User talk:Welshleprechaun/Archive3

Suggestion for a compromise on Cardiff West, East etc etc.

I've got a suggestion for compromise on the Cardiff geography issue, which would overcome my issue about original research. In the case of Cardiff West, Cardiff North and Cardiff South, why don't you move your list of communities, postcodes etc. into the 'boundaries' sections of the relevant articles on Parliamentary / Assembly constituencies, leaving the disambiguation pages something like this:

Cardiff West may refer to:

• Cardiff West (UK Parliamentary constituency)
• Cardiff West (National Assembly for Wales constituency)
• Cardiff West services
• The western districts of Cardiff, Wales, as indicated on road signs

I'd be satisfied with this form of words because it doesn't specify which particular communities are or aren't part of a non-electoral definition of 'Cardiff West' et al. Pondle (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you changing the wording of these articles and making an effort to compromise with me. However, I do still feel the non-electoral definitions of Cardiff West, East etc. merit 'fact' tags. I don't say this to be argumentative, but simply because verifiability is the threshold for all statements on Wikipedia. While I accept that, say, Ely is in west Cardiff and no-one would argue otherwise, there might be some debate about places like Tremorfa, and anyway we have to be mindful of assuming the obvious.Pondle (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

96.4 The Wave

Hello - i added many more references to the article of the wave. I hope this is acceptable. I can not find a source for the News Staff, as someone else added this. Does it mean that section has to be deleted ? Thanks Jonny7003 (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Primate city (again)

I don't know why you keep on re-adding Cardiff to the primate cities page.[1] We've discussed this several times on separate talk pages and at least two other editors have supported my argument that it should not be added to the page, unless you can present some conclusive new reference in support. So why do you keep on making this edit?

Speaking of evidence, here's a recent publication from a researcher at the LSE, check out page 19 in the PDF - "if we apply the rank size rule within Wales, we would expect the population of Cardiff to be twice that of Swansea, three times that of Newport and four times that of Wrexham" (which it isn't) and page 21 - "it would appear that (i) international comparison suggests the largest city in Wales might be too small (although this is less clear in a UK context".[2] Pondle (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Aberavon Blue Flag

I have put sources on the Port Talbot discussion page. ie the bathing water criteria for a blue flag, also the actual figures for Aberavon beach in 2008. Note it is the 2008 figures that determine if a blue flag is given in 2009. Canol (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Nation Radio broadcast area

Let's discuss the dispute about the broadcast area on the article talk page. Pondle (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

96.4 The Wave

I am currently working on this article, to provide more references & to improve it. Jonny7003 (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

UKT + FAQ

I would suggest taking this to the main project for a wider input. Simply south not SS, sorry 18:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

{{Major UK railway stations}}

The point is a consensus was reached almost a year ago, but you seem intent on stirring it up yet again. Did you actually ask anyone for their opinion before simply making the changes you thought best? If you did then everyone must have been asleep, because I'm sure there would have been more comments on here than there are. Don't you think it likely that because the template has been in place in its current format for so long, no one actually KNEW there was a discussion?? Did that not occur to you in the slightest???? Hammersfan 03/02/09, 13.32 GMT

I have removed the wikipedia discussion template from the template page as it was completely misplaced and disruptive to other articles. If you wish to raise the matter of the contents of the template, you should do so in the normal way on the template talk page, and should then announce the discussion on the talk pages of all the articles affected by this as well as related project talk pages. Additionally, to threaten editors who removed the RM template in good faith is borderline disruptive itself and does not encourage a collaborative atmosphere. I suggest that if you think there are changes needed to this template, you try to foster discussion and achieve consensus by using the normal routes for doing so, rather than use such a non-standard and disruptive way of trying to achieve this coupled with threats of reporting people for vandalsim if they revert the changes in good faith. If you reinstate the template in the form it was before I reverted it, I will take administrative action against you as a means of preventing further disruption.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(In response to your message on my talk page) Well, I am sure you do not like it, as people often do not like their mistakes to be pointed out. The threats are included in the edit summaries you made to good faith reverts by an editor who merely disagreed with your actions here and here. Your accusation that my strong warnings to you were threats, given the disruption you caused is specious. Your accusation of hypocrisy is again a personal attack when the message was a quite legitimate formal warning about your demonstrably poor behaviour in this respect. Given that you have already received two blocks for edit warring in the past, I would have thought it only sensible for you to take steps to acquaint yourself with the rules (especially since you have been an active editor for over a year)ce, and if you read WP:RM carefully, you will see exactly what the steps are you should have done: for instance, it is clearly stated that the template you added to the main template page should have gone on the talk page. In case you do not read it again, I reproduce the salient matters below:

