Talk:Wales

Wales Country or Nation

I have researched this question and find that The ISO 3166 standard does not list Wales as a country. ref www.guavastudios.com/country-list.htm. However they do list it as a Nation on its Nationality list ref www.guavastudios.com/country-list.htm I have therefore added Country and Nation where appropriate. The 10 Downing street website lists Wales as a Country but what do they know? Canol (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a big discussion going on below where we will try and achieve consensus. Your arguments & sources are pretty laughable and I would even be in your way of thinking. Look below and see what is being discussed. Please do not revert edits made against you for the time being.Wikipéire (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

its own king

scotland used to have its own soverighn and so did ireland but now they are both ruled by the queen of england i see that the queen of england now rules whales but did wales ever have it's own soverign? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlieh7337 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The last independent "Tywysog Cymru" (means "Leader of Wales", but was translated as "Prince" to make the English king sound superior) was Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, killed in 1282. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EamonnPKeane (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To User:Charlieh7337 there is no Queen of England and hasnt been since 1707 Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and 15 other sovereign countries. Penrithguy (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Also to Charlieh7337, Ireland has been independent of the UK for the last 86 years in case you haven't noticed, and so it is not ruled by the cf. "queen of england" (even though such a woman doesn't exist). Yes, the Queen of the United Kingdom still is head of state in Northern Ireland, but the head of state of Ireland happens to be President Mary McAleese. It may be a simple slip of the fingers on your part, but such mistakes can offend quite a lot of people. Dennisc24 (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the use of the title prince (twysog) was used to make Welsh rulers inferrior to English kings. The Scottish king was simularily a vassel of the English king for hundreds of years, in the middle ages... yet continued to use the title king. the use of the title prince reflects more osolating use of titles in relation to power and authority and statehood. Prince by defination is a ruler and used in a generic sence to describe a multitude of rulers, from kings to strong dukes and grand dukes. In Wales it simply was the use of Prince that evolved. According to historian Dr. John Davies it was Owain Gwynedd (1100-1170) of the Aberffraw line who was the first Welsh ruler to use the title princeps Wallensium (prince of the Welsh), "a title of substance given his victory on the Berwyn Mountains". A title Owain's grandson Llywelyn the Great would aspire to in 1216 when he received the fealty of the other Welsh lords.Drachenfyre (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Prince of Wales and Welsh

Does the Prince of Wales speak Welsh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.134.203 (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.88.83 (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not very well, but he was the first to learn any at all EamonnPKeane (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The first what? Surely not the first Prince of Wales to speak it: wouldn't Llywelyn ab Iorwerth have spoken it? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Coat of Arms or Royal Badge in the infobox?

The infobox shows the roayl badge now (23/I/08). Given that the article on Wales' coat of arms contains the four lions under the heading 'coat of arms' and the royal badge under that heading, is it not better to have some coherence? Similarly, i seem to recall Lord Elis-Tomos calling last April(ish) for the Assembly to have a coat of Arms. If this does happen, should it be included as the 'official' coat of amrs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.16.28 (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Per the second point... if the Assembly adopts a Coat of Arms it would be for the Assembly and Assembly government... not necessarily for Wales unless the language in the patent states that. I would hope the nation of Wales would adopt the historic coat of arms of Llywelyn the Great personally, but that is neither here nor there. Drachenfyre (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I also would like to see the nation of Wales adopt the historic coat of arms or Llywelyn the Great. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Gallery changes

I made a few changes to the gallery, to give a wider spread of themes and locations. Hope it meets with approval.

Before

• 
  Nantclwyd-y-dre, Ruthin, thought to be the oldest town house in Wales
• 
  Hall of the Mountain Kings, Ogof Craig a Ffynnon, a cave in the Brecon Beacons
• 
  Llanddwyn Island old lighthouse with Gwynedd in background.
• 
  The University of Wales, Lampeter, the oldest higher education institution in Wales
• 
  Rhossili down and Rhossili Bay, Gower Peninsula, Swansea
• 
  Penclawdd, Gower Peninsula
• 
  Llyn Cowlyd, Gwynedd
• 
  Part of the Brecon Beacons, looking from the highest point Pen y Fan.
• 
  Marloes peninsula, Pembrokeshire coast
• 
  Sugar Loaf mountain, Monmouthshire

After

• 
  Nantclwyd-y-dre, Ruthin, thought to be the oldest town house in Wales
• 
  Hall of the Mountain Kings, Ogof Craig a Ffynnon, a cave in the Brecon Beacons
• 
  Llanddwyn Island old lighthouse with Gwynedd in background.
• 
  The University of Wales, Lampeter, the oldest higher education institution in Wales
• 
  Rhossili down and Rhossili Bay, Gower Peninsula, Swansea
• 
  Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
• 
  Steelworks, Port Talbot
• 
  National Eisteddfod of Wales, 2007
• 
  Part of the Brecon Beacons, looking from the highest point Pen y Fan.
• 
  Aberaeron, Harbour
• 
  Marloes peninsula, Pembrokeshire coast
• 
  Snowdon, highest mountain in Wales

— Alan^✉ 08:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I laugh aloud!

"Wales is closely, but far from completely"

As a non-Welsh nor British person, I find that line funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.193.228 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Scotland straw poll

A straw poll has opened at this section of the Scotland talk page regarding the use of the term "nation" to describe Scotland in the introduction of that article. To capture a representative result as possible, you are invited to pass your opinion there. If joining the poll, please keep a cool head, and remain civil. -MichiganCharms (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a seperate country

Ok, for who ever put that quote on the Wales page, Wales in NOT part of England. It is a seperate country, which is land locked with England. Vitual aelita (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a country

Country can ether mean a soverien state or a nation. It's not a soverien state because it's not independent, and its not a nation because not everyone there would share the same identity. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Most people would recognise Wales as a 'country', and most people would accept that 'country' is an ambiguous term. My Dictionary of Human Geography defines a country as "any political unit or state on a national scale, regardless of whether it is independent. The Wikipedia article Country states "In political geography and international politics, a country is a political division of a geographical entity, a sovereign territory, most commonly associated with the notions of state or nation and government. In common usage, the term is used casually in the sense of both "nation" (a cultural entity) and "state" (a political entity). Definitions may vary. It is sometimes used to refer to both states and some other political entities. Pondle (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this is an example of an official use of the term 'country' to describe Wales... Explanatory Notes to Waste And Emissions Trading Act 2003 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/en/ukpgaen_20030033_en_1 Pondle (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In French the countryhood of the place is enshrined in its name: Pays des Galles. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already explaned why it fits nether definition. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, and two other users have already explained why your opinion is open to debate. Restating your argument doesn't make you right - Pondle in particular stated the issues at hand quite well. Moreover, your particular interpretation of the concept of 'nation' is rather questionable. By your definition of a nation (somewhere where "everyone there would share the same identity") places such as England, Australia and the US would not fit the definition of a 'nation', and therefore a 'country'. Of course, not everyone in Wales would identify with a normative Welsh cultural identity, but such an identity exists, and many people relate to it and its connection with the land of Wales. Rob Lindsey (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• You explained why it doesn't fit your definitions. Those who disagree with them will find irrelevant your explanations of why Wales doesn't fit them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This debate is pointless. The lead already states that Wales is a Constituent country, and the wikilinked article clearly defines what this is (i.e. a country which forms part of a larger entity, such as the UK). There's no point going over what has already been discussed on this and other British country articles. Bettia ^(talk) 09:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Pondle, it is not on a national scale because it is not a nation. The government of the UK is biased to wether Wales is a country. It says what the Welsh want to think. Rob Lindsy, none of the places you listed are nations but Australia and the USA are countries because they are independent states. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument put forward by user 122.105.217.71 has been repeated on the talk pages of the other constituent countries of the UK. Argue the case against, with cites, on the talk page for Constituent Countries and if successful there, delete the link here Alastairward (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing anything that the constituent country article says which is why im discussing this on the Wales article. And the reson i put it on the talk pages "of the other constituent countries of the UK" is so it has the max chance of being notised. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Getting sick of this. Yes, you are disputing the definitions forwarded in the Constituent Countries article, because you are insisting that a country must be independent - you have not cited anything to make us believe that your definitions are notable or preferable alternatives. Bettia and Alastair are right - if Wikipedia must have this rather unproductive discussion, bring it up on the Constituent Countries talk page with citations. Rob Lindsey (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong for two resons. The 1st one is that im not insisting that a country must be independent. A country can be a nation. The second thing is that my definition (which is actuly wikipedia's) does not contradict the definition on the constituent country article. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• I find your assertion that "Wales is not a country because it is not a nation" vaguely ridiculous. A nation is just as ambiguous a concept as a country. Benedict Anderson called a nation "an imagined community". Ernest Gellner said that a nation was defined by people sharing aspects of the same culture and recognising themselves as members of the same nation. The Wikipedia article states that "a nation is a form of self-defined cultural and social community". 67% of adults in Wales identify as being Welsh - see p.51 [1] That's good enough for me. Pondle (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I see two problems with your statement. First, your definition of country as being either a sovereign state or a nation is just your definition. The term 'country' is in general underdefined. As I understand it, there is no official international statement anywhere that defines the term clearly. If there were, we could at least make a stab at saying that Wales is (or is not) a country 'as the UN defines country' or whatever. Even then, of course, that wouldn't mean Wales wasn't a country; it would only mean it wasn't a country according to one particular definition. We already know that the British government refers to Wales as a country, for example. Second, you claim that Wales cannot be a country because 'its not a nation because not everyone there would share the same identity'. But under that definition, no country on earth is a nation. Pondle puts it well. But let's put the question another way: if Scotland and England are countries, so is Wales. If Wales is not, then neither are the other two (I'll leave Northern Ireland out of it, as I want to avoid inevitable disputes about the extent to which it's part of Ireland etc). Now, the British government describes them all as countries, as do (I believe) most members of the British population. This, I would guess, is based on a multitude of factors: history, independent entry into international sporting championships, separate cultural identity, language, and so on. So 'country' is a tricky concept, underdefined and understood differently by different people. To attempt to impose one particular strict definition on it without any obvious official backing seems to me to be entering very muddy waters indeed. Here's my suggestion: if we need to justify calling it a country, use the UK govermnent website. If anyone can find some sort of UN definition of what constitutes a 'country', then we can include that as well for contrast. garik (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This debate reminds me of the 2001 census, which was wholely biased in terms of the nationality question... which goes to the heart of the issue imo. The census questions were designed in such a way that in Scotland and Ireland residents there could check a tick-box describing themselves as of Scottish or Irish nationality. However, respondents in Wales only had the option to check a box describing themselves as white-British.... and had to take further steps to describe themselves as of Welsh nationality. Overwealmingly respondants in Scotland and Northern Ireland checked that they were Scottish or Irish and not white-British. Critics expect Welsh residents would have responded in a simular manner. However, without a simular option for Welsh respondants as many as one-third replied that they were British. The government was biased in that they designed the questions to elicit a response inwhich the majority of respondants in Wales and England would respond as though they were British (in the absence of any other tick-box options).... inflating the results. A caveot: Respondants in England were not given the option to descibe themselves as English either and responded that they were British. For context, the census was conducted in the middle of the foot and mouth crisis, which post-poned the 01 UK general election but census authorities said did not effect the results.Drachenfyre (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

From my persepctive, Wales and the Welsh qualify as both a nation and a country.... but not a soverign nation-state.Drachenfyre (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussions opened by 122.105.217.71

An identical discussion doubting the "country" likeness has been opened by the same anonymous 122.105.217.71 for talk:Wales#It is not a Country, talk:England#It is not a Country, talk:Northern Ireland#It is not a Country as well as talk:Scotland#It is not a Country. The focus has been on the "definition" according to the wiki article and has sparked extended debate. As the law of the UK clearly states these regions are countries I would strongly suggest to close it here, as no argument on Wikipedia is going to change UK law. Arnoutf (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The UK government doesn't have a neutral pont of view. It says what its population wants to think. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 08:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

the Map

Seeing as Scotland doesen't shade the rest of the UK on their map, should this article do the same? GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes they should be simular. The aritcal is about Wales... not the United Kingdom. However I do not know how to change the map. Drachenfyre (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously (as seen at Scotland), I've since changed my mind. I prefer a map showing Wales within the UK. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should the Wales article show Europe on a second map? Note every other constituent part of the UK doesn't. Or other European regions and provinces such as Leinster, Bavaria etc.

It should just show in the country of the UK. Someone says Wales is seen as independent is Brussels. Ridiculuous. This map should be removed immediately.Wikipéire (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because you call yourself Wikipeire does not give you paternalistic rights over the wikipedia and throwing aroun words like Ridiculous is hardly in the spirit of rational discussion. I said in my comment that Wales (and Scotland) now have their own Parliaments and representation in Brussels. If there are other regions within Europe (such as Catalonia) who acquire similar status then I think they would have similar rights. Leinster is unlikely to, Bavaria might. A European perspective is also less parochial. I like the two maps, and if we have one would prefer the European one. --Snowded (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bavaria doesn't, Catalonia doesn't, Scotland doesn't, England doesn't, Northern Ireland doesn't, andalucia doesn't etc. I made that change because Wikipedia should be consistent and not over glorify one particular area. Can you please justify why Wales should have a European map while every other single geographical and political simliar entities do not have this and only show them within the country. For example Andalucia is a autonomous community of Spain yet it doesn't have it. Only sovereign states have European maps. Why should Wales have it? Do not go on about how Wales is independent as its not, Wales's reprenstation internationally is through the United Kingdom. The map gives the false impression that Wales is independent, I feel it was some Welsh nationalist who put it there. There is no other good reason. There are many reason why it shouldn't be there. If there is a good reason for it remaining then fine, but in accoradance with every other page it should not be there.Wikipéire (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The map makes no claim to any kind about the political status of Wales. All it does is how where Wales is geographically located in the context of Europe and the World. This is useful and highly digestible information. It is not reasonable to assume that every reader knows where the UK is located. Locating Wales within the broader geographical context is useful and serves this article and Wikipedia well. I see no good reason to remove it. This claim that the map somehow "glorifies" Wales or implies it is an independent country is simply not credible. Stop assuming bad faith of other editors - there is zero evidence to support your claim that it was placed there by someone with a Welsh nationalist agenda. Its simply useful. Gwernol 16:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And there is no reason why they (Bavaria, Catalonia etc) shouldn't. I also suggest you stop throwing around accusations of nationalism and making assumptions of bad faith.. The change was discussed before it was made by the active editors on the page. While I think there is a good case to ensure a common template, that template should allow for a degree of variation. Allowing two maps is perfectly reasonable. To have that makes no special claim for Wales, it simply says that the editors on that page think that the second map adds value - I agree with Gwernol here. Your comments on "B class" etc are simply not helpful. Coming in and imposing excessive uniformity will just drive editors away from the page. There are two "votes" here (i) should two maps be allowed and (ii) if only one map which should it be. My vote goes for two maps, but if only one, then positioning Wales in Western Europe makes more sense. I'd suggest Scotland, England etc do the same thing but I don't plan to leap in and attempt to impose that view --Snowded (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is it useful? The 1st map already shows Wales and a large amount of Europe. The 2nd one is completely unnecessary and misleading. What does it do that so useful that the first one doesn't do? It shows North Western Europe and the UK. That is enough. Anything else is overkill. That is why every other similar article (I can name a 100) don't have this pointless second map.

The map is less than two weeks old and should not be there. I don't see consensus for its placement in the first place and in keeping with WikiProject UK geography and WikiProject United Kingdom it should be removed. There's a reason this article is B Class. Unneccesary things like this are holding it back. Looking at Scotland the second map hasn't been even mentioned and its under the GA category currently pushing to get featured. So again why is the Wales article any different from every other article? Wikipéire (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeire, your comment I feel it was some Welsh nationalist who put it there does'nt really help. First off, you have no idea what his/her politics are. Second, so what if they are a Welsh nationalist, are you saying a nationalist can't contribute to this article? If that's the case a fair number of Welsh people would be barred from this page. Oh, and third, I notice on your userpage you mention you are in favour of Scottish Indepedence. Does this mean every time you make an edit to the Scotland article someone can say "I feel it was some Scottish nationalist who put it there?" --Jack forbes (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Wales has sought to represent itself in Europe for a number of years, although not necessarily as a sovereign state. A few snippets from the BBC website [2] [3] [4] [5] show that there has been an 'office' representing Wales since 1991, and that the Assembly Government's activities in Brussels continue. The current Government's One Wales agreement states that We will enhance Wales’s role in key European organisations and networks such as the Committee of the Regions, the Regions with Legislative Power and the Conference of Peripheral & Maritime Regions. Plaid Cymru aim for Wales' full membership within the EU, but of course this has to be discussed carefully to maintain WP:NPOV.

I feel that Wales, as a political entity, seeks to represent itself in Europe, and has done so over a period when three of the four main political parties have been in power in the National Assembly. It is a fact, however, that Wales is not a sovereign state, and is not an independent member of the EU. Regardless of whether the second map is kept or not, I feel that some clarification of Wales' role in Europe should be added to the article.

With regard to the issue of the map, the most essential detail that I find is missing from the UK map (and present in the EU map) is Wales' location in relation the the world. If the EU map is removed (which I am not convinced it should), I feel that an inset should be added to the UK map to compensate for this. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The solution to this map problem is to change the colour of the Uk to something similar to Wales and distinguisable from the EU ie. similar to map 1. This will remove all potential confusion.Wikipéire (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing has happened with regards to the map yet. If there are no objections shall I change the colour of Wales and the UK?Wikipéire (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that is OK, provided the colours are distinct, if similar. It might be an idea to make a suggestion or two but I think that is a good solution (and we keep the two maps!) --Snowded (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

File:Wales Map EU2.png
Location of Wales (red)
in the UK (orange) & the European Union (camel)
Something like this ok?Wikipéire (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with that --Snowded (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Something amiss in Scotland

A conversation about the current maps used to represent the constituent countries has been started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Something_amiss_in_Scotland. This discussion is hopefully to resolve issues that have been raised and to try to set a standard within the UK. For all those that wish to comment on this, your input is requested. Thank-you :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Intro revisions

United Kingdoms, ect ect

Removed the ...of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as uncessary (and not disrespectfully). Short-hand United Kingdom is appropriate to denote the political state that Wales is in. I was also looking at the word count in this regard.Drachenfyre (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with this.Pondle (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Musicial Scenes and sporting venues

Reverted this back as we already used the verb distintive (distintive lititure) and traditions (old and new traditions in Eisteddfod festivals) so the use of these words are boring and inappropriate when used again in the same paragraph.Drachenfyre (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

'Vibrant' is a POV term describing musical scenes and sporting venues. It's also a strange adjective to apply to a venue, which is essentially just a place - some days it could be vibrant, other times it might be subdued! Shouldn't the actual sport be the important issue, rather than the venue? After all the link in the text is to Sport in Wales, not sporting venues in Wales. Pondle (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your points. The origional text was 'vibrant musical scense and dynamic sporting venues'. I was looking for a descriptive catch-all for all sports in Wales. Do you have another suggestion for rephrasing this?Drachenfyre (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to find any decent synonyms for "distinctive" that aren't POV or peacock words, or that don't sound boring. I suppose we could say characteristic/unique/separate/individual/specific sporting heritage/culture/customs. Just suggestions.Pondle (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Give me a bit to play with some options. Ill post here alternatives for this sentence for you to tell me what you think. If you play around with it also and come up with something post it here so I can see too. Drachenfyre (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I didnt mean to take so long with this, but was distracted with editing elsewhere. What about:

... vibrant music scene and engaging sporting events?

of

... vibrant music scene and energetic sporting events

Drachenfyre (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

'Cosmopolitian Cardiff'

Readded important media information. It is important as a significant employer in Cardiff, something distinctive for Wales as a whole. Edinburgh is noted on the Scotland page as a significant financial center. The use of the desciptive verb 'Cosmopolitian' is appropriate to distinguise the multi-cultural atmosphere of the city, where Welsh and English speakers and a whole varity of other language speakers and religous followers call home.Drachenfyre (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If we're writing an introduction for Wales, is the size of the media sector in Cardiff a 'first order' issue? Personally I don't think so, but that's just my two cents. Worthy of note, but I'd think it would make more sense further down the running order. I dislike the word 'cosmopolitan' because it's subjective and possibly tendentious. Besides, Cardiff is over 90% white - yes, more diverse than Newport or Swansea, but much more homogenous than most of the English Core Cities. Pondle (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position. I used the 'media center' of Cardiff as something immediatly distinctive about the city and a large employer.... in much the same way as Edinburgh is noted as a financial capital on the Scotland page. The word cosmopolitian is used in the context of multi-cultural within Wales... which it is. I feel it should stay as a discriptive term for the city.Drachenfyre (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Playing a significant role...

Why was Playing a significant role in the industrial revolution... removed for something bland? Did not Wales play a significant role in the industrial revolution? My impression that it was.Drachenfyre (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I originally changed this so it was less potentially controversial (some economic historians dispute the concept of an 'industrial revolution', stressing continuity with industrial activity before the 18th c. - e.g. mining, quarrying, woolens etc.) I should also say that some people stress the importance of consumer goods produced in factories as an essential characteristic of the Industrial Revolution - and Wales didn't play much role in this, it exported raw materials and bulk metals. However, on balance I think you're right to use the term 'significant', because Wales captured a major share of the British and world markets for coal, iron, copper etc in the 19th c. Pondle (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Info box map

Discussions afoot on the Scotland page about updating country maps... for myself I feel that we should have a map that displays Wales within northwest Europe... so that we see the country. lol. Its so small on the current map in my opinion. I think a map of NW Europe ... prehaps from the north coast of France to Scotland, from England to Ireland would be appropriate to give geographical context. Any comments?Drachenfyre (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there any comments on the use of the current map? For the map... I wished to use the standard style as common with outher maps... if this makes sense. And have it of the British Isles and the extream north of France. I think this is important for context.

On the map, I was hoping to have various contries in the British Isles and France (and Britany) listed... I dont mind the shading of the UK, with Wales highlighted... but think for consistancy we should have the same style of map as found on other nation pages. Also, the map of NW Europe (British Isles and N. France) should also have a small map in the lower right-side showing the British Isles within Europe as a whole. Can you help me find this kind of map?Drachenfyre (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that new map by UKPhoenix, it's been adopted by England and Northern Ireland (but currently being rejected by Scotland). -- GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the prior post.. I do like the map larger, as it is, but it should be rendered as close 'style' as the rest of the European countries are, even to the point of showing a smaller box of where in Europe the British Isles are. It simply looks more professional. Is this a map by Phoneix an origional creation? If it is so, and he can further modify the map to look as close as the other maps are, (and place Fance in there) then it would look more professionalDrachenfyre (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is all good - but could it go back to red? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 07:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No edit war on map please!

