Talk:Cardigan, Ceredigion

Wales Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Removed text

At present, a development including a new Tesco store, cottage hospital, housing, and various other possibilites has been given the go-ahead for development at the bath house site. It is a well known fact that this is to the dismay of the vast majority of Cardigan residents, as it will undoubtedly pose many problems with the currently congested traffic system. The only access points are (i) the original Bathhouse access at lower Mwldan, which had extreme congestion problems a number of years back before a manufacturing plant was closed down at this location. Exiting from this point can only result in entering the main oneway system at a give way point on an to 'Gwbert road', where all traffic will certainly pass the county school, rugby and bowling club, before coming to a T-juntion, at which point traffic will have to give way. Parking is commonplace on the sides of these roads, especially on weekends when much attended games very regurlarly take place at the rugby club. These include coaches which can't easily enter the rugby club parking site at present, and flow very often has to revert to one way to allow some kind of progression. A further problem is that any traffic reaching the junction, i.e. all HGVs visiting the site, have to turn left to travel towards Aberaeron/Aberystwyth, or right for Carmarthen, M4 and onwards. Obviously, the vast majority of these will be for the Carmarhen direction, and a right turn is the only option due to the fact that the current bypass system has been disabled for many years, only allowing north travel upon entering at the current tesco junction. An issue with the right turn is that it can only lead to a tight 90 degree turn which has had numerable problems with jammed vehicles in the past, which weren't necessarily articulated. Obviously, the development has the possibilty of having a very profound positive effect on Cardigan. Currently the development of the town has reached a bit of a stagnation, with alot of the private stores failing to return to any kind of viable trading after the arrival of the original Tesco store. There have been a few succeses, mostly neiche stores, which do point toward a possible bright future for Cardigan. If this development is to prove fruitfull for Cardigan, it's location needs to represent the distinctly "out of town" experience which it clearly will turn out to be, locating it close to town will only further destroy the market town centre experience which has only just managed to start to flower once more. I have --135.196.105.74 15:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)--135.196.105.74 15:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)removed the following, under the title 'Current Affairs':[reply]

At present, a development including a new Tesco store, cottage hospital, housing, and various other possibilites has been given the go-ahead for development at the bath house site. It is a well known fact that this is to the dismay of the vast majority of Cardigan residents, as it will undoubtedly pose many problems with the currently congested traffic system. The only access points are (i) the original Bathhouse access at lower Mwldan, which had extreme congestion problems a number of years back before a manufacturing plant was closed down at this location. Exiting from this point can only result in entering the main oneway system at a give way point on an to 'Gwbert road', where all traffic will certainly pass the county school, rugby and bowling club, before coming to a T-juntion, at which point traffic will have to give way. Parking is commonplace on the sides of these roads, especially on weekends when much attended games very regurlarly take place at the rugby club. These include coaches which can't easily enter the rugby club parking site at present, and flow very often has to revert to one way to allow some kind of progression. A further problem is that any traffic reaching the junction, i.e. all HGVs visiting the site, have to turn left to travel towards Aberaeron/Aberystwyth, or right for Carmarthen, M4 and onwards. Obviously, the vast majority of these will be for the Carmarhen direction, and a right turn is the only option due to the fact that the current bypass system has been disabled for many years, only allowing north travel upon entering at the current tesco junction. An issue with the right turn is that it can only lead to a tight 90 degree turn which has had numerable problems with jammed vehicles in the past, which weren't necessarily articulated. Obviously, the development has the possibilty of having a very profound positive effect on Cardigan. Currently the development of the town has reached a bit of a stagnation, with alot of the private stores failing to return to any kind of viable trading after the arrival of the original Tesco store. There have been a few succeses, mostly neiche stores, which do point toward a possible bright future for Cardigan. If this development is to prove fruitfull for Cardigan, it's location needs to represent the distinctly "out of town" experience which it clearly will turn out to be, locating it close to town will only further destroy the market town centre experience which has only just managed to start to flower once more.

together with inline comments by a subsequent editor, due to its style, spelling, lack of citations, and contientious issues labelled as fact (e.g. the bits in bolded above). Essentially it sounds like an op-ed of the Tivy-Side. Gareth 15:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Predominantly Welsh speaking community

