Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

The "proposed country" of Wales

Did anybody else here know that Wales is merely a "proposed country" rather than the real thing, according to the English-language Wikipedia? Enaidmawr (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! Wales is included in this reference book, Nations Without States, pp. 611-613, but is not listed in this article. Clearly a name change is required for the Proposed country article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Taliesin moved

The article on Taliesin has been moved without discussion to Taliesin (poet) by a certain Mr manilow and 'Taliesin' turned into the disambiguation page. Does anyone else feel as strongly as I do that this move is totally unjustified as the poet Taliesin is clearly the primary meaning? This is like moving Homer to "Homer (poet)" in case someone mistakes him for Homer Simpson! I can't revert the move as a page needs deleting first by an administrator. Support would be appreciated (I've left a message on Mr manilow's talk page). Enaidmawr (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If this should happen again, I could of course protect the page temporarily, but I think we should be prepared for the possibility that this will become a requested move and may attract votes, particularly from our American cousins. We need to be ready with our arguments for keeping it where it is. Deb (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The article hits counter is interesting.
In other words, whilst more people view the page about the Frank Lloyd Wright studio named after the poet, they're not getting there by going to the poet's article, seeing it isn't about an artist's studio, then clicking the hatnote to the dab page to find what they are after - they get there by other methods. Many more people view the poet's article than the dab page, which might suggest that the poet's article is what people are looking for at this location (although it would be more accurate if there was a page that gave details of whether an article was clicked through on a bluelink from another article, or by using the "Search" facility). Just a thought. BencherliteTalk 22:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. I'm not sure we should put too much emphasis on stats though in case someone points out that the studio gets more hits than the poet. It's very likely that more people come here to look up Homer Simpson than "that poet guy" but surely that would not be an argument for moving the bard to 'Homer (poet)'? Hopefully the need will not arise, but surely there must be a policy on this somewhere? Enaidmawr (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Popularity should not be the be all and end all. The poet should stand, like the Homer argument above (and I've seem a similar attempt to move Jason from the Greek hero to Jason the Friday XIII fictional character), the original and historic basis of a word needs to be kept as the main focus for the encyclopedic term. Few terms should lead to a disambiguation page as the first link, Mercury is a good example, as the god, metal and planet are all very high in interest and merit.FruitMonkey (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that assessment. Deb (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Update: Apparently Mr manilow has submitted a Requested Move. Please also leave comment and vote on this at Talk:Taliesin. Diolch, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Welsh rivers

Articles on Welsh rivers are in a fairly inconsistent state at present with some such as River Neath divided up into its many tributaries each with its own article whilst other such as the River Afan (albeit a smaller river) have all the tributaries included. I propose that we adopt a consistent structure will all tributaries included in the single main river article. None of our rivers have articles so long that this would be cumbersome. On the contrary we have rather short articles and searching for information about a whole river system is time consuming linking through to many separate articles. Having all tributaries in one article does not preclude linking to a specific tributary as for example Afon Pelena works very well. I am concious of much good work that has been done by a number of editors including a great deal of recent work by Geopersona, but all of that could be retained in unified articles. Before progressing anything I would welcome comments.  Velela  Velela Talk   22:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems sensible enough as a general rule. We already have a plethora of geo-stubs which are unlikely to be expanded. As you note however, there are always a few exceptions to the rule, and allowance should be made for this. Rather depends on the length and importance of the main river as well, which might include a number of subsantial tributaries (Afon Conwy, for instance, where Afon Lledr and Afon Lligwy merit their own articles; the Severn etc.). Enaidmawr (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the merging is a sensible argument. Articles can always be split if they grow too large, but there is little threat of that happening with many of the Welsh river pages. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I waited a reasonable period for any opposition.....but not finding any , and just as an example I have merged the Ogmore tribs into River Ogmore. The old tributary articles are still in existence at present but I will convert them into re-directs once everyone is happy. If no raises any issue now I will slowly work around the rivers of Wales.  Velela  Velela Talk   22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Go for it. That's when you find real opposition. Though your ideas appear sound. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
This sounds good in theory. But in practice? I'm not so sure. Will there be exceptions? The River Ogmore article is 8460 bytes following merger. An increase from 7246 bytes before its tributaries were merged. So not much difference, really, and quite appropriate. However, the article Afon Clun, at 39,476 bytes, is a quite different example. It begins "The Afon Clun is a 14 miles (23 km) long tributary of the River Ely ...". Consequently, it will be merged into the River Ely page. However, the River Ely article is 2703 bytes. It would look quite ridiculous for an article entitled River Ely to consist of (approx) 42,000 bytes, of which only 2,700 concern the epoymous river and all its other tributaries, with 39,300 bytes relating to just one of its tributaries. It would be more appropriate for both articles to remain as they are. There may be other examples too. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it makes more sense to start with the minor tributaries? Some of them are here purely because they are named on the OS map but are likely to remain one-line stubs for the foreseeable future. As I noted above, there are exceptions to every rule and in some cases a tributary may be more noteworthy for historical or ecological reasons than the main river. Afon Clun is one example, perhaps. What's the position of the other wikipedia projects on this, if the question's been raised? Enaidmawr (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Local chapter for the Wikimedia Foundation

We are Wikimedia UK - the group of local Wikimedians helping the Foundation to create
"a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge".
Love Wikipedia? Based in the UK?
Can you support us in projects such as generating free-content photographs, freeing up archive material and media relations? Or are there other projects you'd like us to help with?
if so, please click here to Join up, Donate and Get Involved
Ni yw Wicicyfrwng DU - y criw lleol o Wicigyfryngwyr sy'n ceisio cynorthwyo'r Sefydliad i
"greu byd lle mae pob un bod dynol yn medru rhannu a derbyn am ddim byd cyfan o wybodaeth".
Mwynhau Wicipedia? Wedi eich lleoli yn y DU?
Fedrwch chi ein cefnogi drwy prosiectau greu ffotograffau sy'n rhydd o hawlfraint, drwy ryddhau deunydd mewn archifau a thrwy gysylltu gyda'r cyfryngau? Neu a oes yna brosiectau y carwch i ni eich cynorthwyo?
os oes, yna cliciwch yma i Ymuno, Gyfrannu a Dod yn rhan

AndrewRT(Talk) 22:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Renaming of key Welsh county articles