Please lets not get into edit wars on the map. Lets build concensus. Phoenix, can you alter your map to make it look more 'professional' as the other European maps? And post them here so that we can view them?Drachenfyre (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should show Wales in its context of North Western Europe, not the British Islands --Snowded (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry i didn't notice your message on my talk page. No I actually didn't create the version you original saw this page but I have actually created the one you see now Image:Uk map wales.png. I hope you all don't mind that I was WP:BOLD and added it myself. I really don't want to create any edit wars I just want to see what others think and hopefully bring this to a nice consensus on what to use. I hate the idea that other countries seam to be more organized then us with these things, so I hope you think the new one looks professional... I'm actually kinda pleased :-) Please voice your opinion over at Talk:Scotland#Straw_Poll I know I'd personally love to hear your opinions! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally do not mind the green shading. However for consistancy can we see a map using the same color scheme as the rest of the European contries? That is, camel for all nation rather then grey? And if you look at the other maps, they hint at rivers as well. and "deep waters" (with a darker blue), can we add the Severn, and other major rivers? Lastly, can we bring out the prespective some to include the coast of the Netherlands? You can crop the northern portion of the map off... the Shetlands... to fit the lowlands coast in. I think this may give a better prespective.Drachenfyre (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted like you and the other asked but you should know that most European countries actually have different colours than you suggest (see Image:Deutschland Lage von Bayern.svg Image:Italy Regions Sicily Map.png). I am happy with either one but I am more partial to the green.

I guess I have wowed you. I don't have the image necessary to create what you are asking for. I probably could do something with the Shetlands, as for everything else I would have to find another map that was significantly large enough to have enough detail that I could crop out what you are looking for... but I know of none currently. Don't forget that this is a map of how this territory fits in with the rest of the nation. Everything else would be too much detail for an info box image. You want to get as close as possible so you can show everything without loosing context of the nation, thats really all. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduction?

What does the introduction say about Wales? It mentions the seldom-used term "Principality", the Bristol Channel and the river Dee!! None of this really says anything and it's all in the first parag! I'll have a go at some point - I just needed to say that so I didn't have to shout at some bewildered passer by.

My god - it then has a history lesson in the next miin-parag! Christian monastic asceticism?--Matt Lewis (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you might want to discuss changes here first - the introduction has not been without controversy in the past. Some of the stuff (Bristol Channel and the Dee) is fairly conventional Wiki stuff. History is important, but it may need a different emphasis and some moving around. But as I say, I would discuss it here first --Snowded (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Definetly discuss beforehand. Historical context is important, as all nation pages make note of that. Striking the perfect balance is important too. 'Christian monastic asceticism' was very important to the developement of the Welsh nation, according to Dr. John Davies. The sentence is precise without going into too much other information. In point of fact, this is one of the most concise and complete introductions among the nation pages in my opinion. Additionally, the intro here has been too verbose historically. There are a few sentences that could be tightened up more, and we should be sure not make the introduction too verbose again, but by and large the introduction convays a very good summery of the history and context of the Welsh nation. Drachenfyre (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of tightening the intro, I removed extra non-use words, the sentences 'the remaining of the country remains rural' (as the preceeding sentence makes it clear where the concentrated settlement is), and the statement that Cardiff and the Vale make up 50% of the GDP... probably does but that needs sourcing.Drachenfyre (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

10 ideas on how to warm up this article

Bear in mind that sub-articles are far less read than the main articles - because people rightly assume the main stuff is at least covered in the main article. Also Wikipedia is meant ot be written for the "general reader" - and can cover all subjects in full (notability accepted). Sober stats and historical facts are not more important than cultural details, for example. I don't think this article has a good enough balance of content yet.

• Make the introduction cover what is important about Wales - more like a general tourism guide with some facts and figures included.
• Move the sections around to get a friendlier more inviting article. The England article is structured like this one certainly - but not all are. Geography can be above History, for example. And Wales is known for it's geography above its history.
• Make sections headings friendlier - I prefer 'Origin and history of the name' to 'Etymology' (like for France). Single word headings like Politics, Transport, Demography and subdivisions are very bland.
• Create a friendly introduction for History - it leads straight into the section heading 'Colonisation'.
• Use more sub-headings! We have 5 sizes to chose from. Should 'Law' be a top-level heading? Surely not. And 'Subdivisions' too?
• Create a friendly introduction for Culture - it begins with a Sport heading. Having only a "see also..." under 'Culture' is criminal (and is against WP guidelines too).
• Welsh People - this is only a "See also.." too. It needs a good couple of nicely-stuffed parags in here.
• I think emotive headings like "Nationalist revival" are usually best (and quite easily) avoided.
• Am I alone in wanting to see the 'area names' of my country on the main page? Why is information on the Queen and the "Preserved counties of Wales" on the main page - and our new counties on the sub page? The 5 cities needn't be a line-by-line list - the list should surely be our counties.
• The pics at the bottom are generally OK (though nothing particularly special on the whole) - I'd rather lose them and just see a couple more amongst the text, if it means having some section-introducing text. But I'd rather page size not be an issue at all - we have plenty of sub pages so nobody will get their wrists slapped if this goes over 100k - as so many important articles do. This is currently only 76K anyway - not exactly huge for a country! (England is 101K by the way).

I'm decent enough at WP-friendly prose and will be giving some (if not most...) of this a go. I just wanted to get it all up front. What does anyone think?

woops - Mr unsigned (is mr beforehand) --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Who are you Mr Unsigned? Hehe. Generally I agree. Lets get to it! I do not like 'bland' section headers either. Shall I write up an outline or shall you? Currently today I am spending time on Gwynedd and the PoW pagesDrachenfyre (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit note I like 'Etymology' rather then the other more verbose title in this regard. But am open to suggestions. I do not think 'Nationalist revival' is too emotive of a section heading, especially now that Plaid is in government, but am open for suggestions. Drachenfyre (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest an outline here firstand get agreement before we get into edit wars and revisit some recent debates. --Snowded (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Snowded. Before complete section revisions we should start with an outline. Prehaps 'section captains' that can direct the specific topics?Drachenfyre (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don'd mind putting prose through here first. I'll try some of the other stuff straight on the main page though. I'll might be inclined to let go of 'Nationalist revival' if the page looks warmer - lets see how it looks. Before doing any intros I'm going to tinker with a few headings. If we get them right we could then look at sections. (I want to do the one with the counties in first - I'm dying to get them back in there. I'll put it up in here first). --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets work on the intro here to avoid edit wars. Look forward to it!Drachenfyre (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all the prose, but I've just given the headings a go - please bear in mind what we can do when we go over the prose. It's a bit different to what you usually see - but what you usually see on WP is deathly boring imo. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the desire to liven things up, but we have to keep it with reason and within a consistance style too.Drachenfyre (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

But what consistent style? See Germany, Spain, Ireland etc. These country biogs don't have to be like England and the USA: there is no rule that says that at all. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

3 more!

• Natural history of Wales - indiginous animals, flora, fauna etc (needs section) (I'd put it under History)
• Visual Arts - (needs section and sub-article too)
• beers in Food and drink. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than having a 'Natural history of Wales' section - maybe flora and fauna (with parag) and Animals of Wales (with parag) subsections can be under Landscape of Wales? So much is done on this stuff lately, especially on TV. 'Natural History of Wales' could then eventually be a sub-article. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please write an outline! Fauna is the animal life, so a section called Animals of Wales would be unnecessary. It would be included in Flora and fauna'.Drachenfyre (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

of course - flora and fauna (I haven't put it in).--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone out there?

Does anyone like this restructure of the article? Please read my reasons for it, and comment if you think it makes sense. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Outline

I am concerned with the outline formatting. I feel we should adhear to the traditional outline followed by most countries nations page. In all that I visit, Etymology and History come first, rather then Geographic and travel features. For consistancy. I do not feel that we should be 'different' here just for the sake of 'differentness'. Would you please write an outline Matt before proceeding so that we all may view this?Drachenfyre (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

But what do you think of the consistent way? Germany and France don't have Etymology (Germany at all as a section). This seems to be a direct copy of the English article (which is almost a copy of the USA one) - other coutries change it to various degrees. We need one that suits Wales. Be bold!--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Be consistant! This is important for a professional page. The outline trend is etymology, history, government/administration/law, geography, flura/fauna, culture. We want to work together here.Drachenfyre (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Spain doesn't have Etymology like Germany (it may be on the sub articles). Ireland doesn't use it either. I'm going to do a bit of research this - I'm sure it's only a few articles we are used to seeing that are as dull as the England one. Lots of people (if not most people I would wager) are against consistancy within actual section-making (I certianly am).

I'm noticing Science pop up and military occasionally too: there are always some varients like architecture, Music and dance (which we could use). --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to your not posting an outline that we all may see and comment on.Drachenfyre (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to post prose for approval but I felt the re-aligned sections needed to be seen in situe (at least by me). I don't mind if you revert (it is a big restructure) - but I wouldn't mind hearing a few peoples opinions. We can always do that from a linked diff though, if you really object to the change. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I had written at least 5 times between here and your personal page asking that you post an outline before changes, and another poster here also asked that you post proposed changes here before changing the main page. If this is an example of your working with others I am uncertin that you can be trusted to work in good faith Drachenfyre (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"5 times"!!! That is clear deceit. How many of those "5 times" were after I made my single telegraphed edit?? You just kept going on! And you talk about trust!!!! Ask yourself how I can trust you after you said that??? For heavens sake. I said from the outset MANY TIMES that I am happy to put all my prose through this Talk - but the headings i'll do directly. Let me give you a clear warning: DO NOT BULLY ME. All you had to do was revert my edit, and instead you've got right on my back. Why? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at the time stamps of the postings, they are consecutive to each of your postings, and all ignored. I am sorry that you feel that I or other editors are bullying you.

My only concern is for a professionally written and designed page, with a layout that is consistant with the standard norm. Of corse minor variations can be tailored to the specific country page. And I am open to out-of-the-box thinking. But what we are asking for is an outline so that we may see what you are thinking so that we may offer imput based on the above considerations.

I do not want to blunt your interest in assisting with the page, but change through concensus is best and will prevent edit wars. If you wish to copy/past the artical into your sandbox, play with it, link your results here for us to view, that would be a very good way to proceed. I continue to hope we can work together. David Llewellyn. Drachenfyre (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You CANNOT make arbitary chages without proper discussion I have reverted it pending discussion --Snowded (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the meaning of the 'CANNOT'? All you had to do was revert my single telegraphed edit! I've even said I don't mind!! You do realise you have no right to tell people what to do don't you? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You completely ignored the discussion on the page about changes in the face of opposition from regular editors I think that justifies "shouting" I think its bad behaviour and, as Drachenfyre says it creates uncertainty about you being a trustworthy editor. As to cannot, not I can't but I can happily reverse if you don't engage in conversation first —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 16:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you telling me that opposition here is default?? That I am not allowed to make any edit without outlining it first and it being accepted by you and drachenfyre? There was no opposition to the actual content of what I did before I did it: you are just afronted that I walked past you and did it! If I feel this article has been bullied to a halt by a couple of stonewallers I'm duty-bound to go straight to Wikipedia about it - be warned. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the issue at all. Rather, concern that a precepitous change will occur that may be objectionable. You propose a complete revision of the page, a page currently constructed along established precedent. Others would like to see your proposed changes beforehand to comment, so that we do not get into a spiral of edit wars.Drachenfyre (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a structural change to half the headings: how else can you show how that will look like other than in an edit? If you are worried changes may be objectionable - that's life!!! It's called Wikipedia! You can't control "possible" disharmony to an article by forcing outlines to be made before all editing! It utterly contravenes Assume Good Faith just for a start!--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know why you are being so aggressive here. It is normal in Wikipedia for major or controversial changes to be discussed before they are paid. Good faith also requires good behaviour. I realise (having looked at your talk page) that this sort of thing is normal behaviour for you, so I for one can live with it, if we now move to a discussion. I have set up another secton below for this - I suggest we move onto that. (Oh and please remember that some of us work on different time zones so leave some time for a considered response or two). --Snowded (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is your outline, I have written it out for you for others to see. This is all you had to do to show a proposed outline:

Were you born this rude? I have already linked the diff I created. But as you have missed out half of it and put it in my name I'm obliged to copy over what you have done (don't speak for me again)...

I thought Drachenfyre did you a favour by creating the list and demonstrating an approach. No need to be so aggressive in your response. Pleased to see that you have expanded it so we can see your intent here. --Snowded (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

   * 1 Landscape of Wales
         o 1.1 Climate
   * 2 Travelling in Wales
         o 2.1 Welsh counties
   * 3 History
         o 3.1 Origins and history of the name
         o 3.2 Roman colonisation
         o 3.3 Medieval Wales
         o 3.4 Modern Wales
   * 4 Wildlife
         o 4.1 Flora
         o 4.2 Fauna
   * 5 Architecture
   * 6 Governance
         o 6.1 Law
         o 6.2 Economy
         o 6.3 Public health
         o 6.4 Military
         o 6.5 Demography
               + 6.5.1 Language
               + 6.5.2 Religion
   * 7 Culture
         o 7.1 Media in Wales
         o 7.2 Music and dance
         o 7.3 Literature
         o 7.4 Visual Arts
         o 7.5 Science
         o 7.6 Sports
         o 7.7 Food and drink
   * 8 Famous Welsh people
   * 9 Symbols of Wales
   * 10 Images of Wales
   * 11 See also
   * 12 References
   * 13 External links

I simply copied from the contents in the diff, and have added 'Flora and fauna' as I suggested in here afterwards. I also extended 'Music' to 'Music and dance' per Ireland. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree Flora and fauna plus Music and dance. --Snowded (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed 'Flaura and fauna' to sub-headings under 'Wildlife' (per Ireland)--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Included Architecture, Science (which is often under Culture), Military (more involved for Wales than might first appear) and Health. Been looking around.

Agree these and you are right about Military its a neglected part of the current article and there is a theme there (common it Ireland and Scotland) about the way Welsh regiments have been treated - until very recently with English officers. --Snowded (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ive been in in touch with a Welsh politican on this topic actually, and have been following some debates on Welsh military personal. Of particular interest is how the UK Government will train a division of Gurkas in their native language, but will not train or even allow Welsh to be spoken in the UK military.Drachenfyre (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Landscape of Wales should be Geography, Travel in Wales should be Tourism, Wildlife in Wales should be Flora and Fauna (Wildlife refers only to fauna). Archetecture should be part of the Culture, not necessarily its own feautre.Drachenfyre (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is my proposal for an outlineDrachenfyre (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

   * I Introduction
   * II Etymology
   * III History
         o A Romano-British
         o B Medieval Wales
         o C Modern Wales
   * IV Government, administration, and military
         o A Assembly and Assembly government
         o B UK government
         o C European Union
         o E Law
         o F Economy
         o G Education
         o H Finance
         o H Fire services
         o I Health care services
         o J Housing
         o K Law enforcement
         o L Politics
         o M Pricipal areas (local government)
         o N Demography (cenus info)
           oo Imigration
           oo Emigration 
         o O Military
           oo Concise history (it needs its own artical actually) 
           oo Army History (Welsh Guards, South Wales Borderers,  The Royal Welch Fusiliers 
           oo The Royal Welsh (From 2006)
           oo RAF St Athan
   * V Culture (in alphabetical order, but doesnt have to be)
         o A Archetecture 
         o B Cusine (rather then food and drink)
         o C Language
         o D Literature
         o E Media in Wales
         o F Music and dance ( or preforming arts)
         o G Transport
         o H Language
         o I Religion
         o J Visual Arts
         o K Science
         o L Sports and recreation
   * VI Geography and Climate
         o A Geography
         o B Climate
   * VII Flora and Fauna
         o A Flora
         o B Fauna
   * VIII Tourism
   * IX Images of Wales
   * X See also
   * XI References
   * XII External links

Once we decide on an outline, we shall post that at the top of the discussion page and work from there. Drachenfyre (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: With Section IV Government, administration, and military, we can divide the section between devolved authorities and UK authorities.Drachenfyre (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on sequencing

Given that the purpose of this article is to introduce people to Wales. I think that requires something of the history, in particular the definition of Wales v England which requires History to come come first. After than I am not sure I have too many strong opinions. --Snowded (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wales v England? I don't see any reason why that should come before the natural history of Wales - which is what this land is most known for. There is too much of England and Britain highlighted throughout the article imo. (Principality, England, the Queen - this is what asides and sub-articles are made for.) This article could be the best and most inviting one on Wales on the web, if we wanted it too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

given the common confusion overseas which equates England with Britain, and given the history of conquest and continued colonisation then there needs to be something up front that makes it clear that Wales is a distinct country with its own culture.

Checking out most European sites it looks like we conform - is there any strong argument to be different? --Snowded (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've stated my opinion of conforming - the current formula is only conforming to articles that share it! Plenty of country articles out there layout differently - and is is perfectly OK to do so!! My argument is geography over history (above) and that Wales is a truly unique country that deserves an article that isn't a direct copy of the rigid English one! --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

--Snowded (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is far from only England, when I checked most European countries used the structure that Drachenfyre proposed. I play France, Italy and all four Scandinavian countries to your three. Starting with geography, or worst still travel in Wales conforms the country to a 19th Century stereotype of Wales as a tourist site - come and see the pretty mountains and the quaint local people with their strange customs. I think we should be portraying Wales as a country within Europe, able to stand up there with the best of them. So my vote is for Drachenfyre strucutre. --Snowded (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the first five topics should be:

I. Introduction

II Etymology

III History

IV Government (administration, law, subdivisions)

V Culture (demography, language, sports, religion, ect ect)

After this I have no real preference. Maybe economy, then Flora and Fauna, symbols, images. Drachenfyre (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely countries like Ireland, Germany and Spain have lost Etymology as a section because they can see how it makes the article over-academic before it properly begins? --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am open to changing the title but not the sequencing. Having said that many other countries are happy with the title and I think the word itself is better than the alternatives. I doubt if it prevents people reading it.--Snowded (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the all other alternatives are too verbose. Etymology is precise and is not too academic. It is encylopedic. We are not writting a travel guide here, but an encylopedia entry. However, having said that I am not averse to an alternative one or two word title, if it means precisely the same. Full stop. 12.160.89.130 (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Opps! Wasnt signed in!Drachenfyre (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Updated outline per above. Drachenfyre (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Info box

One thing that would make the Wales page distinctive would be if we made the info box a very light shade of red, in a simular manner as the Ireland page is light green. Would this be agreeable?Drachenfyre (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving sections a few days old?

Drachenfyre - why are you archiving sections that are only a few days old? The archive you created is small and Talk page was not large - so it was not needed. I notice there was no discussion about it either! Given your approval-fist attitude to all new article edits, I can't believe you took it upon yourself to do this! No single (or pair) of editors owns an article on Wales! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I had thought that the older conversations (imo) seemed to have ran their corse, and given that we (all of us) were about to embark on a page rewrite, I felt that we needed a clean page to discuss upcoming changes. No disrespect intended here, was just clearing up space. Shall I repost the information? I do not mind doing that, was attempting to be proactive with our upcoming discussions was all.Drachenfyre (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think putting it back is best, as some were only days old (so we can't be certain) and the page isn't particulaly long yet. I had a hunch you were doing what you say - but surely you see the irony for me though? I did see your lengthened outline - but havent had time to study it yet.

I can bend on 'Etymology' (though I don't see why it's so important that it comes first, when many other articles don't have it first - or even at all in section form, or have it within a sub-article) but I'd like us to remove what I see as a slight but firm 'union-bias' out of the article (the weight towards highlighting words like Principality). For me it's all about Wales as a living country first and foremost. Wales is a living and developing country - not a note in history. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your points very well. Im still not absolutely 'firm' on Etymology, if a professional alternative can be found. Do you truely wish to restore archived information at this point? We are moving forward with a new page.

As far as 'principality' being 'unionist', form my prespetive, as the Principality of Wales was founded by a Welsh prince (Llywelyn I in 1216), specifically to nurture Welsh law and culture (according to Dr. John Davies and G.A. Williams), it's origions are anything but unionist. Founding member of Plaid Cymru Saunders Lewis, and other Welsh nationalists, described himself a strong monarchist, but not necessarily a UK monarchist. But this is neither here nor there, we can minimize the 'principality'.Drachenfyre (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro edits

I wrote this to editor Cardiff a few moments ago, explaining why I removed information of Cardiff in the intro section:

Hello Cardiff! Thank you for contributing to the Wales page. However, I did remove your recent edits to the intro paragraph as it became too verbose for an intro. Your edits, if sourced, are very important, but I ask thank you add them to a Cardiff section further down the page. If you had to pick just one feature of Cardiff to highlight, what would that be? It is this kind of economy of words that we are looking for.

