Please read prior discussions and citation support at Countries of the United Kingdom --Snowded TALK 11:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed a bunch of images but the edit was reverted. The images there are out of context and often not notable. The edit is consistant with wiki policy (see WP:IG) and WP:TRIVIA) Here is my reasoning on a per image basis:

These can probably stay, but should be integrated into the article text:

Nice scenery, but there is already a lot covered in the geology section. With the possible exception of a Brecon Beacons the rest really needs to go:

Places that I doubt are of national significance:

Noodle snacks (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be based in Oz, so you may not be aware of various cultural/historic influences which may justify the inclusion of images. Snowdon, Pistyll Rhaeadr, Wrexham Church, Gresford Bells, St Winifride's Well, Overton yew trees, and Llangollen Bridge are all included in the Seven Wonders of Wales, though all the images are already used in that article. The historic importance of the steel industry certainly justifies a mention. Is Burnie, Tasmania, the site of the National Library of Australia, like Aberystwyth has the NLW? The Eisteddfod is certainly a significant cultural institution, though that image is used elsewhere in the article. I can't conceive of an article on Wales that doesn't mention Caernarfon Castle - especially as the English royal government spent an entire year's revenue in building it. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
My attempt to remove a few images has revealed some article shortcomings:
  • No mention of steel industry
  • No mention of Caernarfon castle
I don't propose the removal of the national library image, just Image:Cardigan bay.jpg which poorly illustrates Aberystwyth anyway. We don't need to include images for most of the seven wonders (see WP:SS) - Seven Wonders of Wales covers them. I would suggest swapping the Pistyll Rhaeadr with the cascade image and removing the cascade. I suspect that many of the landscapes could be removed from the gallery less controversially. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Caernarfon Castle is mentioned. It's in the third to last paragraph of the "Medieval Wales" section.

St. Giles, All Saints, and the Well, are also mentioned. -Rrius (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My mistake - I'll put the Caernarfon castle there in context. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I sympathise with the idea of trimming the landscape images in the gallery, but I think it's important to have a fair representation of all parts of Wales. As for Port Talbot Steelworks: iron and steel was one of Wales' chief industries, and this particular plant was for a time the largest in Europe and the largest employment site in Wales. It is, to use a cliched phrase, an iconic image.--Pondle (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Some of these images are not done justice in a random gallery at the bottom - we need to get them into the text, into context. Like the steelworks, for example. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 20:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

One minor point: Do we really need the links to "country" and "population" in the opening paragraph? These are links to the generic terms (nothing specific to do with Wales). They seem to me extremely common terms which don't really need explanation/link to other pages (why not then also link the following terms: "east", "bilingual", "English" etc!). They add nothing and reduce readability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.204.108 (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Linking country was part of the consensus achieved after many weeks of discussion on how to phrase the opening paragraph. The main reason for it being linked is that the article Country notes that a country is not necessarily a sovereign state - which would otherwise exclude Wales from that definition. So, all in all, it's best that the link to country stays. On your other point, I agree that as a common word there is no reason to link population, which I will remove. Any objections - please feel free to revert. Daicaregos (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree, using the word country in this way, we really need to link to the article to explain it. But population should not be linked; good work, team.--Cúchullain t/c 13:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

UK formation date

I would like some input at List of sovereign states by formation date where there is a disagreement over the UK formation date. It appears there are a couple of editors who believe the date should be 1689 and not 1707. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anti-welsh sentiment

0ne to start there was a vote and Cymru to be placed first was the clear Winner and nothing has been done about it also why does the oppening paragraph need any explination on English being the sole language of 80% of the population etc, it refers to the linguistic situation further down and this just makes Wales article look stupid and childish, and that is a fact wrong in itself where are your statistics? How is English the sole language when 23% speak Welsh and 27-30% understand spoken Welsh also what about other languages? immigrant languages European languages, this figure is completely incorrect and I don't see why there needs to be any reference to linguistics of Wales in the oppening paragraph, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamjones416 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

National Anthem

I notice that in the infobox it says Land of my Fathers is the national anthem, but there is no official national anthem of Wales, as it is not a Sovereign country. LOMF is the de facto anthem. The other UK constituent country articles all say 'None (de jure)' before stating the de facto anthem(s), so this article should really keep with the pattern and say 'None (de jure) "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadua" (English: "Land of My Fathers")'. Bainseyy (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Are welsh names needed?