UK Geo, apparently after "discussions involving editors throughout the United Kingdom", has decided to rename some of our county borough articles. Discussion here: Talk:County Borough of Conwy (and also on my talk page). Does anybody have views on this? In my opinion the new names are simply wrong. In the case of Conwy the council itself uses Conwy County Borough, for instance (most people just call it Conwy and I've never heard it referred to as the County Borough of Conwy: once again, "only on Wikipedia"!). Whatever the arguments about the correct form of the name we should use, I find it rather disturbing that (at least) one of the four UK projects, namely Wales, should once again be left entirely in the dark about this until it is in effect a fait accompli. A notice of discussion posted here was the least they could have done, but then again this is not the first time that this has happened... Enaidmawr (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't something recent Enaidmawr. It's buried way back in the archives, which is why it's taking so long to find the damned thing! Skinsmoke (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I can accept that now, but we could at least have been informed of the discussion itself in the first place. I'm not blaming you personally for that but this situation should not have arisen and we need to make sure there is inclusivity of opinion from the four UK wikipedia projects if any similar move affecting us all comes up again. A notice of discussion at the relevant boards should be a matter of course in future. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Way back before I was involved, but I agree. One of the reasons why I've notified the UK Geography project and anyone who appears interested that this discussion is going on. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Surely the administrators of the UK Geography project would know how Welsh counties should be named, much better than the editors of the country concerned. Perhaps we should just leave it to them. We should have learned to trust our betters by now. I'm sure they have our best interests at heart. Daicaregos (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Wales is under-represented at WPUKGEO so even though it's a project for the whole of the UK and it the mother project of WPWALES it is dominated by English editors. But don't portray WPUKGEO as disinterested, it's scope covers the whole of the UK, if there's an imbalance within the editors you should ask why more members of WPWALES are not members of WPUKGEO. It's would be easier to affect its policies if you're a member, if you choose not to be because you think it will do no good you're effectively disenfranchising yourself. Get involved with UPUKGEO, we're always looking for members!
Alright, there wasn't a discussion in this instance because Skinsmoke thought he was working in line with the naming conventions drawn up by WPUKGEO, (he can't find the relevant bit at the moment, and although I can vaguely recall something along the lines he's saying, I'm damned if I can find it). That's not to say the guideline (wherever it is) is correct or fixed. The convention is for places to be written [administrative unit] of [place name] (eg: County Borough of Oldham, Metropolitan Borough of Stockport, Municipal Borough of Sale) but for whatever reason there is variation, such as with urban districts and rural districts are always named in reverse (eg: Denton Urban District Bucklow Rural District). Nev1 (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Completely disagree with the statement that the editors of the UK geography project should know how to name Welsh locations better than those at the Welsh Project. That's upsidedown thinking; statisticians know more about statistics than general mathematicians, sub-categories are by their nature more specialised. Not sure what the outcome should be, but I just want to state that I feel the argument doesn't stack up. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I suspect Daicaregos was bring ironic. Nev1 (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I think, FruitMonkey, that Daicaregos was being ironic. But to get things moving, what do people want these articles calling?
As I understand it, we are talking about four articles only, namely Bridgend, Caerphilly, Conwy and Wrexham. These are the four authorities where they share the same name with a settlement or community and therefore need to be distinguished from the place. It would not, for example, affect Gwynedd or Vale of Glamorgan.
Enaidmawr has made it quite clear that he doesn't like County Borough of Conwy, but appears happy with Conwy County Borough. I would be happy with that too, and it appears so would Nev1. Does anyone have any other preferences?
If we can agree on a format, I would suggest that it is added to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Specific topics#Country-specific guidance#United Kingdom#Wales.
Skinsmoke (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with the pattern of Conwy County Borough and if we could get consensus here I think it would definitely be worth adding to the policy page. Nev1 (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
That goes for Caerphilly County Borough too. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 23:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. By the way, it's not a case of whether I like the name 'County Borough of Conwy' or not but the fact that it is practically never referred to as such and that 'Conwy County Borough' is the usual (official) style that counts (as a matter of fact, just like the council itself on numerous occasions and the Welsh media in general, the inhabitants of Conwy almost invariably call it a county, but that's just by the way...). Enaidmawr (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the pattern: Conwy County Borough, too. Daicaregos (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
As everyone appears to agree, I'll go ahead and make the changes. If Nev1 is still willing, perhaps he can make any consequential changes that are needed. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Now done where possible and listed for Move where not possible. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the three article and have changed a couple of categories to ones with correct capitalisation (a bot will run within the next 7 days to shift the articles to the right category). Take a look here for more details, is there anything I've missed? Nev1 (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Can we agree a standardised approach to articles about places, structures and landscape features? At the moment you see examples of:

  • [place], [principal area], [Wales] or
  • [place], [principal area], [region] or even
  • [place], [region]