Please follow all three steps listed below when requesting a move...Step 1 — Add move template to talk page...Step 3 — Add the request to the "Other proposals" list on this page

Thank you for your suggestion about me being civil, and I suggest you review WP:CIVIL and learn to distinguish between a formal warning which might be disliked, and real incivility. You can also learn to distinguish between good faith disagreements and reverts and vandalism, because an unfair accusation of vandalism is itself a personal attack. If you have an issue with that editor, you should have taken outside advice, or stayed away from the article for a while. As it was, labelling them unfairly as being a vandal certainly warranted the stern warning I gave you in its own right.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Cohen (British journalist)

Left a message on the Talk page following your request there. --Satellite9876 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Have had a go at comparing the two possible ways this issue could be covered by the article. With my version, I have re-read the original Daily Telegraph article, and also the concerns expressed by other editors, to arrive a formulation that I feel correctly states the facts clearly and succinctly for readers of the article. Interested to see what you think. Thanks for your time.--Satellite9876 (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User editing the content at issue is currently blocked as a result of their edit warring on the article in question. I propose to let that block expire then, if they do not respond at the Talk page, to update the article along the lines I proposed there. Please feel free to let me know if you have any thoughts or suggestions re that course of action. --Satellite9876 (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Have also advised editor of situation. --Satellite9876 (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you. Have edited the article but almost instantly someone purporting to be the subject of the article has materialised disputing yet again the valuation of the shares. I personally am not comfortable with much of this as it seems all fairly smelly at best from the view of an encyclopedia. I have relied on the actual sale price of the interest as reported for the WP article. I would be grateful if you might consider my latest edits as part of the recent 3O review. Thanks.--Satellite9876 (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Cardiff Rail Network.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cardiff Rail Network.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WP Cities ratings of Welsh cities

You changed the assessment of the importance of the Swansea article within WP Wales rather than WP Cities, which I assume was a mistake. All of the Welsh principal areas are classed as top importance within WP Wales.

Looking at the WP Cities assessment criteria, my view on the ratings for the Welsh cities is:

• Cardiff could be either 'high' or 'top' depending on how you interpret 'national' capital. If you mean 'national' in the sense of a nation state, then it has to be 'high' since Wales isn't independent; if you include stateless nations or what the BBC calls 'national regions' in a definition of 'national', then 'top' would be appropriate. I'm not bothered either way.
• Swansea could be either 'mid' or 'low' - the city's population is >200,000 since city status applies to the whole principal area, not just the ONS-defined urban core at List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population. As for international coverage, Swansea has some international profile due to the Dylan Thomas connection [3], searching the CNN archive shows the last non-sports stories related to the city were for the DVLA letter bombs in 2007.[4]
• Newport is probably 'low' as all definitions of the city's population are <200,000; the last non-sports story I could find for the city on the CNN archive was about the arrest of some terrorist suspects in 2005.[5] Pondle (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the WP Cities assessment criteria are a little ambiguous and US-centric; perhaps a non-Welsh outsider could offer a more objective opinion. I agree that it's rare to see Swansea and Newport in the international news, but any global media stories from Cardiff are also mainly sports-related - have a look at the CNN archive.[6] As for Swansea's city status, it applies to the whole county area (including Oxwich), not just the urban core - see city status in the United Kingdom, list of cities in the United Kingdom and the original source here [7]. It's common for cities to be 'overbounded' or 'underbounded' relative to their built-up area.[8][9] The ONS-defined concept of urban settlements that you refer to is useful for some purposes, but it has no legal or administrative status, and using by its definition, for example, Radyr isn't really 'part' of Cardiff... Pondle (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Cities in the UK, the US and many other countries are defined by law, not by the limits of urban development. There's no agreed international definition of what constitutes a city and what doesn't - the status is granted to many different types of places, from NYC to vast (but not very populous) Juneau and tiny St David's. Anyway, on the Welsh cities assessment, I've asked Dr Cash, who's listed as the 'any questions' contact for WP Cities, to provide a neutral, non-Welsh opinion on the different articles. I think it would be useful to have an outsider's perspective. Pondle (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar (Wales Millennium Centre)