In the infobox, a lot of names say what it is in English, then in Welsh. On the France article, the french translation is not given after all this (e.g. Denonym, Capital etc.), so why should the Welsh names be put next the the English in this article, even though only 20% of the welsh speak it anyway? Bainseyy (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Welsh is the native language of Wales. What is or isn't included on the France article has no bearing on what is included here, so, perhaps a better question would be, why not? Jack forbes (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This is on English language wikipedia, not a welsh language wikipedia it is not the place for nationalist sabre rattling, excessive translations should be removed. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Most locations in all parts of Wales have bilingual signs (as, incidentally, do places in England which are signposted from within Wales), reflecting the fact that they have two official names (not "translations", by the way). Within the majority Welsh-speaking areas, the Welsh name is the primary one. France is irrelevant - it is a monolingual country, and Wales is a bilingual country. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The standard across the Wiki is for the capital and demonym to be in English in the infoboxes; Wales shouldn't be a special case. Switzerland is a quadrilingual country and "Bern" and "Swiss" are given in English. Ham 15:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Ham in that we should follow custom and practice elsewhere, but I just looked up the MoS and it suggests that "native names" are actually OK in infoboxes.--Pondle (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that section of the MoS refers only to the native name of the country at the top of the infobox alongside the English name, e.g. Wales and Cymru here. It is silent on the usage of other languages throughout the infobox. Ham 21:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Ham, please do not make changes until there is consensus. Your opinion does not overrule anyone elses. As Pondle explained, there is nothing wrong with these names per MoS. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
All right (on waiting for consensus), but the MoS says nothing one way or the other on writing in more than one language in the infobox beyond giving the name(s) of the country. This issue hasn't arisen before. It seems to be only this page that does it. Ham 22:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems like there's no reason not to have the Welsh names there, nor any guideline that forbids it. Note that the starter of this thread is a now-blocked, sock-puppeteering anti-Welsh/Scottish/Cornish POV pusher. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Absolutely no reason or rule not use Welsh names. Jack forbes (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I've seen many editors use the "unnecessary" card without actually providing one decent recent for their argument. This seems like one of them. Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
It is a valid point, this is an English encyclopaedia, not a Welsh one. If it's not needed it should be removed, this isn't a platform for pro or anti Welsh language propaganda. Just because some nationalistic Welshmen feel the need to enforce their minority view on the rest of us, doesn't mean we have to accept it without question. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreeing with the use of Welsh in the infobox does not necessarily equate with being "nationalistic Welshmen". I also don't see any minority view here concerning its inclusion. Jack forbes (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
No valid reason for it's inclusion has been given apart from "this is the Wales article, we are not bothered about all the other countries articles". What valid reason is there to include the information? Simply because it is there already is not a valid reason to keep it, it is un-needed screen clutter. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
What valid reason? Perhaps it would be an education for readers who don't know that there are alternative names used by many Welsh people. Not something the reader would be confused over at the France article. I'd also like to know where this screen clutter is you speak of. Jack forbes (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
You're ignoring the standards set by the Canadian and Swiss articles (amongst other multi-lingual country articles). This article is about the country of Wales, not the Welsh Language. The place for educating users on Welsh would be the Welsh language page. Please see Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad and Belgium for other examples of bi and tri-lingual articles that don't follow this example. It's not needed other than to pander to welsh nationalism. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Jack forbes has just provided a perfectly valid reason for inclusion that has nothing to do with Welsh nationalism. If Belgium and Chad want to follow suit, then they should. The place for educating users in Welsh would be the Welsh language page, but the place for educating users on Welsh would be the English WP. As we have said: not necessary or not notable doesn't cut it. Unless there are some big violations of policies or guidelines, there is no valid reason for the removal. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I wasn't clear on my point, what I meant by the Welsh language page was this page, not the Welsh version of the Welsh page. I'm ok to follow consensus here if that's what's agreed. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Well seems like there is a debate going on here - thought I'd like to add my tuppence in. As far as I'm concerned all Welsh town names are official names and I believe (someone may correct me if I'm wrong) they come first in order of signage. In effect Caerdydd and Abertawe are proper nouns. Following this logic then there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be included - now if anyone wishes to bring up another country as an example of why we shouldn't be doing this they should also remember that it is up to those individual pages to include whatever official name they wish. If there hasn't been an official guidance issued on this particular issue then there is no precedence and the point is irrelevent.Aprhys (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC).
Well said. That's exactly my point of view as well. Is that general consensus we have then? Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd say so.. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks like it. Jack forbes (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll go with consensus as I agreed to, though I've heard some rubbish from both sides in this discussion. Apparently Welsh road signs, rather than every other country infobox on the Wiki, are the model to follow, and apparently the Welsh language is only used as a bludgeoning tool by Welsh nationalists. A plague on both your houses! Ham 22:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
A bit disingenuous to the argument - the point about the roadsigns is that welsh has a legal significance in wales and that welsh placenames are just as much the official/proper/appropriate name as the english. Aprhys (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Forget the road signs bit - I misread the original question. Apologies. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd add that other country infoboxes are irrelevant. There is no wrong method or right method to write or lay out articles; there are simply methods that breach the rules and methods that don't. What editors choose to do on other articles is a matter to be discussed on the talk pages of those articles. What happens here is discussed here, as we have done. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

National Geographics Article

The reference 43 after the line "After the Roman withdrawal from Britain in 410, much of the lowlands were overrun by various Germanic tribes." points to an article which isn't mainstream and seams to be sensationalist. The article must be knowingly wrong in places(the laws of Ine give a value to the life of people(of unspecified race) who are killed whilst undertaking a raid, in another context a much smaller value is given to the life of a native Briton, but no caveat is given in comparing the values). It's not a good citation. Possibly no citation is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fodbynnag (talk • contribs) 08:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 80.229.145.107, 26 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Wales is a principality, not a country. the first few lines does not confirm this.

80.229.145.107 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see further up the page Carl Sixsmith (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

This has been discussed at length; see this page, and the archives. If you wish to discuss it further here, that's fine - and if a consensus was shown to change something, then we could act. We cannot, however, make a change with the {{editsemiprotected}} thingy without a consensus, for things like this. Best,  Chzz  ►  15:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

I notice there is no information in the infobox on the breakdown of ethnic groups such as the Scotland article has. Is this a conscious decision to omit it or does the information not exist? Jack forbes (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The information is in the article on Demographics of Wales. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be copied across. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it would be of much use. I see from the demographic article that the census did not ask how many people self identified as Welsh, which seems a little strange. Jack forbes (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The question will be included in the 2011 census. Daicaregos (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Part of UK

Im a welsh man and proud of it. i disagree we are part of the UK as we are not on the UK flag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.215.130 (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And your opinion is notable why ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
A (small) proportion of people in Wales may not wish to be part of the UK - but, in fact, they are. WP:DNFTT applies here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