Editors are making ad hoc changes back-and-forth, I think a convention would be helpful! Pondle (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There already is a convention at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements:-
Lead (see also WP:LEAD): Include the following
Name of settlement, type of settlement (e.g. suburb, town, city, civil parish), its contemporary local government district / council area, contemporary/ceremonial county (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), for the use of counties), and constituent country.
For Wales, I presume the contemporary/ceremonial county would be left out, so it would read :-
Lead (see also WP:LEAD): Include the following
Name of settlement, type of settlement (e.g. suburb, town, city, community), its principal area (county or county borough) and constituent country.
Skinsmoke (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I would go along with Skinsmoke's suggestion, although there are one or two editors who have a rather unhealthy obsession with the old 'traditional counties' and will probably insist on re-inserting them. I see no point in including regions either.--Rhyswynne (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Rhyswynne's comment causes me some concern. As I understand it, this recent debate started because of concerns over whether places should be referred to as simply within Wales or within a sub-national (regional) area such as South Wales. On that point, my view is that the sub-national level should be included only rarely, where it helps to disambiguate in those articles where the place is not shown on a map or where (for instance, for a physical feature such as a river) it extends over a wide area - simply because the sub-national areas in Wales do not have any unambiguous official status. The position over the use of "traditional" counties in Wales is a long-standing and continuing issue of disagreement and dispute, between, it seems, those who think that only current local government areas should be used in the lead, and those who think that in some circumstances the "traditional" (1526 or earlier - 1974) counties should be used as well. (The best example is probably Glamorgan, which defined a specific area from no later than the 10th century until 1974, but which now does not exist as a local government area.) Personally, I believe that there are circumstances in which only using the current local authority boundaries (which are likely to be less well understood by many readers, in many cases, than the traditional counties) is unhelpful, and that sometimes using the traditional boundaries can be helpful to the reader - who is the person who is ultimately important here, not the editor or any group of editors. I know that opinion may be seen as contrary to WP:UKGEO, but in my view the guidance there is overly prescriptive. I also know that my view may lead to what could be seen as inconsistencies, and - so long as the text helps the readers - I don't think that is very important. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The pattern is well-established, although not always adhered to, not just for Wales and the UK but as a general convention across the wikipedia. In the case of Wales that should mean a lead sentence with, 'Name of settlement, type of settlement, county or county borough, Wales'. Any further information should be included in subsequent sentences, e.g. region, "historical" county etc. I strongly agree with Rhys about the so-called "historical" or "traditional" counties; their insertion in the lead, usually tagged on at the end as something like 'within the historical county of Foo', giving the impression that said county still exists, is just not on. We all know the way [a] certain editor[s] will persist in doing this in pursuit of an agenda stemming from that of the Historical Counties Association or whatever they call themselves with the intention of timewarping Welsh geography (you will have noted that they rarely mention the preserved counties 1974-96...). As for regions, I've no objection to their inclusion after the lead sentence, but not in place of Wales itself. I sympathise to some extent with the Glamorgan argument as it could be termed a distinct sub-region (note I'm not talking about the former county), but again it can easily be referred to in the second sentence of the opener, giving the location a wider context. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
" I strongly agree with Rhys about the so-called "historical" or "traditional" counties; their insertion in the lead, usually tagged on at the end as something like 'within the historical county of Foo', giving the impression that said county still exists, is just not on" - except that that is exactly what is stipulated by the naming conventions. Not to mention writing an article that readers can understand, rather than sticking rigidly to a set of areas just because they happen to be used for the purposes of a certain set of local government functions. I'm not entirely sure what "they rarely mention the preserved counties 1974-96" is supposed to mean, as they were always different legal entities from the historic counties. Feel free to read the ABC FAQ where the 1974-1996 situation is clearly mentioned. Owain (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
And I suppose that "writing an article that readers can understand, rather than sticking rigidly to a set of areas just because they happen to be used for the purposes of a certain set of local government functions" includes deliberately deleting the place's contemporary location from an article and placing it in a category for a defunct administrative unit, such as in this edit of yours? By "they happen to be used for the purposes of a certain set of local government functions" I take it you mean that they are the present counties of Wales as found on the map etc., which of course count for little compared to the defunct entities you support and promote? As for my comment "they rarely mention the preserved counties 1974-96", I'd have thought the meaning was clear. You insist that LlanX is "within the historical boundaries of Defunctshire" yet regularly omit to mention its location between being in Defunctshire and the present county; if we were to be consistent wouldn't we have to say for example "Llandudno, Conwy County Borough, Wales, within the original boundaries of the county of Gwynedd (1974-96) as part of Aberconwy, the preserved counties of Gwynedd (1996-2004) and Clwyd (2004-), within the historical boundaries of Caernarfonshire, in the commote of Creuddyn in the cantref of Rhos, in the kingdom of Gwynedd"? Whilst we're at it we could even throw in the Roman province of Brittania and the tribal territory of the Deceangli for good measure... All that is history: the lead is for the place's location today. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If I were being optimistic for a moment, I'd simply suggest to all concerned that you step back, use some common sense in preference to relying on "conventions", and think about what the average reader of the encyclopaedia is looking for here - that is, a clear description of where a place (now) is, in terms that they will understand. And, we need to recognise that some readers (maybe older, more interested in history) will find greater meaning in "historic counties" than others. In some - probably most - instances, the modern administrative area will be all that is necessary to give the most useful information, but an appropriate mention of the historic area, in the right place and in context, often adds useful information and interest and should also be included (though not necessarily in the introduction). In other cases, a mention of the current administrative area would be almost meaningless without a reference to the historic county. Some "defunct" but "historic" counties (Glamorgan, for instance) have more weight of meaning and history than others (like, say, Radnorshire). Consistency is, on the face of it, desirable, but in my view should not override the need to give the clearest possible information in each specific instance. In any case, consistency is most easily addressed by infoboxes and maps rather than by text. Perpetually sniping over this comes across, frankly, as a little silly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the lead should include the historic county. The key reason is that a reader may be following up a reference in a pre-1974 document, and may need some help in identifying the place. In articles on places in Oxfordshire which were in Berkshire before 1974, we always say "formerly in Berkshire" for that very reason, and I think the same should apply to historic counties in Wales. If it's not in the lead, the reader may well conclude that he or she is in the wrong place, and move on.

I would apply the same argument for including the preserved county in the lead, but an added argument there is that preserved county is, as I understand it, a current status.

A related area which desperately needs sorting out is categorisation. I was looking for articles on Monmouthshire. Category:Monmouthshire includes subcategories relating to the historic county and subcategories relating to the current principal area. Category:Gwent contains another set of articles and subcategories on the same area. And Category:Newport is in neither. To a non-Welshman (at least this one), that is unhelpful and a confusing mess. Mhockey (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Rhondda Cynon Taf/Rhondda Cynon Taff

There is a proposal currently under discussion at Talk:Rhondda Cynon Taff to rename the article to Rhondda Cynon Taf. Anyone interested please make your views known. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with this rename is that it doesn't appear to be official. For example [1] lists "Rhondda Cynon Taff" as the official name, along with the officially-renamed "Ceredigion", "Conwy", "Gwynedd", "Isle of Anglesey", "Neath Port Talbot". 84.92.28.92 (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Pleased to hear that is 'The only problem with this rename' that you have. Just out of interest, do you have more than one example of this? Daicaregos (talk)