70% of the community can speak or understand Welsh. Only 48% (a minority) can speak, read and write Welsh. No figure is given for the number who actually do speak Welsh for everyday purposes. Surely a "predominantly Welsh speaking" community would be one in which the majority are both fluent and use Welsh in preference to English most of the time. Is this true of Cardigan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymrevington (talk • contribs) 14:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture formatting

Would like to be able to include the picture to the right but am having issues with formatting. Ideally it should go on the left of an expanded castle section. Jprw (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to FruitMonkey for resolving the problem. Jprw (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St Mary's and the priory

There seems to be some confusion about the church. Was it part of the priory, or is it separate, ecclesiastically? The picture of the church is Wikilinked to the priory's article. Tony Holkham (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be an error since the priory's estate was privatized and housed Orinda in the 17th century while the church kept operating. —

Llywelyn II

14:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Wales vs. South Wales

I'm being slightly picky here, but Cardigan is in mid-Wales (sometimes West Wales), yet in the History section it's referred to having been the most important port in South Wales. Is this a contradiction? Tony Holkham (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cardigan, Ceredigion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listed buildings in Cardigan

The section on listed buildings in Cardigan states there are eight grade II and one grade II*. This is wrong, by a large margin. It is the result of the query used on the British Listed Buildings site, which returns ten buildings with Cardigan in their name (some of them in England).

The correct link is https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/wales/cardigan-ceredigion which returns one hundred and three buildings. Seven of those are outside the town itself, but that still leaves ninety-six listed buildings.

There are three scheduled monuments within the town, which can be found with https://ancientmonuments.uk/search/?q=cardigan (the bridge is both a listed building and a scheduled monument). --Brian de Ford (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated for listed buildings. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, kind sir. Brian de Ford (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geography section

I intend to add a Geography section and move material into it. I will add an In Use hatnote whilst so doing. Comments please first?SovalValtos (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]SovalValtos (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The town itself probably doesn't warrant a geography section, but the community probably does, as it has some unusual geographical features. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the content I had in mind to move into Geography was Climate, some of Road, and the River. But History and Geog overlap, so without support I will leave it alone. I find the settlement article [2] a good guide. SovalValtos (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was supporting, as the article is about the community (which possibly also needs its own section?) as well as the town. Topography could be included under geography. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean something similar to this? Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tony Holkham I was a bit muddled earlier thinking that you had implied there was a separate article on the community and this just about the town. I see now that was not the case. It could be that some might argue there should be separate articles, but not me at present. As I now see it the article is about all of the area within the community including the town. The OS site [3] is a good guide to the boundary. One needs to check 'Civil Parishes or Communities' and then zoom in. I cannot find how to link the result. Meanwhile a cautious first step would be to add the heading Geography and put the Climate material under it. We can then look forward to seeing the material on "unusual geographical features".

User:Gareth Griffith-Jones I do not think the Newport, Wales article is a good guide as Newport is a city and unitary authority area with communities within it.SovalValtos (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 June 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved; WP:PLACEDAB and past similar RMs have evolved the precedent that disambiguation by principal area is the appropriate method, for which there is no consensus to move away from here. Sceptre (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cardigan, Ceredigion → Cardigan, Wales – While I appreciate the current title is geographically correct, I think per WP:COMMONNAME, somebody unfamiliar with Welsh geography would be more likely to think of "Cardigan, the place in Wales, not the item of clothing etc", and there are no other Cardigans in Wales. The reference to Newport, Wales brings up another point about county arguments - part of the confusion is that the town has a legal English name, but the county doesn't, and "Cardiganshire" is archaic and not suitable. And that's before you bring Dyfed into the conversation. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per WP:PLACEDAB: Ambiguous place names within the United Kingdom should generally use the county as the disambiguator. Cardigan, Wales already redirects here, so it all looks fine to me. 162 etc. (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But Newport, Wales doesn't, and there is also a Newport, Pembrokeshire. So that can't be right. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newport, Wales is indeed an exception to the rule. You can read up on how that title came to be at Talk:Newport, Wales. Essentially, there was no consensus disambiguator since Newport is its own principal area. 162 etc. (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support for WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the argument of 162 etc. Disambiguation by county is enough in cases like this. Dimadick (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support unlike with Talk:Bangor, Gwynedd#Requested move 18 December 2020 there is some overlap with the town and principal area name but with Talk:Flint, Flintshire#Requested move 8 July 2015 and Talk:Pembroke, Pembrokeshire#Requested move 16 November 2015 this failed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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