Also, I removed the second sentence from the second paragraph in an effort to move the narration along from historic Wales to modern Wales, per Matt's observations. Any comments? And, after reading it I think it does both convey the history and moves on to the present more tightly. The sentence was:

The Welsh language, a highly evolved secular legal system (Cyfraith Hywel), Christian monastic asceticism, and a distinctive literary tradition are hallmarks of early Welsh culture

Drachenfyre (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wales page outline: Need imput

Hello everyone! I was wishing for comments/suggestions and or preferences on which out-line to follow for the Wales page. Deciding on an outline is the first step in making a more professional looking and compleat page. Here are two possible options, the first proposed by Matt, the second by myself. Please comment so that we may move forward with thisDrachenfyre (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I support yours Drachenfyre for the reasons outlined earlier --Snowded (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am awaiting broader concensus, hehe. If we get no more comments by next week then I will assume that there are no objections and move forward then. In the mean time, sections of the page could still be improved on outside of the outline proposed. Off and on I shall get to that, currently I am working on Gwynedd.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That suggests you have already written your new sections - why don't you put them in? I support "being bold", as you know. I would put up the new stuff, now it's mentioned in here - and see if people like it or not. Just to say though - if you do wait a week (of your own time) - it does not equate to any kind of consensus! That can only happen (or fail to happen) after the edits have actually been made. I don't see what's funny about this place being so bereft of article-editors, by the way - it bothers me a little why that is. I have no problems with your proposal - it doesn't preclude any further edits or proposals - and it clearly looks like a step forward to me.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt's proposal:

   * 1 Landscape of Wales
         o 1.1 Climate
   * 2 Travelling in Wales
         o 2.1 Welsh counties
   * 3 History
         o 3.1 Origins and history of the name
         o 3.2 Roman colonisation
         o 3.3 Medieval Wales
         o 3.4 Modern Wales
   * 4 Wildlife
         o 4.1 Flora
         o 4.2 Fauna
   * 5 Architecture
   * 6 Governance
         o 6.1 Law
         o 6.2 Economy
         o 6.3 Public health
         o 6.4 Military
         o 6.5 Demography
               + 6.5.1 Language
               + 6.5.2 Religion
   * 7 Culture
         o 7.1 Media in Wales
         o 7.2 Music and dance
         o 7.3 Literature
         o 7.4 Visual Arts
         o 7.5 Science
         o 7.6 Sports
         o 7.7 Food and drink
   * 8 Famous Welsh people
   * 9 Symbols of Wales
   * 10 Images of Wales
   * 11 See also
   * 12 References
   * 13 External links

This is my proposal for an outlineDrachenfyre (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

   * I Introduction
   * II Etymology
   * III History
         o A Romano-British
         o B Medieval Wales
         o C Modern Wales
   * IV Government, administration, and military
         o A Assembly and Assembly government
         o B UK government
         o C European Union
         o E Law
         o F Economy
         o G Education
         o H Finance
         o H Fire services
         o I Health care services
         o J Housing
         o K Law enforcement
         o L Politics
         o M Principal areas (local government)
         o N Demography (cenus info)
           oo Imigration
           oo Emigration 
         o O Military
           oo Concise history (it needs its own artical actually) 
           oo Army History (Welsh Guards, South Wales Borderers,  The Royal Welch Fusiliers 
           oo The Royal Welsh (From 2006)
           oo RAF St Athan
   * V Culture (in alphabetical order, but doesnt have to be)
         o A Archetecture 
         o B Cusine (rather then food and drink)
         o C Language
         o D Literature
         o E Media in Wales
         o F Music and dance ( or preforming arts)
         o G Transport
         o H Religion
         o I Visual Arts
         o J Science
         o K Sports and recreation
   * VI Geography and Climate
         o A Geography
         o B Climate
   * VII Flora and Fauna
         o A Flora
         o B Fauna
   * VIII Tourism
   * IX Images of Wales
   * X See also
   * XI References
   * XII External links

Just a note, and I'm not saying this is what we should go for (particularly as they seem outdated), but there are project guidlines about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries#Sections. At very least they might have an idea in there. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jza84! I do think this outline is outdated, but there is something mentioned there that should be also mentioned here, and that is on economy of language.

Economy of Language is expressed with this sentence "The rest of the article should consist of a few short paragraphs. These paragraphs should give an outline of the history/politics/etc. of the country and link to a full article on them". What this means is we should not create verbose paragraphs. The main points should be highlighted... and the reader referred to a main artical elsewhere. Currently, I feel the Wales artical, as most articals on nations do, have some fat that can be trimed. This will tighten up the artical. Not everything needs mentioning in the paragraphs, but the most important items.

This was seen with our debate on the Intro section... where sometimes too much info is added... it clouds the artical making it almost unreadable. Drachenfyre (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox-Two map option

Update and Info

Scotland  (English / Scots) Alba  (Gaelic)
Flag Royal Coat of Arms
Motto: [Nemo me impune lacessit] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)  (Latin) "No one provokes me with impunity" "Cha togar m' fhearg gun dìoladh"   (Scottish Gaelic) '"Wha daur meddle wi me?"'  (Scots)1
Anthem: (Multiple unofficial anthems)
Location of Scotland (orange) in the United Kingdom (camel)
Location of Scotland (orange) in the European Union (camel)
Capital	Edinburgh
Largest city	Glasgow
Official languages	English
Recognised regional languages	Gaelic, Scots1
Demonym(s)	Scot, Scots and Scottish²
Population
• 2006 estimate	5,116,900
ISO 3166 code	GB-SCT
(...remainder omitted...see article "Scotland" for full Infobox.

Hello everyone! I have been participating in a conversation on Scotland's talk page regarding a new map display in our infobox. On Scotland's page there is debate on weather to display the nation of Scotland within on the European context or weather to display Scotland only within a UK context. The results were edit wars and reverts. Both positions have very good arguments either way. I proposed a solution of displaying two maps in the info box, with Scotland within Europe displayed at the top, with UKPhoenix's unique map of Scotland within the UK below that. Someone in the Afrakaans wiki appearently also had a simular idea, linky http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallis, and it offers an illustration. I am proposing that we on the Wales page adopt this two-map option as well, with Wales in Europe on the top and Wales within the UK (the map currently displayed) below it. Please follow the link I provided above to the Scotland page to offer any comments or suggestions.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Added two maps to the info box, will leave up for a day or so to gather any consensus. For myself, I think the older map would work best for context. Wales within the UK within Europe.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 18:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Contributers to Wales page, this is an example of what I wish for the two-map solution, the top map shows a close up of Wales within the context of the UK and the geographic location within the British Isles, and the bottom map shows Wales within the context of the EU and geographic Europe. This example is of corse from Scotland's talk page. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Either map will do & I'd suggest a Wales soley map for the 'history section'. Having two maps in the topinfobox, is too crowded (makes the article topheavy). GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I fear the same disagreements over the two map solution we had on the Scotland talk page may also occur here, neverthless, I wish everyone on the Wales article a speedy resolution!--Jack forbes (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The 'double map' here is acceptable. In my near desperation for any compromise, I think I've accepted at least 3-options. But, I'll never accet X only map alone in the Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming country in map_caption

08-April-2008: I see that Template:Map_caption was auto-naming the country as "Wales" in the Scotland infobox, so I have reset the name using parameter "country=Scotland" such as:

• {{map_caption|country=Scotland|location_color=orange|region=the United Kingdom|region_color=camel}}

I assume that {{map_caption}} will be used in many articles, so I advise always putting "country=xxx" in whichever article uses that template: auto-defaulting parameters to PAGENAME can be quite confusing during examples, and Scotland was labeled for days as being "Wales" because we didn't know how map_caption was defaulting to Wales as extracted from the page named Talk:Wales. Automatic-anything can be a nuisance, as pet owners have learned when the pet knocks a car auto-doorlock button with the keys inside. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Info box color

Wales [Cymru] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) Flag Coat of arms Motto: [Cymru am byth ] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)(Welsh) "Wales Forever" Anthem: ["Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau"] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)  (Welsh) "Land of my fathers" Location of Wales (orange) – in Europe (tan & white) – in the United Kingdom (tan) Location of Wales (red) in the United Kingdom (light yellow) Capital and largest city Cardiff Official languages Welsh, English Demonym(s) Welsh (Cymry) Population • 2006 estimate 1 ISO 3166 code GB-WLS

I wish to know if we in Wales page wish to have a red border around the nation's info box. Please leave comments. Personally I very much like the idea of a color surrounding the info box. We can discuss different colors and hues as well. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 16:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Other reddish border colors

05-April-2008: I like the idea of a colored border around the Wales Infobox, but have no preference for the particular hue chosen. Below are several other colors to try, depending on the level of the R/G/B (red/green/blue) components in the color setting: #CE9999 is lighter than #CE2222.

#CE8888

#CE6666

#CE5555

#CE3333

#CE7777

#CE4444

#CE9999

#CE99AA

#CE99BB

The higher the last 4 hex characters, the more of a washout gray will occur in diluting the effect of the red. The final 2 hex digits, controlling blue, will make the color shift towards purple, with higher values at the end: intense purple could be coded as #BB00FF.

The first 2 hex characters control the red intensity (with the prefix "#88" as dim red, "#FF" as brightest red). Adding green will turn the coloring towards yellow, which becomes tan or brown when red & green are both low numbers. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wikid77! We may also like to see variations of green, for that too is a colour of Wales.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 18:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I went WikiBold as Matt suggested and added the very nice border that Wikid77 developed specifically for us! This is customized!! Thank you very much Wikid77!!! Great Work!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 00:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The infobox with the green and the red is far to garish and is just a superfluous addition. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

New template for styling

06-April-2008: I have created a new Template:Infobox_Country_styled to develop special styles for a nation's infobox: once determined, the style parameters will be added back into the major template "Infobox_Country" for general use. Currently, as shown in the infobox above, I have set the top title area to a shade of green, using new parameter "titlestyle". The other new parameters are: boxstyle, mapstyle, and labelstyle. For more details see: Template:Infobox_Country_styled. To keep the infobox narrow, I used parameter "area_km2" which triggers box width adjustment. By altering the color of the box background, title, maps, and labels, there are many ways to customize the appearance of the infobox. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutly amazing! I very much like it. If no one has any objections, then by this Thursday/Friday I shall begin to make the changes to the outline and include this very engaging info box! On a side note, can you add this infobox colours to the Kingdom of Gwynedd page? I am currently working on that page. Hummm... for there we may wish a different colour scheme... I was thinking the box in Green... the header as Yellow? Dont know, but would like your imput there too Wikid77! This is truely amazing!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikid77, might you do the same treatment with Kingdom of Gwynedd former country info box? I tried to copy/paste your work here for there, but no go for some reason (i think because its a different infobox template)♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 00:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox_Country_styled can put narrow color border

Wales

08-April-2008: In trying many different style options, I have found that the new Template:Infobox_Country_styled can define a thinner border, setting border properties by parameter boxstyle:

• boxstyle = border-width:7px; border-color:darkorange;

As I had feared, some people dislike the border and title coloring, but perhaps a more narrow color border would be more acceptable. I cannot stress enough about people who dislike detailed maps, or even images, but seem to prefer the old days when Wikipedia had just words as a Wordipedia. It has been a real struggle to keep large images in articles, when some people insist on thumbnailing all images to postage-stamp size, but those same people never consider "thumbnailing text" to default to the tiniest font possible, so as to "not cluttter" the images. However, it's not just the word-ipedians: there are others who try to reduce articles to short phrases surrounded by dozens of math formulas y=x²+b, in the mindset of a math-ipedian. All in all, it's quite amusing to see these ways that people really act. The Romans kept re-conquering Germanic peoples to force the Roman Latin alphabet to replace their runes "ØЖ‡ΣΨ" which returned every few decades! -Wikid77 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Do not lose heart Wikid77, I am sure more prefer the current boder of the info box. The editor taking issue is not writting his objections here in the talk page, I have asked him to. But there is nothing in Wikipedia that prevents us from having the border, which is both styalistic and professional.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 16:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy to support you in the red border, but I think it could be a bit narrower --Snowded (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I wade in here and say that I too think that adding some oolour, based on national colours, would be a welcome edition so long as its application was consistant. Perhaps there could be a pattern developed for extant sovereign states, for former states, and for autonomous subjects of sovereign states? James Frankcom (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox_Country width glitch

06-April-2008: Apparently, there is also a minor bug in Template:Infobox_Country that causes the box to drift wider when some parameters are omitted, such as population. I have re-added population into the Infobox-examples above, to narrow those infoboxes back to the minimum needed to fit the map widths. I will try to hunt down that width-drifting bug so that parameters can be omitted during examples, without unpredictable width being the result. Other templates have had width-drifting bugs caused by mismatch of the "colspan=3" coding inside the MediaWiki template pages. It is a minor problem, but very annoying during partial examples. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Another proposed guideline for "the British Isles"

I have numerous concerns about the current proposal for a guideline for the use of the term British Isles and have written another proposal. My main concerns were that the proposal as it is written here did not walk the line of WP:NPOV, did not have an adequate grounding in current consensus and practice, and did not offer any concrete guidelines per se that an editor could follow or easily understand (in the broadest sense of the term).

My proposed guidelines are here. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is canvasing Sony, and I'm removing this. It leads to your own political opinion in your own sandbox, and contains biased - especially in making the "dispute" sound like a popular and important Wikipedia debate - and more than something that has simply been carried on by a handful of dedicated and often fervent people! I do not like the way you exaggerate the issue, and exaggerate the evidence that surrounds it - you always have done from what I've seen, and find it a bit back-handed. Keep it to the containing pages, use Talk, maybe projects - but don't post it in here - it doesn't warrant it, and I for one don't welcome it. (WP:canvas).--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not canvassing, Matt. This is issuing a friendly notice to the community. Please familiarise yourself with WP:CANVAS and particuarly the section about friendly notices. Another editor proposed a guideline for use of the term "British Isles" on Wikipedia as this is something that concerns the community that edit here, it's only a matter of politeness to invite their comment. If you don't welcome that invitation then that's your business, but please refrain from deleting other editors posts to talk pages just because they don't interest you. ps. thank your for assuming good faith. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to AGF after significant experience - not when the comment is related to that experience. This is simply a new Talk page - and this is clearly canvasing. I working on this page offline at the moment and don’t want to see this "debate" seep onto this Wales discussion page. Surely you understand that having read so many of the unpleasant comments surrounding this subject? PS. thanks for being WP:overbearingly polite, when you know I've read this stuff before. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Refer to these sections: Wikipedia:CANVAS#Campaigning and Wikipedia:Canvas#Excessive_cross-posting and Wikipedia:Canvas#Excessive_cross-posting(like here). It doesn't matter when (or how) the "vote" is - you are clearly partisan and the link leads to your sandbox. And (on the subject) you need an audience! Where is it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nay! There's nothing wrong with letting others know of one's sandbox proposals. It ain't gonna harm anybody. Thumbs up for Sony, for trying to find a solution. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt, take it to Wikipedia:AN/I if you have an issue. Otherwise, it sounds as if you are making personal attacks under the guise of concern for the project with this talk of some supposed "significant experience" of bad faith edits on my part. Basically, put up or shut up. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm entitled to comment against your approach (and yes - I don't like it, though it's rude to call my criticism a "personal attack" imo - I have made a very fair point - it subjective and I'm entitled to my say). I'm not going to remove this again and I've made my point - lets leave it before it gets too uncivil. How am I supposed to say how you are partisan without explaining here? This is why linking is a bad idea - this is not the place - and look where it has got us?

I cannot see how the following explains your post here at all:

Friendly notices

Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices" if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion (for example if a Wikipedian is known for being an expert in a certain field and has shown interest in participating in related discussions). This is more acceptable if they have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed, but unacceptable if they have asked you to stop. Examples of friendly notices include:

• Notifying a related WikiProject on a WikiProject talk page
• Notifying all editors who substantively edited or discussed the article or project, while keeping in mind #Excessive cross-posting below.

Always keep the message neutral, and leave a note on the discussion itself that you sent out friendly notices. Editors who like to be informed about Wikipedia discussions can add the "Friendly notice" userbox to their user page.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"I'm entitled to comment against your approach ..." That's cool, Matt, but saying that you have "extensive experience" of bad faith edits on my part is not. You are more than entitled to your views, but any argument ad hominem is unwelcome and is, I believe, in fact the reason why this issue has blown out it's genuine proportions (as you correctly point). "How am I supposed to say how you are partisan without explaining here?" You aren't supposed to. Argue against what I say not me. If I really am a problem editor then take it to AN/I or open an RfC on me.

I see a dedicated "passive bias" in the consistent way you comment on the British Isles (and I've felt consistently politely ignored by you in the past - and repetition time is an issue to me). As for taking "AN/I or RfC" on you - I don't know what they stand for, but I'll look at them. But if I'm going to do something like that I don't need your prompting - and you surely would be put right about this (even on Sandbox rules - I'm certain you can't link-to them like this). I don't want to see this in here. Why should I be made to argue on the Wales page? This isn't the place for discussion on this! But why should I have to let it pass? I can't let something pass if I disagree with it. We have both seen how the "British Isles debate" has been performed - the same people play all kind of "under the skin" psychological games - sometimes no matter where the particular conversation pops up. I don't want to see that here, and we're lucky it hasn't happened.

As for the cross-posting, I posted to every jurisdiction in the British Isles (ENG/SCO/WAL/NI/RoI/IoM/CIs). A policy/guideline proposal was made my an another editor, what appears in my sandbox is a reply to that. I think that it would be of note to those who edit here. If you don't think that that proposed policy/guideline will affect you then just ignore it. --sony-youth^pléigh 06:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should I ignore it? This is an important principle here. Wikipedia has to have tight guidelines on 'spamming' to stop things getting out of control - and I'm always careful with it myself - even at times when it would help me a great deal not to be so. At very least you should have not linked to your sandbox (in which you have stated "facts" I don't agree are fair and correct)! It's been speculative of you, and someone here doesn't like it (i.e. me) - how can you argue?

A simple, humble and politely-apologising "note" mentioning the guideline proposal only (which has your link in its Talk anyway) - stressing that the debate is not for in here - you might just have got away with! The line is subjective enough, and I doubt anyone would have complained (in here anyway). It's the way you did it Sony - I don't like it, and I fully believe you are campaiging on the underlying "British Isles" issue (which you want centralised in a more moderate way). You didn't contact the popular UK article, or UK Portal talks I notice, or WikiProject UK geography, or the UK Wikipedians' notice board (which is actually made for this). Next to Britain, they are the broadest targets regarding the "British Isles" surely? I wonder if for them you would use the same approach?--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I was going to just ignore this but the fact is that amid all those 'I-don't-like-it-or-you' statements, you're making a fair point. I just batted out a copy-and-paste notice and like you point I forgot to notify even the most obvious sources of comment. It was sloppy. The problem is how may times you say 'I-don't-like-it-or-you'. It's misplaced and totally uncalled for. Ultimately it loses the argument for you. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How was I to know you were being sloppy? I thought you were going for it - that's why I reverted it. Why don't you delete this now over-long section and replace it with a new notice? (I would personally do this to all of them). Having posted on all the others pages, you need to post to the UK ones I suggested out of fairness I feel. If you do it sweetly I don't think anyone will complain - though they are more likely to 'pull you up' at UK than anywhere else, I would guess. I don't think I lost the argument, by the way (ahem). (PS. I always have a point).--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"How was I to know you were being sloppy?" You weren't expected to know that. You were expected to be civil and assume good faith. "Why don't you delete this now over-long section and replace it with a new notice?" Because I would prefer people to see your over reaction than to rewrite history to suit you. "If you do it sweetly I don't think anyone will complain ..." You were the only person who complained. --sony-youth^pléigh 06:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(If you want to get it off the 'main page' then I've no problem with you archiving it by way of compromise.) --sony-youth^pléigh 06:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Complaints may have come from the UK-related pages if you had posted the above notice there. Unlike many, I've seen what has passed for debate. Are you planning to involve the UK pages, by the way? As for me "over-reacting" and "re-writing history": the words "re-writing history" is just a little bit of an "over-reaction" to my request for you to simply replace this over-long chat with a better notice! I could use the words "over-reaction" to describe the supposed 'tide of change' in the use of the term British Isles, and the words "re-writing history" regarding those who wish to push that weakest of tides. I'm fine with people reading this - but they can do it from the archive, because tomorrow I'm going to follow your suggested compromise and archive this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Poll:Image

Poll: Most significant image of Wales

Wales page community, what do you consider the greatest geographic feature of Wales? I was thinking Yr Wyddfa (Snowdon) but wanted to take a poll to determine what image we should have for our intro. For now, I shall place Yr Wyddfa, the tallest mountain in Britain south of Ben Nevis. We can change the intro image as well, rotate it. Share an image from the various regions found through-out Wales.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 02:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with all of that, especially the idea of a rotating image appropriate to the season. Maybe a monthly switch. The photos used could be stored at the bottom of the article. Given that today for the first time in several centuries we finally have the right to create Welsh Law the first image might be the Welsh Assembly then move onto Yr Wyddfa. --Snowded (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

An image and an infobox is against the Manual of style, strictly, as it warps text and leads to item conflict in several browsers (including mine):

In general, it is considered poor layout practice to place images at the same height on both the left and right side of the screen. Not only does this unnecessarily squeeze text, but this might also cause images to overlap text due to interferences. It is usually not a good idea to place an image intended to illustrate a given section above the header for that section. Placing an image to the left of a header, a list, or the Table of Contents is also frowned upon.

When placing images, be careful not to stack too many of them within the lead, or within a single section to avoid bunching up several section edit links in some browsers. Generally, if there are so many images in a section that they strip down into the next section at 1024x768 screen resolution, that probably means either that the section is too short, or that there are too many images.

The image needs to be moved asap please. See also WP:PIC. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Map (again)

The red border around the infobox, should be deleted. Also, we should use the same kind of map that's being used currently at England, Scotland & Northern Ireland. --- GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No GoodDay, we do not have to follow what the others are using, and we can have the info box border. There is no rule against this.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 20:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As a consistancy buff, I naturally disagree. Wales isn't special, it's a part of the UK (just like England, Scotland & Northern Ireland). GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, for us Editors who are spending our time on Wales, it is special. And nothing in our text, maps, or other graphics says that it is not part of the UK. Any reader can easily digest the consitutional status of Wales by the text and maps. Thank you for your concerns. But so far the editors who regularly contribute to the Wales page here like the changes that are adopted here, as you can see by scrolling up, there has been support for this for thepast week or more. If editors were concerned, there was ample oppurtunity for them to make note of that on the talk page.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 20:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Cross-article consistency doesn't bother me with this kind of presentation (it rarely does in any capacity to be honest - I see the 'consistency argument' curtail articles and cause problems - just as much as it can improve an article through 'standardising'). I'm for Wales looking a little different - having its own flavour. All the UK countries are different to each other - can I call them special? I find England and Scotland very conservative articles compared to many country articles. I haven't got time to read up on the maps debate - looking at the article I would say the red is a bit strong though. As a graphic designer I used to often vary the red with Wales - often lightening it, and even sometimes using 'salmon' etc: red is a powerful colour and can be intrusive in design. Black, white, green and a variants of yellow are Welsh/Celtic colours too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someday, the United Kingdom will devolve (become 4 independant countries). PS- I've just about given up on these 4 constituent country articles - IMHO, there's too much Devolutionism. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not from me there isn't, as you probably know: for me the union is a strong link of highly individual countries.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC) (excepting Northern Ireland, I should add) --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For most of us on this page, creating a unique Wales page is not about devolution, but about highlighting Wales. We desire a professional page, personally I wish for something that may get highlighted by Wikipedia as a good artical for Wales. As a nation, Wales has been forgotten in the Wider world. LOL. When I told a friend of mine when I was younger that I wanted to learn the language of Wales, we continued for about 20 minites in conversation before she realized I wasnt speaking about Whales! lol.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 20:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt: We can change out and rotate the color of the infobox borders... above is a list Wikid77 gave for alternate shades of red, and here is a list of colors for hex that we can use. Wikid77 is also looking to tighten the info box borders as well too. He had created the code specific for us here in Wales for the info box border color. There is no reason why we can not rotate out the info box colors in the same way as we rotate out the intro greeting picture. Personally I like the red, it is akin to the Wales rugby team. But we can rotate it. Look at how nice the green looks on the principality of Wales page, or purple looks on the Gwynedd page.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 20:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yikes!!! I have to say to whoever implimented this (Drachenfyre? I'm not sure), the coloured infobox isn't working for me at all. I have to be brutally honest, it looks terrible and unprofessional (sorry). I don't think this is inline with anything I've seen on Wikipdia and I think the MOS lot wouldn't be happy either. I'd urge strongly that we have a revert, or at least a rethink. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion Jza84. So now the Scottish editors shall come to Wales? lol. Editors who rarely, if ever, contribute to the Wales page? I see how this will turn out, edit wars and revisions. Prehaps we should ask for mediation now?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

-- (edit conflict) Scottish editors? Wikipedia is an international project, and isn't restricted by political boundaries or nationality; any editor can edit any page. Simillarly, that an editor hasn't editted an article before does not restrict them from passing comment.