Counties of Wales and other cans of worms

It seems I have provoked the wrath of one contributor by creating the Category:Counties of Wales, and by including the county boroughs in it. Prior to the category's creation only the defunct pre-1974 counties represented Wales at Category:Counties of the United Kingdom, and that despite the fact that we have long had Category:Preserved counties of Wales. I felt that a remedy was long overdue. I have been accused of pushing a "nationalist POV" and of "disruptive editing" for this. What is the technical distinction between 'county' and 'county borough' and does it count for much in practice in modern Wales? I'd have no objection to a sub-cat for the latter but innocently thought that a note in the category would suffice. I've provided two references for the BBC referring to the 'county boroughs' as 'counties' at Local government in Wales; many more could be added as this is the common practice in the Welsh media and on the street: even Conwy County Borough itself refers to the area as a 'county' in its literature and they currently have a 'Keep Conwy Tidy' advert on the local radio which twice refers to it simply as 'the county' and not once as 'the county borough'. I need hardly add that nowhere, apart from local government legislation and English wikipedia, will you find the dead-as-a-dodo term "principal area", a term which applies to the English local authority areas as well but which the English project has wisely eschewed. Views please. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an attempt to push a particular PoV. The category is a direct duplication of the already existing Category:Principal areas of Wales which correctly includes all principal areas of whatever style. Labelling those that are not styled as counties as counties is pushing a particular PoV. You seem to think that people associate the word "county" with local authority area, which is simply untrue. Even if it was true, this is not a collection of "what people think" it is supposed to be factual. There are ten principal areas styled as county boroughs, three as cities and of the remaining nine, only eight of them actually style themselves as county, Gwynedd council preferring no style at all. Your lack of understanding of Geography and history, exemplified by the phrase "defunct pre-1974 counties" is particularly worrying, given the zeal with which you are attempting to eradicate the correct phrase "principal area" and replace it with the entirely inappropriate "county". Please desist. 84.92.28.92 (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Nowhere have I seen any form of government in the UK call one of these "principal areas" of Wales exactly that. You'll notice that Cardiff County Council is not called Cardiff Principal Area Council. Maybe 84.92.28.92 could produce some evidence in the form of sources to back up their claim. Inversely, your view that the usage of "county" is inappropriate, or someone's point of view, is your point of view. Please stop reverting edits to reflect your views until the matter is settlted because it's not going to get you anyhwere except a block on editing. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we solve this dispute by creating a new subcategory in Category:Counties of Wales for the post-1996 unitary authorities. We could call it "Contemporary Counties and County Boroughs of Wales" (capturing both 'styles') or "Unitary authorities of Wales" or something similar. Pondle (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There is already a category that has existed since long before this debate started - Category:Principal areas of Wales. What is the point in a new one? The problem here is that they are all principal areas and they all have different styles. Nowhere did I suggest that the council for Cardiff is called "Cardiff Principal Area Council" - as a matter-of-fact it doesn't call itself "Cardiff County Council" either, merely "Cardiff Council". How is the statement of fact that calling something that isn't styled as a county a county my point-of-view? That is surely a fact? Unitary authority areas of Wales would be the most accurate, but is more cumbersome than "principal areas" and has no basis in law. I re-iterate that there is nothing wrong with Category:Principal areas of Wales - labelling everything as a county when they are not styled as such is utterly wrong and pushing a PoV. 84.92.28.92 (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Just looking into the "principal areas" thing... the term actually originates in the Local Government Act 1972. It was used to describe the counties and districts created in both England and Wales: in other words everything above the parish/community level. County and district councils are described as "principal councils". Eg section 25 of the 1972 Act:
25.—(1) Councillors for a principal area shall be elected by the local government electors for that area in accordance with this Act and Part I of the Representation of the People Act 1949.
The term continues to be used in secondary legislation e.g. in the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (Amendment) Rules 1976, and Local Elections (Principal Areas) (Amendment) Rules 1983, and even the National Park Authorities (Amendment) (England) Order 2009, made last March: The Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 63(1) and (5) of, and paragraphs 1(2) and 2(1) and (2) of Schedule 7 to, the Environment Act 1995, and after consultation with the councils for every principal area the whole or any part of which is comprised in Northumberland National Park, makes the following Order...
Sooo.... I would say that "principal area" is a generic term for any local government area in the two highest tiers (county/district).
Turning to the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 we find...
20.—(1) For the administration of local government on and after 1st April 1996, the local government areas in Wales shall be—
(a) the new principal areas; and
(b) the communities.
(2) The new principal areas (determined by reference to areas which, immediately before the passing of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, are local government areas) are set out in Parts I and II of Schedule 4 to this Act.
(3) Each of the new principal areas shall have the name given to it in Schedule 4.
(4) The new principal areas set out in Part I of Schedule 4 shall be counties and those set out in Part II of that Schedule shall be county boroughs.
(5) In this Act ‘principal area’, in relation to Wales, means a county or county borough.
And it specifically amends the 1972 Act:
In the definition of ‘principal area’ insert at the end ‘but, in relation to Wales, means a county or county borough.’
My reading of this is that the correct term, under the statute, is county or county borough, both being types of "principal area". They were listed in schedule 1 [2], and 11 are counties (including Cardiff and Swansea) and 11 are county boroughs.
Section 5 of the 1994 Act allows for counties to become county boroughs by submitting a petition for a charter to the privy council. Don't think any have.
As far as "cities" are concerned.... the letters patent to Cardiff and Swansea, dated 29 March 1996, granted the status to the Counties of Cardiff and Swansea. The official title apears to be "City and County of Cardiff/Swansea". See for instance this document [3] which also invites replies to Cardiff County Council, while Swansea council's website uses "City and County of Swansea" on every page [4].
The 2002 grant was to "Town of Newport in the County Borough of Newport". This would lead me to surmise that Cardiff and Swansea continue to be counties and Newport a county borough. Newport's city status was granted in May 2002, but this order [5] made in December 2002 calls it the County Borough of Newport. More recent orders, eg [6], call it the "City and County of Newport".
Conclusion? Category should be "Counties and county boroughs of Wales" Lozleader (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Impressive bit of research, Lozleader. Thank you. I wasn't able to locate the clause you mention ("‘principal area’, in relation to Wales, means a county or county borough"), but that is indeed my understanding of the situation, including the three city/county(borough) areas. I'd be perfectly happy with Category:Counties and county boroughs of Wales (I assume you mean in place of the category I created?). That should satisfy both the legalistic argument (ignored on wiki for English areas) and the demands of commonsense viz a viz the term "principal area" in favour of current usage (or the complete lack of it, to all intents and purpose!). Enaidmawr (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Not that impressive just happen to have access to Justis! The clause you are looking is right in section 1 of the 1994 legislation, but is a bit confusing as it actually replaces section 20 of the 1972 act. So section 20(5) of the LGA 1972 now reads In this Act “principal area”, in relation to Wales, means a county or county borough..
As far as I can see the only difference between a county and a county borough is that in the latter the chairman is entitled to be called a "mayor" (or "maer"). In the case of both (per section 2 of the 1994 act), the council can drop the "county" or "county borough" part, thus we have Gwynedd Council or Conwy Council. It would be a distinction lost on most people, I'm sure. Lozleader (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The distinction does seem rather obtruse, and as you say it would be lost on most people. As we seem to have established that the 'principal areas' of Wales are in fact the 'counties and county boroughs' of Wales and given that nobody uses the former term in the real world, it would seem that it is in fact the 'principal areas' category which is "redundant" and not vice versa as claimed above. That being the case, I propose that we replace references in article leads to 'principal areas' with either county, county borough or city, as appopriate; 'in the county of Powys, Wales' is far simpler, more elegant and meaningful than 'in Powys, one of the principal areas of Wales'. Following from that, do we really need the principal areas category itself? Enaidmawr (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I think there's a continued need for a subcategory within Category:Counties of Wales that distinguishes the post-1996 counties and county boroughs, but on the basis of the discussion here (especially Lozleader's excellent research) I'd be happy to move away from general use of the term principal areas.Pondle (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I know it's mid-summer and we all have better things to do, but can we reach an agreement on this now? My personal opinion is that the present category:Counties of Wales is sufficient. The problem with a sub-category for the "post-1996" counties and county boroughs - i.e. the actual ones - is that it loses them in a list which includes the defunct pre-1974 and preserved counties. Rather than that I'd rather see the 'category:Counties of Wales' replaced with 'category:Counties and county boroughs of Wales', if neccessary. I definitely agree with Pondle regarding the so-called 'principal areas', of course, and would suggest that the principal areas category itself be deleted as superfluous and also that the related categories ('by principal area' etc.) be replaced as well. Too radical? A bot could do most of the work and I'd be glad to assume my share of the burden of work. 21st century Wales; meaningful terminology. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting Welsh history