History section

There seems to be a lot left out of the history section, which jumps directly from the annexation by England to the foundation of Plaid Cymru in 1925. I am a supporter of Welsh nationalism but I think this might also be a NPOV issue (and anyway attempts to rhetorically skip ~500 years of Welsh history would be misguided from a nationalist point of view anyway). This needs some work. aliceinlampyland (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It is silly, thanks for pointing it out. Welsh history didn't end with the conquest and re-emerge with the formation of Plaid Cymru. The oversight probably just happened because the coverage of medieval Wales has expanded considerably while the rest has not. This isn't a bad thing, the rest just needs to catch up.--Cúchullain t/c 17:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Right, as I've done a bit on this with the Rhondda and Glamorgan, I've attached a piece connected to the Industrial Revolution. Although some may think this should be dumped into the Economy section (where it is briefly covered), I believe that the iron, copper, slate and coal industries were one of the biggest historical events in Welsh history and should be noted as part of Welsh history rather than just a 'what the country does to sustain itself' mention. Though of course anyone can disagree. The period between Henry VIII and his 'Acts', and the Industrial Revolution is not really my thing, but it is an interesting period as the lords left their castles and set up manor homes. Anyone? FruitMonkey (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the period but there were milestones such as the translation of the Bible into Welsh in 1588 and the early stirrings of non-conformity, which as we know was to become synonymous with Wales in the 19th c.[4]--Pondle (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we need at least two sections here: the Conquest of Wales to c. 1800, and 1800-present. Some things that need to be in the first section include: the appropriation of the title Prince of Wales, the Glendwr Rising, the rise of the Tudor dynasty, Henry VIII's Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542, William Morgan's Welsh Bible, the Industrial Revolution, and the Welsh Methodist Revival. In the second section we need such things as the rise of coal and iron, the growth of Cardiff, the decline of coal and iron, the growth of the self-determination movement and nationalism, and of course the formation of the National Assembly for Wales.--Cúchullain t/c 18:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
There are several major events of Welsh history we need to cover, but maybe they need to be shorter and more focused, with a larger See also or Main article levelled elsewhere. History of Wales already has a pretty good article, we just need to add a bit of a razor to the article, and mention the main points. The sport section for example is way too long, and needs to be thinned, and any overflow information moved into the Sport in Wales article. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pondle regarding the importance of mining and industrialisation of Wales, many people world wide don't know the industrial revolution started in Cywmafon in Neath Port Talbot County (West Glamorgan), there was built the first copper smelter. Ships would bring the ore from Cornwall, to the port then by rail up to Cymafon to eb smelted using hte coal from the huge number of mines. From the copper refinery dozons of foundries worked on the copper and iron and steel. All the mechanization of the modern world was used: Mining, railways, locomotives, steam engines, smelters, foundries, dock systems, canals, iron works, steel works, machine shops, ship repair yards, colleges for Mine engineering, mechanical, electrical etc. etc.Ieuan Sant (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Sports in Wales (and the article as a whole)

I have recently reduced the amount of information in the Sports in Wales section as it was holding too much detail unnecessary for the casual reader. We can also not reference every sport in Wales, rugby (RU & RL), football, cricket, boxing, snooker and athletics are major sports and should be mentioned, but notable individuals should really be held off this article unless world renowned. Do we mention, F1 drivers who never reached a podium finish while not mentioning the likes of Ryan Giggs or John Charles under football?

On a similar point, much of the Wales article is bloated, with too much detail placed in each section. Many of the sub sections have their own article page, and the detail should be placed there instead. Scotland has managed to gain GA status in a much sharper and condensed article. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Scotland article summarises of each of the relevant main articles. This article seems to have been written independently. The Scottish approach has a great deal of merit. Daicaregos (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Then maybe we should take the Scottish approach and use a razor to each sub-section. Though to be honest I have felt there is nothing like a GA review to focus minds and bodies. Rather than argue the toss, you put an article to GA review and you react to the criticism. The article is 80% there, it just needs someone who doesn't care about Wales to tell us where we are going wrong. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

But Scotland is a very different county with a much simpler history. Here in wales there were no one King but any number of small kindgdoms and also the industrial revolution affected Wales much more than Scotland. But I agree some sections ar eblaoted and some contian just the basics.Ieuan Sant (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we are doing Scotland a dis-service here. They do not have a 'simpler' history, just different. The Scots have a culture rich in religious and social schism, as well as a period of invention that punches above its weight in world history. Not only that, but their poetry isn't bad and their military tradition is one to be proud of too. What I was pointing to was that the Wikipedians contributing to Scotland have produced a very good article while those interested in Wales have failed to get a handle on the issue. I was just saying that if we followed the Scotland model, we could have a GA Wales article by the end of the year. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Before Present

The Prehistory Wales section denotes dates in Before Present rather than using the more common BC or BCE dates. Is there a reason for this? Or is this common for prehistoric history? It seems confusing to me. Should this be changed? Bryan Burgers (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The guidance at WP:MOS#Longer periods suggests that there is no general preference for one over the other, but where BP is used it should be written out in words at the first occurrence in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
BP was used on this section because it deals with things that have been dated using radiocarbon dating and BP is commonly used in this area. I chose to use BP for 3 reasons: 1. It is appropriate for the subject matter; 2. I am not Christian and so prefer not to reference a god to which I have no connection; 3. It tells everyone how long ago it was, instantly. The term has now been spelled out and Wikilinked on its first use, in accordance with the MoS, so to avoid confusion. Thanks for bringing the point up. Daicaregos (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. It seems like BP's use was well thought out and appropriate. Thank you for the responses. Bryan Burgers (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is the following statement about Offa's Dyke and Gwent in a box

In the planning of it, there was a degree of consultation with the kings of Powys and Gwent. On the Long Mountain near Trelystan, the dyke veers to the east, leaving the fertile slopes in the hands of the Welsh; near Rhiwabon, it was designed to ensure that Cadell ap Brochwel retained possession of the Fortress of Penygadden." And for Gwent Offa had the dyke built "on the eastern crest of the gorge, clearly with the intention of recognizing that the River Wye and its traffic belonged to the kingdom of Gwent.[51]

Although this is a facinating piece of history, why is it in a box? The River Why can be understood to be firmly belonging to the Kingdom of Gwent. Is the editor trying to resurrect the old argument that Gwent is English or that Gwent is not Welsh? I suggest the box be removed as it adds nothing to the article. Ieuan Sant (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a direct quote from John Davies. It is trying to convey that Offa's Dyke was not a defensive structure, but a border, agreed by both parties. I don't think many people would accuse John Davies pro-English bias. Indeed he has made the case that Monmouthshire/Gwent is, and always has been, part of Wales. A possible improvement would be to include large quotation marks. Other than that, I think it adds value to the article and should stay. Daicaregos (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to Improve the Article on Wales

