Talk:Wales/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Map in Government section

Why is there a huge map of administrative areas which appears to be mostly in Welsh. It is hardly ideal for people on the English speaking wikipedia to have to search through the key to try and understand what an area is called. Is there no map that exists putting English first or in larger text? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Although the map is graphically very elegant and well designed, I personally think a smaller map using a more orthodox typeface would be clearer and preferable. I also think that an attitude of outright hostility to the Welsh language and culture is really not the best way to engage in a process of consensus-building here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think BW was being offensive there, it is an issue. On the subject of the map, it is inconsistent because the legend and the sidebar text give both names but the map itself only has the Welsh names. Probably a new map is needed. On the actual names themselves, I will incline to the view that local authority names are notable enough to have both names, maybe not at all times everywhere in the text, but some of the time. I don't know where the boundary of notability is exactly, but I doubt this applies to every organisation. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I will drop a note to the map-maker and ask if he can draw up a revised version with more prominent English placenames.--Pondle (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I got Pondle's note, thanks (I am the creator of the map). A brief read through of the discussion shows that there seem to be several opposing views on the subject of Welsh/English place names. I take the point about the font though and will make some changes to improve legibility. I don't agree with numbering map areas with a key as it prevents you from taking in the map as a whole as you are eternally referring to the key. In reference to the Welsh/English names issue, the map is fully consistent with the sidebar. Names are given in Welsh and English for each UA, town on both. What may be confusing some users is that there are certain areas (Ceredigion for example) for which the English name is officially now the same as the Welsh so only one is shown (I edited the map previously to remove a reference to Cardiganshire the old name for the county that covered roughly the same area). So, I will produce a new version of the map using a less graphical font so that both Welsh and English names can be distinguished more easily. XrysD (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the explanation and help XyrsD. If the names on the map are the official ones in all languages, they need to stay. The sidebar is for explanatory purposes. I tend to agree the script is old-fashioned. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Changed map is uploaded with (hopefully) clearer fonts. I have also rationalised the way the names are presented so that now English appears over Welsh for both the UA and town names (now consistent with the sidebar). I have also adopted the convention used for some railway station signs of having the Welsh name (where different) in green. XrysD (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead...

Hi folks,

Haven't been around much, and certainly haven't read the Wales article for some time. It's looking good, but I think the lead needs some adjustment - only in terms of grammar and technicality rather than the spirit of its contents. For instance, we have:

Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, bordered by England to its east, and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. Wales has a population estimated at three million and is officially bilingual; the indigenous Welsh language and English have equal status, and bilingual signs are the norm throughout the land. The once-steady decline in Welsh speaking has reversed over recent years, however, with fluent Welsh speakers currently estimated to be around 20% of the population.

However, I'd be more inclined to be a bit more choppy and drop some of the poor wording ("norm" and "recent" years, whatever that may mean):

Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, bordered by England to its east, and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. It has a population estimated at three million and is officially bilingual; the indigenous Welsh language and English have equal status, meaning bilingual signs for navigation are standard. The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture; although it experienced a decline in ?????, a resurgence/series of changes/whatever reinstated its popularity, with fluent Welsh speakers were estimated in 200? to be around 20% of the population.

I think we also need to change from:

In 1955, Cardiff (Welsh: Caerdydd) was proclaimed as the capital city and it is the largest city in Wales with a population of 317,500. For a period it was the biggest coal port in the world.

...to...

In 1955, Cardiff was proclaimed as the capital of Wales. It is Wales's largest/most populous city with a population of 317,500. In the 19th century (?) it was the biggest coal port in the world.

...reason being that "city" is used twice in close succession; "largest" may mean by area (in which case it needs to be specified); "for a period" is ambiguous; "Caerdydd" is Welsh whereas this is the English language Wiki. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to begin a new sentence after "The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture." rather than link with "although".
The citation from the BBC says "Cardiff was once the world's biggest coal-exporting port, according to historian Brian Lee who said the Coal Exchange had cost £40,000 to build." Do you think it should mention "according to historian Brian Lee ... ", or find the direct reference? Daicaregos (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just thinking that we need to explain it: do we mean biggest in size, biggest as in busiest, biggest by area, frontage, amount of ships, amount of cargo, biggest by workforce etc? The whole lead is good but just needs tightening up in terms of its wording in my view. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I can throw some light on this. According to the Encyclopedia of Wales (pages 116-117), in 1907 Cardiff docks had total quayage of 11km, "one of the largest dock systems in the world". However, trade figures for the Port of Cardiff included Barry (which eclipsed Cardiff as a coal exporter in 1901) and Penarth - so "the role of Cardiff itself as a coal port can sometimes be inflated".--Pondle (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Id agree with those changes especially removing " are the norm throughout the land" bit, although i do still think the lead whilst it should rightly make clear the two languages have equal status, it also needs to make clear English is primarily used still, this must be the case when the following sentence goes on to state 20% of the population are fluent Welsh speakers. Legally English and Welsh are equal, but that is not the reality on the ground as far as im aware and at present that sentence does not make it clear. Infact it is rather odd for it to say Wales is officially a bilingual country and then point out less than 30% can speak one of the languages fluently. Oh and welcome back Jza84, hope you had a good break. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The "reality on the ground". :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont dispute that there are bilingual signs everywhere and that all children are now learning Welsh in school and that some parts of Wales use Welsh as the primary language rather than English. But we need to make it more clear than just saying they have equal status, which is true officially but not in reality when it comes to daily usage. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Lmao i just got the joke! very good BritishWatcher (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

We do need to be careful about the words we use. It is true that more people speak English than Welsh, and we should make that clear; but the fact that the two languages have equal official status is important in itself, "in reality", for instance in terms of signs, the official names of places and organisations, legislation, and so forth. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

We agree! =) BritishWatcher (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So something like.... "The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture. Although Welsh experienced a decline in the 20th century, a revival reinstated its popularity, to the point where fluent Welsh speakers were estimated in 2001? to be around 20% of the population, the remainder predominantly using English.".... If you read the present lead it jumps in with a very poorly worded statement about Welsh recentism and doesn't stress its importance why it's in the first paragraph. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer: "The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture. Its use declined before the late 20th century but has recently increased. It is now spoken by 22% of the country's population, and as a first language by a majority in some areas; however, most residents of Wales speak English for all or part of the time." I'm not happy with words like "revival", "popularity", or "the remainder predominantly using English". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fully support something along those lines which explains use. I presume that is to come after the proposed: "It has a population estimated at three million and is officially bilingual; the indigenous Welsh language and English have equal status, meaning bilingual signs for navigation are standard." Is the signs bit needed (i know its true, but its implied by saying its officially bilingual/having equal status and seems an odd explanation to have in the introductions first paragraph)? How about something like.. "It has a population estimated at three million and is officially bilingual with the indigenous Welsh language and English having equal status. The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture. Its use ......." BritishWatcher (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is very worrying. We agree again. :-0 Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

lol dont worry, we can still disagree on an issue further up this page. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

We still have a "recently" in there - how recent? Last century, last decade, last year, last 5 minutes? It needs to be more precise. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Would saying "recent years"? be ok? or recent decades? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Welsh language article has figures showing an increasing proportion since 1991. I would have thought that "recently increased" is perfectly acceptable for the lede, with a more detailed explanation in the main text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a guideline against the term, but having not been about for some time I forget its location. I'd say it's acceptable, but not perfectly acceptable, meaning it could be done better. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"...increased over recent decades"....? This report says: "Caution must be exercised when comparing the results of the 2001 Census with those of the 1991 Census as such comparison is affected by three factors: Changes in definition..; Changes in the geographic base..; Adjustment for under-enumeration..". We should be careful not to over-interpret the information that exists. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Are we not able to say "since the 1990s"? That's what evidence seems to suggest. I'm only here to make suggestions, but it does let the article down the fact that there are weaknesses in the lead. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Welsh Language Board has published this 'statistical balance sheet' which appears to show that more people speak the language than in the 1990s, but fewer do so fluently.[1]--Pondle (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That study is an excellent find. The problem is, it doesn't give us a simple answer, and (surprisingly) there don't seem to have been any news items about its publication, summarising it or commenting on it, which would have helped. My assessment of the figures is that the numbers and proportion "able to speak Welsh" have risen since the early 1990s, but the numbers speaking fluently, particularly of older people, have fallen, as have the numbers of entirely Welsh-speaking households. At the same time, bilingual classes, Welsh language theatre performances and so forth seem to have increased. As a first step, I'll check to see if that source is ref'd on the Welsh language page, add it there if not, and see if there are further comments here. It may, in my view, be a neutral position that Welsh usage overall has stabilised in recent years, rather than either risen or fallen. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just been incredibly bold and enacted much, but not all of the matters raised above. I've done so on the basis that there seems to be a fair bit of acknowledgement that some of the wording could've been improved. I am conscious that leads for such huge and beloved articles are very close to people's hearts so I'm treading boldly but diligently.