Am I the only person interested in the history of Wales who was unaware that, amongst other things, Dafydd ab Owain Gwynedd was actually 'Dafydd I of Wales' and, staggeringly, that Owain Glyndŵr, Prince of Wales (aka 'Owain IV of Wales') was "explicitly crowned Owain IV of Wales in 1404"? Explicitly: i.e. in name and deed as his official title: this certainly comes as news to me! These and similar claims are found in the article Principality of Wales. I've given a brief response on the talk page. I refrained from doing some drastic editing after checking the history and seeing that a number of editors had contributed without, apparently, seeing anything amiss. I haven't had the time to check whether this and similar claims are made elsewhere, but that may well be the case. I'd appreciate the views of those with an interest in the subject (as usual!). Enaidmawr (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that many of the dubious claims were made, on that page and others, by User:James Frankcom, who I think has some history in placing undue weight on uncertain sources - but I am certainly no expert, so can't comment further on the specifics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think I've found similar things in other Welsh history articles and put them straight. Maybe it's time for a complete overhaul. Deb (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a complete overhaul and a set of guidelines is the best solution, as Deb suggests. Do we need a taskforce (if that's the wiki term?!) for Welsh history or are we happy to bring up points here? Welsh mythology is another subject that gets more than its share of doubtful contributions (for a combination of the two, derived from Iolo Morganwg, see "Carnoban"). I find that leaving a note on a talk page often has little effect and feel it would be good to have a 'clearing house', so to speak, the alternative being to clutter up this page with numerous requests for help on specific articles. Just a thought. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I've not come across any sign of Welsh kings, princes or rulers being numbered. Doesn't seem likely to be contemporary either. Daicaregos (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that there is a lot of "fantasy" literature, not to mention stuff like the modern druid movement, that seizes on Celtic legends and embroiders them to create a pseudo-history that has little basis in fact. Many nationalists are also prone to believing everything they hear or read - so it only takes one person to get a fact wrong and it spreads very quickly (which is why I think User:Enaidmawr was fully justified in his recent contretemps with User:Vicarage). This also means that people like me are not always sure of their ground. I've wanted to take the numbers away, but couldn't feel 100% certain that there was absolutely no evidence for them. Deb (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I've just realised that what I said above may be offensive to nationalists. What I mean is that they/we tend to be easily convinced by statements such as "Wales has always been oppressed by the English", when the truth is much more complex. Am I making (any) sense? Deb (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
... sometimes it's best to just stop digging. :) Daicaregos (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
You're making perfect sense, Deb. Certain subjects seem to attract people with romantic notions to spare but no real grasp of history. They seek and perpetuate interpretations of past events which are easy to understand and support their preconceived ideas about "the way things were" and "the way things should be". As I said to Enaidmawr earlier it seems that too much time is spent correcting misinformation of this type. It is probably time for a better solution.--Cúchullain t/c 21:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a solution in mind? Daicaregos (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
All the literature uses Prince in various forms (although some very early ones use King but that is rare. None have numbers that I have seen. Might be best to set up a brief taskforce, assemble the evidence and create a protocol that can be applied and referenced? --Snowded TALK 21:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in the views of editors here on my comments at Talk:Britannia, regarding a genealogical work by one Robert Hughes and the interpretations placed on it. I really don't know if it's reliable or not, but our friend James Frankcom apparently places some weight on it - personally I'm not convinced, but (as I often say round these parts) I'm no expert. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again...?! I'll take a peek now.
Regarding the above, and it's good to see the response, I'd like to quickly note that - a) the question of prince/king is complicated (tywysog in Welsh having the original meaning of "one who leads or guides", so not neccesarily a drop in status to use the style 'Tywysog Cymru/y Cymry' (also brenin Cymru/y Cymry 'King of Wales/the Welsh' is found in the court poetry adressed to Llywelyn ab Iorwerth and Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, so de facto usage is recorded, but that's beside the point here.) b) the use of such titles as 'Llywelyn I/II', although modern and limited, is one thing, but a wholesale adoption of such titles as 'Owain IV' etc (who could as easily be called 'Owain III') is very recent and very limited. I'd like to add that most people who might call themselves Welsh 'nationalists' are perfectly happy with the centuries old tradition of calling Owain Glyndŵr 'Owain Glyndŵr'; who on earth calls him 'Owain IV of Wales'? To summarise, their is no historical use of these titles before the 20th century; they are not common and they were absolutely certainly not used in medieval Wales.
Final point - enough rambling! - if we assemble the evidence, which seems a good idea, where will it be placed? Enaidmawr (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
We could start a task force, but for the time being I think this is as good a place as any. Maybe a subpage?--Cúchullain t/c 12:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Was this ever handled to satisfaction? I see that at least the Owain article is back in better shape, but are there other articles needing attention?--Cúchullain t/c 01:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be yet another example of a fruitful start that never really led to anything, Cúchullain. I'm as much to blame as anyone. What about creating a sub-page, as you suggested? Given the limted number of regular editors a taskforce is probably pointless and the sub-page's talk page could be used for discussion. Perhaps some material on sources, reliable and otherwise, could be copied and adapted from the Sub-Roman Britain task force page? As for other articles in need of attention, I'm sure there are quite a few. Some are on my watchlist but there must be many others that could do with a spring clean. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, let's make a subpage, so we can at least list out which articles are affected by this particular blight. I never mind correcting well-intentioned errors, but I just hate having to deal again and again with the aftermath of obdurate romantics who will consider no perspective but that dispensed to them by their own preconceived notions. There's so much else that can be done on Wikipedia, that it gets discouraging having to retread the same ground with the same kind of true believers.--Cúchullain t/c 18:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Having read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject European History/Sub-Roman Britain Taskforce#Listing unreliable sources, I think that the proposed list would serve our purposes here as well. In that case we could concentrate on noting articles in need of attention (and doing something about them). The only thing that is off-putting, as Cuchullain notes (not for the first time, and I sympathise!), is thought of retreading the same old ground time and time again with shields up against The Wrath of the Faithful, so easily provoked (a few days back I had the temerity to suggest on Talk:Japhetic that literal belief in all that "Japhetic" stuff might be regarded as Fringe Theory: the response was practically instantaneous!). 'Twould be good to have a bit more feedback here as well... Enaidmawr (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hwyl - Welsh word