To me most of what has been written is of value and is interesting with an excellent layout but I find the article far too big. It's too big for a summary of wales , it's culture and it's history. I think this will trun into a book and evrn a set of volumes. It is after all one of the oldest countries in Europe. All countoes ar eold geographically but Wales retains it's ancient identiy in it's language and culture. I think therefore it would be sensible to have a review and use this page as a contents indext and a summary of each section just like a book. To place the history of Wales in one section or page is impossible. The same with sport, our national game is Rugby Union and there have been whle books written on just one series of a Rugby tour. I would like to see these changes or a discussion on them. Ieuan Sant (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you. It has been mentioned before (not least just above - see Talk:Wales# Problems with Sports in Wales (and the article as a whole)). Should you decide to begin the task, I'm sure you would be supported (at least moral support, anyway). Daicaregos (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Surface area of Wales

Glad this is being put forwards for GA and so presumably lots of additional fact-checking will now take place in the article. In the infobox, I am (attempting) to fact-check some points there, including (firstly) the Surface Area. This appears to contain errors, as follows.

(1) The current infobox figures are not giving an accurate sq miles >> sq km read. 8,022 square miles comes out as 20,776.88 square kilometers using correct calculations - in the infobox, it is currently given as 20,779. Either the sq miles or sq km figure is wrong, or both.

(2) Sources differ about the true figure. As usual, the Welsh Assembley website, the Wales Office website and the OS websites are utterly unhelpful on guiding one to this simple point. (Well done to the enlightened website managers who run them - clearly your obsession with your political masters' biographies will stand you in good stead with the public). Britannica gives it as 8,005 sq miles. [5]. After a huge effort rummaging through the statistical files on Wales at the official StatsWales, the table at [6] shows the Welsh government use an official land area calculation of 20,780 square km, which is 8,023.2 square miles. In the absence of anything else definitive, I would suggest we change the infobox to use these latter figures. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The ONS UK Yearbook gives the land area of Wales as 20,732 square km. See page 3.[7]--Pondle (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that - downloaded that ludicrously slow 5.5Mb PDF. The table does not itself give a source for the figures. Maybe we should seek yet further sourcing to try and clarify. Note that the ONS table also clashes with all the other UK Wikipedia articles on land surface area figures. The United Kingdom (ONS: 242,514 sq km United Kingdom article: 243,610 sq km); England (ONS: 130,281 sq km England article: 130,395 sq km); Scotland (ONS: 77,925 sq km Scotland article: 78,772 sq km) and Northern Ireland (ONS: 13,576 sq km Northern Ireland article: 13,843 sq km). Each article presumably using a different source. They probably need a standard source accepted as definitive on such an important basic point. The ONS one would do, but it would be interesting to know why they are all wrong. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The plot thickens. Some of the figures used in our main country articles refer back to the main list of countries by area article. That gives yet another figure for the UK land surface area. (242,900 sq km). The source cited for that listing is the 2000 ONS yearbook. It incorrectly cites that source [8], as the 2000 yearbook on page 3 gives the figure for the UK as 242,910 sq km. Amazingly, the ONS have actually changed all the figures for land surface areas between the 2000 yearbook and the 2005 one Pondle refers us to above! England for example has shrunk! More likely though, I expect either the basis of their calculations has been revised or else the underlying source used has changed. I am thinking of emailing the ONS to ask them why! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

GA status

OK, this has gone on long enough. Wales is an important country and needs a GA status. This isn’t for glory or nationalist pride, but just so that when people come to the article they see a trusted green icon in the corner.

We apply for GA status today, it is then up to our peers to judge how well we have met an encyclopaedic criteria. We react by providing damn good info and the cites they want. Those that oversee this page have a history of wise and neutral editing which would do any article proud, lets just put forward and react to others' opinions rather than argue amongst ourselves. FruitMonkey (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 01:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Supported! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good.--Cúchullain t/c 19:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible areas for expansion

I have separated this comment from the debate on GA status so as not to interfere there. Having read through the article from beginning to end (an unusual occupation for an editor!) there appear to be missing elements.

  • There is very little about the natural environment - passing mentions of national parks and AONBs etc. and a rather sparse summary of climatic extremes. Yet we have a diverse and often very interesting flora with some endemic species and some very unusual and notable ecosystems.
  • recreation (rather than Sport) is of enormous importance to residents and visitors alike with the hills and the coast providing wide-ranging opportunities. We have long distance footpaths which don't even get a mention etc.

There are probably others but at present this article reads like a crachach view of Wales and not the country that visitors might actually experience when they visit or residents recognise as their own country.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

For info - [9]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Started a flora and fauna section. Anyone know anything about Welsh plants? FruitMonkey (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Using Welsh place names