The changes are illustrated in this diff. In addition to some (but not all - there are a few issues unresolved) of the matters above, I've altered some of the wording in respect of "many", "today", "recently" and "Welsh population" (Welsh people could be resident outside of Wales). Hopefully all is good, but please tweak away. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I went on to remove the bit about the signs and added with / having, the sentence flows better like that in my opinion and see no need for the example of the signs, which is implied by having equal status. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I kind of understand that, but I think the following sentence ("the Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture"), reads out of place as a bit of unscientific filler. Although I personally agree with the "truthfulness" of the statement, it may need tweaking/revisiting/removing as per consensus. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

May be rearrange it so its at the end of the first paragraph. "'and remains an important element of Welsh culture'. after mentioning the decline / fluent speakers rather than the single sentence which does look a bit out of place. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that what is important is to set out the details and refs in the main body of text, and then summarise that in the introduction - see WP:LEADCITE, though I defer to Jza84's greater experience in GAs. I do think it's important to mention the cultural importance of the language in the lead - as well as, in the text of the article, making a ref to the road signing (see Road signs in Wales, a newish stubby article). I would oppose BW's use of the word "remains..." - that implies an unwarranted degree of surprise at the situation (perhaps it should be worded "English is still spoken in Wales in spite of devolution..."  ;-) ) Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the role of the language in the history of modern Wales (The Welsh not, the bilingual road signs campaign, S4C arising from a campaign of civil disobedience, growth of Welsh language teaching in ares of Wales etc. etc.) its important that it is in both the main body and the lede. Its unique among the celtic nations in this respect. I agree with Ghmyrtle that "remains" is unfortunate language). While historically the language was simply a part of the ideation culture of Wales, in the modern day its preservation and the campaigns and activities around that have been a more explicit aspect of its identity. Linked to this we have the dialectic between a nationalist, welsh speaking rural north and an industrial, socialist, internationalist south. Something well reflected in the novels of Emyr Humphreys (and article crying out for some work by the way) as well as elsewhere. I say dialectic, as in the modern age there has been a growing together of the nationalist and socialist traditions. I need to hunt around for some sources on this --Snowded ^TALK 07:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well just "and is as important element of Welsh culture". I agree that it is very notable and needs to be in the introduction, i just think a single sentence on it in the current position looks a little odd, adding it to the other sentence, so the first paragraph ends with that flows better in my opinion. Just needs rearranging a little. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the way forward should be to ensure that the article sets out a full, balanced and referenced story, and the introduction should then summarise that. Changing the intro without making sure it complies with the main text (as often happens!) seems to me like putting the cart before the horse. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

When I came to the article, it struck me immediately that, unlike any other country article on the rest of WP, Wales jumps straight in about how one of its languages is spoken fluently by about 20% of its population. OK, Wales has some brilliant and unique qualities, but imagine: "France is a country in western Europe. French is an important element of French cultur. It is currently estimated that French is spoken by about X% of the French population."... It's a little odd. Clearly, consensus and past editting has converged to place the Welsh language in the first paragraph - if that is the case, then surely we should stress why? The alternative is to adjust its position. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We need to have a balanced view, which takes into account the needs of a global readership. Some exposition is needed in the introduction, as readers coming to this article will not necessarily know whether everyone in Wales speaks Welsh, or whether everyone speaks English. Unlike in, say, France, there is likely to be some uncertainty. The explanation of the history of the current situation can, in my view, come later in the article if it has the potential to become unduly weighty in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My view is just a nudge different - yes have a balanced view for global readership, but principally go with what other reputable sources do; ambiguous wording that is open to interpretation should be eliminated/minimised wherever possible, including the lead. I suppose I didn't make that entirely clear - that the lead in its present format is good, but typically Wikipedian in its unorthodoxy in promoting some facts without explaining their context. In that spirit I have the following extracts which may help us get a more clinical wording that I was thinking would advance the article:

In 1997, 21 per cent of the popluation in private households said that they spoke Welsh. In much of the rural north and west, Welsh remains the first language. Welsh is now more widely used for official purposes, and is treated equally with English in the work of the Assembly. It is also used quite extensively in broadcasting, while most road signs are bilingual.... The National Assembly has assumed the main responsibility for enchancing Welsh culture and developing greater use of the Welsh language.

— Britain 2001, ONS, p. 32

Not sure if you good guys can extract anything of use? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that the ONS quote contains one big ambiguity, in the use of the words "more widely used" - more than what, English, or use in the past? (I do know the answer, by the way.) How about:

Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, bordered by England to its east, and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. It has a population of about three million. The English and Welsh languages have equal official status across Wales, and English is the most widely spoken language. An estimated 21 per cent of residents speak Welsh fluently; it is the first language across much of rural north and west Wales and is an important part of Welsh culture.

The last part, about being "an important part of Welsh culture", will need to be expanded with refs in the article text (as may other parts of the statement). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I like it!--Pondle (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Modern Wales

The section entitled 'Modern Wales' has very little to do with modern Wales, it only focuses on the rise of Modern Welsh nationalism. I agree that the flooding of the Tryweryn valley is of importance, but there is nothing of the World Wars, the Depression, the ruination of areas casused by the Beeching Axe, etc. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's very unbalanced. In the discussion section above I proposed a rewrite; we need to decide how we treat the whole history section - do we adopt a chronological narrative or focus on themes, e.g. industry, nationalism, etc etc.? Either way I think it should be much shorter. --Pondle (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be essentially chronological, summarising the key points in the History of Wales article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the Welsh Nationalism section is so large (and not really about Wales) that it warrants it's own article. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

See Welsh nationalism....? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And Welsh independence.--Pondle (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem like overkill and some of it would be better placed in the two main articles mentioned above. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, the history section is half as long (3,500 words) as the main History of Wales article (6,500 words) - probably is room for some trimming down. The nationalism section contains mostly notable elements, it and other sections probably just need some simplification. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, that section would be best not called "Modern Welsh nationalism" - to fit with the rest of the main history section, it would be Modern Wales, with a subsection on "Welsh nationalism" or similar. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree, find a better title. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Date formats