Hi Welshleprechaun,

Many thanks for the second Barnstar that you have given me. Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you to say "thank-you". In the next few months I am going to try to get the Senedd up to GA standard. Seth Whales (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nouse4aname

Can you do me a favour and look at his contributions? Am I wrong in assuming he's marking all his edits as minor? Given blocks for edit warring, dogmatism in the face of common sense, stating he doesn't expect to be reverted, doesn't look good. Minkythecat (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd actually disagree. His point is "policy says this; we must do this". "bmi" is clearly a prefix; he seems to not even want to accept any common sense view that an acronym can easily fit into the "eBay", "iPod" examples. I get the feeling even though others are espousing a common sense interpretation of the policy, he wants to impose a precise definition. Sadly, I can see another block for him looming as he doesn't seem to want to seek common ground or disengage. Minkythecat (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, though I've lost my temper a little.... problem is, how to get any consensus with regards to a resolution. There are two approaches, neither wanting to give way. Maybe getting an admin to give a more "expert" view? Minkythecat (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it me or is he getting tendentious? Minkythecat (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:CARDIFF and Radyr

Hi WL, and thanks for the messages. Sorry I haven't replied sooner, major server problem at this end which have only just been sorted out. Anyways, it was a good idea of yours starting this WikiProject - with all those Cardiff-related articles now up and running, it was well overdue. I'd be very happy to act as a co-ordinator. Just one thing though - I've noticed Radyr has been upgraded to GA class. Was this article formally nominated? I'm only asking because as I understand it, all articles have to go through a formal review before being awarded this status. I seem to remember the same thing happening to Cardiff, where one person briefly bumping it up to GA class before it was reinstated as a B-class article because it hadn't been formally nominated. I'd be happy to take of this for you, just give the nod! Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've done the nomination.Now all we have to do is sit back and wait for someone to review it. It could take a while though - the last article I nominated take about six weeks! In the meantime, it'll be a good idea to add Talk:Radyr/GA1 to your watchlist so that you get a quick heads-up when someone gets round to doing it. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 20:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Cardiff intro

Snowded was happy with the compromise wording four months ago - you might see his comment, "Look I qualified the statement, how about we all live with that?" on 7 Dec. I don't know why you're suddenly choosing to re-open the argument, but my position remains the same. I'd be happy with seat of the National Assembly of Wales as an alternative to mentioning the WAG; but if WAG is to be in there, it must be acknowledged that the organisation has been (in the words of Kathryn Bishop, WAG non-exec director) "transformed from a centrally-located organisation into an all-Wales organisation".Pondle (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually most WAG offices are outside Cardiff [10] (although some of those listed are pretty small) and following the location strategy and ASPB mergers, by 2010 over half the workforce will be outside Cardiff. Look, I understand your desire for a 'cleaner' intro and in my view the way to achieve it is to replace seat of the Welsh Assembly Government with seat of the National Assembly for Wales, as proposed by Jongleur100. I have no objections to that and indeed I would support it.Pondle (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:CardiffBusRoute9.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:CardiffBusRoute9.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:CardiffBusRoute28.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:CardiffBusRoute28.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wave

