Talk:Caernarfon

Spelling

Why is an English encyclopedia using Welsh spelling? Do the Welsh undertake to adopt English spellings? This is nonsense. Avalon 10:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"Caernarfon" is the official spelling in English, and has been since about 1970. -- Arwel 12:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I simply reject the notion that "official" or any other version of English has to adapt itself to the names other languages use for things, including cities. Beijing, Chennai, & Caernarfon are examples of English twisting itself inside out so as not to cause offence. English speakers however, do not take offence at the French calling London - Londres. It's nonsense.

Ah, but since Wales and England are both parts of the UK, and the official UK name for the place is "Caernarfon", that's a little bit different: "Caernarfon" is the right way to spell it, anything else is wrong. On the other hand, there is no official EU name for London, so if the French want to call it something else, it's their prerogative, even if it is technically wrong. Finally (and this goes for the London/Londres thing as well), it's just a matter of courtesy to call someone (or some place) by the name they've chosen for themselves. As you've posted anonymously, I don't know your name, but let's say it's "John". If I just arbitrarily decided to call you "Juan" (a translation) or "Johnny" (a nickname) instead of "John", mightn't you consider that a little rude? —Ryan McDaniel 18:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Currently the aricle says "(the Welsh spelling is now always used in preference to the anglicised forms, "Caernarvon" or "Carnarvon")". A quick google search will reveal that some people are using Caernarvon or Carnarvon for up-to-date stuff like booking holidays, posting their photos to the web etc (and yes I have checked that these links are not refering to places in the USA or Australia). Accordingly I have changed the wording to "(the Welsh spelling is sometimes used in preference to the anglicised forms, "Caernarvon" or "Carnarvon")". Greenshed 00:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than revert the edit I've replaced it with "(the original Welsh spelling is now almost always used in preference to the anglicised forms, "Caernarvon" or "Carnarvon")". To say "sometimes used" implies that it is the exception rather than the norm; that is certainly not the case in Wales, just the opposite. Caernarfon is a Welsh town with a Welsh name and that Welsh name's Welsh spelling is now the official name; why is that so hard for some people to accept? Enaidmawr 01:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to dispute the claim that "Carnarvon" is ever used to spell the name of the Welsh town contemporaneously. A Google search for "Carnarvon" shows up just over 2 million pages. Excluding "Australia" and "South Africa" bring it down to just over 600,000. An examination shows that the first few pages relate either to the aristocratic title, historic records from the nineteenth century, other residual pages relating to places in Australia and South Africa, various "HMS Carnarvon"s, Carnarvon Primary School, Nottinghamshire, a Carnarvon family, etc. Quite simply, anybody who nowadays spells the name of the Welsh town as "Carnarvon" is just plain wrong. -- Arwel (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I should like to say that I dispute that the spelling "Caernarfon" is "ever" used by anyone who is not(a)Welsh or (b) some sort of bureaucrat to whom UK officialese is more important that the English language. But of course, my basis for saying that would probably not stand much scrutiny - how about you? I do believe that several people have missed the point - the dispute is not a) how Welsh people spell it, or b) how some faceless UK bureaucrat decided the "official" placename should be spelled - it's how the word is spelled in the English language by most users of the language. That's what Wikipedia should use - and that's why, when I search for Rome or Venice or Moscow, I get what I expect from an English language encyclopaedia (although, oddly, Leghorn results in a redirect to Livorno). And, no, I don't accept that at some time around 1970 (or any other time) I suddenly became just plain "wrong" to continue to use the spelling I used before that date. 139.163.138.14 02:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Usual nonsense of the English language bending over backwards to accomodate non-English names... can the Welsh name Llundain now be abolished then, seeing as the English capital city name is 'London'?

Much of this discussion misses the point, in my view. English-speaking countries do not have an academy of language, as France or Spain do, and there is no such thing as an "official" spelling of names or anything else. Governments do have their own internal conventions on the use of English: for example, a British civil servant will always use a plural verb after the word "Government" since this is thought best to reflect the principle of cabinet responsibility. But authors and editors are free to write as they wish (hence for example the "Oxford" use of verbs ending in "-ize" rather than "-ise", generally the preferred form in British English). There is a vigorous debate about whether grammar, and by analogy other usage, ought to be prescriptive or descriptive; but for many years now the descriptivists have been in the lead, and accordingly usage rather than the whim of authority is generally regarded as the best guide, as it is in Wikipedia policies. Just as we do not call Munich "München" or Rome "Roma", so we should call this town "Caernavon" when we are writing English (er basen ni'n defnyddio "Caernafon", tasen ni'n ysgrifennu yng Nghymraeg). Diomedea Exulans (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Red dot