I think the recent edit by User:FruitMonkey needs discussion, though I think it's already been discussed well in the past. I am for having the Welsh and English place names of areas in Wales - the English is not a translation of the Welsh, and nor is the Welsh a translation of the English; a place has (in 99% of cases) two official names - the Welsh and English. "Caerdydd" and "Cardiff" are both official names, and not translations (I think this has been said in the past here also). Could we discuss it? Yes, I know we're getting it to GA standards, but I do not think that having both language names considerably lengthens the article, but enriches it, also drawing attention to the fact that Wales is a bilingual country (or supposed to be!). -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 15:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above, please see here for a similar discussion. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 15:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I may have missed that discussion. But this is not consistent throughout the article. Firstly we would need to show people that it is a Welsh translation (cy) and not just place the name in brackets, then do we place the Welsh after the first mention of the place or every single one. Then do we do the same for organisations? The Welsh Assembly as a case (which does not have the Welsh at its first mention, but does have one on the second) but what of the National Eisteddfod, the NHS, National Airport of Wales, etc. Is then to be pushed throughout all Welsh articles, because it certainly isn't done at present. Is it only the Wales article to which we apply this ruling, because that doesn't sit very neatly either? Lets apply it Roahl Dahl's article, as that is an important article in WP Wales, I'm sure we would get into a revert war pretty quickly. I understand I am being awkward, but I'm just taking this point through to its natural conclusion. Surely we would need to get this agreed across all Projects before we implemented this approach, as several countries in the world are bilingual too. FruitMonkey (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It certainly needs to be consistent within at least the article we are working on - is there an MoS agreed format for it somewhere? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
To show that there is an official Welsh place name also, {{Langx|cy|NAME}} can be used. ({{Langx|cy|Caerdydd}}) shows (Welsh: Caerdydd). I think placing the Welsh after the first instance of the English is suitable - no-one can say that the Welsh place name isn't there and no-one can say that they are being used to often. I think we should follow suite for organisations in Wales that have official Welsh names too. We can consider other articles in the future - our main concern is this current articles - others can wait. I can't comment on articles such as Roahl Dahl. Other bilingual (etc.) countries are irrelevant; if they want to follow suite, then they can. I think the conclusion of the above previous discussion was that the rules were not clear, so contributors voted and the outcome was to have Welsh place names included, as did they vote to have "Cymru" as the first place name in the infobox.... -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 00:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I support maintaining the Welsh names in the article as suggested, using templates. I think it should be borne in mind that many English-speaking people in Wales would be discomfited, at least, if WP were to take a position that Welsh names should be excluded from articles like this - issues of defending national pride and culture will come into play. If the question is raised by others during the GA process itself, it can be reviewed at that time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
What has welsh nationalism got to do with an English Language encyclopaedia? Do you insist on Welsh translations on the french version of Wikipedia's Wales article? On the Arabic? I've nothing against the names appearing in Welsh as long as it adds quality to the article, but to pander to extremes and have every place name given it's Welsh equivalent seems a little anal to me. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm all for "adding quality to the article", and I'm not "pandering to extremes". WP:AGF, please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to keep my contribution to this discussion as brief as possible: I think standards should be the same across the Wikipedia. The name Firenze does not appear on the Italy article, München is not mentioned on the Germany page, Den Haag is not on the page for The Netherlands. If these names were given in parentheses in the articles, it would be different, but no-one appears to have considered it necessary. Why is Wales different? Ham 08:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
In my view, essentially because Germany and Italy, unlike Wales, do not have English-speaking majority populations and would not access English Wikipedia to find out information about their own countries. The English-speaking majority in Wales would access this Wikipedia for articles about Wales, and they would expect to see information set out bilingually when appropriate - because that is the norm within Wales. Actively rejecting the cultural bilinguality of Wales would be seen as insensitive at best, aggressive at worst. It has nothing to do with "nationalism", it has to do with sensitivity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree totally with the above paragraph. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see it in terms of exclusion of Welsh names from a rightful place on the Wikipedia: native names are always in the intro to pages on specific places, in every country. I think bucking the trend set by all other countries which speak languages other than English suggests exceptionalism on our part, and what place is there for that on Wikipedia? For me doing the same as the other country articles is a sign of cultural confidence and ease in one's own skin. You talk about sensitivity; are we uniquely sensitive among the nations of the world? Ham 09:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Wales may well be unique in being a nation in which English is the majority language, but another language has parity with it in official terms across the whole of the national area. I can't offhand think of another example. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Belgium has three official languages, Dutch, French and German. The majority (about 59%) speak Dutch. Most signage in the country is multi-lingual, the choice of langauges used depending on which primary linguistic zone one finds oneself. The Wikipedia en-article uses en usages for placenames throughout unless specially elucidating a point of comparison. As this is one of the most multi-lingual (and internally controversial about usage) states in Europe, this article seems to be a good example. There are others but we can start with this one. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
But none of those languages are English, and we are specifically discussing the English Wikipedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly the point. What is so special about Welsh that it deserves parity on an English language site, hosted in the USA and therefore exempt from any bilingual rules). How is this handle on Celtic and Cornish pages I wonder. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
And how about Canada for example, where English is the majority language and yet it is officially bilingual in English and French. Even the names Quebec and places in Quebec largely appear in English-only forms in that article in en-WP. I suspect the truth is that the Welsh alternates should come out of this article in the en-version. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The situation in Canada is quite different. As I understand it, only one province (New Brunswick) is bilingual, and - so far as I'm aware - settlements in that province do not have two distinct names. Quebec is monolingually French and the other provinces are monolingually English, so the bilingual issue in terms of settlement names does not apply. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Eh? I wasn't talking about the province articles. I was talking about the Canada article. There are two official languages for Canada and the english Wikipedia article has placenames in English. Or is it that you claim Wales is not a country but a province? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Calm, please. Other than a few (three?) provinces, and in the use of accents for Montreal and Quebec, can you tell me which places in Canada have different names in English and French? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I was being calm - I was just curious if you now accept for debating purposes that Wales is a Province as opposed to a Country, as previously that has been emphatically denied by various editors. :-) On the translation point, I am sure the French have their own names for quite a few places in Canada. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that you haven't yet realised that "joking" about national identity isn't going to get many laughs. Evidence for bilingual place names in Canada would be welcome - there don't seem to be very many at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