At Wiktionary, we have a 15-month old AFD discussion about the Welsh word hwyl, more specifically whether to delete the definition 5 "proselytizing". Are there any Welsh speakers here that could help out? At the moment our page looks like:

hwyl f (plural hwyliau)

  1. mood
  2. fun
  3. "sing-song" trait traditionally considered to be possessed by the Welsh people, especially Nonconformist preachers
  4. sail
  5. proselytizing

Any help would be appreciated, as it seems us Wiktionarians don't have anybody particularly gifted in Welsh. --Jackofclubs (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any example of hwyl in the sense 'proselytizing'. Historically, 'sail' is the original meaning; still the word for sail today but overtaken by the derivative in terms of frequency of use, i.e. 'mood' etc etc. Also commonly used as the equivalent of 'see you' or 'have fun!'. I'm a native Welsh speaker but thought I'd check Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru. Historically-biased, they give 'sail, sheet' etc as the primary definition. Second: (much abbreviated) 'healthy physical or mental condition, wits'; 'temper, mood, frame of mind'; 'nature, disposition'; 'degree of success achieved' (e.g. "Pa hwyl?" "How did it go?"); 'fervour (esp. religious), zest' etc; 'sing-song cadence'. Third: 'merry-making' etc, i.e. 'fun'. There is also another hwyl, unrelated, being an early variant of gŵyl ('festival, feast' etc), but this is purely historical and never used today. Hope that helps. (GPC ref: Vol. II, pp. 1937-38). Hwyl! Enaidmawr (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. It helps. proselytizing is a clear term, but this meaning of proselytizing as "hwyl" might need some more research (maybe it has anti-Welsh or anti-something connotations). We can probably delete it on Wiktionary. As for "gŵyl", this is out of my depth..... and still, Wiktionary is not a reliable source for Welsh!! I'll delete this sense on Wiktionary. --Jackofclubs (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
p.s. If any of you are interested in adding Welsh terms to Wikt, we're recruiting. --Jackofclubs (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

River Glaslyn / Afon Glaslyn

It has been proposed that River Glaslyn be moved to Afon Glaslyn. Please feel free to comment at Talk:River Glaslyn. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of language and housing crisis at Gwynedd and Llŷn Peninsula

Please see Talk:Llŷn Peninsula (also Talk:Gwynedd but main discussion is at former). Proposal to "merge" (i.e delete) sections on the housing crisis and its effect on the language into Welsh language (already long) and an obscure new article. The sections need rewriting but this is little short of censorship. Comments please. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made some edits which hopefully go some way towards improving the structure and content of the Llŷn Peninsula and Gwynedd articles. I also suggest that Welsh Housing Crisis (pre-2009), if sufficiently edited, improved and then expanded, could provide a basis for an article on Housing in Wales, which in my view is needed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this sits better in its own article but the text as it stands is strongly POV and needs careful balancing. Perhaps one of the first questions to be asked is who was it that sold all these properties to the incomers and made such handsome profits ? Mrs Trellis (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe you'll find the old chestnuts stall over there, Mrs Trellis... Enaidmawr (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I could not have wished for a more instructive response. When the facts run out just try and trivialise and make fun of the other argument - it sometimes works for politicians - but not often. As for the facts, they are there for the finding in the County Archive in Caernarfon 23:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I think what our friend meant to say is that your argument, Mrs Trellis, isn't an argument at all, but a red herring. I'm sure we all agree that all articles need to be balanced, but your comment above is simply a diversion from the real issues. Deb (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
In fairness to Mrs Trellis, we need to bear in mind that there are "winners" as well as "losers" in a housing boom. Increases in the price of houses involve a transfer of wealth from some groups (the young / first-time buyers) to other groups (the old / existing home owners). There was a lot of comment about this a couple of years ago, here's an example[7]. Similarly there are differences in demographic trends in various parts of north and west Wales, with some places growing strongly (e.g. Ceredigion), others growing less quickly (Carmarthenshire, Gwynedd) and some even in decline - at least until recently (Anglesey). So it's a complex picture.
Another factor of relevance here is that young people leave rural communities in places such as north and west Wales for various reasons aside from the affordability of housing. Cities all over the world traditionally attract young, single people for education, employment (wages are usually higher in urban areas) and because they are good places to meet other young, single people. Some economists have even described cities as 'marriage markets' - just Google that phrase. As Ghymrtle says, it would be good to explore some of these trends in affordability, changes in tenure and the nature of the housing stock in a fully-fledged Housing in Wales article. There's loads of material here.[8] Pondle (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, all these are valid points for inclusion - but they are not "arguments", nor is wikipedia the place for a debate as to the moral rights and wrongs of any situation. Deb (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Dyffryn Gardens