This article has a wonky red dot. Could someone sort it out? If you work out how, the Bangor, Wales article has a similar problem SP-KP 18:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine to me in Firefox 1.5, Opera 8.5, Safari 2.0 and IE 6.0. Owain 19:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Both are misplaced for me, too -- it appears just below the center of the title of the article, nowhere near the map. Mozilla 1.1 on Yellow Dog Linux on a Macintosh laptop. Same for Bangor, Wales. -- Mareklug ^talk 00:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Capital

We should probably mention Caernarfon's (lapsed) claims to be capital of Wales - according to this 1955 times article I'm reading it had made a formal claim in 1951. Morwen - Talk 11:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Twin Town

The twin town of Caernarfon is Landernau. Landernau is situated in Brittany, France.

Reverted Vandal NoelWalley 16:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Town walls

Why is there nothing about the town walls? Like the castle, they are a remarkable medieval structure, and have contibuted to Caernarfon's status as World Heritage Site. Moreover, they have considerable affected the history and development of the town, as well as the culture (eg. for a time, no Welshman could live within the walls). To understand the town, you must understand the walls. Gwinva 10:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added a brief mention to the "Landmarks" section, with a link to the main article. Alansplodge (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have proposed the merge since the contents of the article (Carnarvon) don't, in my opinion, justify an article page of it's own although perhaps there should be a disambiguation page for the lists. --92.237.94.9 (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree. The page is not in fact an article but a disambiguation page. Furthermore it is not clear that all the examples of Carnarvon/Caernarvon found there derive from the name of the town, although it would seem that most do. There are a lot of names there, places, people and other things: how would they fit in this article? It makes no sense and is contrary to wikipedia usage. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Carnarvon is a disambiguation page and clearly labelled as such. I can't discern a valid reason for merging a disambiguation page into this article, either in the nominator's proposal, or in any actual policies or guidelines. As Enaidmawr has said 'It makes no sense and is contrary to wikipedia usage'. I suspect with the comment 'perhaps there should be a disambiguation page for the lists' the nominator has not understood that the Carnarvon page is already a disambiguation one. Unless an actual reason can be given why a well developed and stocked disambiguation page needs to be merged into the primary usage one, I suggest this proposal be quickly declined. Benea (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Cofi use of "cont"

Surely something should be said about this interesting linguistic anomaly --Sion Derfel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.32.174 (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Phone Code

A large number of websites contain an incorrect spelling duplicating an error present in Ofcom's (previously Oftel) UK area code list for the last decade. 01286 was listed as Caernarvon in the official UK area code list and only recently corrected to Caernarfon, see their Errata. 212.139.105.91 (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Maes

It would be useful to include the Welsh and English pronunciations of Maes.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Royal Town of Caernarfon

This phrase has since been added prominently to the first sentence of the lead by @A.D.Hope, I believe to be consistent with English places that also have the royal patronage but is "Royal Town of Caernarfon" the actual legal title or merely a descriptor? I see mixed use on its capitalisation,[1][2][3][4][5] which indicates to me it is a descriptor, plus one not always used. Would prefer "Caernarfon (also known as the Royal Town of Caernarfon, historically anglicised as Carnarvon and Caernarvon) is a royal town, community and port.", although the parenthesis kinda clutters the lead and it can be just in the infobox. Coflein describes it as the "status of royal town" rather than a title,[6] and the council uses "Caernarfon Royal Town" in their name.[7]

Plus the other royal town Sutton Coldfield starts with that. Happy to be disproven. DankJae 13:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

'Royal Town of Caernarfon' is the form used in legislation (example 1, example 2), so I assume it's the official name. The town council rearrange it slightly to 'Caernarfon Royal Town', but I'm inclined to follow the legislation. I did think that the article referenced at least one piece of legislation which referred to the town in this way, but I've had a second look and I must have been mistaken.

In general I prefer the official name, then the common name, then any other names. Particularly in this case, where the official name is rarely used, '[X], commonly known as [Y]' strikes me as clearer to readers than '[Y], (also known as [X])', which could imply that 'Royal Town' is used more than it is.