One of the first things that gets checked during a review is the date format of the citations. In past GA articles I have used dd-month-yyyy as the format (e.g. 6 September 2010). Although the majority are of the American standard (e.g. 2010-09-06), I feel as a British article we should use a British format. Any thoughts. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the British way is also so much clearer rather than a horrible bunch of numbers all jumbled together. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I expected nothing less BW, but it is appreciated none the less. But we are using several formats at the moment which is of course unacceptable. Which ever format is decided upon, I will change the cites to the agreed format. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As a fan of the YYYY-MM-DD system, I feel obliged to point out that it's not American - they use that 'orrible MMM DD, YYYY system. YYYY-MM-DD is an ISO format, typically used to keep machines (and masochists like me) happy. That said, you should probably use DD MMM YYYY everywhere, even in the odd places (like accessdate) that only machines look (humans still look occasionally, and may need to change dates etc). TFOWR 22:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the mistake, but now it is nameless I can really state how much I dislike it. Again, what is the preferred format? FruitMonkey (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh! You're wrong, it's great ;-) Seriously, though, I'd recommend sticking to UK dates ("6 September 2010"): I'm not aware of any reason why we'd need to use ISO dates (or any other date format). TFOWR 22:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this just about possible Bot uses TFOWR, or are there live bots that use accessdate? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I was actually thinking less about bots, and more about the mediawiki software - I think there used to be an idea that we should use ISO dates for, e.g., accessdates because then the server software could render the date easily into whatever format the reader wanted (American readers would get September 6, 2010; Commonwealth readers would get 6 September 2010, etc). That's been deprecated, and we all get whatever date the page uses. But I guess bots should be smart enough to work out what's going on. I'm sure there's a template somewhere that says "use this date format" or similar, maybe bots use that? TFOWR 22:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to come late to the party. One of my article reviews recommended the 6 September 2010 format (using a non-breaking space between the number and the month), rather than using DDMMYYYY (or variations thereof). It is completely unambiguous and I have used it ever since. Daicaregos (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd second that - DD MM YYYY and MM DD YYYY are both evil. 1 2 2010 - 1st of February or 2nd of January? Who knows! Spell out the month and the Atlantic language barrier disappears (well, as far as dates are concerned. "Pop" is always going to be the noise my colour television makes, not some paternal figure...) TFOWR 13:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought pop came in a bottle! We live and learn! -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Colonisation

Not sure that "colonisation" is the right title for the Roman >> onwards section. Most debate amongst professional archaeologists and historians these days focuses on continuity of populations and culture - I suppose the title refers to incoming Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Normans, but maybe a better title would be "Roman and Early Medieval" or something. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We could also improve language like "The Romans were ... busy ..." (!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted, yes, I've modified that. One had a picture of lots of little Romans frantically keeping themselves busy in and around Gwynedd. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If nobody objects then, I will change the titles discussed here and in the related section above with Modern Wales and Roman and Early Medieval. Let's do that tomorrow if no further points at issue. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Good thinking Guiltlessgecko (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wales/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for potential GA status. My review should be posted shortly. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I feel this article is not GA at this time. I encourage you to re-nominate once the below issues have been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

• The following sentences exist two times in 10.7.1 Music: "The BBC National Orchestra of Wales performs in Wales and internationally. The world-renowned Welsh National Opera now has a permanent home at the Wales Millennium Centre in Cardiff Bay, while the National Youth Orchestra of Wales was the first of its type in the world. The BBC National Orchestra of Wales performs in Wales and internationally. The Welsh National Opera is based at the Wales Millennium Centre in Cardiff Bay, while the National Youth Orchestra of Wales was the first of its type in the world.[222]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lzwiki (talk • contribs) 21:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Removed duplicate wording.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Headings should generally not repeat the title of the article
  • Changed sub heading.  Done
• Per WP:LAYOUT, footer boxes should not appear mid-article
  • Moved footer to foot of article.  Done
• "It has a population estimated at" -> "It has an estimated population of"
  • Changed as suggested.  Done
• Article needs some general copy-editing for grammar and clarity
• Numbers under 10 should be spelled out
  • I have made one brief glance through and have yet to find an numbers in numerals ten or under. There were a few under Demographics, but as there were comparable numbers used frequently within the sub-section which used numerals (e.g. 72%) I thought best to leave as is. Though all percentages are now % rather than a mix of 'per cent' and % as per WP:MOSNUM. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Check centuries - this rule also applies to things like "7th" and "5th"
      • WP:MOS#Numbers says "Show centuries in figures (the 5th century CE; 19th-century painting)" Daicaregos (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Don't link the same term multiple times, especially not in close proximity
  • Removed overlinks of all those I could find  Done Daicaregos (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Why is that text in the middle of the Roman section a pull-quote? First, not all of it appears to be quoted (although the quotation marks are unclear), and second it's not long enough to warrant blocking

This has cropped up before here. Academic opinion is needed as to why Offa's Dyke was built. We seem to have 3 options: 1. delete the quotes; 2. add quotation marks around the quote box; 3. replace the quote box with a précis. My choice would be option 2. Any précis would be likely to be derivative and we would be unlikely to explain it any better than John Davies anyway; better to give him full credit. What's your thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the discussion history here, but I would argue for keeping the quote but not the box the quote is in.

 Done Daicaregos (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Following the successful examples of Cornwall in 722 and Brittany in 865, the Britons of Wales made their peace with the Vikings and asked the Norsemen to help the Britons fight the Anglo-Saxons of Mercia to prevent an Anglo-Saxon conquest of Wales. In AD 878 the Britons of Wales unified with the Vikings of Denmark to destroy an Anglo-Saxon army of Mercians. Like Cornwall in 722, this decisive defeating of the Saxons gave Wales some decades of peace from Anglo-Saxon attack. In 1063, the Welsh prince Gruffydd ap Llywelyn made an alliance with Norwegian Vikings against Mercia which, as in AD 878 was successful, and the Saxons of Mercia defeated. As with Cornwall and Brittany, Viking aggression towards the Saxons/Franks ended any chance of the Anglo-Saxons/Franks conquering their Celtic neighbours." - phrasing is confusing here, especially the seemingly interchangeable use of Anglo-Saxon vs Saxon

  • Yes confusing, and not only that it overlaps with the next category, Medieval Wales. Cutting back and adding a cite.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Some of the shorter paragraphs should be combined to improve flow
  •  Done Daicaregos (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• "via the Additional Member System via regional lists" - "via...via" is repeptitive
  • Switched first via to through.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Climate section should be made into prose and expanded
  • Completed by Daicaregos  Done
• Be consistent in using First World War vs World War I/One (and Two)
  • British article so all mentions of the two World Wars now state First World War or Second World War.  Done
• Be consistent in using % vs percent vs per cent
  • Addressed, all now %, as is recommended at WP:MOSNUM.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• 72% Christian + 1.5% non-Christian + 18% no religion does not add up to 100% - what are the other people?
  • Corrected and linked to Census data.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Don't include links in See also that already appear in the main article text
  • Addressed  Done

Accuracy and verifiability

• See here for a list of problematic links  Done
• Please address the citation needed tag  Done
• Don't mix citation types in the infobox  Done
• Citations needed for the following:

• They endured, in part because of favourable geographical features such as uplands, mountains, and rivers and a resilient society that did not collapse with the end of the Roman civitas.

• I found evidence of Gwynydd having good defensive geograpic features, but nothing regarding the other kingdoms or the fact that the Welsh kingdoms had a more resilient society. Have reworded the best I can with citeable sources.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• The Welsh continued to call themselves Brythoniaid (Brythons or Britons) well into the Middle Ages, though the first use of Cymru and y Cymry is found as early as 633 in the Gododdin of Aneirin. Done In Armes Prydain, written in about 930, Done the words Cymry and Cymro are used as often as 15 times. However, it was not until about the 12th century, that Cymry began to overtake Brythoniaid in their writings. Done
• each competing for hegemony over the others

• Probably true to an extent but can't cite. Removed  Done

• allegedly having the Law Codes blessed by the Pope

• I found evidence of a (supposed) pilgrimage to Rome but not about a meeting with Pope. It does not add any more weight to the fact that he codified Welsh Law. Adding cite to earlier work and removing the Pope blessing.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Beaumaris, Caernarfon, and Conwy were built mainly to overshadow the Welsh royal home and headquarters
• In 1404 Owain was reputedly crowned Prince of Wales  Done
• The Wales referendum, 1979 in which the Welsh electorate voted on the creation of an assembly for Wales resulted in a large majority for the "no" vote. However, in 1997 a referendum on the same issue secured a "yes", although by a very narrow majority  Done
• This referendum is likely to take place in March 2011.
  • Removed statement as it's predicting a future attempt and is already mentioned in a previous paragraph.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• form a stable government with the "historic" One Wales agreement.