{{unindentI don't see that there's much consistency across the board on how to handle this. There are quite a number of articles on places where English and another language have some de jure or de facto level of parity, and it's handled in different ways. For example:
In the New Zealand article, where both English and Maori are official, the Maori equivalents of place names are rarely given. Another case is Hawaii, where English and Hawaiian are official; however, most place names in the state are derived from Hawaiian, even in English. The major difference between the Hawaiian and English usages is the use of the okina and diacritics in the former; these are in fact typically used throughout the article.
In Louisiana the various forms of French have de facto status along with English; French equivalents are given in a few cases where the names are different, but not all. In Quebec, French is official but English has de facto status and is widely spoken; the article rarely gives the French name where it differs from the English outside the intro. In Puerto Rico both Spanish and English are official, but there is no difference in place names between the languages.
Within Wales articles, the Welsh names generally are given, however, as in Cardiff, Isle of Anglesey, Powys, etc. My opinion is that there's no real uniformity across the board, so we should just make our own call here.--Cúchullain t/c 16:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as you just neatly demonstrated, in nearly all bi/multi-lingual country articles, the english article contains the english names. The fact that the Welsh ones don't merely shows that other articles probably need fixing. I suspect that what we're seeing here is the past acting out of a fairly determined multi-article POV to maintain welsh language names in english wikipedia, quite incorrectly really. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, as I say in a lot of cases there aren't different names in the different languages to begin with, as in Puerto Rico and Hawaii. I think this has as much to do with it as anything. Many Canadian articles (Canada, Quebec, Montrealmy bad, Montreal does include the French, New Brunswick) do generally appear to avoid the French. However, in the Hawaii article Hawaiian diacritics and the okina are used even though the article is in English. Louisiana and New Zealand don't typically include the non-English forms but it doesn't appear they are necessarily avoided. And for whatever reason, many Wales articles include the Welsh. I don't think there's any obvious consistency in the way it's handled across the board.--Cúchullain t/c 18:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
For those of us who are English by birth, and hence speak English but live in Wales, the "Welsh followed by English" or visa versa is quite the norm in daily life. In fact it is so engrained that its is part of Welsh culture. Therefore to cite that this is the English wikipedia and we should only state English misses the point of a huge part of Welsh culture and Welsh life: which is what I thought this article was about. Secondly, as has been pointed out, most of the English names are at best very poor translations of the original Welsh names: Cardiff is one of the few where you can go "OK, I get the English translation." This goes into Welsh history, and was part of the driven anger shown by the holiday cottage burners of the 1970s. Thirdly, Welsh language is so engrained into Welsh life and how the Welsh view and address life, I don't think this point can be down played. My suggestion there as follows (much like the precedence on article linking): include the Welsh translation ONCE per place name directly after its first instance in the article. After that, stick with the English. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Those are interesting points, but sadly, some of them ("driven anger", "part of Welsh culture") are POV and nothing to do with encyclopedic articles. The only one that might from your comment is the question of translation - since the English names for Welsh placenames are well established, undisputed and encyclopedic, that is not something that would be solved by cross-referring them to the Welsh name each time they are used. If it's a big issue, it could be mentioned in this article - if it's not notable enough (and it probably isn't), it would be in an article about Welsh placenames, language or culture. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The point made by Trident13 is in effect, I think, that somewhere known to English people in England as "Cardiff" is known to English-speaking people in Wales as "Cardiff / Caerdydd". (Obviously, the same principle applies to other places and organisations as well.) Bilingualism is a defining cultural issue in Wales, however "odd" or "difficult" it may seem to those elsewhere. Ignoring the bilingualism of Wales, in articles about Wales, would not be good practice here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It's conflating two different issues - coverage of the bilingualism issue in the article - fine. Offering translation of every placename for the reason that you want to remind people it's a bilingual country - not fine and not supported elsewhere in similar articles. Although on notability grounds I would be happy to see the Cardiff one translated in, for example, the infobox, as well as any major region names. It's probably a question of how deep it goes. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
In fact, I could only see two entries (Oswestry and Holywell) where this debate applies in the whole article from a preliminary checkthrough - others like Cardiff and the names of local authorities are fine on notability grounds. So I rv'ed the two incorrect ones. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
If anyone thinks I am coming at this from a "POV" angle, then please re-read my comment but this time with an open mind. Bi-lingualism is part of daily Welsh culture, and has been for a very, very long time: its an engrained part of Wales. If you look at the historic cottage burning of the 1970s, then one of its practical outputs revived the Welsh language and support at a Governmental level. Is there any other country in the world where immigrant parents who don't speak the minority-spoken native language, fight to get their children educated in native language schools? (While the schools debate in England is about who funds, the question in Wales is how quickly schools go Welsh medium: they have better stat's scores) Further, any visitor to Wales who may be using this page as their first time guide to visiting the country would have to come to terms with the duality of place names - get into rural parts of West, Mid and North Wales, and planning protected road signs still don't come in English. Therefore any claimed encyclopedic article which addresses Wales need to be appropriately bi-lingual: the question is to what extent? I hence still come back to an existing wiki precedent-driven and practical conclusion of translate once. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Trident13, but you are confusing the needs of Wales (about which you are absolutely welcome to have views) and the needs of Wikipedia - Wikipedia has a set of policies, including NPOV and notability, about what can and can't be in articles. Wales having problems or issues around multilingualism is not something that can determine the formatting of placenames in an english-language Wikipedia article - it needs to be a different reason. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

May I add: Places are known in both languages in Wales. It makes perfect sense to use them both on the Wales article (I would extend this to Oswestry too, which has a history interlinked with Wales and the Welsh). Daicaregos (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

are you saying the Welsh name of a place must follow the English name when its first mentioned in the article, like Cardiff is in the introduction with its Welsh name after? Is this standard practice per WP:MOS? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Daicaregos (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I have no issue either way regarding the adding the Welsh names of places, but I still have seen no mention of whether this is meant for just the Wales article, or a system to be rolled out over all articles that mention a Welsh place name? To me this is the deal breaker, as it could make all discussion pointless. If we state it is only for this article, then it should not go ahead as we can not adopt a policy for just one article. If it is for all articles it causes all manner of issues. Go to the Wales page, click 'what links here', and check if you think it's appropriate. The first article is Algae. And it states: For centuries seaweed has been used as a fertilizer; George Owen of Henllys writing in the 16th century referring to drift weed in South Wales. Are we going to go into that article and add the Welsh after South Wales? Again I don't mind if the answer is yes, but we will run into problems from other editors.FruitMonkey (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this thread has been picked up a on the 'lets be clear' sub-heading below. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lets Vote!