I was notified about some change on Wales (an article I have editted before) and felt strong enough to pass comment yes. Actually, if you must know, I'm working with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales to create a series of local county maps for UK infobox place. Does that make me eligable to comment? I jest of course.

Seriously, I think it's a bad presentation style. By all means go for mediation if you feel strongly enough about it, but I think their should be a stronger case made for its inclusion here. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The coloured infobox I can live with (just about) but the image in the lead needs to go. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that that's quite enough edit-warring on the article? No more adding / removing the photo or changing the infobox back and forwards; just continue the discussions here please, or I'll up the protection level to full for a while. (WP:WALES member, but staying out of the discussion deliberately just in case page protection is needed). Bencherlite^Talk 21:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My consistancy hopes are dashed; To dream, the impossible dream. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, do with it as you will. I shall remove myself from this artical as quite clearly acromonious editors, those that almost never ever contribute to or visit the Wales page, are now migrating here to enforce their own 'agenda'. So acromonious that they have to search from afield to get mediation. I do not come here for these kind of discussions. Its all yours!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I was gonna say the same thing to you, Drachenfyre. I'm suffering from discussin battle-fatigue. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is that I feel very stupid for involving myself elsewhere, as clearly it has brought others who rarely if ever come to Wales now come here. Had I left the debate where it was, it would not now have spilled over to here♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 22:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion to resolve issue on frame and map

OK guys lets all calm down and discuss this. Thanks to Bencherlite for putting a halt to the edit wars for the moment. It would also be good to have contributions here from the regular editors to the Wales page

It seems that we have the following issues:

- The question of consistency between Scotland, Wales, Ireland etc. My view here is that radical difference is undesirable, but that the current level of difference is fine. Using national colours is fine (Scotland can use blue). Whatever the Wales page is not a place for the Scots to have a proxy conflict. I suggest an agreement here on consistent but not conform-ant policy here. I also like the two maps, it shows Wales in a European as well as a British context.

- Aesthetic issues This relates to the colour, the size of the frame etc. I like the colour but think the frame is too big.

- The picture I think it is a neat idea to have a picture of the month - it might be better if it came after the introduction however as it currently makes the first page too crowded. --Snowded (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think having two maps is good, finding the best colours is good, and I support a landscape shot as a picture (I'm not sure of any other shot though). I probably wouldn't fight tooth and claw if someone insisted against the pic. I image the picture would be changed from time to time just by editors working normally - and probably will be an issue from time to time too (but is that a reason to drop it before it is?). --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

National Botanic Garden of Wales

For the welcome intro picture, I had also found this absolutely amazing picture of the National Gardens of Wales, it was amazing to me! I was hoping one day that the picture could rotate to it. I will see if I can find it.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 22:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I now have it as the background of my pc, lol.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that Scottish, Welsh, English, American, Black, Gay, White, Jewish, Asian, whatever... any editor of any background is entitled to comment on a talk page. Talk:Wales isn't just for Welsh editors, it's for the wider community.

The use of vivid colours, unevenly, without discussion is bound to bring editors here, let's be realistic. That's not necessarily a bad thing however. Simillarly, the sandwiching of the lead between a horizontally extended infobox and a huge, pre-set sized image is also going to start alarm bells ringing.

I'm entitled to my opinion, just as others are. I really think we should go back to the crisp, clean, MOS endorssed lead and infobox and worry more so on the prose. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All opinions are valid of course - but it would be nice if more of themain editors on the page engaged. That said - I suggested moving the picture of the month down from the start. If we did that and moved the frame size back a bit would you be happy with the other changes? --Snowded (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, talk pages are for discussions, and as you can see by scrolling up, we have been in discussion for a week so far on changes. Editors by nature gravitate to those pages that interest them, and contribute to them. Is it fair to the editors that have been in discussions already to suddenly have to stop everything to accomodate a rarely seen editor, who even less often contributes to the page in question? Whatever else is going-on on other pages. Additionally, there is no guideline that says we have to follow the MOS, it is a guideline. I feel the need for consistancy in the quality of work on an artical, and in some ways the manner in which it is presented. But an info-box color and greeting picture does not waver so significantly from this. If we are talking about choice of color then this is another issue. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 22:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I for one freely admit that this page is rarely visited by me (although I have editted it a few times). I was notified about "some" changes by User:GoodDay. However, Drachenfyre, where have I said we have to "drop everything" and I must be accomodated? That's a rhetorical question, of course, as I haven't; I merely stated my opinion about how I felt about the change. That I "rarely contribute" to this page (and perhaps a million and a half others) doesn't nullify my opinion however. The content isn't something I can help with or verify easily, but the presentation is something universally admired/understood. Discussion is a fundamental editorial process at Wikipedia, and my comments merely have/had the article's best interests at heart. Where's the harm in that? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The border is WAY too big, and there is not enough room for both the picture and the infobox. Aside from the space issue, which is really major, there is at no time any single picture which is so descriptive of Wales that it should become the introduction. The only pictures which can serve this role are the flag and the map(s), in the infobox. I like the two maps btw, but they could perhaps be tweaked to remove some of the redundancy, so we could have a fairly close up map of Wales which shows its features clearly. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The frame is certainly too-thick, and unsymmetrical on my browser. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Matt:By scrolling up you will see Wikid77 is working on the border, which has a default in it. He is working to make it yet thinner and more even.

@zzuuzz: Agreed, no one picture could do, so per the conversation we agreed that it would routinely rotate.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, what I said was that at no time is there any single photo which is suitable as an introduction. But this is a really minor point compared to the spacing problems. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

@Jza84: I thought that is what GoodDay did, and confirms my earlier points.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarify please, what am I guilty of (besides paranoia)? GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Stacking the deck with your choice of editors, to further your own point of view. No worries, once your choice of editors come over, have their say and revet the page, they will again remove themselves from Wales, and never or rarely visit Wales again.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I contacted 2 editors; that's stacking the deck? GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Drachenfyre, I hope you noted that I have not reverted your changes. Simillarly, if you'd like me to stick around, perhaps for a peer review, I'd be more than willing to do so, just make the request :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Im thinking its a mute point now. I am sickened by the turn of events here to the point that I feel the need to remove myself from Wales, if not stop all futher contrabutions.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 23:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your editors will contact others, and they yet others. Its how these things work. And when I say 'rarely visit', what I mean is those editors will only visit to ensure that their point of view remains in force, and return here to revert any edits that deviate from it.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 23:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: For a small nation like Wales, already with limited editorial interest, Yes, 2 editors is significant.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 23:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Info box color options

Here is a less sharp red with a green info box.

Wales [Cymru] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) Flag Coat of arms Motto: [Cymru am byth ] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)(Welsh) "Wales Forever" Anthem: ["Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau"] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)  (Welsh) "Land of my fathers" Capital and largest city Cardiff, Caerdydd Official languages Welsh, English Demonym(s) Welsh, Cymreig Government Constitutional monarchy ISO 3166 code GB-WLS

Not for me. I prefer the colourless versions. Just my opinion, more welcome. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This goes against the idea of having ONE standard infobox for all countries. There was a time a few years ago when almost every country had a different looking infobox from page to page and it was a mess. We standardized all infoboxes to have one consistent look; whether a reader is viewing Wales or Belize. If colored background/border is desired it needs to be globally implemented at {{Infobox Country}} and not vary country to country.—MJCdetroit ^(yak) 02:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the points about the Wikipedia is that it evolves. Small changes are made to parts of the ecology, some of these are imitated some die out. The idea that we should stabilise into one standard choice smacks of controlling editors, Sick Stigma and process control. Allowing deviations is the essence of the system. Forcing "global implementation" wold be a nightmare. It does however need to evolve. Allowing some changes and seeing how they work is a good thinkg not a bad thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 06:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

another option

Here is a limish green border with darker green title box

Wales [Cymru] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) Flag Coat of arms Motto: [Cymru am byth ] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)(Welsh) "Wales Forever" Anthem: ["Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau"] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)  (Welsh) "Land of my fathers" Capital and largest city Cardiff, Caerdydd Official languages Welsh, English Demonym(s) Welsh, Cymreig Government Constitutional monarchy ISO 3166 code GB-WLS

Outer border using original Infobox_Country

16-April-2008: The 2 example infoboxes immediately at right/above show a method using wide, uneven borders (I removed the map sections from those 2 examples to move examples closer together). However, there is yet another method of defining border styles (shown at right below) that does not involve changing Template:Infobox_Country (and diverting effort into tangent debates about infobox standards).

Wales [Cymru] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)
Flag Coat of arms
Motto: [Cymru am byth ] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)(Welsh) "Wales Forever"
Anthem: ["Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau"] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)  (Welsh) "Land of my fathers"
ISO 3166 code	GB-WLS

On high-resolution screens, the original infobox border seems too thin as a separator. In fact, following the logic of graphic dividing lines, the outer border should be thicker than the interior lines to designate that the whole infobox is a collected unit, rather than a stacking of thin-lined boxes. On 800x600 screens, the thin outer border almost seemed acceptable, but on hi-res screens the border seems weakly (too pale) and very much unprofessional from a graphic-design point of view. Note in the newer example (at right), the outer border is thicker than the interior lines, and indicates, quite clearly, that the whole is an integrated collection, not just a stacking of thin-lined boxes. To a reader unfamiliar with wiki-standards for Infobox_Country, the bordered infobox gives the first impression of an integrated whole, rather than a stacking of unrelated advert boxes, as is customary on many other webpages, stacking commercial boxes on the sidebar. Once the end-user customer, the general reader, is considered, then "professional" acquires a whole new meaning, without the mindset trap of seeing infoboxes from the perspective of a wiki-editor (as a "template user"). The typical lack of customer focus is not anyone's fault, but rather the result of years of Wikipedia changes: formerly, WP would track which particular articles were being read by which readers, but collecting that data was stopped, in relation to snooping. Perhaps a voluntary readership poll could be started, where users realize their input is subject to snooping, but volunteering with that prior understanding (that their moves are openly recorded), rather than secretly tracked in a stalking manner (aka illegal search in the USA). Anyway, lacking actual customer/reader surveys, it is important to view wiki-pages on a variety of different screens, at home, office, library, and internet-cafe to realize the wide meaning of "professional" for the appearance within all those venues. Then, the wider border makes sense, on so many levels of professional design. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Any particular reason this thread is here rather than at template talk:Infobox Country, or even MediaWiki talk:Common.css? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Narrowed colour border for both Firefox/MSIE

Wales [Cymru] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) Wales
Flag Coat of arms

10-April-2008: I have narrowed and balanced the width of the colour border/frame by using the new option:

• boxstyle = border-width:8px; border-color:#CE4444;

As I had suspected, the uneven width seen on some browsers (such as MS Internet Explorer) concerned several users:

• some considered the border as too thick for an infobox;
• Firefox browser narrowed borders as too thin;
• the discussion spanned several days to collect remarks;
• new Template:Infobox_Country_styled finally allows setting the property "border-width" which generates the same width border on multiple browsers; and
• article "Ireland" shows an alternate style for comparison showing how other UK articles already have infobox colours.

For those reasons, I have changed to use "boxstyle" for a thinner border that more people would accept. The old style, using the outer HTML <table> tags, was then removed. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Funny thing was on my Firefox browser it was just uneven - looking at it on IE it was super-thick! It's a much better base to work from now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple of questions, if you please:

• What value does this bring to the article?
• What relevance do the pantones have?
• Is this going to be adopted globabally (ie Iraq, USA etc)?
• Are you certain that this doesn't distract readers from the text as opposed to compliment it?

--Jza84 |  Talk  12:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The relevance is primarily to Wikipedia (through the value of design and visual cachet - which makes a number of people a bit grumpy, I know), rather than specifically to the subject of Wales (though it is red!). As a designer I will tell you that everything is designed to some degree - even with plain things a design decision is made. The idea of "global uniformity" sounds like a 1950's B movie to me (though this is important to design too - though it shouldn't be rigid)! The distraction argument is the only one against it that is important to me personally - I would guess consensus will sort it.

I'm removing the picture so we can see what it looks like without it - what do people think? (Please revert if you wish - I'm not totally against a landscape here - though maybe a smaller picture, or even a small row, might be better than one large picture?)--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't quite answer all my concerns. Plus my BA (first class mind!) was in Art and Design too, for what it's worth. Global uniformity on Wikipedia is a good thing, as the Manual of style says, "consistency promotes professionalism, simplicity and greater cohesion in Wikipedia articles. An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be applied consistently" before continuing that "If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style." This "neon" approach simiply serves to break up the continuity of Wikipedia's formatting rather than add any depth to the article.

My beef? The infobox is now way too vivid and distracting for readers, and if anything, takes value away from what was a proffessionally presented article. Colours should be useful to the reader, not merely decorative. Simillarly, if these are meant to be some kind of "national colours", then not only are the pantones incorrect, but it's the type of thing discouraged by WP:MOSFLAG. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Standardization is meant to bring consistency and professionalism to our site's design. See WP:MOS. The default infobox style should be used, unless there is a extraordinarily compelling reason to change it (which should be discussed at Template talk:Infobox Country).

The place for experiments in styling, is Portal:Wales. Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Detractors make it sound like the information within the infobox will somehow change, it will not. We are talking about styalistic borders and title headers, not changing information within. Consistancy is important, but not slavish consistancy. Infobox borders and title headers are a good thing as they will liven up a page, draw the reader to it. I have read nothing that says it absolutely has to be the same as others. Slavish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds! Styalistic infoboxes are a very engaging use to bring distinction to a page... not every nation page editors will wish to use it. Chosing the colors of a border and title header is akin to chosing the style of map within the info box, nothing more. It is a styalistic decision. These are good-faith changes to the info box border and title header, and should not be treated as an aberation. And I am sure that some changes in color will occur, but to deny editors these tools is in my opinion undemocratic and counters the spirit of Wikipedia. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 20:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

At what point does consistency become slavish? Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a democracy. I respect these are "good faith changes", but they are not inline with MOS, nor do they add any value to the article. I think I've made my objections clear enough however at this point. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

United States ISO 3166 code US

• Colors for USA: Choosing border colors for the USA would be simple, despite being a very large nation: red, white & blue. School children are met with massive USA flags in American school auditoriums, not quite like NAZI banners, but still oversized flags that flood the scene with red, white & blue. A USA infobox would look like the box at right, and few Americans would complain, for fear of being sideswiped by "Joe sixpack" in a pickup truck shouting, "These colors don't runnnn"... -Wikid77 (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How many editors arguing against this change are needed to convince those in favor of it that it does not have consensus behind it? IMO (and I think others are saying this as well) the overall visual style of the page is destroyed by highlighting the infobox this way. If you want a livelier look, please design your own skin. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed the colouring per WP:BRD. Talk at Template talk:Infobox Country --Jza84 |  Talk  00:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored border♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 01:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on what? I object, you're using a forked infobox without holding any discussion. There is no consensus to keep this. --Jza84 |  Talk  09:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for Mediation

Your Voice Counts!

Wales [Cymru] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) Wales
Flag Coat of arms

Greetings Wales community! We need your Voice! We need mediation and impute from the wider community who regularily contribute to articals of Wales interest. At issue is the use of a distinctive border around the country info box, as well title bar. The issue seems to have become a crusade against Wales by certin editors, who have almost never contributed to and practically never visit (by their own admission) the Wales page. I do not tust the motives of the editor, who seems to be stalking my edits and reverting them purposefully. This editor even dismisses the colors of Wales red and green saying that Wales does not have any official colors! (quote: "I imagine that this use of "national colours" (of which Wales has none by custom or tradition)...", Unfortunatly, I must deal with these cyber bullying tactics if I am to contribute here. However, I implore the Wales commmunity to weigh in on the topic of allowing info box borders and title headers. Please submit views on Template talk:Infobox Country and talk:Wales. If the wider Wales community decides not to support a border and title header color in the colors of Wales then I will withdrawal from this position. However, I and other editors do feel it makes the Wales page far more distinctive. Sincerly, David Llewellyn♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 02:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NEW DEVELOPMENTS: JZA84 Has nominated the use of the styalized borders and title headers for deletion!!!! Please have your say here! Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 14

"Traditionally a principality"

The intro says that Wales is "traditionally a principality", which suggests some doubt or uncertainty about whether it presently is a principality. It sounds as if perhaps it used to be, but now isn't. In fact, the article later says "Wales remains the largest principality in the world", but this is not made clear up front.

Second point: in the context of the introductory paragraph, it reads very much as if "principality" means "principality of the United Kingdom", whereas some sources call it a "principality of England". This is a technicality I guess, but I actually came here looking for clarification on exactly this point.

Perhaps an expert could clarify this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.55.16 (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I have a bit of a problem with this sentance. I have problems with it on two points:

1. Setting aside my own political feelings regarding the legitimacy of the son of the English/British throne calling himself the Prince of Wales, wikipedia's own definition of Principality conflicts with the situation in Wales. The Principality article says:

A principality (or princedom) is a monarchical feudatory or sovereign state, ruled or reigned over by a monarch with the title of prince or princess, or (in the widest sense) a monarch with another title within the generic use of the term prince.

If Wales is a Principlity, then it would mean that the current Prince of Wales (whether we believe he's intitled to call himself that or not!) is the actual ruler of Wales, which certainly isn't the case, whatever your view on the monarchy is. And Wales is also neither a monarchical feudatory (is it?) or sovereign state.

2. Maybe this has more to do with the Prince of Wales article than the Wales one, but I think there should be more done to differentiate between the old native princes and the title created by the British monarchy in 1301 - maybe this needs pointing out in the Wales article, and could possible be what the "historically" bit refers to.

The fact that the Prince of Wales has some sort of role in Wales (although I'm not sure what they are, as it's the Queen that seems to be doing the really important opening of institutions) should be contained somewhere in the Wales article I guess, but describing Wales as a principality so early in the article gives a false impression of it's significance IMHO. --Rhyswynne (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the Welsh Assembly members research department, and John Davies, Wales is traditionally a principality. The Principality of Wales was founded by a Welsh prince and was never officially desolved, rather reorganized with the 16th century Laws of Wales acts. As of 1999 the title Prince of Wales was defined as a life peerage rather then a hereditary title. "Traditionally a principality" answers the historic traditional context, and I have see media outlets refer to the 'principality' often enough... especially Betsan Powys of the BBC Wales chief political editor and blogger, especially during the last Assembly elections. I remember this debate springing up before (and was told no one ever ever refers to Wales as a principality) and then within a week of that debate Betsan Powys said during an interview on a BBC Wales Today newscast something to the effect that 'the electoriate up and down the principality...', and in a few other instances as well. I did not sense any pajoritive connotations there. There does need to be a section that addresses the role of the Prince of Wales within Wales (whatever that is, people still ask the questions, and it needs to be done without prejudice). This is my opionion.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 14:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Matt Lewis' latest edit deals with the above mentioned issues very well - it's much clearer now. Well done that man!--Rhyswynne (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Principality is a formal and academic word, sometimes even 'high brow' - but not one used publically at all, as those in Wales know. It deserves inclusion in the Intro though certainly - and a short explanation of it is useful. Just not at the top.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Change to first parag

After promising it for a while, I've made this edit (spoken a month or so ago - with nobody complaining):

Wales (Welsh: Cymru; pronounced ) is one of the four constituent countries (or 'home nations') that together make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is situated in the west of mainland Britain, with England to its east and the Irish Sea to its west. Wales has a population estimated at three million and is a bilingual country, with English the language spoken by the majority, and Welsh the native tongue.

No one can surely argue that the 'Principality' issue is important enough for the first parag. It's simply not part of every day life (end rarely used these days outside of royal/historical contexts). I favour the full UK title (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the actual home nation articles - and I don't agree that we should be forced into uniformity here if another home nation doesn't use it (the UK is simply too flexible and diverse for such pointless rigidity imo).

Also - Wales can easily be defined by itself, and also as part of the UK. Detailing so many non-Welsh surrounding landmarks in the opening parag is demoting Wales to a mere 'county' status imo!--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I made some other separate edits as I went through the Lead. They needs some citations to back them up ('divergent landscape' - should be easy to find). I added England and Wales to the history paragraph - I basically tried to keep the history together. I've kept the religion/history lines in the paragraph but I favour summarising history as much as possible in the Introduction. I would rather see more culture to balance it out... --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

DEAR GOD! What happened! These opening paragraphs are now so verbose! I cant even look at it! It is now set back by months! its all yours kids, I give up! Wow! I cant be visiting this Wales page again... lol. Economy of language is thrown out the door without care for word count or artical size? I couldnt disagree with these changes more. It was tight before, now it is all over the place. It is now one of the longest opening country intros Ive ever read. It is full of opinion, and with a language syntax that is unencylopedic. It has a blantently Unionist deterministic in sentiment and narration. Wow.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How many times have you just edited your above comment? 15? - certainly the most I've seen for a single comment: click on 'history' and read your own work. And you seem to be calling your fellow editors "kids"? The Introduction is hardly the finished article - and I've worked on information that what was already there - in the manner of Wikipedia editing. If we are going to include all this history in the introduction, how can it not be long? Think about it. If we lose the pre-existing lines on religion/history (which I feel belong, especially as they stand, in the History section) the Intro would actually be the same length as it was before my changes.

Finding it 'unionist' is just foolish I'm afraid. Wales is part of a union (the UK) - it just gives the state of play. I'd try not to get too distracted by unionist/independent thoughts - I know I've shared with you my feelings on a 'full independence' on my talk page, but I don't appreciate you hanging them over my edit like this - I am a weighted and impartial editor. And don't you even think about questioning my 'Welshness' - tread carefully there.

The article size is still 77k (as it was when I edited it) - not long for a country. Too-long articles are meant to be split into sub-articles when they have already been made concise, not deliberately kept within a certain size. When judging if something is concise or not - consider the amount of information imparted, and then try covering the same amount yourself. If you disagree with what I've written, why not improve it? If you can write better prose - then go ahead and do so.