• Removed the word 'stable' as that implies stability was not present beforehand, plus I have cited and removed historic, as so far only Plaid Cymru, Labour and the First Minister appear to be using the term. We will let history determine what is historic.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• the ancient and historic Wales and Chester court circuit was also disbanded
  • It appears it was not disbanded with devolution, but the areas actually split in 2007.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Its area is about 20,779 km2 (8,023 sq mi)  Done– about the same size as Massachusetts, Israel, Slovenia or El Salvador and about a quarter of the area of Scotland. It is about 274 km (170 mi) north–south and 97 km (60 mi) east–west.  Done Daicaregos (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Wales is bordered by England to the east and by sea in the other three directions: the Môr Hafren (Bristol Channel) to the south, Celtic Sea to the west, and the Irish Sea to the north. Altogether, Wales has over 1,200 km (746 mi) of coastline.  Done
• The highest mountains in Wales are in Snowdonia (Eryri), and include Snowdon (Yr Wyddfa), which, at 1,085 m (3,560 ft) is the highest peak in Wales. The 14 (or possibly 15) Welsh mountains over 3,000 feet (914 m) high are known collectively as the Welsh 3000s, and are located in a small area in the north-west.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• The highest outside the 3000s is Aran Fawddwy 905m (2,969 ft) in the south of Snowdonia.  Done The Brecon Beacons (Bannau Brycheiniog) are in the south (highest point Pen-y-Fan 886 m/2,907 ft, and are joined by the Cambrian Mountains in Mid Wales (after which the earliest geological period of the Paleozoic era, the Cambrian, is named).  Done
• After much dispute, the next two periods of the Paleozoic era, the Ordovician and Silurian, were named after ancient Celtic tribes from this area

• Assuming (maybe incorrectly) that the facts being queried are the naming of the two periods. If the 'much dispute' is a problem it can be removed without impacting on the strength of the sentence.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest doing that, if the dispute isn't sourced

•  Done

• The coastline of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, the Gower Peninsula, Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire, and Ceredigion is particularly wild and impressive. Gower, Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire and Cardigan Bay all have clean blue water, white sand beaches and impressive marine life. Despite this scenic splendour the coast of Wales has a dark side; the south and west coasts of Wales, along with the Irish and Cornish coasts, are frequently blasted by huge Atlantic westerlies/south westerlies that, over the years, have sunk and wrecked many vessels.

• Re-write of the first two sentences of the paragraph, getting rid of the peacock terms and opinion, plus two cites added. Hopefully this is now addressed.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• On the night of 25 October 1859, 114 ships were destroyed off the coast of Wales when a hurricane blew in from the Atlantic; Cornwall and Ireland also had a huge number of fatalities on its coastline from shipwrecks that night. Wales has the somewhat unenviable reputation, along with Cornwall, Ireland and Brittany, of having per square mile, some of the highest shipwreck rates in Europe.[citation needed] The shipwreck situation was particularly bad during the industrial era when ships bound for Cardiff got caught up in Atlantic gales and were decimated by "the cruel sea".

• re-written slightly and cites added.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• In 2002, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Wales was just over £26 billion ($48 billion), giving a per capita GDP of £12,651 ($19,546). As of 2006, the unemployment rate in Wales stood at 5.7% – above the UK average, but lower than in the majority of EU countries.

• updated figures added so  Done --Pondle (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• The population of Wales in the United Kingdom Census 2001 was 2,903,085, which has risen to 2,958,876 according to 2005 estimates
  • Cite given.  Done
• Today there are very few monoglot Welsh speakers, but individuals still exist who may be considered less than fluent in English and rarely speak it

• I am able to cite the monoglot statement, but not that some Welsh speakers rarely speak English. As there are communities in Wales that speak Welsh as a first language (which is addressed in the Language section), then there must be people who are more fluent in Welsh than English. First Language infers that you speak it at home, think in that language, etc. I have therefore removed the 'rarely speak' statement unless someone can cite it.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the most up-to-date survey of Welsh language use is this. Ghmyrtle (talk)

Had a good look at it, but it gives no real further info past the 2001 census. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• This phenomenon is almost exclusive to urban Wales. Code-switching is common in all parts of Wales, and the result is known by various names, such as "Wenglish" or (in Caernarfon) "Cofi".
  • Referenced  Done
• The Roman Catholic Church makes up the next largest denomination at 3% of the population. Non-Christian religions are small in Wales, making up approximately 1.5% of the population. 18% of people declare no religion.
  • Rejigged a bit and cites given  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Many of the present-day Pentecostal churches in Wales claim to have originated in this revival.
  • This appears to be an unfounded statement. Evan Roberts may have revived this charismatic style of Christian worship in 1904-05, but Pentacostalism did not really set hold in Wales until it the 1970s.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• it is likely that one of the symbols came to be used due to a misunderstanding for the other one, though it is unclear which came first.

• This was originally attributed to the leek/daffodil argument. Now cited.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• had very successful careers as portraitists

• Cites added  Done

• Perhaps the most famous Welsh painters

• Switched to a less opinion orientated statement to a more factual statement without damaging the original authors message.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Today much art is produced in Wales, as elsewhere in a great diversity of styles.

• Very difficult to cite, as the statement does not mention quality, so we can assume that art of all types is happening in a country. Removing.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• The most popular sports in Wales are rugby union and football.

• Removed statement and added a line about rugby union being a national symbol of Wales (plus cite).  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• However, some 500–600 titles are published each year in Welsh.

• Removed line and replaced with a valid statement regarding Welsh publishing houses.  Done

• About 80% of the land surface of Wales is given over to agricultural use
  • Needed a bit of maths, but we are there, 78% in 2004. cited  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• The world-renowned Welsh National Opera now has a permanent home at the Wales Millennium Centre in Cardiff Bay, while the National Youth Orchestra of Wales was the first of its type in the world.
  • Removed world-renowned (peacock) from WNO and added cite to the NYOoW being world's first.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Use a consistent formatting for references
• Why is the other Davies book not in Bibliography?  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• All sources should have publisher
• All web sources should have retrieval date
  • All web sources now have a retreival date.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Broad

• How did the World Wars affect Wales? Did its citizens serve in the British army? How many? Was it bombed?
  • Hopefully this has now been addressed under the Modern Wales section. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Did anything else unrelated to nationalism happen in the 20th century?
  • I have added the effects of the two World Wars, the fall of the Liberals and rise of Labour plus a small section on the move away from industrial to manufacturing jobs in the later half of the 20th century (without trying to overlap with work already covered in the economy section). FruitMonkey (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Any information on education in Wales? Is there schooling in Welsh? Is the school system/curriculum Wales-specific or shared with the rest of the UK? Are there any universities?
  • Education section added.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Climate should be expanded.  Done Daicaregos (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Healthcare should also be expanded - how many hospitals are there in Wales? Any further statistics for public healthcare? Is Welsh medicine particularly innovative in any field?
  • Have expanded as requested adding present number of hospitals (though I'm not sure if Ysbty Cwm Rhondda (2009) comes under district hospitals so there could now be 18 district hospitals No, its one of the 7 new community hospitals.) plus statistics on general health and well being.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Under culture - Museums? Festivals? The National Library? Dance? Literature?
  • Literature section has now been added,  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC). Museums and National Library  Done. Festivals  Done. Dance  Done.
• Information on national symbols is replicated under culture
  • Removed.  Done
• Under Transportation - any more information on naval transport? Welsh ports?
  • All four Welsh ports are mentioned at the end of transportation, and to be honest I believe the two sentences sum up the links very clearly. There's not much else to say. Although having a large coastline Wales does not have a great history of naval transport outside the export of freight during the industrial revolution. And that is mentioned in detail in the history section. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

• Be aware of WP:W2W and WP:ASF, and avoid editorial bias

Stability

• There is not sufficient instability to fail on this criterion. However, that being said...please no edit-warring, especially not over language issues. Continue to discuss on the talk page whenever issues arise.