This is the last move for a good reason. Jonny7003 (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not using wikipedia anymore - i'm sorry i've been a pain in the backside so I have now decided to leave wikipedia for a long time. I shall deal with linking to the article before I leave. Jonny7003 (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have started adding links to The Wave (UK) until you moved it. Now I have to do the link all over again. Jonny7003 (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of blocking me when i'm goning to leave anyway ?? Jonny7003 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If you revert back, then you are the one who will become disruptive as well as me :) Jonny7003 (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried to be a good wikipedian - obviously I am not. Bye...for now Jonny7003 (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Bus transport in Cardiff

Hi Welshleprechaun,

I have had a look over the article. The only one think which really stands out for me is the use of logos. The BR logo I feel should not be used anywhere in the article as the logo does not conform to the non-free use rationale guidelines or non-free content criteria. The other logos which relate to the section may be OK such as File:Cardiff Bus logo.png, File:Stagecoach Wales logo.PNG etc. but even then the logo "... is allowed only in articles, and only in article namespace" (this is from Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria). Apart from that, all other bases are covered. Good article. Seth Whales (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry the BR logo is File:BR-logo.svg. Seth Whales (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't think that I actually agree with the Copyright/Non-free use policy of WP. I think copyright law is a complete joke. The person who invented the wheel was never been recognised or paid royalties, however the USA continue to use this invention on a daily basis. Okay I am joking. Anyway the article looked good with the logos, but WP says that they cannot be used. Seth Whales (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't feel too offended when I say that it needs a bit of a cleanup. Possibly splitting off the route lists into a List of bus routes in Cardiff article (naming in line with other bus route lists). Also as a general rule of thumb, frequencies aren't included in list articles such as this, otherwise it starts to turn into a travel guide article (see WP:NOT). If you don't mind, in a few hours I'll have a bit of a play with the article, see what I can come up with. Its a good start though! Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not offended at all, I welcome constructive criticism, and I agree with you actually. I have tried throughout writing the article to bear in mind the (fine) line between encyclopaedic and travel guide. But yeah, go ahead and see what you can do. Thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just give me the nod when you go to bed, and the magical night time fairy will get to work :) (I really should get into a regular sleeping pattern!) Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, yeah same here. Off to bed now actually so happy editing and don't stay up too late! Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still up! Let me know when you've finished, cheers. Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you have started using the ; syntax for headings, this goes against MOS:HEAD and you should be using ===Operator Name=== instead Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you stop editing the List of bus routes in Cardiff article, I did put an inuse tag on there, I'm in the middle of a big update to it, and you'll probably lose any edits you make right now! Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, I thought you had finished with the both. Welshleprechaun (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm standardising the table to match other "List of bus routes in x" articles... its a big job! Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a horrible feeling you are about to colour code the operator column, please don't. It makes the table harder to read, inaccessible and goes against standard, hence I removed it in the first place! Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added the colour to make it easier to read! I have to say, although it may be the standard format, it's a lot harder to read now. I'm trying to make it easier on the eye without undoing your hard work. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary colours in tables cause accessibility issues, hence they are generally avoided in lists. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, generally. But it would be a case by case issue. See the first bus route on the table for a proposed compromise. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That is still very ugly. This is going against the already established standard on other route lists. Individual operators route lists however (those shown on the operators page) do show colour branding as a separate field (e.g. First Manchester). So if you do wish to add colour coding for an operator, I suggest you do it on the operators page. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do think colour is justified there but it isn't here? Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't, but that's the way it has worked out! Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just seen this, and while I don't particularly mind, there are precedents for a standard format, which I think should at least be discussed in a wider forum. Perhaps take this discussion to the mother project? That might introduce some outside opinions. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have started a centralised discussion here --> WT:UKBRQDRIVE#Route_lists Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have said at the new discussion, I think a standardised table format would work better. As an aside, I highly doubt that the logos in the branding section as it stands currently were created by the user and can be released to the public domain. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Swansea Metro

Please keep discussions about the reasoning behind your edits to that article on its talk page and away from mine. Thank you. --RFBailey (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Swansea Metro dispute at WP:ANI

Hello, Welshleprechaun. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Pondle (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)