Instead of lengthening this discussion, shall we just vote on it? The vote is this: to use the Welsh place name after the first instance of the English place name, then continue any other mentions of the name in English. Vote with agree or disagree with any comments after it. We'll keep the voting open for seven days (until 9 September 2010). -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 01:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Agree. Lets set an example to other articles that have two (or more) official place names, and let Wales be the first! -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 01:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree. It needs to be a more structured approach. Some, like Caerdydd / Cardiff and the names of local authorities, are certainly notable enough to be handled this way. But the names of smaller places, and Oswestry (which is in England) are not and should be in English throughout in the en-WP. We must not confuse the need to express that Wales is a bilingual country with the way that article placenames are handled. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree. Places are known in both languages in Wales. It makes perfect sense to use them both on the Wales article (I would extend this to Oswestry too, which has a history interlinked with Wales and the Welsh). Daicaregos (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy, therefore any vote is really meaningless compared to structured debate and reasoned arguments. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing. Let's call it a straw poll, then. Daicaregos (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you would care to read the link provided in future, rather than taking a rather churlish attitude. Do you actually have anything to add to the debate? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. A good solution. As I said above in the structured debate, I don't see that there's any real consistency in the way the placename issue is handled across Wikipedia's articles on places where both English and another language are spoken. I don't see any reason we couldn't or shouldn't do it this way.--Cúchullain t/c 13:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree Hogyn Lleol (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree - This is the English language wikipedia. People can go to the specific article for the Welsh language name, it does not all need to be stated here. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree, Caerdydd and Abertawe, for example, are proper nouns. Remembering back from a previous discussion on this topic there are no wikipedia guidelines on this specific issue, so whatever happens with other pages should not necessarily dictate what happens with this one. Aprhys (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree, subject to discussion below. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 09:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree - I see no requirement to use the Welsh names here. The Welsh name for Wales should, of course, quite properly be in the Infobox. The only other supportable instances are, I believe, where a common Anglicisation has been replaced in common usage with the original Welsh name such as "Conwy(previously also called Conway)...". I believe that the Welsh Wicipedia has got it right [10] and that we should follow suit here - or should we ask the Welsh Wicipedia to start providing English translations of place names in its articles?  Velella  Velella Talk   09:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree, as per Vellela. Translating the first mention of every placename is excessive and incongruous. As other editors have said, this is the English-language Wikipedia. I have a copy of The Welsh Academy's Encyclopedia of Wales (English language version!) and that only includes Welsh placename translations in article titles.--Pondle (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree --Snowded TALK 20:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly Disagree Surely we would need an extraordinarily strong case to make this exception to what seems to the standard on other pages, and to clog up the text in this way. In other WP articles, as well as in most real world publications (books, newspapers etc), you will hardly ever see an alternative language name in brackets in main body text as is being proposed here, and in some cases is already in the article. That applies not only to say the Bavaria or Germany articles - where you will not see "Munich (German: Munchen)" - but also to places where, as in Wales, you might find, say, bi- or even tri-lingual road signs and where there are even areas of disputed ownership/control, eg in the Israel article, where you will not see "Jerusalem (Hebrew: Yerushaláyim/יְרוּשָׁלַיִם; Arabic: Al Quds/القُدس)". The articles on those places themselves - eg Cardiff, Munich and Jerusalem - of course include a note from the outset of relevant other language names. And where those places are mentioned in other articles, there is a wikilink to that page, where the alternative names are immediately visible. I'm not sure why we're looking to skirt round that and create a new precedent, just for this one page. N-HH talk/edits 15:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This vote

I would just like to point out that whilst the above straw poll shows 8 in favour of this highly controversial change and 5 against it. There has also been a discussion at the MOS talkpage in which 3 other editors who have not voted in the above poll, seem to be against such a change. There for i do not think (as the vote stands at present) there is enough consensus to make this very controversial change which clearly is not standard practice on the English language wikipedia. If the vote stays as it is now, no change should be implemented. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite what you mean by "no change", given that Welsh names and terms are used in the current article, and have been for some time. I think that one of the problems with this discussion was that some unwise or insensitive comments were made (on "both sides") which tended to polarise later contributions. So far as this article is concerned, it seems to me both that, generally, the English name/term should be used, but where there is good reason also to include the Welsh name/term - for example, where it helps explain word formation, or is part of an official name - that should be done. Certainly, there should be an approach towards this article that recognises that Wales is a bilingual country, and that its bilingual culture is important to English-speaking Welsh people as well as Welsh-speaking Welsh people - as opposed to an approach that baldly says "this is :en:WP and therefore Welsh words should be avoided". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
My understanding of the above vote was that if agreed the Welsh name would be added to even more places. There are certainly examples already in the article, for example i do not believe the Welsh name of Cardiff is required in the introduction. I totally agree with the bit about if there is a good reason, like for example the Welsh national anthem. But i disagree that we should use Welsh within this article in places its not needed to show to the world Wales is bilingual, the English WP should try to avoid all foreign words, names etc except where needed and within their own articles like the Cardiff article itself for the Welsh language name. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Cytunwn. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Is that a rude word? Anyway, as I was typing ... surely the fact that Wales is bilingual is made clear by our saying exactly that in the lead? I also agree that where the Welsh name is the main one it should be the primary designator; and where it is needed for clarity/explanation, we should of course include it in some way. Equally I personally am not too fussed about dual names in infoboxes or maps. I'm not sure we need to "avoid foreign words" as such, but we should not be clogging up main narrative text this way, even if the vote went 10-1 in favour of it. A small clique of WP editors commenting on and forming a temporary majority on one article cannot override precedent, style guides or usual real world usage in this way. Sorry. And in those cases where it currently is in the article - eg Cardiff in the lead, several terms in the Geography and natural history section - in fact it should go. Maybe they have been there a long time, but that's a bad thing, not a reason to keep them, or, worse, extend the habit. N-HH talk/edits 15:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not a rude word. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I just discovered that. I'm afraid my knowledge of Welsh is limited to seeing Araf on the roads (which I think came up previously somewhere, by coincidence). I didn't really think you were calling BW a dirty name .. N-HH talk/edits 15:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
lol. But if we agree on this it sounds more like you disagree with the above proposal than agree with it in its current form. A fyddech yn cytuno ? :) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear

We are talking here about this article, and only this article. On that basis, I support what Xxglennxx is suggesting. However, we should most certainly not try to come to a view here on articles on settlements in Wales (or in adjacent areas, like Oswestry). That is a matter for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, where it has been discussed previously - the conclusion being, so far as I'm aware, that it is quite appropriate for the Welsh names for settlements in Wales to be mentioned in the opening sentence, and for the Welsh names for places outside Wales to be mentioned where the context justifies it - for example, in relation to the origin of the (English) placename. If we must have that debate again, can we please do it there, rather than on this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly which bit of that project page are you talking about? I can't see the bit where the treatment of dual placenames in Welsh articles in en-Wikipedia is agreed on. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
A wide degree of consensus was reached on the talk page under "Deletion of Welsh placenames" and the threads that followed. Admittedly, that only covers settlements rather than organisations in Wales, but I should have thought that it would be possible to adopt broadly the same approach there. Feel free to raise the issue at WT:WALES though - I'm sure other editors will be keen to express their opinions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To assist those who have not read through the whole debate and may just be passing by, could an example be given if the above vote is agreed to? and i presume disagree is to keep the status quo? This is the English language wikipedia, English has primacy here. With the exception of the introduction and infobox, surely the English name should be used unless there is no valid English translaton/the Welsh name is "used in" English. So as far as im concerned, Cardiff is the name of the city and it should be used throughout the English wikipedia. The only place the Welsh name should be displayed is in the infobox (or above it) and in the introduction / section talking about its name. Surely it does not need to be mentioned anywhere else? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If we agree that this discussion relates only to this article, I don't see any opposition to this diff by Jamesinderbyshire, which is one which I support and which is maintained in the current version. However, some seem anxious to widen the discussion to other articles - that, in my view, certainly should not be done on this page, and in my view doesn't need to be done at all as we have a perfectly reasonable working consensus on how Welsh names should be treated across Wales-related articles generally. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
My remark about the other articles was throwaway rather than a call to action Ghmyrtle, as others were attempting to use other articles as precedent for this one - I am concerned with this article and I assume we are reacting to the proposed GA status and what needs to be done to bring it to that level, which I support by the way. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
So, we are united as one.  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
...oh, apart from BW of course... :-( Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
We'll keep the "vote" open until the 9th, though so far the consensus is to have the first instance in Welsh then the rest in English. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 21:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Assume you mean the first instance in English and Welsh, then in English only thereafter? Daicaregos (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I mean. The following is a good example from the LEAD: "In 1955, Cardiff (Welsh: Caerdydd) was proclaimed..." then all other mentions of Cardiff in English only. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 00:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I would go along with that for Cardiff, but there isn't a consensus to do it for all Welsh placenames mentioned in the article or for all organisations. We need to agree if this is just for the capital or for other names and if the latter, why. Commonname and notability is the issue. In En-WP, commonname means commoname in English. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Reading through the article again, I think there is a need for greater consistency. Some use of Welsh words is, in my view, necessary as explanation, or (for example) to give the correct full title of an organisation; some (e.g. the duplication of the Welsh name of the National Assembly) is not. I worry that a great deal of heat will be generated, and little progress, if editors collectively start off by attempting to develop all-embracing "guidelines" here to cover the article as a whole, and think it may well be better to approach the issue on a case by case (or section by section) basis. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I am worried this article is going to be overwhelmed with Welsh translations everywhere when they are not needed. Why does Cardiff's welsh name need to be in the introduction? Perhaps we could ask somewhere if this proposed change is in line with WP:MOS. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
For example, this sentence in the Geography section. " Wales is bordered by England to the east and by sea in the other three directions: the Môr Hafren (Bristol Channel) to the south, Celtic Sea to the west, and the Irish Sea to the north." Why is the Bristol channel using the Welsh name? If the Welsh name is also needed (which i do not think it is), surely English should come first rather than the welsh name being piped. "Môr Hafren" is not even mentioned on the Bristol Channel article as far as i can see. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
It is now - thank you for pointing out the error. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
That is why I'm suggesting a case-by-case approach. In that particular case, I would support the English name coming first, for consistency in geographical names. However, the song "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau" is, in my view quite rightly, referred to under its Welsh name as that (not the English translation) is the correct name, and used in the English WP article. There is also a related consistency issue in this article, over the use of italics for Welsh names and words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree it's case-by-case. We do need to have information about important cultural, social and linguistic issues that are notable enough in the intro. Where those involve Welsh language names as a norm, that needs to be in. This is why I'm going on about notable place names for example. I think Ghymrtle's approach is right, but we do need to avoid going over the top and putting every name in both languages throughout the article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
If the article of the location, organisation or song is at its Welsh name then yes the welsh spelling should be used rather than a translation. But that is very different to saying the English language name of a place and then having to also state the Welsh name within an article. Why is the Welsh spelling of Cardiff needed in the introduction? If it is suitable to do it there, it seems to be ok for every single place to state the Welsh name at least once. That does not sound like normal practice. Wales may be bilingual, the English language wikipedia is not. The only place Cardiffs welsh name should be is in the intro at Cardiff, its Etymology section and perhaps history section, and the Infobox. Why should it belong in other articles?
Like with the change you made on the Bristol Channel article. Ive no problem with the welsh name appearing in that first sentence like that. But why is a translation of River Severn needed in that intro? that only belongs on the River Severn article. The English language wikipedia would be cluttered up if we put the language translations everywhere like this. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
BW has raised this issue (in a misleading way, in my view) at WT:MOS, and I have responded. Whatever happened to good old-fashioned British courtesy, such as telling people what you're doing? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Well i did mention this morning that maybe we should ask if this is in line with WP:MOS, nobody replied to that. I do not think i raised it in a misleading way, that is my opinion of what is happening here if i understand the situation correctly and its troubling. As for good old fashioned British courtesy, sadly times change. We must now all tolerate certain things we dislike that would have been unacceptable in the past, i blame liberalism and the left that have done huge damage to our country and society! BritishWatcher (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
BW this constant pontificating on your personal politics is tedious and has nothing to do with the content of this article. Please stop it. --Snowded TALK 20:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wales/Archive_10&oldid=1256234663"