Images

• Avoid sandwiching text between images, either vertically or horizontally  Done Daicaregos (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Source link for flag image is dead
  • Great spot. Now repaired.  Done FruitMonkey (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• "the last native Welsh person to hold the title Prince of Wales." - source?

  Prince of Wales for Glyndwr was self-titled, and therfore not recognisied officially. Difficult to state that he was the last native Prince of Wales when it is contested by some historians and is not noted in some very heavy Welsh tomes. Switching to a neutral caption.  DoneFruitMonkey (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• NorthWales2.jpg missing description on file page
  • Added description to file.  Done
• Source page for Ironworks image seems not to be loading properly
  • Does it need to? The image is correctly free use, unlike text cites that back up a view point or fact. An image when captured is its own proof. Does it mean that if an image is removed from the web, we too must dealt it? I'm just unsure about what to do here? FruitMonkey (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
    • An image proves its own existence, but does not prove its own copyright status. If you can update the link to point to a working page, that would prove its status. If not...well, I'm not going to bother deleting the image over that, but if you try renominating the article you may or may not run into a problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

      The image does exist on other sites, but what if it's not the same byte size? Is that then an issue? FruitMonkey (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

      Not an issue - so long as there's enough of the image present to make it obvious it's the same image, then you can use another site to prove the image's copyright status. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

      Great, hopefully that's now actioned.  Done

• FUR for Cymdeithas needs to be re-written - this article is not about the logo
  • I have replaced the image with one that is open source.  Done

20th Century Wales

As mentioned before the review, the section 20th century Wales has historically only mentioned Welsh nationalism, which to be honest is a far too big a slant on the history of the country. I am presently expanding the section to include the economic switch around of Wales plus the countries involvement in the two World Wars. Would anyone have any objections to replacing the Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg logo with the Welsh Dragon Memorial Mametz Wood picture? The Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg logo is non free use, while the Mametz Woods memorial is. I also feel it would balance the chapter to have a picture not relating to the rise of the Welsh langauage. And a final point is that I am really proud of that monument. FruitMonkey (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I like what you've done so far. There's some interesting stuff in all that GA review material as well, but no mention of Wales' most important 20th Century politician, Lloyd George and not much about the pivotal role of South Wales in the union and labour histories. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There are some strange balances in this article. The Music and Art section name drop important figures all the time, but then like you say, where is Lloyd George, or Aneurin Bevan. Who do people outside Wales expect to find when they open a Welsh article? Dylan Thomas, Richard Burton, John Charles, John Dee or Michael Sheen? The England article sells Shakespeare, Churchill and Newton. I suppose the Welsh article can do the same. FruitMonkey (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, also the nationalist material is too lengthy compared to other issues, unduly raising its relative notability and needs to be reduced in this main Wales article. A good example of a sentence in it that could come out altogether is this one: "In 1966 the Carmarthen Parliamentary seat was won by Gwynfor Evans at a by-election, Plaid Cymru's first Parliamentary seat.[72] In the following year the Wales and Berwick Act 1746 was repealed and a legal definition of Wales, and of the boundary with England, was stated." Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've shifted some of the political talk out of History and into politics. I have then added a big chunk to the Modern History regarding the political landscape of Wales. By flicking through the article I had noticed that there is much about the recent Welsh Assembly, but there was no mention that for the greater part of the 20th century Wales has been a red Labour landscape, with many areas being a 'stick a red rosette on a donkey' seats. Hopefully that is now addressed. I'll start adding cites soon.FruitMonkey (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Rugby competitions

I've just updated the Anglo-Welsh Cup sponsor's name (from EDF Energy to LV Cup) and it occurred to me that only rugby followers would know what it meant. There is a case for calling the competitions by their original names and referring to the sponsor name too - perhaps something like ".. the Anglo-Welsh Cup competition (LV Cup) ...". Thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Its been discussed before on Rugby sites - controversy over Celtic League v Magners League. Determination is by common use I think, so Anglo-Welsh better here, but Magners for the main one --Snowded ^TALK 16:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Roman and "post-Roman"

I wasn't sure about "post-Roman" as a replacement section title, but I am pretty sure we don't need a large text about Macsen Wledig's prophecy and Magnus Maximus filling out the whole section - it's mostly mythical apart from (one sentence?) in Gildas. There is lots of better material about Roman Britain and Roman Wales we could use. Is there any chance of it being discussed? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that those sections need a considerable improvement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

...and I'll be happy to help out when the real world allows me some time. Not "huffing and puffing". Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Introduction, second paragraph

It says: "In the 13th century, the defeat of Llewelyn by Edward I completed the Anglo-Norman conquest of Wales and brought about centuries of English occupation. Wales was subsequently incorporated into England...." Are the words "and brought about centuries of English occupation" really necessary or helpful? I'm not sure what they are supposed to mean, in that context. Clearly the English monarchy sought to control Wales, and English people settled parts of it (such as the Gwent levels), but is that clause supposed to reflect that, or make a longer-term point about English settlement more generally, or political control, increased use of the English language, etc. as might be implied by the word "occupation"? The words seem to me to be unnecessary in that paragraph, and reading the History section (which the Introduction is supposed to summarise) doesn't really clarify it for me. Can those seven words simply be deleted? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The last few days I've been going at the article like a blind surgeon with a meat cleaver; I don't think losing seven words will cause any more harm. But 'occupation' is a very touchy word and is probably unhelpful. The initial 'conquests' were peasemeal and the main invaders were probably the Normans rather than 'English'. And like you say 'occupation' conjures up thoughts of standing troops rather than the actual top down control, mainly held by ancient Welsh families. Get rid. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

History section

We've discussed the inadequacies of the history section before, but it's more pressing now that we're going for GA. The coverage here is pretty idiosyncratic: most of Welsh social and political history gets short shrift. We have a lot on 18th & 19th century economic history, and a very detailed section on the rise of nationalism in the 20th century. But there's nothing at all on cultural or demographic changes, or even Welsh politics before the foundation of Plaid Cymru. I think we need a radical re-write. Any thoughts?--Pondle (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There do seem to be several notable absences from the history section, most importantly, the important labour/trade union history of 19th and 20th century, the coal strikes, etc. Currently also no mention for example of Tonypandy which is surprising. Strangely absent also is David Lloyd George (apart from one mention - he introduced the love of daffodils!). I would also have put in some more recent things such as the Aberfan disaster (absent) and more than just an undabbed mention of the investiture in the nationalism section. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I notice that in the history section there is no mention of the Welsh Marches which played an important role in medieval Welsh history. A paragraph or two should be added to remedy this lack. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. It should be noted. Though sadly, a sentence or two is all that could be devoted to it, rather than a paragraph or two. Daicaregos (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Actioned, hopefully to an acceptable level. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Won't be needing this then: "Within four years of the Battle of Hastings England had been completely subjugated by the Normans. William the Bastard established a series of lordships, allocated to his most powerful warriors along the Welsh border, the boundaries fixed only to the east. This frontier region, and any English-held lordships in Wales, became known as Marchia Wallie, the Welsh Marches, in which the Marcher lords were subject to neither English nor Welsh law. The area of the March varied as the fortunes of the Marcher Lords and the Welsh princes ebbed and flowed. The March of Wales, which existed for over 450 years, was abolished under the Acts of Union in 1536.". Oh well, Daicaregos (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yours is better. Replace it with your research. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It is up for discussion. Any disagreement/amendments anyone? Daicaregos (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think your version sufficiently covers Welsh Marcher history, Daicaregos. Any reader seeking more details on the subject can link to the Welsh Marches article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Please feel free to make any improvements. Daicaregos (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I made just one change. Bastard sounded too perjorative, and he's probably better known to history as The Conqueror.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess history is written by the winners. He'll always be William the Bastard to me. Daicaregos (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the Saxons treated the Welsh no better. Look at what King Harold II of England did to this girl's husband. Killed Gruffydd then forced her to marry him!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Royal Badge of Wales