Can someone look at this please? It's been expanded by various anonymous contributors and I'm not sure if it's all verifiable. It may be OK and, if so, I apologise for wasting your time, but it doesn't 'feel' right. Best Wishes. Saga City (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I know little or nothing about the gardens, though I'd heard of them. However, the statement "The story of Dyffryn Estate dates back to 640 A.D. when the Manor of Worlton, which included St Lythans and St Nicholas, was granted to Bishop Oudoceous Welsh: Euddogwy) of Llandaff by the King Of Glamorgan King Judhail (Welsh: Ithael)" makes little sense. There were no manors in Wales - or anywhere else in Britain - in 640 AD. Clearly the name of the presumed lordship/area would have been Welsh at that date (or even Latin if it were indeed ecclesiastical property), but Worlton is English. Two obvious anchronisms. The Llandaf connection probably derives from the 'Llandaff Charters', a collection of 12th century Latin documents which purport to date from the 6th-7th centuries. Some of the material within them is genuine, based on older sources, but they are regarded as having been "forged" by the early bishops of Llandaf, a bishopric established by the Normans - to claim land and establish an antiquity for the new diocese for political reasons (at the expense of St Davids). Very very complicated material (see Wendy Davies' study. The Llandaff Charters). I think I've found the passage in one of the charters, which says that Uilla Tref Gulich (=Dyffryn) was "returned" (ahem!) to the bishops of Llandaf by king Meurig (ap Hywel), after doing his penance, and that the land thus "returned" had been theirs "since the time of king Ithel ap Athrwys, contemporary of Euddogwy" (Davies, p. 127). Not quite what it says in the article and what is more the charters are a mixture of fact and fiction which can not be taken at face value, fascinating and invaluable though they are. Of 'Worlton' there is no mention in Davies' book, as I'd expect. This has become a bit more detailed than I'd intended, but it does tend to suggest that there may be other inaccuracies in the article. Hope that helps! Enaidmawr (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Brythonic

The word Brythonic has the misfortune of denoting both an ancient language, designated British language (Celtic) by Wikipedia, and the language family descending from it (the Brythonic languages). Scholarship, following John Rhys, uses the term for both, as it is not particularly clear when the "Brythonic languages" should really be considered distinct. For the purposes of a hyperlink-reliant online encyclopedia, however, this creates a lot of confusion in trying to redirect our readers where they want to go. The incoming links are a fuddle (read: clusterfuck), so I converted Brythonic into a dab and redirected Brythonic language to it. There are a lot of them, so going through and redirecting them is going to be necessary. Also, I am sure there are a lot of links piped to Brythonic languages that ought to better go to British language (Celtic).--Cúchullain t/c 15:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the problem with hyperlinks, brilliant feature as they otherwise can be. Sounds a reasonable solution. 'Brythonic', as a cross-over into English from Welsh, can also refer to the people (Britons (historic)). Not very common in English perhaps, but I've seen it used by some authors, usually Welsh, as the terms 'Briton' and 'British' have very different connotations to 'Brythonic' for the average reader today (and books don't have hyperlinks!). The problem is avoided in Welsh as 'Brython/Brythoniaid/Brythonig' are distinguished from 'Prydeiniwr/Prydeinwyr/Prydeinig' ('Briton/British (people)/British (adjective)'. So a Welsh person could say "Fel Cymro dwi'n Frython hefyd, ond dwi ddim yn Brydeiniwr!" ("As a Welshman I'm a 'Briton' too, but I'm not a 'Brit'!"). I'll bear this in mind and try to correct any links I come across. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Where are we from?

Please see Category:People from Bangor, Gwynedd and my comments on the talk page. I think this is a case of drastic over-populating and that a good many of the 50 people in the category should not be there at all (and I speak as a person who was born in Bangor, like most local people in my town, but who would never dream of describing himself as somebody from Bangor). Obviously this raises the question of how accurate some of the other "people from" categories are, but I'm not proposing we embark on a wiki-wide reappraisal for the time being, thank you very much! Enaidmawr (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a good point. I've hit the problem in a very similair problem with Llwynypia in the Rhondda, the local maternity hospital. Your place of birth is a point of contention, is it where you were launched from, or is it the place you were then taken to by your parents and grew up in. On the whole it is the latter. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I've looked at a lot of those categories recently, and there is definitely a lot of inaccuracy. Someone only seems to have to have lived in a city for five minutes and they are being described as being "from" that place. And there are several people who are apparently "from" at least two places. I'm "from" Port Talbot, but I wasn't born there, because I wasn't born in my parents' house. Deb (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
In my experience it's usually pretty easy to clarify these things in a few words, just by using the information available. For example, at Chepstow:
In the last case, he was born in Newport (in hospital, I assume), but that's really only relevant (and then only quite marginally) in his own bio article, which explains it briefly - "Nicholas was born in Newport but grew up in Pwllmeyric, Monmouthshire." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
PS: Should have read the question more carefully shouldn't I - sorry. For categories I'd go with childhood home, if they were born in hospital elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you can be "from" more than one place. Barack Obama is http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-day-i-met-president-obama-1513426.html "from" Hawaii], but he's also "from" Chicago. But you're right: it's a bit much to put Gordon Brown in Category:People from Glasgow, when he was only there briefly before moving to Fife; it's even more ridiculous for people born in a hospital the next town over to be listed as "from" that town. If I were born at sea I doubt I'd consider myself "from" the good ship M/V Whatever.--Cúchullain t/c 13:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
...Lolly Pop? Perhaps you'd be in 'Category:People from the sea'? Seriously though, this is just the problem. Probably 9 out of 10 'locals' in my town were born in the old St Davids maternity hospital in Bangor or the maternity wards of Ysbyty Gwynedd: they are emphatically not "from Bangor". Were that the case then the majority of the native population of Gwynedd could be said to be "from" about half a dozen towns, at most, with about half of them being "from Bangor". Patent nonsense. The only solution short of having a wiki-wide category 'People born in Fooville', alongside 'People from...', is not to assume that people are from a given place which is noted as their place of birth in the article unless there is positive evidence to support that. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom#Lead image

I'm currently expanding the article on List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom and am pondering what should be used as the lead image(s). It's not the most important issue in developing the article, but I thought that as the list covers the whole of the UK that as many editors as possible should be given a say. I'll leave a note at the England and Scotland wikiprojects and see if the discussion goes anywhere. Please leave any comments on the article talk page. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Valle Crucis Abbey