The previous Introduction was controversial, history-heavy, unbalanced thematically, overlapping, a bit too 'academic' (for the Lead - which it still is a little), belittiling to Wales imo, and generally not good enough for a fantastic country. It simply didn't represent the country I know, and actually kept me up when I woke early last night. I was thinking of the Calzaghe fight and Americans giving it a look - I just had to finally jump in and make an edit.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I refer to my prior comment. Its yours Lewis, I wash my hands of it. The intro artical is way too long and verbose, full stop. I do not endorse any of these changes. You should take a look at articals such as Belgium, which was a featured artical, if you wish to see how a concise country page should be written. I did not question your Welshness, but the paragraph reads clearly as though it was a march towards unionism, rather then an artical on Wales itself.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 03:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, I know you care about the page. I wont comment one way or the other any further. We have a differing editorial styles, clearly, and this is the crux of it. Nothing more. I know you have the best interest in the page at heart, I wish you well in editing the page Matt. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - it will get there in the end, but has to go on the road first. I've seen the FA process in action and the content (or lack of), believe it or not, isn't looked at: they look at perfecting the Manual of style stuff. A number of Wikipedia's FA's are thick with misinformation, bias, and some poor prose too.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think think the article needed improving, but the range of these recent changes while having some good elements is I think in part a step backwards. I don;t have time now but will try and work on it over the weekend. We need to reach consensus on some points and too many changes at once makes it difficult for other editors to engage. --Snowded (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Cartainly we were too static to end up in a backwards state. Sometimes things progress after significant movement - having not known where to start, and on a few occasions backing off, I got really bothered by it and just jumped in (sometimes the best way - as the 'be bold' philosophy was no-doubt wisely made to suggest). I've worked on an important Lead before - they are the most important part of the article in my opinion, and sometimes the only part that is read. They can run in many directions before they settle - but they do settle. Alzheimers disease is a good example, and is one I've worked on a lot, and first laid-down in broadly its settled format. Leads can remain one of the poorest part of the article when no one gets to grips with changing them.

Incidentally, Wikipedia recommends four paragraphs for the Lead, and nothing says they can't be long ones - they just need to broadly and fairly address the most notable elements of the subject. I think the 'extra' (5th if we are counting) Principality paragraph is worth having at the end - I was against it mentioned at top of the Lead, as you know. I've had trouble with finding some citations, and always had a feeling that I'll find better wording myself in certain places after re-reading it a few times. Regarding the amount I did - after addressing some points I then needed to rearrange the whole thing - the paragraphs are certainly more thematically balanced now, imo. Regarding your time, I think it's best to make sure you edit when you have the time, otherwise things tend to drag on. I particularly have this philosophy with Wikipedia now, as my own time is about half of what it was when I first commented on this page - and I'm not likely to get it back unfortunately. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I also object to the word "traditionally": it's an emotive, ambiguous word, basically asserting an "it is but it isn't" kind of approach. It should be removed. As for the rest, I'm admiring the points made by Matt Lewis here, and these seem to be broadly what I'd go for (although we must stick to four paragraphs, no more). --Jza84 |  Talk  11:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As soon as the protection is lifted Home nation needs to go, such a silly term to describe Wales --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding my original query about the phrase "traditionally a principality", I'm very impressed by all the activity! The one point I'd make is that the wording "Wales is sometimes referred to as a Principality" still seems rather vague. I expected the question to have a definite constitutional "yes it is" or "no it isn't" answer, rather than a "well it might be, sometimes it's called that" one. Perhaps the status of "principality" is not such a well-defined thing as I thought it was. (Although, there are some definite "it is a principality" statements both in this article ["Wales remains the largest principality in the world"] and at Principality ["Currently the largest principality in the world is Wales in the United Kingdom"] which, being picky, don't sit totally at ease with the "sometimes referred to" statement.) Thanks anyway, and sorry to be so pedantic. Matt 19:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.12.199 (talk)

I'll keep thinking about it but it's an awkward one. Wales can be a country, nation and 'Principality' (and all 3 together). Nobody, however, refers to it un-formally as a Principality: to the people of Britain, Wales is simply the country called Wales. The UK actually has no constitution: it has a lot ancient statutes, and many of those that are to do with royalty are ignored today! I personally loath the "Prince of Wales" 'courtesy title' - but I live with it as people use it. Principality is only occasionally bandied formally, never colloquially in conversation. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Cofi

The article mentioning Cofi reads as being a language that is a hybrid of Welsh and English. I am only passingly familiar with the term, having been raised bilingually on Anglesey. I would have expected it to be described as a dialect, but the current paragraph does not make that particularly clear.

I also think that it would be a good idea to contrast this 'Anglicised Welsh' dialect with the 'Cambricised English' or Welsh English that is discussed earlier in the section.

Any views? Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Cofi is a dialect of Welsh with little trace of English. It appears to owe much to the dialectical variations of the Lleyn and is perhaps best compared to the neighbouring Bangorau. Cardi would be a better example of a Welsh dialect that has absorbed a number of English words, and very successfully too. Velela (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. On this basis, is it notable enough to be featured on the page? I don't feel that it is accurate to be described as 'not Welsh' and 'not English', either. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Holiday homes

I seem to remember around the 80's or 90's there was a number of holiday homes owned by English people that were burned down due to the high house prices which the locals could'nt afford. If my memory serves me right it was actually a Welshman who told me this, and also the news was'nt getting much press coverage for fear it could escalate. Is there anyone who could enlighten me more on this story, if indeed it's true. --Jack forbes (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference you need is to Meibion Glyndwr --Snowded (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, short article but interesting to find out something I heard years ago was true. --Jack forbes (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)\

Welsh Language Act 1993

For some reason which I cannot understand Wikipeire is trying to argue that Welsh is not an official language within Wales. I think the above act clearly establishes that it is. I have moved the discussion here, in the hope that s/he will engage in discussion rather than arbitrary change and frequent reversions. --Snowded (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That is for use the public sector. From the page itself:

Basically the Act did three things:

set up the Welsh Language Board, answerable to the Secretary of State for Wales, with the duty of promoting the use of Welsh and ensuring compliance with the other provisions. gave Welsh speakers the right to speak Welsh in court proceedings obliged all organisations in the public sector providing services to the public in Wales to treat Welsh and English on an equal basis

Where does it says it made it the official language? There is no piece of legislation that makes Welsh official. The Uk constitution recognizes it as a regional language like Scots, gaelic etc. Look at the Scotland page for an example on how it should be.Wikipéire (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As you will have noticed, I have fully-protected the article on the Wrong Version to stop the edit-warring getting even more out of hand, lest 3RR blocks start getting handed out. Any other admin may feel free to revert to semi-protection (if still appropriate) if there is a measure of agreement here before the protection expires. Bencherlite^Talk 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Read this Welsh article: http://www.newswales.co.uk/?section=Politics&F=1&id=11172 It calls for a new language act in order to make Welsh an official language. So this completely disproves your notion that the 93 act somehow made the language offical.Wikipéire (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reference to this "UK Constitution" that you are talking about and its statements about regional languages. As far as I am aware (and as I advised you early on) the UK does not have a written constitution. The only current reference to the welsh language is the above named act. The newspaper article you reference does not load on my browser. In any event you have to establish your constitution argument - I look forward to you finding it and making history

if welsh and english are legally to be treated in the same way in all of the institutions of state within wales then it is perverse to argue that it is not an official language (this sounds like your Republic of Ireland amendments - a political position not one of fact. Also please use the talk page - it should not be necessary to get you to three reversions in order to persuade you to both engaging in discussions --Snowded (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2008(UTC)

Here is the text of the article below just for you. It says in it that Welsh is not an official language and the current 93 act does not make it so. Its a Welsh page so don't accuse it of being biased!

Welsh language a must, say Lib Dems 22/4/2007

ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS

Eleanor Burnham AM, speaking on Equality Day today (Sunday) says that until Welsh is officially recognised alongside English as an official language of Wales, with statutory language rights for Welsh speakers, Wales cannot be considered a truly bi-lingual nation.

Ms Burnham, Welsh Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for the Welsh Language and Assembly Member for North Wales, said: “Equal rights are a defining factor of a fair, modern and democratic society and yet Wales is still behind the times when it comes to enshrining our bi-lingual culture in law.

“The Welsh Liberal Democrats are committed to putting Welsh and English on an equal footing. We want to see Welsh established as an official language of Wales, as well as English, recognizing the role Welsh now plays in people’s everyday lives.

“We also want to enshrine individual rights for Welsh language speakers which would ensure they get equal treatment when accessing public services, giving people in Wales the right to correspond with public bodies in Welsh if and when they choose to.

“A new Welsh Language Act would make these equal language rights a reality and with the Welsh Assembly’s new law-making powers after May, the Welsh Liberal Democrats will be able to bring equality to both the languages of Wales.”Wikipéire (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a LIberal Democrat taking a position for reasons I do not understand, given the rights of the existing act. Either way a newpaper article is not authority. I await with interest your finding the UK constitution and its statements on language (and to others getting involved, I get on a sleeper train from Scotland in a half an hours time) --Snowded (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A Welsh newspaper article saying its not an official language means a lot more than your opinion that you "think" the 93 act makes it official. I've done my bit showing why its not official. Instead of me going on, can you provide any reputable text to back your point of view?Wikipéire (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Its a political statement around an election. Its an opinion - fine, there will be others. I have quoted the act and arguments around that. Please deal with the argument. I note you are running away from dealing with your claims on the UK constitution .... --Snowded (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion? Are you saying this is about which opinion is right? Wikipedia is about facts. Surely if this mentioned that its not official then the current legislation couldn't possibly contracdict it? You have basically said theres no fact whether or ont Welsh is an official language or not. You didn't quote the act. I outlined the points of it and how it shows that Welsh is not the official language because of the act but rather for a bit of public sector use. You have not made any points whatsoever on why its official. Where does it say in the 93 act that its official? If you have that I will admit I'm wrong. If not then well...my facts and sources are right.Wikipéire (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You quote a press article not a fact. Back up your earlier statements about the constitution and I will take you seriously —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 21:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A Welsh article surely wouldn't make such a huge blunder about its own language? You don't have to take me seriously, its the facts that you have to respect. And judging by your responses you have no facts whatsoever on why Welsh is an official language. I have dispelled every reason you have given so far. You have not said anything to back up your opinion. Unless you come up with something surely this discussion will be over. I can't keep on saying the same stuff over and over.Wikipéire (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Bwrdd yr Iaith [6] and the BBC [7] beg to differ Welshleprechaun. Looking at Wikpéire's previous edits to Wales, the seem to patronise it unfoundedly claiming that Wales has no anthem etc. (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not patronising Wales. I merely said that the anthem is not official. Looking at Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau it says "by tradition the National anthem of Wales". By tradition doesn't mean official. Same is with Scotland and England they do not have official anthems. There is an official anthem of the UK though. Why is Wales different?

Anyway back to the point. The bbc Source states that Welsh was the official language of the Kingdom of Wales in the 13th century!!! Not exactly relevent to today as Wales merged with England to become a different country. The bwrdd-yr-iaith.org.uk source refers to the 1942 Courts Act which allowed Welsh to be used in court. Again nothing about it being an official language!Wikipéire (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wales did not merge it was conquered. You are failing to address the substantive issue about what constitutes an "official" language. If used in the courts etc. then it is. You have not produced a statement from your mythical UK constitution which says that it is not. So we are working on the evidence. I cite the courts, education, use in the Welsh Assembly, signage etc. I will deal with the political issue on a new Welsh Language Act in a later comment. --Snowded (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you care to take another look, the Bwrdd yr Iaith says:...the language would not be used as an official language again until after the passing of the 1942 Welsh Courts Act – four hundred years later. It is now very much after 1942, hence used today officially. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And if Welsh was made official in court by presumably an official then surely that makes the Welsh language official. It sounds pretty reasonable to me. --Jack forbes (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

it says that but it doesn't say why its official. Its putting it all on the 1942 Welsh Courts Act. You should be refering to that rather than something put together on a Welsh language weppage. The 1942 Welsh Courts Act was put out to allow Welsh to be spoken in court. eg. by a lawyer, defandant etc. Nowhere is the languages official status brought into play. For that reason the source doesn't really say anything really. You need to quote some legislation to prove that it is. The 93 act doesn't say its official, either does the 42 courts act. They deal with matters about the language but nothing about it being the official language of Wales.Wikipéire (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well perhaps Wikipeire can help bring an end to the dispute by finding a source clearly stating that Welsh is not an official language Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well there's this article: http://www.newswales.co.uk/?section=Politics&F=1&id=11172 It mentions the fact that Welsh is not the official language and that a new language act needs to be in place to make it so. It was written in 2007 so it is new.

I acknowledge thats probably not good enough but my proof is that there is no legislation saying it is the official language. How can one prove something that doesn't exist with actual legislation? You can only prove what is. Why would there be a source saying 'Welsh is not the official language of Wales'? If it was the official language there would be something official that says it is the official language. However there is not. It is not up to me to end the dispute. It is up to the people saying it is the official language to back down and realise there is nothing supporting the claim.Wikipéire (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

These people saying it is the official language who should back down are in the same position as you in that they also believe they are right. It is therefore up to everyone to end disputes. If everyone thought like you did, there wouldn't be an end to the dispute so please adopt a more appropriate attitude towards the matter. Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at this official language second paragraph. --Jack forbes ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't source Wikipedia as a reference. In this case the editor has clearly mis interpreted the act. The act allowed the use of Welsh in court with a days notice or something. Nothing about the official status!!!But after reading it, I was led me to this webpage: http://www.welshlanguageact.org/ It's the official Welsh language act web page. Notice it says "We call on the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure a New Welsh Language Act that will provide official status for the language". This page is a proper site not some random editor mis intrepreting an act. Someone on the Wikiproject Welsh page should probably change that. Is my source which says Welsh does not have official status proof enough?Wikipéire (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: The fact that Welsh isn't official is all over this website: http://www.welshlanguageact.org/?t=4 I think this web site would know if Welsh was official or not(!) Clearly its not. Can the protection be removed now?Wikipéire (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The webpage also demands that welsh be allowed in court. I think we have already established this for quite some time. How reliable is this website? --Jack forbes (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Wikipeire, on this matter.

• Firstly, in regard to Jack Forbes, the article you direct attention to has no references of any kind to support the statement in the second paragraph. Further the Welsh Language Act 1967 article has a link [8] which calls for a new Act to make Welsh an official language. Hence ruling the comment on the official language article void.
• Secondly The Welsh Language Act 1999 [9] has no mention of making Welsh an official language and only gives it equality in the public sphere, along with use in court procedures and sets up the Welsh Language Board.
• Finally, the official opposition in the Assembly have as one of their policies to make Welsh an official language (would seem rather odd if this status had already been granted). [10]

AlexD (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I confess to being no expert on this. It just seemed commonsense if it was spoken in courts. I have no more argument for you but I think you should wait for others to chip in before changing anything. :) --Jack forbes (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought about this over night as there seemed a contradiction between the campaign for equality and the Welsh Language Act. However I think I now understand the difference. I language can be official but not equal. So in South Africa there are 14 languages all with legal status but they are not equal. There can be no doubt that the Welsh Language Act gives Welsh official status as a language. If you can insist that a langauge is used in the courts, the educational system etc then it is obviously an official language. So the form which has stood for over a year should be left in place.

I note that Wikipéire has yet to provide any back up or justification for his/her reference to the authority of a UK constitution in respect of language - if this is not forthcoming would s/he have the decency to withdraw it.--Snowded (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Welsh Language Act does not give official status to Welsh. Please read my points above, I have included a link to the Welsh Language Act so please go and read it and kindly point out where it states that Welsh will be an official language (the constitutional justification you ask for, along with the conservatives wishing to get and act to make Welsh an official language). Secondly as I have mentioned below Welsh is included in the EU charter for Regional and Minority Languages which seeks to protect those languages that do not have official status. Please also provide references as all we are getting at the moment is conjecture. AlexD (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Further evidence that Welsh is not an Official Language.

"Speaking on BBC Wales' Politics Show, Mr Pugh also rejected a call by Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Language Society - at a rally in Aberystwyth over the weekend - for the language to have official status." [11]

"Plaid Cymru assembly leader Ieuan Wyn Jones has called for a new Welsh Language Act at a rally attended by up to 300 people in mid Wales. Mr Jones said Welsh should have official status and also called for a language commissioner to be appointed."[12]

"We therefore need a new Welsh Language Act which will give the Welsh language full offical status so that it is completely equal to the English language in Wales, and incorporates the linguistic rights of Welsh speakers." [13]

"I believe Welsh should be given official language status and we should have an independent language commissioner. Bizarrely under existing legislation, Welsh does not have official language status with English. " [14] AlexD (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok so now we start to get there. We have one set of arguments from Wikipéire that seek to reduce material relating to Wales (language the anthem etc. Then we have another set from people wanting increased rights for the Welsh Language. OK I painted enough signs green in my youth, I support the welsh language, but this is the Wikipedia. We need an objective position, not a political one. The fact that some people want more status is not an argument against the original entry which has stood for a year. --Snowded (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Can the protection be removed now?", asks Wikipéire. As the admin who imposed the protection, I don't yet see consensus or compromise, and lifting the protection is likely to lead to a resumption of the edit war. Perhaps discussion of the best wording of Wales#Languages will be useful, not just whether the infobox should say "officlal", "de facto", "regional language" or something else. What makes a language "official", for instance? That might help clarify the discussion. "First, define your terms", as my old English teacher used to remind us when we were about to tackle an essay. (What makes English the "official" language of England, incidentally? Just wondering...) Bencherlite^Talk 00:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is no official language act for the UK and English is taken as de facto. In terms of how to classify the status of Welsh, the European Council classes it as a territorial language, with Welsh listed under its Charter for regional and minority languages [15] [16], thusly it might be best to classify in a similar manner. AlexD (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is no official language for the UK, but tha English is is the state's official language, but in the country/territory/region/county of Wales (please delete as applicable depending on you POV - as plenty seem to be displaying here), if the 1993 Act states that both languages are equal, then they are both de-facto official languages. The fact that an individual as the right to use Welsh in courts and when dealing with the public sector means it does have an official status, while not being an official language. I think it should be kept as it was before the recent edits. --Rhyswynne (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Act only states that they should be treated equal in the public sphere when "appropriate under the circumstances and reasonably practicable" and places no requirement on the private sector. In terms of de facto the use of the Welsh language is governed by a law so it is de jure, further if it was de facto then it would not be included in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages as the charter only deals with non official languages. I do agree that the language has a quasi-status in that it has a official status in courts and public bodies to an extent, while not actually being an official language. AlexD (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Political groups wishing to "make Welsh an official language" are seeking to make Welsh an official language in all aspects of Welsh life. I personally feel that they are using the above phrase as it is more 'scandalous' and makes a better political slogan (as compared to, say, "make Welsh official in all the other walks of life as well": it just doesn't roll off the tongue as well). It could also be argued that saying "make it official" curries favour with those that feel that it does not currently have (sufficient) official recognition.

I see it as an indisputable fact that the role of the Welsh language is not legally defined (or guaranteed) in all proceedings in Wales. I also see it as a fact that its status is defined and guaranteed in several significant aspects of life, including the right to conduct legal proceedings in Welsh, and the right to communicate with public bodies in Welsh. There is a long-standing provision of Welsh-medium education, and also that Welsh must be taught as a language throughout compulsory secondary education [17].

From this, I form a summary that while Welsh is not a fully official language of all aspects of Wales, it is an official language in some. So it is an official langauge. (The article should still qualify this statement)

In comparing the position of languages in Wales with languages in Canada (see Official bilingualism in Canada), I see many parallels. Both are legally required to provide for both languages in government proceedings (at the federal level in Canada), and in courts. They both support the development of the minority languages, funded by government. I would even go as far as saying that Welsh is more defined as an official language than French is in many parts of anglophonic Canada. Ontario, for example, only has legislation guaranteeing the right to use French with government bodies in areas where there is a 'high' concentration of francophones, whereas such guarantees for Welsh apply to the entire county of Wales.

So, as I see it, the official status of English and Welsh in Wales is comparable to that of English and French in Canada. If you agree with my conclusions here, then surely either both countries have two 'official' languages each, or neither does? Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see with your comparison is that the Canadian situation "places obligations on private actors in Canadian society to provide access to goods or services in both official languages (such as the requirement that food products be labeled in both English and French)", which extends the requirement to the private sector which is not what the Welsh Language Act 1993 does. Further from what the article says there is no get out clause and it is a right for the Canadians, whereas under the Welsh Language Act if a public body deems it not "appropriate under the circumstances and [not] reasonably practicable" then they do not have to provide anything in Welsh.

Personally, my view is that the Welsh language is semi-official in that there is a requirement for the Government and other public bodies to promote and treat Welsh equally with regards to English, but this is not tantamount to an official language as there is a get out clause and there is no statutory requirement for the private sector along with the fact that it is classed as a regional and minority language by a treaty. AlexD (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So how about this as a compromise. We leave the established statement that Welsh is an officlal language, but include a new section in the article which contains a lot of the above data in what has become an intelligent debate and acts as a qualifier. --Snowded (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No. AlexD and myself has given many reasons why its not an official language so saying that it is would be misleading to say the least. So the edits to the infobox should stand. I agree that a section explaining how the language is used would be a good idea. Saying things like Welsh can be used in court and the public sector if asked for by an individual would be an interesting point for the reader.Wikipéire (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How about phrasing it along the lines of 'the Welsh language has official recognition by public bodies', if we cannot agree on the definition of an "official" language?