Why isn't the royal badge of Wales featured next to the Welsh flag at the beginning of this article? It used to be, and I think it should be again. It was approved in May 2008 and is used on all Welsh Assembly Government measures. Therefore how is it different to any other coat of arms, seal or badge used in articles on other countries and regions. In the article for England the English royal banner is featured next to its national flag. I am a Welshman who has lived in England all my life and I have never once seen that banner flown. I do not know if that banner has any official status in modern England and I suspect it does not, it is merely cultural. If that banner is featured on the England article then why isn't the Royal Badge of Wales featured on the Wales article? Especially as it is common for the badge or coat of arms to be displayed next to the national or regional flag in Wikipedia articles on nations and regions. I'm sure there is probably some reason why it was taken away but could someone explain to be why it was and why it shouldn't be restored. Because I think it should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterCheifz (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The subject has been discussed before. Most recently here, but also here, here and here. There is no consensus for which standard to show, if any, that represents Wales. Daicaregos (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Image for Climate subsection

Snow-covered Great Britain during its extreme winter of 2009-2010

Any opinions as to whether or not this image would be appropriate for this article (at Wales#Climate):
Daicaregos (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say not - it shows weather rather than climate, over a much wider area, and extreme weather at that. I'll see what else I can find. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A couple of possibles from Geograph here or here. "Climate" is not easy to illustrate photographically, but these are certainly pertinent (and pretty). Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Take your point about climate v weather. Problem with showing extreme weather is that unless you see a before and after (or during) shots, you can't tell it is extreme. I prefer the second image, and Aberystwyth is mentioned in the text - as the latitudinal mid point. I suppose any 'normal', or everyday, outdoor image would be an illustration of Wales' climate. Rather than an extreme weather shot. Daicaregos (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The flooding would illustrate the wetness factor! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If it were wet all the time, there would be no floods! Daicaregos (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Changes to explanation of principality in the Lead

Firstly, the statement “although this has no modern geographical or constitutional basis.” was placed in the lead as a direct response to a 'drive-by Tagging', as discussed here and, therefore, has consensus. Secondly, the citation quotes the Counsel General for Wales saying “in relation to Wales, Principality is a misnomer”. We chose to use our own words to sum this up, followed by a direct quote placed in the reference section, which adequately conveys the meaning and explains the reason for it. That the Principality of Wales is not the same size or shape of the modern country does not need a direct citation, and neither does the fact that no prince has a constitutional involvement in the country, per WP:BLUE. And thirdly, you must have realised the changes you made would be controversial. Please explain why you chose not to discuss them on the Talk page first. Daicaregos (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of references in lead

This edit was reverted with the request to bring it to the talk page.

The essential issue I see is that the following statement is not supported by the given reference: "...although this has no modern geographical or constitutional basis."

The reference appears instead to indicate a debate around the use of the term (specifically with the UK central govt. using it in a UN report and a Welsh Assembly member raising a concern over it). "Some politicians would say there’s nothing wrong with the term", the reference says, "Others recoil in horror". Fair enough. But that is a long way off from supporting the statement that the term "has no modern geographical or constitutional basis".

The first part (no modern geographical basis) would also appear to be at odds with references given immediately before (Reader's Digest:1999, Oxford Illustrated Dictionary:1976), which describes Wales as a "principality" in modern times. (Not the mention the submission to the UN, which gives "principality" in the definition section.)

There is also the relatively trivial use of the definitive article (the), where the supporting references use no article or the indefinite article (a). --RA (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what's happened to your post RA, but when you repair it would you mind looking at the previous section which refers to the same point. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppsie! Fixed now.

I didn't spot your post above, Dai. I've combined the two sections now.

It's the, "We chose to use our own words to sum this up", that's the problem. Those words aren't supported by the reference. They are an original interpretation. At best, they sum up one view given in the source (and appear to be at odds with other sources).

Yes, I appreciate that this is a prickly issue for some. However, that doesn't provide a license for OR or to avoid WP:V or NPOV. --RA (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if this would merit a mention, but the Guardian newspaper's Style Guide notes:

principality

do not use to describe Wales

--Rhyswynne (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This site, run by WAG, seems to offer an appropriate reference. It says:

"Wales is not a Principality. Although we are joined with England by land, and we are part of Great Britain, Wales is a country in it's own right.

We have a long history that goes from the old welsh kingdoms and the middle ages. We have had a 'Prince of Wales' from 1301, when Edward I created the title. The title is given to the eldest son of each English monarch.

Our Prince of Wales at the moment is Prince Charles, who is the present heir to the throne. But he does not have a role in the governance of Wales, even though his title might suggest that he does.

On 18 September 1997, we voted in favour of devolution in Wales. Before that, we were run entirely by the UK government in London. We were then given the powers we need to make secondary laws that affect us by an act called the Government of Wales Act 1998.

In 2006, we expanded on this act and have gained more powers for our country with the Government of Wales Act 2006. Our government's document 'One Wales' refers to us as a country or nation in it's own right."

Apostrophes and capitals, sadly, sic. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The point was covered above: That the Principality of Wales is not the same size or shape of the modern country is not original research and does not need a direct citation, and neither does the fact that no prince has a constitutional involvement in the country, per WP:BLUE. Further, articles are not meant to be direct copies of other people's work. We are supposed to use our own words, per WP:C. The quote from the cited reference ("Some politicians would say there’s nothing wrong with the term", the reference says, "Others recoil in horror") seems to be the journalist's attempt at a humourous introduction to the subject, which culminates in the Counsel General for Wales saying “I agree that, in relation to Wales, principality is a misnomer and that Wales should properly be referred to as a country.” The direct quote is in the reference section. If the reference from WAG is added as a citation (excluding ”it's” and capitals), would you accept the wording that principality "... has no modern geographical or constitutional basis" ? Daicaregos (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course there's no constitutional basis at this time. People do use that term, but it's just that - a term. There's a guy who has the title of "Prince of Wales", but he has no role in the government of Wales or the UK. The Principality hasn't existed in a real way since the Laws in Wales Acts, by which time the March and all other parts of Wales were merged with the Principality and thence into the English legal system. I found this from John Cannon's A Dictionary of British History, published by Oxford, which may be useful here. I don't think we need to say "geographical... basis"; none of the borders are the same as they were seven hundred years ago.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Stepping back

OK, this has disappeared down the hole of "Wales is a pricipality" vs. "Wales is not a principality". That is not the issue that I am raising.

The issue I am raising is that the reference cited does not support the statement appearing in the text. The current ref and the ref given above by Ghmyrtle support a statement to the effect that the Welsh Assembly Government reject the term, which would be important to say IMO. It would also be much more powerful statement than the one currently appearing IMO.

Clearly the term is used, as the Readers Digest and Oxford refs (and the infamous UN ref) support. Outlining the "controversy" around the subject is important; but over statements of fact don't do justice to any subject. Often more mundane statements are more powerful and more convincing statements of fact.

