Talk:Welsh chronicles

Subjective Statements on the article page

Statements of opinions are not to be placed on the page, unless as a hint that certain scholars have a certain opinion and why. That is why I deleted that short paragraph.--92.230.32.96 (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh chronicles → Chronicles about Wales – What makes these chronicles "Welsh" is not their language, as noted by the second sentence: These early chronicles are written in Latin, while from the 12th century, some are composed in Middle Welsh. Rather, they are "Welsh" in the sense of being about Wales: chronicles of the history of Wales, as the opening sentence defines them. See also recently renamed categories:

A new CfR proposes renaming Category:Irish chronicles to Category:Chronicles about Ireland, amongst other things. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The proposal is not an improvement. I get no GScholar hit for "Chronicles about Wales" and one for "Chronicle about Wales". GBooks is no better. This is not because it is nonsense or ungrammatical but because it's just not the normal way of speaking. Replace 'about' with 'of' and the numbers improve dramatically. But what's wrong with the current title? "Welsh" naturally means "of Wales" and these chronicles are that. Srnec (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec @Necrothesp
"Welsh" can also mean
- "written in the Welsh language" or
- "written by a Welsh person" or
- "produced in Wales" or
- "owned by Wales" or
- etc.
This is why we need a more WP:PRECISE title.

This is why I created Category:Latin manuscripts about Wales, and the community agreed with me to Rename Category:Welsh manuscripts to Category:Welsh-language manuscripts, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 15#Category:Welsh manuscripts. Same story with Category:Latin manuscripts about England and the community agreeing to Rename Category:English manuscripts to Category:English-language manuscripts. (Don't worry Necrothesp, I plan on making a better distinction between English-language chronicles (about England?) and Latin chronicles about England as well; I'm taking this in steps).

If you like, I can mention more recent precedents to show that people generally agree with me that we need a better distinction between all these things. And that Chronicles about Foo and Manuscripts about Foo is often a better name. Last night, Jc37 persuaded me to Boldly create Category:Manuscripts by topic, so that also exists now, alongside Category:Chronicles by topic. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New recent precedent: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 18#Category:Greek chronicles. This confirms that ambiguous words like "Greek" and "Byzantine" should be clarified. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think CFD creates article title precedents. Categories and articles are different. "Welsh chronicle" is clear enough. It's about chronicles that are Welsh the same way people and castles can be Welsh. Categories are different because they are part of a larger structure in which the ambiguity of "Welsh" creates problems. But also... it is "chronicles about [country]" that I strongly oppose. There may be good reason to have separate articles on Welsh-language and Welsh Latin chronicles, but I think the "about" language is just not right. Srnec (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Castles aren't written in the Welsh language. Castles aren't translated into another language. Castles don't get produced in Wales and then transported abroad. Castles don't end up in a collection in a museum abroad. Sorry, I don't buy the analogy.

Article titles and category names may sometimes be closely connected through rules such as WP:C2D. They are not wholly independent pages. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance of language. We can have an article on Welsh chronicles in any language. Indeed, the proposed title is not linguistically specific. Srnec (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I'm saying. But readers may think that "Welsh chronicles" must mean "chronicles written in Welsh", which often isn't the case. The rename is to clarify "Welsh" means "about Wales" and not necessarily "written in Welsh". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Why is their language relevant? Many English chronicles are in Latin too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Note that I believe those recently renamed categories should be moved back, and have additionally opposed the proposed move of the other categories. I do not understand the relevance of the distinction that is being made here, or the alleged confusion this renaming clears up. SnowFire (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire If a chronicle is written in Latin, about a story set in France, produced in Ireland, written by a Scottish writer, owned by a Welsh antiquarian, preserved in a museum in England, what should we call it? A Latin, French, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, or English chronicle? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.