In terms of lead clutter, I did wonder if 'Carnarvon' and 'Caernarvon' could be moved out of the lead and into 'Toponymy', but even though they've both dropped out of favour I appreciate that could still be controversial. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

That on the council though. And if we have to follow through it is like wording Cardiff to be “The City and County of Cardiff, commonly known as Cardiff”, which is very odd IMO. I rarely see legal names on settlements. DankJae 15:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

If you look at the list of place names with royal patronage in the United Kingdom (wordy title!), the common format is to use the full name first then clarify it if necessary (full disclosure, I rearranged Berkshire). Sutton Coldfield is the outlier. Personally I would flip Cardiff's lead so that the official name came first, but it's not especially important. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose Cardiff, and all those listed are districts not settlements. Settlements really do not have a legal name. E.g. Because Doncaster is now a city and its council is City of Doncaster it does not mean Doncaster should be “The City of Doncaster is a city in” etc. and I’m referring to the place not the district. DankJae 20:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing Cardiff. Leamington Spa, Sutton Coldfield, Tunbridge Wells, and Wootton Bassett are settlements; only Royal Tunbridge Wells shares its name with its district, but the district does not use the 'Royal' prefix.

For the record, districts in England are mostly not renamed 'City of [X] if they're awarded city status — I believe Hull is the only example. In the others the district council often renames itself, but the legal name of the district remains just 'Lancaster', 'Canterbury', etc.A.D.Hope (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

We can't exactly compare Caernarfon with Leamington Spa and Tunbridge Wells, they got merely a Royal prefix, and such name with "Royal" is used in secondary sources,[8][9] so it is essentially a rename. Only Sutton Coldfield is comparable. I rarely see the "Royal Town of Caernarfon" used and when it is, per above, sometimes it appears to be a description than any legal name.

RTW is kinda the opposite situation, the Royal is clearly evidenced for the settlement and not for the district. But here for Caernarfon, legally only the council is found to use the term, not clearly the settlement.

I compared to Doncaster as its council is known as "City of Doncaster", basing your argument for Caernarfon, that per the council name. But obviously it should just be "Doncaster" (for the settlement). A better example may be like Newcastle upon Tyne, per this act, but its lead should obviously just be the settlement name not The "City of Newcastle upon Tyne, commonly known as Newcastle upon Tyne or just Newcastle is a etc".

Ofc, if there is a source stating "Royal Town of Caernarfon" is the settlement's name not just for the council or a descriptor, then this would be fine, and accept it. But with patchy use and lack of such source, I believe it is merely a descriptor, and at least to the average reader not really necessary.

If you wish for official names to take primacy in settlement leads, be free to raise it at the projects. Regards DankJae 20:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. Unfortunately I can't find the actual letters patent issued in 1974, but the letters patent granted to Wootton Bassett state that it should be 'called and styled Royal Wootton Bassett' and probably reflect the style used for Caernarfon. In addition, Sutton Coldfield's 1528 charter apparently states: 'the same town and village shall for ever hereafter be accounted, named and called, The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield, in our County of Warwick.' This contrasts with the letters patent issued to cities, which only state that city status has been conferred and don't explicitly rename a place.

So, although the primary evidence is missing I think it's fair to assume that Caernarfon's full name is 'The Royal Town of Caernarfon'. It's also obvious that this name is largely confined to some official usages, such as by the town council, legislation, and the appointment of the castle constable. Still, it is a name of the settlement.

To me the simplest way to include this in the lead is in the form "The Royal Town of Caernarfon, commonly known as Caernarfon." Swapping the order means you need to think of an appropriate form of words, and an adverb like 'officially' won't do when the town is just 'Caernarfon' for many official purposes. We could just bung it in the infobox and hope for the best, I suppose. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Still don't think we should give prominence in the lead on an assumption, that can narrowly refer to the council, and one of no real significance to readers. Having it only in the infobox had worked for years? Plus WP:UKTOWNS prefers common names if in doubt, which I am, and "official names" not in common use are rare in settlement leads? DankJae 22:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

But infoboxes should be summaries of the text. It could be in the infobox and main text and need not be in the lead, but shouldn't really only be in the infobox. It is useful information for the main. I have no strong feelings about mention in the lead, but do think that per the MOS, the lead should start with Caernarfon, which is clearly the COMMONNAME. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

MOS:LEADSENTENCE isn't much help. The most relevant section is:

When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including plural forms (particularly if they are unusual or confusing) or synonyms.

It then gives the example of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain"

That means "The Royal Town of Caernarfon, commonly known as Caernarfon" is a justifiable format for the lead sentence, but 'may' doesn't mean 'must' so we certainly don't have to mention the royal town so early. A.D.Hope (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)