(About WP:BLUE - come now, we all know WP:V is policy.) --RA (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the WAG reference does match the issue. Its sensible to note that Wales is sometimes referred to as a Principality, but it needs to be clear that this has no particular significance, is an anachronistic reference supported by some common use. --Snowded ^TALK 12:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded - the term has no constitutional meaning but is occasionally used to describe the whole of Wales. On that theme, there was once a local government body called "the Council of the Principality" - I think it was some kind of forerunner of the Welsh Local Government Association, but I can only find two internet references to it.[2][3]--Pondle (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps RA could come up with a possible wording. I take the point that there's no need to retain the reference to "geographical", but stating that it has no "modern constitutional basis" seems to me to be an assessment supported by the refs. I think RA is wrong to suggest that there is any "controversy" about this - it's just a question of agreeing the most succinct form of words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

How about:

Wales is sometimes described as a principality,¹²³ however the term is rejected as inaccurate by the Welsh Assembly Government, who say the correct terms are country or nation.⁴⁵

1. Illustrated Encyclopedia of Britain. London: Reader's Digest. 1999. p. 459. ISBN 0-276-42412-3. A country and principality within the mainland of Britain ... about half a million
2. The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary. Great Britain: Oxford University Press. 1976 [1975]. p. 949. Wales (-lz). Principality occupying extreme W. of central southern portion of Gt Britain
3. United Kingdom (2007), "Report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (PDF), Report by Governments on the Situation in their Countries on the Progress Made in the Standardization of Geographical Names Since the Eight Conferences, New York: United Nations, The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy consisting of four constituent parts:
   • 2 countries: England + Scotland
   • 1 principality: Wales
   • 1 province: Northern Ireland
   ...
4. "UN report causes stir with Wales dubbed 'Principality'". WalesOnline website. Media Wales Ltd. 3 July 2010. Retrieved 25 July 2010. ... the Assembly's Counsel General, John Griffiths, [said]: "I agree that, in relation to Wales, Principality is a misnomer and that Wales should properly be referred to as a country. The Assembly Government is committed to promoting Wales as a country both at home and abroad and we will endeavour to ensure that Wales is not referred to as a Principality in other reports and papers issued by the UK Government."
5. Welsh Assembly Government (2008). "Frequently Asked Questions". Wales.com. Retrieved 2010-10-17. Wales is not a Principality. Although we are joined with England by land, and we are part of Great Britain, Wales is a country in it's own right. ... We have had a 'Prince of Wales' from 1301, when Edward I created the title. The title is given to the eldest son of each English monarch. Our Prince of Wales at the moment is Prince Charles, who is the present heir to the throne. But he does not have a role in the governance of Wales, even though his title might suggest that he does. ... Our government's document 'One Wales' refers to us as a country or nation in it's own right.

--RA (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we could be a little bit simpler, using the same references as before why not "Wales is sometimes described as a "principality",[12][13] although this has no constitutional basis.[14]" --Snowded ^TALK 18:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem with that in principle, it just takes us back to the original problem of referencing: where do ref say anything about a "constitutional basis"? WRT to other terms used (e.g. country or nation), what constitutional basis do they have? --RA (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside the referencing question, might the latter part of the sentence not read better "although this has no modern constitutional basis." Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

And on the refs front, John G Edwards [4] seems clear it ended in 1967 - "The principality of Wales:1267 - 1967; a study in constitutional history", 1969. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Or is the 1967 reference just so he could bring a book out on the centenary, and it was thus a 700 year study, as it was published in 1969. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a blurring in this discussion of the ("actual") Principality of Wales (as a separate jurisdiction) and simply the use of the term principality to refer to Wales (regardless of its "legal" status). The legal status of Wales as (or actually, not as) a principality is something that might deserve clearing up. As the Wales.com ref supports, the Prince of Wales has no role in the governance of Wales. However, regardless of this, the term is (for good or for bad) still habit owing to a sense of identity that was more profound than the legal separateness of Wales from England. Example:

"Wales, principality of: The term refers to the territorial dominion of the last Welsh princes of Wales; the estate granted to English princes of Wales after 1301; and the entire land of Wales following the Act of Union (1536). … The concept of the principality of Wales within the United Kingdom survived because of the distinctive culture, language, and sense of identity of the Welsh. Although in modern times prior to the 20th cent. princes of Wales visited their principality rarely, both prince and principality were a focus of Welsh sentiment." (Cannon, John (2009). A Dictionary of British History. Oxford University Press. p. 661. ISBN 0199550379. Retrieved October 15, 2010. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help))

1967 (I presume) refers to the year when England and Wales came into being (as opposed to simply England, as it was before then). --RA (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD should be both an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. Just want to point out that this subject is not discussed in the body of the text, where it should be introduced in a little more depth. But the lead (as it is currently) should stand as a summary. Any views as to which section should contain it? Daicaregos (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would bring this up in the history section. Mention the term Principality during the expansionist attempts of the princes of Gwynedd, and then a mention linked to Edward II. But if I'm not mistaken the Marches and the Principality were two separate geographical bodies, that only came together after the Act of Union. Which when the term Marches was jettisoned, Wales by default became known as the Principality. So all mention of it maybe should be noted in Medieval Wales. If we wanted to then mention the defunct usage of the title, it could be added at the end of Modern Wales and then a brief mention that Prince Charles is the incumbent Prince, as I think having an article on Wales without mention him, even if you are not a lover of the royals; is a bit of a disservice. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added information to the article's body text (here), in Medieval Wales and Modern Wales, as suggested. I also moved the references to principality and prince of Wales that were in the intro, to the body text, where relevant. No refs have been lost (or changed), just moved. Any comments/suggestions are welcome. Daicaregos (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wales reassessment

After all the changes to this article since the last GA Review I presently see this as a very good article. Please could anyone with any complaints regarding the article please inform this article so we can address the issues before they are picked up by the GA. Thanks 01:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 90.195.216.91, 7 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Technically Wales is not a country, but a principality of the United Kingdom The same goes for England, Scotland and North Ireland

90.195.216.91 (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Whether England, Scotland and North Ireland [sic] are principalities is a matter for those pages. That Wales is not a principality is dealt with on the article page, which I suggest you read. Daicaregos (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau

A sound file of an 1899 recording of Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau has been added to the infobox. My feeling is that the recording, while of academic interest, is of poor quality. It is perfectly suitable for the article on the national anthem itself, but is not representative of the anthem in the modern country. Any thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds pretty awful to my ears. The recording, not the anthem. I don't think it belongs on this article. Jack forbes (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I believe the article would gain from having a recording of the anthem, I think this one is a misrepresentation due to the low quality. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Visual arts

In the Visual arts section we have the sentence, "But in the 18th century, the growing popularity of landscape art allowed them to stay home". Is there a reference for this somewhere in the article, and if so, do we have an example of a Welsh painter who did stay at home? Jack forbes (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone is, of course, welcome to make improvements to the article. Nevertheless, I have made amendments which I hope will clarify the paragraph (well it's my home). Daicaregos (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I hadn't realised that you had already made several edits to the section. My apologies. Daicaregos (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I did think it was a strange post at the time. Apology accepted of course. Jack forbes (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wales/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article shortly. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

General comments:

By and large an enjoyable and informative read. Article stability is open to question, but most recent edits have been fairly minor rewording and clarification. Some aspects need to be addressed, largely to do with referencing:

• The lead section in its current state does not follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). It should function to provide an introduction and overview of the main article, summarising its most important aspects.

• In 'Prehistoric origins' it is stated, "[...]and built cromlechs such as Pentre Ifan, Bryn Celli Ddu and Parc Cwm long cairn between about 5,500 BP and 5,800 BP, about 1,000 to 1,300 years before either Stonehenge or the Great Pyramid of Giza was completed." This statement falls foul of WP:SYN as none of the references give those comparisons with Stonehenge or Giza. My suggestion would be to simply drop the comparison.

 Done diff Daicaregos (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• In 'Post-Roman era' it is stated, "[...]the expansion of the Anglo-Saxons into Wales may have been halted by the victory of the British leader Arthur at Badon Hill[...]" I'm not comfortable with this treatment of Arthur as a historical figure, given the general lack of reliable historical evidence for him.

It would be neglectful for the Wales article not to mention Arthur. How about: "Archaeological evidence, in the Low Countries and what was to become England, shows early Anglo-Saxon migration to Great Britain reversed between 500 to 550, which concurs with Frankish chronicles. John Davies notes this as consistent with the British victory at Badon Hill, attributed to Arthur by Nennius and Gildas." Daicaregos (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Gildas explicitly names Arthur (Nennius does), but otherwise that would be perfect. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. Gildas refers to a great victory won by the Britons at Mons Badonicus.  Done diff Daicaregos (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• A reference is needed for the breakdown of the alliance between Anarawd and the Northumbrian Norse and the subsequent pact with Alfred.