The page at Valle Crucis Abbey has recently been deleted for copyright violation (it appears it was taken word for word from a Cadw guidebook which had been posted as part of a website that then claimed copyright on it!). Anyone fancy having a go at recreating it? Llantysilio previously pointed to the abbey page: I've created a separate stub for it. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. FruitMonkey (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow! I'm impressed! Skinsmoke (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Carwyn Jones

Carwyn Jones is now the First Minister for Wales. As such it should be mentioned in the introductory sentence of his article, per Wikipedia:LEDE#First sentence. At least this is my conclusion; evidently, a certain anonymous user feels otherwise. Please bring your opinions to Talk:Carwyn Jones. On a related note, as the bio of a high-profile politician, the article will also need a closer eye from here on.--Cúchullain t/c 01:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Swansea

Editors may be interested in commenting on a dispute about the scope of this article here.--Pondle (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

2010

Cardiganshire/Ceredigion

The article on Cardiganshire has been proposed for a merge into Ceredigion. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Merger now completed. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Historic counties

I'd like some guidance in order to establish a clear guideline. If Terry Matthews was born in Newport when it was a part of Monmoutshire, should it mention that Newport was indeed a part of Monmouthshire when he was born there, or do we use the current unitary authorities. For example should it read?:

  • Terry Matthews was born in Newport, Monmouthsire, Wales
  • Terry Matthews was born in Newport, Wales

This is in regard to questionning frequent edits like this one [9] by User:Owain who has made many such edits. Thanks for your help Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The naming conventions say that older placenames should be used in appropriate historical contexts. A historic placename could be followed by the the modern name in parentheses (see WP:MOSPN). Interestingly, the biographical articles in the Encyclopedia of Wales only seem to state the town or village of birth rather than the county.--Pondle (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It's difficult to get consensus. I think in this case there are arguments on both sides. Newport is now widely referred to as Newport, Wales, although Owain would no doubt argue that it could be confused with Newport, Pembrokeshire. At the time of Matthews' birth, Newport was indeed within Monmouthshire, but that is terminology which now appears (to me) odd and confusing when it relates to a city the size of Newport, the relatively recent past and a currently living person. On balance I'd support Newport, Wales, in this instance, but I might take a different view for different places in different circumstances. Ultimately we should be guided by the need to be helpful rather than confusing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Labour or Labour

Editors may be interested in commenting on a dispute about the content of the article at Talk:Carwyn Jones#Welsh Labour. It is possible the outcome may have wider implications. Daicaregos (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue of how to deal with UK political parties in Wales and Scotland in intros and infoboxes has been raised centrally at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#The Labour Party or Welsh Labour /Scottish Labour Party. Your participation in the discussion would be welcome. Daicaregos (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Image request

Hi , I'm currently writing an article about Sally Amis, sister of the writer, Martin Amis, both of whom were born in Uplands, Swansea. I was wondering if anyone who lives in the area would be willing to take a photograph of the house Sally was born in. It is 24 The Grove, Uplands, Swansea. There are no free images of Sally, her family, or her home, so it would be great to have something, if anyone lives near there and has the time. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

Greetings, all. A group of science fiction fans have taken offence at the fact that I dared to nominate an SF author for deletion (the result was "Keep") and one of them is now going through every article I've ever created and marking it with a notability tag. Naturally, a lot of these are Welsh-interest articles. If you watch any of these articles, maybe you can take appropriate action. Deb (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's just ridiculous. It seems that it's mostly been corrected for now, but let us know if there are any further developments. The spitefulness of some people really can't be overestimated I suppose.--Cúchullain t/c 20:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
No further developments as far as I can see, but there are some remaining issues: this IP, for instance, appears to have been on a brief tagging spree. Cavila (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I reverted some of those as unproductive, but a few of them do need better sources. Of course, blanket tagging is a very poor way of going about this.--Cúchullain t/c 12:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Mmm, if only that had been the purpose of the exercise. Deb (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Year in Wales - new template

Someone has very kindly created a new template and has already introduced it into all the Year in Wales articles. Please give your views. Deb (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Locator map used on Welsh placename articles

There is a discussion ongoing about which Locator map is used on Welsh placename articles at Template talk:Infobox UK place. This has implications for every article using the UK place template (which is nearly all placename articles). Please add your comments and indicate a preference between the options. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Aberdaron

Aberdaron was rated a good article on 7 November 2010. Many thanks to everyone who helped it through the assessment process! Skinsmoke (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wales Good Article review: Introduction

The Wales article has been through the Good Article review process (here). All outstanding issues have been addressed. One of those issues is that the introduction, as it stands, would fail the review. A new introduction has been suggested (here: User:Daicaregos/sandbox) and has been favouably received. Before it replaces the current version, would interested editors please make any suggestions, amendments or improvements at Talk:Wales#Lead section. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales, Bristol, 13 January 2011

If anyone is interested, Jimmy Wales will be in Bristol on 13 January. More details here. I think that his talk is booked up, but there are meet-up plans being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bristol. I'm sure that editors from the Cymric side of the bridge will be made welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Welsh Argentine or Y Wladfa

A proposal has been made to rename the article Welsh Argentine as Y Wladfa. The article is about the Welsh settlement in the Chabut province of Patagonia, Argentina, known as Y Wladfa. The article's introduction was changed on 9 July 2010 from being about the settlement to say it was about the people who settled there. However, the focus of the article remains on the settlement, rather than on the settlers; only the introduction was changed. I propose the introduction be reverted to note the article's focus, and that the article be renamed "Y Wladfa", which is how the Welsh settlement in Argentina is known. Please note your views on the proposal here. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Whilst I understand the sentiments, I am concious that this is the English Wikipedia and that it is extremely unlikely that most visitors here would know to search for "Y Wladfa" (let alone spell it). I think it is fine on the Wicipedia Cymraeg but I have always taken a general presumption against Welsh names here, not from any linguistic concerns , but simply because of the utility of this site as an encyclopaedia for the English speaking world. Where Ordnance Survey lists Welsh names as equal with English I am happy to use the Welsh name (as I did when creating Ynys Llanddwyn). In this case we don't have such a neat guide as Ordnance survey.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm the one who rewrote the intro; I did this after the page had been moved to "Welsh Argentine" but no other cleanup was done. I'll comment at the talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 14:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Although I wrote "Please note your views on the proposal here", the "here" in question is Talk:Welsh Argentine#Requested move. Sorry for any confusion. Daicaregos (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

2011

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Welsh_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_2&oldid=1137397318"