Ok. I'm not sure what you mean by phrase as its an infobox we're talking about. How about we keep it with the new edit but there can be a asterisks or whatever beside Welsh with a note at the bottom of the infobox saying Welsh is recognized to be used in the courts? That way both sides have what they want.Wikipéire (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaving the info box as is (without the new edit), but with an asterisk which then leads to a wider discussion describing the situation wold make sense. I don't think it is remotely misleading to say that a language is official if it is used in all aspects of government. At the moment there is no concensus or majority for either position. So taking your idea of the asterisk with an explanation, while keeping the official label seems reasonable. I am not happy about it, but better than a reversion war --Snowded (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh no. We have proved with numerous sources why it is not the official language. You are using your own opinion to change an act that allows Welsh to be used on court on request because its a recognized regional language in the UK to suddenly saying that makes it an official language of Wales! There are numerous places on the Welsh Lnaguage Act itself where it says Welsh is not an official language which are shown above. The basis behind your argument is you going from A to B without any logic or reason. With the sources I have given they have clearly stated word for word that Welsh is not the official language of Wales. So therefore if we are compromising the fact that it is not official should take the paramount position as of my edit and the asterisk can be used to display your position. Once you provide us all with actual legislation that says Welsh is the official language of Wales then the your edit can come into play.Wikipéire (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you want a compromise? Look, for a start I am defending a position which has been in place for over a year, I am not proposing an edit I am defending a current position. You are quoting opinions that argue that Welsh is not an official language, none of those are authoritative documents (you have persistently refused to deal with your UK constitutional claim). The only authoritative document in play is the Act, which establishes a series of rights and obligations which make Welsh an official language (not necessarily the same level as English but that is not the question). I repeat - you have provided no authoritative source, you have provided evidence of a political position that can be explained in a note. In my opinion the suggest that the status quo prevails with a note to explain some of the issues is a reasonable compromise. Overall the opinions here are balanced - there is no clear consensus so I suggest we start trying to find solutions. Oh and you might want to quote to justify your statement that the ACT says that Welsh is not an official language. --Snowded (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just had a look over at the Scotland article which might offer a suitable solution for all. In their infobox they have Official Language as English (De Facto) and then underneath a section entitled 'Recognized regional languages' as Galic and Scots. If all agree could we adopt this for the infobox and also include a section on what has turned out to be quite an interesting issue? AlexD (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If we were to follow the above suggestion, I would prefer Official languages: English, Other languages: Welsh, with of course a footnote describing the current legal status in a bit more detail. I find describing Welsh, in relation to Wales, as a regional language to be inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansbaradigeidfran (talk • contribs) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's perfectly acceptable to me. I agree 'regional' probably isn't the best word.Wikipéire (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur, seems a suitable compromise. AlexD (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary of current position The established position for some time has been that Welsh and English are listed as official languages This was changed recently along with other changes to the status of the Welsh National Anthem I reverted those at which point Wikipiere enters with three revertions refusing engagement in the talk page until forced by an administratior

There has now been a series of exchanges and we have:

For the status quo (Wales and England are official languages): Myself quoting Welsh Language Act, Welshleprechaun (quoting Bwrdd yr Iaith as authority), Jack Forbes referencing the general statement in Wikipedia defining an official language, Rhyswynne referencing the courts, Ansbaradigeidfran comparing with the position on French and English in Canada

For the recent change Wikipiere and AlexD quoting various documents from political parties and others seeking increased status for the Welsh Language. Wikipiere has also argued that the English Constitution supports him but has not provided any citation

So at the moment it is 5-2 in favour of the status quo although Asbaradigeidfan has indicated he might accept a compromise in which Wales is listed as another language.

I also note that AlexD and Wikipiere have started to engage in discussion on this page recently following the controversy over changes in the information box, while most of the "other side" are long standing contributors the page.

On the basis of that I think the position is pretty clear. The obvious compromise, based on the discussions and strength of contributions to this discussion is to keep the status quo, but make a note of the issues relating to the status of Welsh, current controversies etc.

In respect of recent exchanges the position in Scotland is very different, there is not Equivalent of the Welsh Language Act in Scotland (I make no comment on this absence) --Snowded (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh My God are you serious? Haha What you have just typed is absolute rubbish. It's like propoganda trying to swing something.

Please try and maintain a civilised standard of debate, if you don't understand something ask, don;t throw insults. --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For the status quo (Wales and England are official languages): Myself quoting Welsh Language Act, Welshleprechaun (quoting Bwrdd yr Iaith as authority), Jack Forbes referencing the general statement in Wikipedia defining an official language, Rhyswynne referencing the courts, Ansbaradigeidfran comparing with the position on French and English in Canada

Ok lets debunk this step by step. 1. You did not quote the Welsh Language Act. You misquoted it. Tell me again where it says in the act that Welsh is the official language of Wales? As in not you claiming it does somehow does but where is the sentence saying it does? And which bit of Bwrdd yr Iaith are you talking about? Surely not the 1942 Welsh Courts Act bit. That actually just allows Welsh to be used in court if requested. How that makes it the offcial language of a country I never know. Thirdly you can't quote wikipedia. Unsourced statements are bound to be wrong. It quotes the Welsh Language Act 1967 which gives some rights to use the Welsh language in court similar again to the 1942 act. Where the line saying its the official language? Its not there. You are trying to pull something out of a hat. How can you compare Canada with Wales. I am half Canadian so I know its a joke to compare the two. Firstly Canada is a sovereign state with its own constitution. Wales is not. How the fact the way their languages are set out is beyond me.

If you note the previous exchanges there are many official languages which would fail the test of there having to be formal document stating their status. The convention on official languages is not determined by whether something is a sovereign state or note. When Canada was a dominion it still had two official languages. --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For the recent change Wikipiere and AlexD quoting various documents from political parties and others seeking increased status for the Welsh Language. Wikipiere has also argued that the English Constitution supports him but has not provided any citation

English constitution? Now you are just making stuff up. How does England a constitute conutry of the UK have a consitution exactly? We quoted political parties did we? Rather than you making something up?

I fully agree that the concept of an English constitution is a nonsense - YOU raised it early on in this debate and has failed to back it up and now you deny it? Are you taking part in a debate or simply saying whatever you think needs to be said at any stage to get a result? The material below indicates that there is an active debate and it should be covered in the article. The argument is a simple one - if a language has official status in the courts, education and government then it is official. People may want more status, they may argue that the criterial for being official is different but that is the debate. You may disagree with my position but at least try and engage with it --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Speaking on BBC Wales' Politics Show, Mr Pugh also rejected a call by Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Language Society - at a rally in Aberystwyth over the weekend - for the language to have official status." [18]

"Plaid Cymru assembly leader Ieuan Wyn Jones has called for a new Welsh Language Act at a rally attended by up to 300 people in mid Wales. Mr Jones said Welsh should have official status and also called for a language commissioner to be appointed."[19]

"We therefore need a new Welsh Language Act which will give the Welsh language full offical status so that it is completely equal to the English language in Wales, and incorporates the linguistic rights of Welsh speakers." [20]

"I believe Welsh should be given official language status and we should have an independent language commissioner. Bizarrely under existing legislation, Welsh does not have official language status with English." [21] AlexD (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally the mystical Welsh Language Act which you claim says it makes Welsh the official language of Wales. Well here is the website of said act. http://welshlanguageact.org/

And I quote "We call on the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure a New Welsh Language Act that will provide official status and for the language"

That is five sources which refer to different acts which says these acts do not make 'Welsh the official language of Wales'.

As I said, a political position --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please Snowded where in the Language Act does it say 'with this Welsh is the official language of Wales'? The fact of the matter is you have zero credible sources saying why Welsh is the official language.Wikipéire (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In which case, if that is the criteria, many other languages will have to cease being official (I suspect this includes English in England). --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My own view: If the Official language has been stable for a year because it is correct according ot the link. Wikpiere is simply wrong to say we cannot use the Infobox "Official language:" link because we cannot quote Wikipedia in an argument. The criteria we are looking for is simply in the link! Wikipedia has clearly defined what an "official language" is in Wikipedia terms - and lets face it - it is hardly a stone-carved phrase! Wikipedia has wisely made it less rigid than some countries' various legal situations might have it (and things can be flexible and vary a lot in the UK, esp regarding nationality).

I notice Wikipiere is Canadian, and people are here from all over. Everyone is as entitled as anyone else to edit of course, but I thought people might like to know some of my own Welsh-language experience living in Cardiff:

I was born in Cardiff and have been based here nearly all of my 37 years. As long as I personally remember all the public information printed by the councils/governments in Wales was bilingual. Often you get two large booklets sent in the post and you simply discard the ones you don’t want. The Yellow Pages and the telephone book are bilingual. The health information you pick up in surgeries is bilingual - everything like that is bilingual. It costs us a fortune but we do it. Certain jobs in Cardiff can demand bilingual workers. All traffic signs are bilingual. Croeso i Gymru - welcome to Wales: we use two languages. Everyone knows that Welsh is getting more popular as the economy improves - for a number of reasons. Welsh speaking schools are on the increase. Assembly members use it as a selling factor. Whether English is "defacto" (as Labour calls it) or "official", or Welsh is "official" or "should-be-official" (you can find them all on the web) - they are all rhetorical party lines - they (and we) all want to see more of it. Wikipedia has its own label for Welsh - an official language. It's even on the sub-article List of official languages, next to English. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to go over all the evidence again as that is tedious and I doubt many have read the links to start with so would ultimately be a waste of time. There is no debate about the requirement for the use of Welsh in government and public business but that does not make Welsh an official language, as there is no requirement for the Private sector to treat Welsh as it does English.

Please read my whole comment and please sign your own. Is this a comment on my above comment? - you haven't addressed my main point. By WIKIPEIDAS standards it IS an OFFICIAL LANGUAGE!!! Wikipedia is the only standard that matters in a Wikipdia Info box!!! (9by the way - some jobs have to be in Welsh - it is a law that this can be requested on the application.)) --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

and that is the heart of the disagreement, I and others think the requirement in Government, and for private citizens in respect of their interactions with Government is decisive. Private Industry can do what it wants (as an English company can in say France). --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note of caution, just because something has gone unchallenged on wikipedia for a year does not mean that it is true due to the lack of challenges, otherwise by that logic everything that was first written on wikipedia would still be here.

Very true, but when there is no consensus (and a majority against change), and the active editors on the site in general agree it is an argument. --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, I answered the rhetorical question I posed: I hardly need to be cautioned! I am removing my first line to encourage peole to read what I have written. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To make my definition clear, to me an official language is one that is defined in law as such or is de facto, thusly my arguments are based on whether there is a legal de jure or de facto official status for Welsh. (please click on the links and read what each means)

This is your definition - not Wikipedias (the only one that matters in the infor box). --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you take that position then you will have to be very busy on other country pages having this same argument. In many cases a de factor position would suffice, However in this case we also have a de Jure position in respect of interactions between citizens and the state. --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Are people willing to accept the compromise of putting Welsh as 'Other Recognized Language' as mentioned above? AlexD (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced, I think it reduces the status of welsh (as other amendments relating to the language did). I do not think the article should support a nationalist position, but neither should it be a Unionist one. --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A member of my family lived in Anglesey some ten years ago. She's Scottish but found it necessary to learn Welsh in order to get a part-time sales job in the area. English was a "nice to have" but Welsh was a "must have". Like AlexD says, there is no requirement for the private sector to treat English as it does Welsh. If AlexD's logic proves that Welsh is not an official language in Cardiff, then it surely proves that English is not an official language in Anglesey. Or perhaps there is something wrong with his argument. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is on a different scale, we are talking about the whole of Wales and on a whole Welsh is not the principal language (hence why I don't accept it as de facto). Off course there are regional variations within Wales, for instance where I was brought up and live your more likely to hear English yet if you travel 5 minutes to the West Welsh is the main language. However, this article is about Wales and not Anglesey nor the geographic variation in the usage of the Welsh language as these are impertinent, but rather (or at least in my case) about whether Welsh is accepted legally as an official language or not. As yet I have seen no evidence to support the claim that Welsh is either de jure nor de facto official! AlexD (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Anglesey has significance, please don't dismiss it. The presence of Welsh as a first language in many areas of Wales is one of the reasons for the Welsh Language Act. --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder. French is not the principal language of Canada as a whole either, yet it is undoubtedly official. The fact is that assuming that your reasoning above is correct, I can use you what you just said to support the claim that English is not an official language of Wales. Thus I could say:

Of course there are regional variations within Wales, for instance where you were brought up and live, one is more likely to hear English yet if one travels 5 minutes to the West, Welsh is the main language. However, this article is about Wales and not Anglesey nor the geographic variation in the usage of the English language as these are irrelevant, but rather (or at least in my case) about whether English is accepted legally as an official language or not. As yet I have seen no evidence to support the claim that English is either de jure nor de facto official!

Now it would be absurd to believe that the above line of argument proves that English is not an official language in Wales, and by analogy it is absurd to believe that the same argument can prove that Welsh is not an official language in Wales. Other arguments might well be used but not that one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have said I am coming from this from a legal aspect, and the law's territorial extent is WALES not individual counties or places where people live, that is why Anglesy is not important nor where I live. To be de facto (in principal) Welsh would have to be treated like English all the way through Wales i.e. all businesses across Wales would publish in Welsh and English as well as the Public Sector, at the moment only the Public sector is doing so as it is obliged by law (de jure), this is why I have said that Welsh has a quasi or semi-official status previously. If you think that Welsh has official status please provide the evidence, I have taken the time to post links and also provide quotations for you to assess, whereas all that has been provided as a counter to what I say is either that it has been on wikipedia for a year or a link to an unreferenced article, so please list your sources! AlexD (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Alex, I have also put considerable effort into responding to this. I have addressed all the points above (as have others) several times. If I have a legal right to use a language in my transactions with the state then it is an official language, and evidence for that has been provided, it has official status. You are trying to argue a much wider test which I don't think English could pass in England. You are repeating arguments (and I am repeating counters). If there are no new arguments then I think the consensus is that the original wording stands and we should work on a new section which expresses the wider issues on language. Its time to move on, --Snowded (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is time to move on and the arguments are becoming circular. This is a complex area an a highly emotive one but at the end of the day wikipedia is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia is based on evidence. As I have stated I am happy to accept a compromise and previously one was in motion. The test that I am using has two parts

• Is Welsh the principal language in the Whole of Wales (i.e. has 50% or more of people using it)
• Is Welsh defined in Law as an official Language

These are the only two means of having an official language the first being de facto (which is what English passes in England and so is an official language) the second being by law, if one of these is shown then I will concede and retract my argument, however neither have been. I have listed my evidence below and am placing a call for comment on the top of the page in an attempt to draw to a close, if you could provide your evidence below also then that should help with a speedy resolution. AlexD (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are your criteria, the first is agreed. The second is a question of whether the law makes it official. I have and continue to content that the right to use Welsh in legal and other contexts means that it is official. Whether the act uses the exact phrase is not important and I cant see why you think it is. Overall I agree that we should do far more for the language, and I agree with the proposals on commissioners and increasing status. However none of that detracts from the central position. I have a legal right to use Welsh in all aspects of the government of Wales; Welsh is therefore an official language. I really think a good section on this would help. The evidence relates to your criteria (and its useful) but it requires acceptance of your limitation of the use of the "word" official. --Snowded (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Having had a quick look through the Welsh language act 1993 I can hardly believe they have managed to avoid the word official (as far as I can see). For all intents and purposes it is official! Does anyone actually argue against the fact that officially you are allowed to speak and have a case heard in court in the Welsh language. Now, where are these courts, yep, there in Wales. So surely it follows if Welsh is official in court in Wales then the Welsh language is official! It does seem to me that the way the act is worded owes more to politics rather than making it clear and concise. --Jack forbes (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any sources to show that English is an official language in the UK? If not then Welsh is, in Wales, as official as English, but that there are active campaigns to broaden the use of Welsh. Perhaps the "official" label can be left blank, and other labels used for both English and Welsh? Dan Beale-Cocks 08:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

English is the de facto official language of the UK, Scotland, Wales and England. Welsh is not and cannot be a de facto official language because only 21.7% of Welsh people can actually speak Welsh. I am only writing on this talk page now as think your idea of leaving out the word official could be the solution to all this.78.16.152.66 (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If 21% of a population speak a language then it is clearly not a MAJORITY language, but that does not prevent it being an official one, particularly when the right to use it is enshrined in law. If you want to argue from majorities then the most of the 11 Official languages in South Africa have to go. The argument here is that is de facto an official language (21% speak, it is the native tongue in significant areas) and de Jure (an act of Parliament gives people a right to use it in their interactions with Government --Snowded (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You do know what de facto means right? It can only be applied to one language. 99.9% of Wales speak English so it is the de facto official language. 21.7% means it is a minority and is nowhere near being a de fact official language. Youe de jure claim is what this is all about. Some are saying the 93 act makes it official while other say it does not. Anyway what about the removing the word official and just make it languages? What are your opinions on that? I see it as the solution.78.16.152.66 (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find your definition of de facto is not strictly true, as shown in the louisiana article which states that both English and French are de facto. Only 4.8% of the population speak French. --Jack forbes (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say de facto. I quote "While the state has no declared "official language," its law recognizes both English and French." Again French is recognized but not official as in Welsh's case. I quote: A de facto standard is a standard (formal or informal) that has achieved a dominant position, or by enforcement, or market dominance. This can only apply to one language in both cases in is neither Welsh or French.

Again as a compromise what about just removing the word official and saying Languages: Welsh, English.78.16.152.66 (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hate to be argumentative, but if you check the info box you will see De facto: English and French. Also check this [22]. As for your compromise, I have no problem with it. --Jack forbes (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement for de facto to be restricted to one language, it is reasonable to say that de facto Welsh and English are official languages as they are used in education, the courts and in other transactions. As it happens it is also de jure given the act which confers official status. If a language is in active use by a significant proportion of a population, taught in all schools and that language has legal status then it is official. To say anything else is a nonsense. If you want to say "Languages: English and Welsh" I might live with that, but its not accurate. In that case Italian is as well. The reality (and only a couple of people disagree with this) is that Welsh and English are official languages, and English is the majority language. Its perverse to say anything else --Snowded (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say. You are right to say "Language: English and Welsh" is not quite the proper thing. What I will say though is that they must both be categorised together, whether that's official language or not. As you say there is no doubt that Welsh is official. --Jack forbes (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That link's information is actually taken straight from Wikipedia.

Anyway glad to see you agree to the compromise. What about the others? Do you agree to the compromise that DanBealeCocks suggested? Let's ignore the argument for the moment and just see if this compromise can reach a consensus.78.16.152.66 (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2008

(UTC)

I would support that but lets wait and see what the mediator on this issue says. I have a feeling a compromise won't be necessary.Wikipéire (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Jack is saying that Welsh is an official language. However a compromise position is to list Languages as Welsh and English with neither specified as official. I am not sure why a compromise is necessary however with limited support for the "not an official language" position. --Snowded (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the infobox to National Languages: Welsh, English. The infobox parameters don't allow for just 'languages' to appear so national seemed the best option. If there's a problem with this let me know.Wikipéire (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

not an agreement to a change but an invitation to others to contribute. The position at the moment is roughly a 4:1 majority for official so unless a substantial body of people think a change necessary I am for the status quo which I think is established by the discussion. If a number of those who argued for official want to revise their position I will go with the flow, but only if they do --Snowded (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get the 4:1 from (??) but it doesn't really matter, its quality of argument not numbers. I am currently working on an edit to the language bit if the Wales article to reflect on the complicated nature of its officialness or not.Wikipéire (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to the edit as I think a section in the article on the subject is necessary and I look forward to your contribution there. At the moment the argument rests on interpretation of what constitutes official and the various evidence is now outline. When I last counted 7 editors argued for official, 2 against then another entered for, hence 4:1 --Snowded (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am supporting it being unnofficial. Gozitancrabz (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are a real delight! One minute you say Support: For the reasons given by Snowded. then you delete it and put in the above. Damascus Road experience? Its probably over anyway. I think Wikipeire has done a reasonable job on the edit and removing official but leaving both languages with equal status can be lived with --Snowded (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

break

Sources and Evidence

(Pleas take the time to read the sources)

For Welsh being an Official Language

• Wikipedia has its own label for Welsh - an official language (see link). It appears on the sub-article List of official languages, by Wales, next to English. Wikipedias definition is all that matters. Wikipedia has to be reasonably broad here as it covers every country (each with its own varied laws on the matter). The UK has notoriously flexible laws on nationality labelling: United Kingdom, Britain, Wales, NI, the Crown dependencies etc. Laws can vary even in the same country - Wikipedia simply HAS TO BE FLEXIBLE HERE! So it is - and nothing else matters.

• ([23] - list nationality articles that use Original language as an info-box link.)

• Real-life evidence: All the public information printed by the councils/governments in Wales was bilingual. Often you get two large booklets sent in the post and you simply discard the ones you don’t want. The Yellow Pages and the telephone book are bilingual. The health information you pick up in surgeries is bilingual - everything like that is bilingual. It costs us a fortune but we do it. Certain jobs in Cardiff can demand bilingual workers. All traffic signs are bilingual. Croeso i Gymru - welcome to Wales: we use two languages. Everyone knows that Welsh is getting more popular as the economy improves - for a number of reasons. Welsh speaking schools are on the increase. Assembly members use it as a selling factor. Whether English is "defacto" (as Labour calls it) or "official", or Welsh is "official" or "should-be-official" (you can find them all on the web) - they are all rhetorical party lines - they (and we) all want to see more of it.

• The Welsh Language Act gives people a right to use the Welsh Language in all aspects of Government and in the courts. It places obligations to use both languages on all government agencies. Welsh is the medium of instruction in many schools and also for several courses in Welsh Universities. --Snowded (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Against Welsh being an Official Language

• http://www.newswales.co.uk/?section=Politics&F=1&id=11172
• http://www.welshlanguageact.org/
• "An Act to establish a Board having the function of promoting and facilitating the use of the Welsh language, to provide for the preparation by public bodies of schemes giving effect to the principle that in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality, to make further provision relating to the Welsh language, to repeal certain spent enactments relating to Wales, and for connected purposes" Long Title of the Welsh Language Act 1993
• "Speaking on BBC Wales' Politics Show, Mr Pugh also rejected a call by Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Language Society - at a rally in Aberystwyth over the weekend - for the language to have official status." BBC Article
• "Plaid Cymru assembly leader Ieuan Wyn Jones has called for a new Welsh Language Act at a rally attended by up to 300 people in mid Wales. Mr Jones said Welsh should have official status and also called for a language commissioner to be appointed."BBC Article
• "We therefore need a new Welsh Language Act which will give the Welsh language full offical status so that it is completely equal to the English language in Wales, and incorporates the linguistic rights of Welsh speakers." Plaid Cymru Manifesto
• "I believe Welsh should be given official language status and we should have an independent language commissioner. Bizarrely under existing legislation, Welsh does not have official language status with English. " Official Opposition Leader in the Assembly (also a qualified lawyer)
• European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages states Welsh as a Territorial Language not official Welsh Language Status in the Charter & Explanation that Official Languages are not included in the Charter

Full protection removed

I have reverted to the previous level of protection. Please carry on the discussion above as much as is necessary to avoid further edit-warring. If further edit-warring occurs, participants may find that sanctions are directed against them next time, rather than have the page protected. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just put my own feeling down on the subject. I'm sure we can sort it out and make other edits too, in the usual manner of Wikipedia! --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Change to protected page

{{editprotected}}

I hope no one will disagree with the following suggested amendment to a recent change that's 'stuck' with this protection.

Line in the Introduction as it is:

The Edwardian conquest in the Thirteen Century ended Welsh independence and in 1532, Wales was merged into the English legal system. In the 18th century the Welsh Methodist revival transformed Welsh society.[3] A distinctive Welsh polity

Proposed version:

The Edwardian conquest in the Thirteen Century ended Welsh independence and in 1532, Wales was annexed to the English legal system with creation of the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542. In the 18th century the Welsh Methodist revival transformed Welsh society.[3] Distinctive Welsh politics

The above is a simple compromise (for mine and the article's sake) I trust can be included. Less is a lot worse than more here regarding Wales' history with England - this, to me, makes us look English - England and Wales is the term people refer to, even for this period in history. I'm not best pleased the article has been protected - couldn't the warring editors be addressed instead? Sorry to be harsh, but why should the article suffer? Not to mention editors currently working on it like me. I don't think my above amendment is specifically related to the edit war. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Looks like it has consensus, so restore the tag once you've worked out exactly what you want to say :D Happy‑melon 11:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with that wording --Snowded (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to make a change, but perhaps someone can explain why the date 1532 is mentioned if the Acts in question were not introduced until 1535? Also, wouldn't "annexed to the English legal system by the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542" be better? "With creation of the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542" is ungrammatical. Bencherlite^Talk 09:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you make the edit with the Snowded's 1532 date (that is on the page without explanation already)? You can make it read better if you like. I feel a bit like I'm being teacher-lead here! I favour another line here that mentions the Tudors too (it simply needs more information if this history is given) but this must be worked out between us when the page in unprotected. This edit is a quick compromise. The problem is that the page was locked when we were editing the Introduction! I'm not willing to sort out a compromise on this line while the page is locked and watched over - I find it embarrassing and too frustrating. I'll put up my favoured line in Talk when I see the page is in working order again - I don't want to see it remain locked if we disagree, so I'm holding back until the language disagreement that you locked the page over is sorted out. Unfortunately, I can't agree with your decision to lock: what if the consensus you want to see on the language issue isn't reached? We can't lock articles whenever 2 editors disagree! This is why we have the 3RR process - to stop the 'edit war' while keeping the article alive for people to edit. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The actual dates are the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542 which annexed Wales (good point Bencherlite) and the previous Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284 which confirmed the Colonisation of Wales by Edward 1. --Snowded (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

History of Wales re England in the Introduction

I had this up for a while:

"In 1532, under the Welsh-descended English royal Tudor dynasty England and Wales was created, 'annexing' Wales to England. This initially unequal union, which saw the Welsh language banned (although national borders were mutually defined for the first time), paved the way to an eventual Great Britain and subsequent forms of United Kingdom."

It wasn't perfect at all I know, but can we work on something like it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added England and Wales: Wales was eventually annexed to the English legal system with the formation of the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542, creating the legal entity known today as England and Wales.

The key to the various unifications that make up today’s Britain, or United Kingdom, in my eyes, are the royal families involved. The Welsh-descended Tudor Henry VII acceded the English throne and paved the way for Wales to stop resisting, and become 'annexed' to England. When the Scottish Stuart family succeeded the English thrown after Elizabeth I died childless (due to Tudor blood, if I remember, in James), Scotland eventually unified - and Great Britain was formed. It didn't all happen overnight, but it's a broad pattern. My history is sketchy I admit but that's broadly how I've seen it. The Welsh blood has always been stressed as important, for various resulting historical reasons, and I remember reading that even Elizabeth I, the last English monarch in the Tudor line, favoured Welsh diplomats. I feel the Tudor line should be mentioned in the Lead. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think its a lot more complex than that Matt. The Tudors did not make much of their Welsh heritage and the assimulation of Wales could be seen as a tidying up process. I don;t think you can blame Tudor blood for Elizabeth not having a child - there were enough bastards in the family and in any event she never married. The Scottish act of union was after and not linked to family issues.--Snowded (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it's more complex - but the Lead needs a broad picture, which we have to make accurate. Considering it was not an immediate bloodline, I've always gathered that the Tudor Welsh connection was important to historians and the Tudors. Certainly the royal line was unquestionably English on acceding the English thrown - but I've always gathered that the heritage was important, esp with certain historical events - as I picked up somewhere recently. Not sure what you mean about "blaming Tudor blood" for Elizabeth not having a child?! I'm sure the Tudor lineage was why they went to Scottish James: I know the union with Scotland was about 100 years after that, but I always thought the unified Scottish/English royalty meant it was always a possibility over a 'troubled' period. Certainly religion was involved and a lot of Scotland wasn't happy when it did happen. In terms of appeasing the rebellious Welsh, I would have thought it would have been made a big issue for those who would listen - same with the Scottish. Is it a coincidence these forms of "unity" happened when the Tudor and Stuart families were in power? --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Constituent country vs. constituent area

Editors of this article may be interested at the discussion taking place at Talk:Constituent country to rename that article "Constituent area". As recent edits to the first sentence of the Wales article have shown, this could well have implications here. Bencherlite^Talk 22:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Support for using "constituent area" over "constituent country". Constituent country is very controversial, as many debate whether wales and northern ireland are countries. "Area" however, is able to be correct whichever way, and therefore, does not make an assumption either way on the debated status of Wales as a province, area, or country. Gozitancrabz (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Is your position really that using "area" to describe Wales is neutral on "the debated status of Wales as a province, area, or country"? (Emphasis added to point out inherent contradiction in your statement.) Clearly it does. Bencherlite^Talk 22:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry, i did not explain myself correctly. Everyone views Wales as an "area". However, others dispute whether it is a country, province, state, etc... Area would be more neutral, would you agree? Gozitancrabz (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I view Wales as a country that just happens to form part of another country, the UK. I don't see it as an "area" of the UK; I've never heard it referred to as a "province" or a "state". Using "area" is not a neutral term at all. Bencherlite^Talk 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

please look into it. I don't have time to get a reference now, i'm just off to bed. If you haven't found any by the morning, i will get some for you, but please have a look, and i think you will be suprised. Gozitancrabz (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you're the one who wants to make a controversial change, when the article has said that Wales is a country since 2002. You provide the reliable sources showing that Wales is not a country and is only an "area". Bencherlite^Talk 23:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a list:

• This one is by the BBC, so I am sure you will acknowledge, a very reliable source. "Wales is a Principality"

This is the BBC-hosted 'h2g2' site! ( The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy 'wiki'!!). It includes the line "So, by the time that the term Great Britain was first used in the reign of James I, Wales was no longer treated as a separate country in any way" which is the closest line to what you are tryinbg to prove. Unfortunately for you it is merely a Wiki-editors POV! (not quite your "reliable" BBC then!). --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The actual BBC profile of Wales states: "Wales re-emerges: The country remained a relative backwater in Britain until the 19th century". Whatever else Wales is, it is a British country, like Scotland and England - full stop. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Another one by the BBC; it states that Wales is officially a principality, although some Welsh may be touchy about it: "The use of the word Principality as a substitute for Wales is not wrong but it can sound out of touch to Welsh audiences"

The quote is: "The use of the word Principality as a substitute for Wales is not wrong but it can sound out of touch to Welsh audiences. The exception is when talking about the Prince of Wales and Wales as a principality in that respect.". The article doesn't use the word "country" or "officially a principality". It's just a guideline on using the word! --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you thought of actually look for the BBC calling Wales a country too? - as they do every day ("across the country") on the regional BBC news!! --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• One on the history of Wales by the BBC. This one could refer to the original formation of the principality, and the land it covered then, but still lists it as a principality today; "The emergence of the principality of Wales Wales at the beginning of the 13th century"

So what? None of this stuff says "Wales is not a country"!--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• A reliable one by "Data Wales": "Wales, a Principality within Britain"

So what?! --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Looks reliable: "As Wales was not a Kingdom but a Principality it could not be included on the flag"

So what?! --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Has several definitions from many different dictionaries, all saying the same thing: "principality of the United Kingdom located in the western part of the island of Great Britain"

So what?! --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this one counts as a reliable source, but I thought I would include it anyway: "Legally, for example, Wales is not a country. And, as a 'region', Wales is the UK's poorest"

So what?! --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Again, looks like some home-made website, but I'll list it here anyway: "The society of the Holy Cross - Province of Wales"

Why list it in then "anyway"? And so what? Have you tried "Wales is a country" on Google? --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Appears to back itself up with other things, but does not state clearly what these are: "England... Kingdom". "Scotland... Kingdom". "Wales... Principality". "Northern Ireland... Province"

So what? You are clutching at straws even finding Principality quotes! --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that should be enough for now... especially with the BBC and Data Wales links. 78.146.208.33 (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one: http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzuk.htm Geography website saying Wales is an autonomous region of the UK and not a country.78.16.121.198 (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

About.com calls it "three somewhat autonomous regions: England, Wales and Scotland." Where does it say it's "not a country"? You seem to be genuinely convincing yourself that this kind of quote is "proof"! --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The National Statistics at statistics.gov.uk calls Wales and England countries. It's not an only one or the other scenario regarding the quaint "principality"! Did you now the Queen can dissolve parliament? Britain is full of archaic laws and traditions and is a flexible "pragmatic" bureaucratic union (wherever it is going): you won't pigeon-hole the UK like you want to. And why would you want to Wales anyway? Have you had a bad experience or something? --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. For a start dispense with any quote using the word Principality. A principality can be a country (not just in the UK but elsewhere in the world). Also I can happily say that Wales is an area of the United Kingdom without that statement implying it is not a country. Ditto Region. The clear and established usage is country and you are clearly taking a strong political position here, not being neurtral. I love the idea of quoting a Kentish Junior Schools web site entry on St George's Day as an authority. I haven't laughed so much in ages. I should also say that I am dubious about people who need to hide behind IP addresses when editing Wikipedia. Is this your only identity in this place? --Snowded (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have nothing to do with that other IP address, despite the fact we both seem to start with "78". And are you disagreeing with the BBC snowded? My account is Gozitancrabz, but for some reason, i accidentally got logged out. And anyway, no, a principality does not mean country. To remain neutral, i suggest we correct the terming. 78.146.208.33 (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Pleased you are not hiding behind an IP address, it might be an idea if you get logged out in future to put in a minor edit to correct. A principality can mean a country - it does now with Lichtenstein and did at the treaty of Montgomery in respect of Wales To change to "area" or something like it is not to take an independent position, it is to take a Unionist position. Wales has a legislative assembly, it is a country, albeit a part of the UK. The BBC talks about areas and regions of Wales which should show you how those terms are used in normal practice. The UK is a area or regions of Europe. --Snowded (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The OED definition of a Principality is: a state ruled by a prince. I think country is better, but I would compromise on State if necessary :-) --Snowded (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Area would be a No point of view, as "area" is correct by any definition. Country however, assumes that Northern Ireland, and Wales, are countries, which is long disputed. Especially when the majority of sources site them as a 'province' and 'principality' respectively. In some cases, a principality is a country because it has no higher legal governing, but in this case, Wales is not considered a country, because it has a higher legal governing country - the UK. Do you see now? Wales is not technically a state, so that would not be helpful either. An "area" can cover any meaning though. ^^ Gozitancrabz (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, to call it an areas would be (i) incorrect use of language and (ii) would be to take a political position which is not supported by the evidence. The UK has subjected itself to EU law - does that make it no country? Wales has an Assembly, it is a country as is Scotland. --Snowded (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Wales is a principality governed by the UK. -.- I am getting tired of repeating myself. Gozitancrabz (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I am also getting tired of you repeating the assertion which has no relevance to the question of whether it is country. You are not answering the multiple citations to the effect that Wales is a country, depending on weak sources and using words out of context. I think if you want to maintain this position you need a more vigourous approach As a matter of interest, do you think Scotland is a country? --Snowded (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Gozitancrabz, thank you for providing a list of sources. The weakness of your argument is, however, reflected in the weakness of your sources - a junior school website? Even you admit that some aren't authoritative, so why put them down? Even the first BBC source is hardly a reliable source: it's from the h2g2 section of the BBC website, which is akin to a Wiki. As Snowded says, "Principality" and "country" are not mutually exclusive, e.g. Principality of Monaco and Principality of Liechtenstein. Where's your reliable sources to support your POV that Wales is not a country? As to reliable sources calling Wales a country, let's try these, shall we?

1. 10 Downing Street website "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."
2. 10 Downing Street website "Gordon Brown will travel to Wales today in his first visit to the country as Prime Minister."
3. The Wales Office (Government Department for Wales) "Wales is a small but clever country. ...The remainder of the country is predominantly rural in character."
4. Welsh Assembly Government Their strategic agenda is called "Wales: A Better Country".
5. Visit Wales (the Welsh Tourist Board) "For a small country we have a varied and dramatic landscape"
6. The Queen's Speech on the opening of the Welsh Assembly building "It is now up to you, by giving meaning to the ideals and aspirations of those you serve, by expressing the spirit of your rich and ancient culture, by shaping the very future of this country, to make this National Assembly a true symbol of Wales."
7. And that's six before we get to offline sources e.g. Professor John Davies (expert on Welsh history) frequently refers to Wales as a country in his one-volume work A History of Wales (ISBN 0140284753), e.g. chapter 11 page 653 "In the 1970s, Wales was still a country with significant heavy industry."Bencherlite^Talk 13:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that since I had found them, i might as well list them. And there are three links from the BBC website. If you are going to discard them all, then THAT is POV. Gozitancrabz (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Indiscriminate citation of low-value sources doesn't help your cause. For example, the Society of the Holy Cross calls everything a Province e.g. Province of the Americas. The two other BBC links were covered by my point that principalities can still be countries. If you set particular store by the BBC, then try these five pages):

1. An article by Professor Rees Davies, another distinguished Welsh historian: [24] "Against all the odds and the massed battalions of English power, Wales remained a country because its people believed it to be a country. It was in support of that conviction, and vision, that most Welsh people gave their support to Owain Glyn Dwr when he proclaimed himself Prince of Wales in September 1400. Wales had long since been conquered, but it was still very much alive as a country."
2. An article on religion in Wales [25] "With Wales a predominantly chapel going country, confrontation was inevitable and took place all across the country", and "the country experienced both a Great Revival and the Great War."
3. Another BBC Welsh history page: [26] "Yet when it came to recognizing the country's distinctive national character they [the Conservative Party] were, it must be said, somewhat ahead of Labour." and "A new country was about to emerge. But would it be better or worse than what had gone before?"
4. A BBC page on Wales society and culture: [27] "Wales is a country with two languages: Welsh and English."
5. And another one [28] "[Griff Rhys Jones] explored the present and future state of architecture and planning in Wales, looking at urban, rural and market-town issues across the country."

I thought I'd stop at five. Oh, and that's before looking for usage of "country" in relation to Wales in connection with international sport. Or perhaps Wales don't play international rugby and international football? Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 13:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Then it seems that with some sources suggesting it is a country, and some suggesting it is not, the article should reflect both in order to maintain a NOPV Gozitancrabz (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gozitancrabz. The fact whether Wales is a country depends on which definition of country you use. From my experience Wales is not viewed as a country internationally, for example: [29], but within the UK it is generally seen as a country. The article needs to relect this.Wikipéire (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So what should we call it? I think "Constituent country" should be renamed to "constituent area", otherwise, we are supporting that wales is a "country", which is only one point of view. Gozitancrabz (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipéire (moving on from a lost debate about Welsh being an official language, do I detect a pattern here?) quotes about.com which as far as I know has no international authority. In the main it is a commercial site designed to sell automotives amongst other things. Another dubious authority to go along with a Junior School Web site and the Society of the Holy Cross In contrast with that a broad range of authorities from the UK Government which has been given. This includes the Queen's Speech on the opening of the Welsh Assembly where she uses the term "country". NONE of these have been answered or even referenced by Gozitancrabz or Wikipéire. Not dealing with the the facts as presented could be considered perusing an ideological position. Of course Gozitancrabz and Wikipéire may consider that their authority on constitution matters and that of casual web references is a higher authority than UK Government Web Sites and the constitutional monarch .... --Snowded (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Lost debate? It is currently being mediated by an independent party and I would be very surprised by if the mediator doesn't agree with our arguments. I am not really debating this one. It is a touch and go subject. I merely stating the fact that there is two points of view with both arguebably being valid; unlike the previous debate on language. I do not appreciate these personal attacks. There are many references which conclude that Wales is not a country which are higher the uk website, namely the United Nations!!!!Wikipéire (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The United NAtions "concludes" Wales is not a country? What rubbish! The United Kingdom comprises of 4 'constituencey countries'. And it is only your opinion that the UN is "higher" than a UK governent site, anyway - it is simply NOT Wikipedias! The UK site sould be of "higher" relevance in this case. Where does the UN "conclude" Wales is not a country? - it simply lists the collective "United Kingdom" title! --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have already repeated myself several times now, and I would appreciate it if you would listen. The BBC states it as not being a country. The BBC is reliable enough in the eyes of wikipedia. Stop POV pushing, and read through the discussions properly, so that I won't have to repeat everything i say more than once for you. Gozitancrabz (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The BBC calls Wales a country often on the BBC Wales news ("news stories across the country"). It also does on numerous web pages - NOWHERE does it state Wales is not a country! (so I've struck-out your line stating that it does). Why would it? This is classic selective quoting and exaggeration on your behalf. The Guardian on ITV News says "The challenge for politicians and broadcasters in Wales is constructing a future that keeps television central to informed democracy in Wales but also lets the country talk to the wider UK - not just itself." This is generally how it's done. The term Principality is a formal and a separate matter. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your BBC quote has been countered by other quotes from the BBC which contradict yours. Your authorities in general have been challenged. You have in turn been presented with UK government authorities and a speech by the Constitutional Monarch. You have not answered any of those points. Please do not play games with accusations of POV when you cannot be bothered (or maybe realise that you cannot) deal with the evidence presented. Feel free to repeat yourself again, until you deal with the evidence or present new material its probably sensible to leave your comments without response. --Snowded (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The quotes contradict eachother. Exactly! That is why all the points of view have to be reflected. That is what is called non-point of view. Gozitancrabz (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No quote contradicts the fact that Wales is a country!! --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the only place where I've seen someone pose the idea that Wales is not a country! The United Kingdom in reality is a union of 'constituent countries': Wikipedia has to represent reality. There is no universal World Dictionary of Law that declares things like "a country is THIS, therefore Wales etc cannot be a country". Flexibility is the norm - and definitions work within closed structures: there is no all encompassing social structure to this world. How could there be? It's a hugely varied world. I read somewhere that Jimmy Wales disliked infoboxes - I expect he could see how people would try and enforce rigid 'universal' definitions for them, offending people where it traditionally universally hurts! If a country has always been seen as a country, and internationally/governmentally referred to as country, then it is a country (whether a 'constituent' of a larger nation-state/country or not). The UK has always needed flexible nationality terminology ('British citizen' not UK citizen, more recently dual passports in Northern Ireland etc). We have got by in the UK in the past, and we don't need people enforcing their own 'universal' terminology via Wikipedia (ie 'constituent area' - we are a 'constituent country')!--Matt Lewis (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the only place where I've seen someone pose the idea that Wales is not a country! Have you been outside of the UK much? No one sees Wales as a country, people barely know Wales exists! Its al about the UK; the UN defines it as a principality. So the thing is international definitions and opinions differ greatly from British people's views. So which is right? The world view or the natives?Wikipéire (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If your non-UK people barely know Wales exists, then why would they continue to insist it's not a country?? I'm not talking about ignorance or mistakes - I'm taking about a continual insistence that Wales is not a country! I've only seen it periodically on Wikipedia (usually trolls)!

Nowhere in your non-searchable UN facsimile link above can I find the word "country" or find the word "Principality"!! Can you point them out? It certainly nowhere says Wales isn't a real country. The UN normally cites The United Kingdom - which is a group of constituent countries.

Have you really tried thinking of the UK as a classical country? - it's hard to do in an emotional sense for anyone within it! 'Britain' is the emotional link, but many prefer their immediate countries, such as England, Socotland etc. Internationally, entities like the United Kingdom obviously must be recognised as the single legal unit (or 'country') - but in reality it is a working union of countries (that used to include Ireland for a period), which has had a fluctuating history. Was Ireland not also its own country when it was part of the UK? Of course it was - tell an Irishman it wasn't. The Principality issue is separate thing. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There really is no point to Wikipeire's assertion that people barely know Wales exists, unless it's to demean Wales. I happen to have lived abroad and travelled quite a bit and I can assure you that most people would know that Wales exists. The problem is they think it is part of England, but that is the whole point of this encyclopedia, to inform people that it is a separate entity from England. If you have a look at the Scotland talk page you will see that the main argument was whether to call it Constituent country or country. there was a small number of editors who did not want the term country used at all, but as I said they were in the minority. --Jack forbes (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wales is an entirely different matter to Scotland. Scotland is a kingdom; Wales is a principality. The fact that that UN AND the BBC back up the fact, yet a couple of users still try to hold up a barrier against all evidence, that there is an uncertainty to the definition, must obviously have some sort of political agenda on their minds. We, having provided evidence to show there is mixed support for it being both a country and not a country, are therefore the ones who are in non-point of view. Ignoring this, and continuing to trudge on saying "other parts of the BBC contradict this" does not mean anything, as we have already acknowledged this, and told you specifically that this only proves mixed oppinions - not that the other BBC quotes are "incorrect", otherwise I could just as easily justify that the BBC quotes you chose are "incorrect", but simply applying logic tells us not to do this. Some parts of the BBC state Wales is not a country (in one place, with those exact words), other parts of it state that it is; some other official sites claim Wales is a country; the UN site claims it isn't. Since there are references supporting both sides, the correct thing to do to achieve a neutral point of view would be to keep the article reflective of both sides, referencing both. Ignoring either side, since there is so much evidence for both, would be insisting a point of view one way or the other. Therefore, a short section describing these mixed views needs to be included; unless there are any further protests against both sets of evidences?
Also, just to let people know, User:Matt Lewis completely reworded many of the things I said, and started editing my comments, leading them to read as though I was not supporting my quotes, and appearing like I was arguing against my own arguement. I have now put things back pretty much to the way they were, but left Matt Lewis' other comments which do not "modify" mine. Matt, you can not do this again. You have been given a level 2 warning, but a repeated offence may lead to a higher warning, or getting blocked, especially when looking at your talk page, it seems like you have had instances like this before. It is seen as point of view pushing when you start editing my own comments to make an arguement against myself. Also, I would like to refer you to the Manual of Style. I would suggest you take a look at it, as the way in which you leave comments half way through mine, and up and down the page, is incorrect. For future reference, place your comments chronologically please. Thank you. And please use this time wisely to read through the manual, as your offence of modifying my words is partially to do with this too.
Another thing, quoted from higher up the page: The ISO 3166 standard does not list Wales as a country: [www.guavastudios.com/country-list.htm].
However they do list it as a Nation on its Nationality list ref: [www.guavastudios.com/country-list.htm].
Gozitancrabz (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore most of the above: you simply don't know how to use Wikipedia. [www.guavastudios.com/country-list.htm] does not have England or Scotland either: The United Kindom is the collective 'country' in most country lists. Why is this continually ignored? --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For whoever couldn't find this bit from the UN source. It's on page 5 under definitions:

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy consisting of four consituent parts:

2 countries: England + Scotland
1 principality: Wales
1 province: Northern Ireland

I reckon the United Nations is a fairly prudent and neutral source. Also the International Organisation for Standardisation does not have Wales under the list of countries. It doesn't say anything about independence just countries.

However WP:NPOV is important to Wikipedia and Wales is sometimes reffered to as a country in the UK so I think the article needs to reflect both sides rather than just going for one over the other.Wikipéire (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You say "International Organisation for Standardisation does not have Wales under the list of countries". It wouldn't have it under the list of countries: the United Kingdom is the collective 'country'. It doesn't have England or Scotland either. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wikipeire, wikipedia providing a neutral point of view is exactly what I have been trying to point out we should do; and do so by reflecting both points of view in the arguement. Gozitancrabz (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems Matt Lewis may have ulterior motives behind his support for the arguement here, gathering from this left on my talkpage: "You also have to understand too that your assertion that Wales is a Principality and not a real country is offensive to me, and millions of others of my Welsh countrymen!". It would be apparent he has a strong preference for it to be a country, due to strong national pride and "offense". Anyway, it seems pretty settled now as far as I am concerned; there are sufficient quotes from both sides, and the article has to reflect this. Gozitancrabz (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because someone has pride in their country does not mean they are incapable of reasoned argument. Tell me, are you proud of the country you belong to? If so you should be careful what you edit, you don't want to be accused of making certain edits due to national pride. It seems to me Matt has given you plenty of cites confirming that Wales is indeed a country and allied to that the fact that most everyone, including me(I'm a Scot, not Welsh) consider Wales to be a country, that's good enough for me. --Jack forbes (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Ulterior motives? The madness is that Gozitancrabz either knows nothing about the country hs/she is suddently arguing about - or is someone who won't let the people, the media and governments have the say over (and there is a word for that in my book). It's one or the other, because I see just the one example which looks like Wales is not seen as a country: the rest I simply have lived all my life. We need to address this UN quote.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

'Address this UN quote?' As in debunk it? It's the most reliable source thats been given so far. It shows internationally it is not seen as a country. However internally it is, so does everyone not agree that istead of fighting for one side over the other, that both descriptions of Wales should be shown in the article so that the reader can make up their own mind?Wikipéire (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the UN says I don't think they are permitted to tell the UK government what they can or cannot call Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England. --Jack forbes (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) I'm disappointed to hear you say that. Makes you seem to be a bit of a chauvinist to be honest.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 22:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You will have to explain that to me. Which part of the statement is chauvinistic? --Jack forbes (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If they dismiss both the UN quote and the ISO code quote, then I strongly suggest we request for a cable mediation on the matter. We are not saying to write "Wales is not a country", we are saying that the text should be rewritten to include both points of view, for which there are plenty of sources both sides. So without further ado, if point of view is to be continued to be pushed, and you are going to ignore with the UN quote, shall we get mediation? Gozitancrabz (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The ISO code (As I have said above) has no England, Scotland or Wales - the United Kingdom is the collective "country" (of contituent countries) in all these lists. I think you read about 20% of what I write. The UN (the only one with a shred in your favour) can be dealt with - yes. Before I do - Can you replace the comments you removed of mine - before I report you? You claimed I messed with yours (I didn't) and in re-writing a whole load of stuff you removed at least one paragraph of mine (on your BBC quote that turned out to be a h2g2 Wiki) --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually find it quite funny that you consistantly accuse people of POV whilst everything you say has no point of view. Personaly I don't see the need for mediation as it seems there are only two editors pushing your point of view! Of course others may think differently,--Jack forbes (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I am suggesting mediation is due to the fact that you are now ignoring quotes from the official UN database, and several other official sources. Do you deny ignoring the UN site? Gozitancrabz (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Several other sources - rubbish. They have all been debunked as not saying what you claim apart from the perhaps UN one. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There are several other sources. Thousands of country lists don't include Wales and they don't mention sovereignty or anything like that at all. For example Wikipedia's List of countries does not include Wales.

It says this list does not use the word "country" as synonymous with "sovereign state," as one may often find in colloquial usage. The word country being identified as a sovereign state is another issue to why it should perhaps not be used.

According to the International Organisation of Standardisation Wales is a subdivision of the UK. That makes it an administrative area such as a US state.

According to the EU: Use ‘United Kingdom’ for the Member State, not ‘Great Britain’, which comprises England, Scotland and Wales; these three together with Northern Ireland are the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. It says parts not countries!!

Your whole argument is based on the fact that the British government and other internal British sources call Wales a country. Just because they call it a country doesn't make it one! There is no theory to back it up. My feeling is myself is that UK government are just trying to pull the wool over your eyes and if you hear Wales being called a country then calls for indenpendece and other things will be avoided. If my governement were to suddenly start calling my province a country would it make it one? No. The same applies to Wales. Internationally it is not seen as a country.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 10:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a constant confusion of terms here to support a nonsense position. Wales is an area of the United Kingdom as it is an area of Europe. Wales is a part of the United Kingdom. That does not stop it being a country. Equally the definition of a country does not require it to be a sovereign state. You comments on the UK Government's motivations seem somewhat disingenuous to say the least. The authority on the UK constitution is the UK Government and those sources prevail. Lists relating to sovereign states have a different function and you cannot really quote them as authority. To not call Wales a country is to take a strong political position - a POV - it is not neutral. To call it a sovereign state would also be a POV. Country is the term in common use (BBC and other examples) as well as UK Government web sites. --Snowded (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

But country is not the term used in international terms such as the EU, ISO and UN shown above.

Meaning? A compromise showing both sides needs to be shown.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 11:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell me again, why do you agree that Scotland can be a country and not Wales? --Jack forbes (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It was the UN source that did it for me. I still don't see Scotland as a country but the UN source said 2 countries 1 principality and 1 province etc. So by some definitions Scotland could be seen as a country. However they do not apply to Wales as it has a local government not a national one, UN calls it a principailty, ISO calls Wales an administrative region while the EU calls Wales a constituent part. Nothing anywhere about a country.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 11:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you still don't believe that Scotland is a country even though the UN source tells you why are you using the website to prove your point? Shall we dimiss the UN website as it seems you don't have a great deal of confidence in it. --Jack forbes (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh no I have the utmost faith in the UN and this particular source which is why on the Scotland page I accepted it saying country.But not here however.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 11:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The UN site uses the phrase principality for good historical reasons. Scotland was a Kingdom that united with England, Wales was a Principality conquered by England. Both were independent countries acknowledged as such by various treaties. The concept of Kingship was alien to Welsh history who used the phrase Prince instead. Both now have governments with legislative power. The UK Government uses the words country and principality interchangeably, i.e. it sees no difference between them in this context and I doubt the UN would either if asked. A principality is a TYPE of country not an alternative to being a country. As I said before that to say that Wales is not a country is to take a strong political position - it is not neutral. To say that Scotland is a country and Wales is not starts to sound like vindictiveness. You have no authoritative statement to the effect that Wales is not a country. You have statements that use different words (area etc. but then those same words are used about Scotland, England and elsewhere. In contrast you have authoritative statements from the legal power (the UK Government) that Wales is a country. You really need to understand that "country" is a compromise within the context of the UK and you are attempting to impose a political position rather than go with the phrase agreed within the UK and endorsed by its government. This seems to be a campaign by two people with no local knowledge of the UK and its history (comparing the issue with Canadian Provinces illustrates this) and a much large group of people with that knowledge who have also contributed substantially to the development of the articles. If you look through the history of those editors and of this debate on various UK country sites there is obvious some political agenda in play here and a potentially divisive one. --Snowded (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You keep on refering to the UK and the way it refers to Wales. I am fine with that. I am talking about an International viewpoint and international sources of which none of which call Wales a country. I am not saying don't call Wales a country, I am saying that it is not viewed as such outside of the UK and that needs to be evident in the article. Showing both sides is all I'm after - its not some 'political agenda'.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 13:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the people I know around the world - and I travel a lot regard Scotland and Wales as countries and increasingly so (the recent visit of the First Minister, of Wales to the USA giving a good example). Your international sources do not say that Wales is not a country, they sometimes use the word Principality which is interchangeable. The idea that there are two sides on this when the constitutional authority is clear on the subject is a nonsense. You are, wittingly or unwittingly taking a strong political position and if you had any knowledge of the UK you would know that to remove the label country is not a neutral act, it is a highly charged political statement which would contradict UK Government policy. You also have no support (bar one Latin) for this position. --Snowded (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible compromise on Country issue

(I have inserted this title into the flow to make it easier to navigate and altered the indenting to match) --Snowded (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when did I ever say remove the label country? My main three sources of the UN,EU and ISO describe Wales as a principality a constituent part and an adminstrative region. Country is not mentioned. I am saying the other international point of view needs to be shown. You are trying to make this political, I am just trying to make sure the article is WP:NPOV and an internatioanl viewpoint of Wales is necessary for this.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 14:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So lets be very clear - you are happy for Wales to be listed as a constituent country of the UK in the introduction? My clear sense of your contributions so far is that you want the label "country" removed and replaced with some other word. Perhaps you would clarify your intent. --Snowded (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy for constituent country of the UK to remain as long as the fact that Wales is viwed as a principality/administrative part of the UK internationally. I recognize British people view it as a country but outside the UK it is seen more as a historic nation and now is part of the UK and not a country. Do you understand what I'm getting at?WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 14:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then I suggest you propose some wording (you did this well on the Welsh Language issue) and we can see what it looks like. I don't agree with your view that internationally it is not recognised Yes we have the constant confusion of England with Britain, but most people I know in Washington (in Government), Singapore, Australia, Canada and Europe are fully aware of the differences. Either way a factual statement in draft might resolve it - I wait to see what you come up with. You could state the constitutional position of the Welsh Assembly in respect of the UK government and the sovereign nation status being the UK. That would fine. Remember that the original proposal here was to delete country. --Snowded (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know. But I sensed we were going nowhere and a compromised position had to fought for.

What about something along the lines of: Wales (Welsh: Cymru;[1] pronounced /ˈkəmrɨ/ (help·info)) is a principality and one of the four constituent countries that together make up the sovereign state of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

A new section will the be created to describe what Wales is. There's no way you can explain why its a country + a principality while being a part of a sovereign state and Welsh Assembly stuff at the start of the article.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 14:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I can live with that I agree the detail should be in a separate section, or amendments of existing sections - lets see what others say. --Snowded (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

BREAK - on the United Nations quote

A UN document has been found that lists Wales under Principality and not country: it is the only quote so far whch seems to possilby have something to it. However, the document doesn't explicitly say "Wales is not a country" (and nothing yet found does). Can we find evidence of the UN calling Wales a country? Wales is clear proof to me countries can be a Principality too! Wales has been considered a Principality since 1216 when the Princes of Wales were Welsh! --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The ISO 3166 standard does not list Wales as a country: [www.guavastudios.com/country-list.htm] Unlike what you said, this one has not been disguarded thank you. Gozitancrabz (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For the upteenth time: England, Scotland and Wales etc are not on that country list, or most lists like them. The reason? Because the United Kingdom is there instead of them!! The UK represents the 'Constituent countries'. The United Kingdom is a collective and a unity, and for obvious legal reasons is seen as the 'country' in International law. It does not mean Wales, England etc cannot be a countries in within the union! You have never once adressed this, Gozitancrabz. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is all this necessarey? Just show both sides of the argument and let the reader make up their mind. It is the most WP:NPOV!WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 23:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Who says there is "two sides"? Who says Wales is not a country? I have never once read that line: just stuff about it being a Principality, and endless lists with the UK in them instead of the constituent countries. The evidence FOR Wales being a country is the same as for England and Scotland - massive and all-encompassing.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that if they are going to enforce their POV and refuse any of the links, then unfortunately, it is neccessary. -.- If by the morning, they are still refusing to listen to the links, can someone pleae file a mediation request. I am going to bed now. Night! Gozitancrabz (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

By carrying on just repeating like a parrot that you have 'all this proof that Wales isn't a country' (you don't), and never addressing comments like my one above on the UK you are simply destroying debate. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole issue is that legally Wales isn't a country ie UN,EU, lack of sovereignty etc but can be seen as a country by virtue of history and ethnicity. Thats the whole point.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the EU doesn't class Wales as a country: I'll look at the UN tomorrow. Generally the United Kingdom is the country in "international law", yes - but the EU sees Wales as a constituent country of the UK, and as having an identity that is classed as a country. The notoriously "PC" EU was created to be flexible with these matters. It doesn't have to hold member capacity to be recognised in this way.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If a mediator is involved then they should look at the debate under constituent countries as well. Todate the argument for Wales being a country has cited official UK Government sources. The argument against has cited no source of any repute (school web sites, cult sites from the US) and has misinterpreted many of its own sources. The only argument which has any cited authority is the reference to a Principality. However this phrase is also used by the UK Government in conjunction with statements that Wales is a country. There is precedent elsewhere in the world which established that Principalities can be countries. Welsh history when it was independent was also based on Princes not Kings.

A simple review of the material here indicates that we have two editors who have a POV on the use of the word country and are trying to create a smokescreen in the face of official UK Government statements to get that POV across. Country is the neutral term and is in common use. The other thing that a review will reveal (if it includes the constituent country discussion) is the persistent refusal of the protagonists to engage with the evidence or show any respect for other editors attempting to engage them in the project. On the constituent country page one editor (also an administrator) put all of the evidence into a summary table and this was ignored.

Matt, I think we have at least one Troll here and I would not be provoked. This is a simple matter of evidence, and we should focus on that. --Snowded (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

More issues with the intro

• What's this sentence about independent ties with the European Union? Wales isn't a separate member state and, judging by discussions re: Scotland, if Wales became independent it might have to apply for membership! [30]

The line was: "Today, Wales continues to share political and legal structures to varying degrees with the United Kingdom, while now maintaining more independent ties with international bodies such as the European Union.[citation needed]" - it didn't say Wales was part of the EU!! It was an attempt to reflect what is going on. We have AM's (Welsh Assembly members) who deal with Europe and international trade directly through the Welsh Assembly, and independent of the rest of the UK, physically and financially (although is 'budgeted' overall).

• In what sense has Wales undergone a cultural revival? Is this taken to mean that more people speak Welsh, that more people are using Welsh (yes, but there is a counter-argument, that there has been a continued fall in the number of communities where Welsh is the everyday language [31]) or that there are more cultural events of a certain sort in Wales? Without more clarity of meaning, and/or a good external source, this bit looks like bias.

I had citations of both the language and the arts - it does need more though, I agree. You don't need to wikilink 'bias' thank you very much. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Where are the historical GDP per head stats to back up the claim that Cardiff has been the most prosperous area in Wales since Victorian times? It's not an implausible claim, but you need to be able to prove it.Pondle (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In other words - citation is needed. I don't think GDP and stats are really needed for this! - a quote from a history should do here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the citation needed to the European Union bit. I will remove the sentence if someone doesn't come up with something to back it up within a couple of days.Wikipéire (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Why will you remove it, though? Have you had a look for a citation? Wikipedia states clearly that nothing should be removed without first attempting to verify it (ie we move towards to keeping in the work done, if we can). It has a 'Citation needed' now (there is no imediate date on these), it just needs someone's time as, it can't be hard to find. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Pondle (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm nearly certain its not true. I have looked for something and there wasn't the slightest hint that it was true. So therefore I'm eager to remove it as soon as possible. But I will give it a few days in the event that someone does find something. If it were true someone could easily find something to back it up. No?Wikipéire (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That is so far from reality I consider it an insult. I've just put a couple of citations in that took me to 2 seconds to find (I hadn't the time when I wrote it and the page got locked no thanks to you). I watch the buildings go up pal - just be careful. Seriously - you appear to have a particular condescending attitude about my country - why? Where are you coming from? What's your issue?--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely nothing against the UK.Wikipéire (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You have finally said everything in one sentence. At least we know where you stand now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to remove your sources. I'm not sure what Amazon.com or some guy coming to Wales from the middle East have to do with direct political ties with the European Union. Your first source says Wales works closely with the UK Permanent Representation. ::::::Also the European and External Affairs Division is no the EU. So its your sentence? Don't take my criticism of it personally, I just want to make sure its all truth and facts on the page.Wikipéire (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says: "Today, Wales continues to share political and legal structures to varying degrees with the United Kingdom, while now maintaining more independent ties with international bodies such as the European Union."

I quickly came across 3 obvious citations: the official Welsh Assembly facts/figs page on Europe, proof of forging "international" ties with the Middle East, and the 10-football pitch Amazon warehouse brokered by the Welsh Assembly - all 100% relevant. How the hell can you justify removing them? How can you belittle these? Will you edit war when I put them back? - bacause I simply have to put them back. The sentence asks for citations and I've provided them. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

now maintaining more independent ties with international bodies such as the European Union Because they cite things about trade not political ties with the European Union.

As I said your first source says Wales works closely with the UK Permanent Representation. ::::::Also the European and External Affairs Division is not the EU.

The fist quote was this (although I swapped it for the Amazon one): "As part of the division, the Welsh Assembly Government has its own European Union Office in Brussels to further Welsh interests. Its team of European policy specialists works closely with the UK Permanent Representation to the EU to ensure that Wales gains maximum possible benefit both in terms of policy and funding."

Your second source is not about the EU it is the middle East

The "League of Arab States" is a clear international body! Read the sentence you quoted above again! ("international bodies such as the European Union")--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The third is about the Welsh Assembly getting more trade. It doesn't mention the word Europe Union at all.

See above! It's not just about Europe, obviously. Honestly - why do you think we have a Welsh Assembly?--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't revert but I will have to unless you find sources which match that 'Wales has direct ties with the European Union or else you change the sentence to match the sources you found.Wikipéire (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Again you have misread (and even misquoted) the sentence we have been dealing with. ("...more independent ties with international bodies such as the European Union"!!). The Welsh Assembly source covers both your line and the one in the article. The Middle East citation covers the "international body" side. Trade and commerce is pretty obviously concommitent here, but I'll append the words to better cover the Amazon warehouse citation (which you could have simply removed on its own if you had to, instead of reverting all the citations and disparaging them and the sentence - or you could have even been useful(!) and added the word "trade" to better cover the Amazon citation!). I have no idea what you personally think the Welsh Assembly and European union are there for, or what the four MEP's in Wales do - you seem to just want to belittle Wales and stop the article progressing. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The EU is a lot more than just some trade organisation. I have changed your sentence slightly to deal with the trade aspect that your sources are quoting. The whole EU thing you are trying to portray is just misleading. You are talking about trade no the EU. The new sentence justifies this. I don't see how I am stopping the article progressing. I am pretty sure a good half dozen changes have been made that are more accurate than was there before.Wikipéire (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If we are saying business, it is better highlighting it separately rather that making it the whole point - The Arab Nations citions says "political and cultural links" and the EU stats citation give non-trade regulations. They will deal with the Assembly directly, as will all these large bodies (even non trade ones). Amazon was different - the Assembly just helped broker a deal for Wales (and no other bodies may have been involved). --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You are making all these changes without discussing them on here!! Do not start another edit war, discuss!!!Wikipéire (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You have not given me much time over the last couple of edits. All I originally did was put in some citations for a Citation Needed! I've put the change in the edit note - I've just repeated it above: we can't explicitly narrow it as just trade. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

But to a large extent thats what it is. The sentence contains a lot of Original Research. The sources don't really say what the sentence in the article says. The whole sentence needs complete re doing to portray what the sources say. The way it reads now with more independent ties with international bodies such as the European Union makes it seem as if Wales has some special independet relationship with the E.U. as a state of some sort. This is misleading and is not WP:NPOV. Both of our edits are inaccurate as their are polticial ties with the Arab League as that wonderful 2002 source tells us. So therefore if completely re do the sentence to portray things more accurately while still saying what you wanna say I'll be happy.Wikipéire (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What Original research? Give me examples. Why have you reverted saying I haven’t discussed? - I have above.

What's your issue with the Arab link? There are millions of Muslims in the UK - and the visit was partly "cultural" (as the link says) - why keep discrediting it?

The sentence in the article said: "Today, Wales continues to share political and legal structures to varying degrees with the United Kingdom, while now maintaining closer links with business, and more independent ties with international bodies such as the European Union."

It did not say Wales is an EU member state! Whether you like it or not, the EU recognises and goes through the Welsh Assembly regarding the Welsh and Wales. The EU was actually built around these kind of situations. Your perceived "special independent relationship with the E.U. as a state of some sort" is in your imagination! There certainly IS a particular relationship of a sort with Wales and the EU as it is recognised by them - you seem to want to hide it.

I'll try and re-write it in a way that even the quickest-reading fool won't suddenly think Wales is a separate EU member state - despite everything else in the article contradicting that! And heaven forfend that we even begin to suggest a mire such as Wales could even begin to presume such a horrible idea (shudder)--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say any of that at all. I just said it was misleading as it didn't describe in what way it had a relationship with EU. Your old sentence can be intrepretated in many different ways so thanks for saying you'll re do it.Wikipéire (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to remember that any participation by Wales in an EU institution or programme is contingent upon UK membership of the EU - so why are we highlighting Wales' EU links in the Wales intro? Neither Scotland, Northern Ireland or Catalonia include EU links in their intros. Besides, apart from its handful of MEPs, receipt of European funding and some minor interregional cooperation, I don't think that Wales has a particularly notable 'national' voice in Europe[32] If Wales has a significant representation in the Committee of the Regions that may be worthy of note, but it's probably not significant enough to go in the Intro. Pondle (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was thinking. Matt Lewis has argued otherwise and I'd agree to see specific statements about Wales' role in Europe and internationally put in if they were applicable to the situation. They haven't been so far but we'll see what he comes up with.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's because of the Welsh Assembly, and how it has changed Wales. It paints a picture. I don't really go by the Scottish intro - this is the Welsh one. It's not a 'boast' at all - it's just a picture-forming piece of information, and very notable imo. Wales has benefitted from being able to deal with these bodies directly, although the benefits are not part of the sentence.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In what sense do we now deal with EU bodies directly? OK, so the WAG has a few civil servants on the UKRep [33] - but we don't have independent representation in the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission or the European Court of Justice. Maybe the Committee of the Regions, but that's just an advisory body with two Welsh local councillors amongst its 344 other local/regional members from across Europe. OK, so the EU has a small office in Wales but it's had one 1976 - and it mainly just does PR.[34] Pondle (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

On the same website it say's "The EC office in Wales , founded in 1976, is the key link between Wales and Brussels for every European issue on the Welsh agenda." Sounds to me that its more than PR they deal with! --Jack forbes (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The EU Wales office has only 5 staff - one is a PA, one is a press officer and two of the remaining three are information officers. Its main duty is to keep the Welsh public informed about the EU. They appear to have no substantive policy role and don't even get a mention in WAG's own page about the EU [35]. I'm sorry but giving the EU such prominence in the Intro just seems like undue weight given that, as I said before, we don't have independent representation in the key EU institutions. Pondle (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)