 Done diffs Daicaregos (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• In 'Medieval Wales', there are insufficient references to support the paragraph starting "The Aberffraw dynasty would surge to pre-eminence [...]"

 Done diff, diff & diff Daicaregos (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• In 'Modern Wales', more references are needed in the paragraph dealing with the rise of nationalism and Plaid Cymru. A BBC report of an apology by Liverpool City Council for the flooding of Capel Celyn is not sufficient to cover this important topic.

 Done Cites added, could this be challenged if it is felt the cites are not yet adequate. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 23:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• 'Sport' and 'Media' both need the referencing tightened up.

Sport  Done, nine cites added, hopefully that is enough. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Media  Done diffs (Media section only, of course) Daicaregos (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• In 'Demographics' references are needed to cover Eastern European migration.

 Done Cites given for European migration in the early 21st century. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• More references are needed in 'Mythology'... specific texts are mentioned but not cited correctly.

 Done diffs Daicaregos (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

All my concerns have been addressed, and with the lead section in User:Daicaregos/sandbox, it would easily qualify for GA status. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm putting the article on hold for another seven days. This is to allow time to develop a stable lead section which every one is happy with.Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Congratulations... passed GA... I enjoyed reading and reviewing it, thanks Catfish Jim & the soapdish 21:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Welsh not

I have removed the 'Welsh not' from the education system as it has been given a completely unfair slant. Hardly 5% of schools used it, it was never used in state schools and in private schooling the parents were informed of the Welsh not before sending their children to the schools. By mentioning it without these statements makes it seem as if there was a systematic punishment of using Welsh in schools which never happened. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Then you must include those statements, and reference them. The three sentences noting the practice were accompanied by a RS reference. If you dispute that reference you must take it to the RS/N. The 'Welsh Not' happened. The Welsh Academi Encyclopaedia note that "Welsh patriots view the Welsh Not(e) as an instrument of cultural genocide ...". It is an important aspect of Wales' history and culture and should be mentioned on this article. I will revert the edit removing adequately referenced and important information. Daicaregos (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This has come up before (though I can't remember where}. John Davies' A History of Wales (ISBN 0-140-28475-3, p.443) says: "To a certain extent, Welsh had been employed in the elementary schools before 1889; it is unlikely that the use of the 'Welsh Note' was as widespread as later mythology maintains." That is corroborated by this BBC Wales page: "There is strong evidence of the Welsh Not in Carmarthen, Cardigan and Meirionnydd before 1870, but it was never official government policy. A number of school organisations used it, from the national schools of the Anglicans to the British schools of the nonconformists, but attendance at these schools was voluntary and if a headmaster had a Welsh Not policy it was with the approval of the parents." Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have placed one reference, plus once I can get to a library I can cite some more. The Welsh not has been blown out of proportion. The Welsh Encyclopedia does state that "Welsh patriots view the Welsh Not(e) as an instrument of cultural genocide" but it does not state who or how many. If we state "Welsh patriots view..." Wikipedia would ask "Who", but the same article also follows up by stating that the best known recorded experience of the Welsh not by O M Edwards is counter-argued as the "subject to a modicum of mythology". We must be ultra careful of anything used as propoganda, the Welsh not is one of them. Welsh in the industrial heartlands of the valleys and Merthyr faded not because of the Welsh not or the incoming English immigrants, but the expanision of transport links and the availability of new media. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion. Do you have any evidence to support you contention that the expansion of transport links and the availability of new media was the cause of the Welsh language's demise? If so, it should be included in the article (I assume it isn't, as I don't recall seeing it), it would certainly be of interest. You appear to assume that I want to include the Welsh Encyclopedia's statement that "Welsh patriots view the Welsh Not(e) as an instrument of cultural genocide". You are mistaken. I didn't say so and, had I wanted to include it, I would have. Nevertheless, your view that the Welsh Not has been blown out of proportion does not disguise the fact that it is not just propaganda; it happened. Qualifying it by an unreferenced negative statement ("There is no evidence that the intermediate schools, in which instruction was almost universally in English, made use of the "not".") is downplaying it to give a specific POV. Please consider whether another sentence should be added: "There is no evidence that the intermediate schools, in which instruction was almost universally in English, didn't make use of the "not".". Or perhaps, neither should be in the article. Daicaregos (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Welsh 'Not' info in the article was "To ensure Welsh children spoke English at school, the Welsh Not was used; a policy seen as a hated symbol of English oppression. The "not", a piece of wood hung round the neck by string, was given to any child overheard speaking Welsh, who would pass it to a different child if overheard speaking Welsh. At the end of the day, the wearer of the "not" would be beaten." No part of that statement is unsupported by the reference. No part of that statement is POVy:

• to ensure Welsh children spoke English at school, the Welsh Not was used.
• the policy is/was seen as a hated symbol of English oppression.
• the "not" was a piece of wood hung round the neck by string.
• it was given to any child overheard speaking Welsh.
• it was passed it to a different child if overheard speaking Welsh.
• At the end of the day, the wearer of the "not" would be beaten.

Please advise exactly what it is you dispute, or which part you consider to be unreferenced. Daicaregos (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That it was used as a blanket tool in Welsh education, and that the English langage was hated. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It says neither of those things. Please read it again. Daicaregos (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How about:

In some schools, to ensure Welsh children spoke English, the Welsh Not was used; a policy seen as a hated symbol of English oppression. The "not", a piece of wood hung round the neck by string, was given to any child overheard speaking Welsh, who would pass it to a different child if overheard speaking Welsh, and at the end of the day the wearer of the "not" would be beaten. However, after the school boards were absorbed by the county councils following the Local Government Act 1888, instruction in Welsh in elementary schools became the norm in Welsh-speaking areas...

There is no need to make too much of this in this article - linked articles cover it in more detail. The {{cn}} tag would be filled by the Encyclopedia ref details. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The {{cn}} sentence is supported by the BBC reference. Daicaregos (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestion There is an article on the Welsh not already. That would seem to be the correct place for any detailed discussion of the subject. I think, if I were trying to demonstrate article stability and neutral point of view (for whatever reason), I would simply mention the practice, mention that it fueled nationalist feeling (as it appears to have) but that the extent of the practice is difficult to determine. And leave it at that.

This would seem to be a suitable reference:

Fitz, John (2001), Shimahara, N. Ken; Holowinsky, Ivan Z.; Tomlinson-Clarke, Saundra (eds.), "Local identity and national systems: the case of Wales", Ethnicity, race, and nationality in education: a global perspective, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., p. 248, retrieved November 24, 2010

Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would be happy with "in some schools" so we are explicit in stating that this practice was not country wide. Though I still have a knot in my stomach (no pun intended) over the English oppression statement. As far as I have researched there is no evidence that this was a British government edict from Whitehall, but a localised practice engaged by certain schools. Though even if this was the case (An anti-Welsh language tool used by the Welsh schools against the children of Wales) it could still be seen as a symbol of English oppression, and I have no referenced works to hand that state this was not how the Welsh not was perceived. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Would there be any objections to: "In some schools, to ensure Welsh children spoke English at school, the Welsh Not was used; a policy seen as a hated symbol of English oppression. The "not", a piece of wood hung round the neck by string, was given to any child overheard speaking Welsh, who would pass it to a different child if overheard speaking Welsh. At the end of the day, the wearer of the "not" would be beaten. The extent of its practice, however, is difficult to determine." Daicaregos (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Beaten" is a little emotive and is stretching the neutrality a little, given that the BBC reference simply states that the wearer was "punished". Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't spotted that. (I'd be no good as a reviewer.) "Punished" is better. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The word can be referenced if necessary: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Daicaregos (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Point taken... I would use one or two of those at most, and would tend to avoid opinion pieces by politicians. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 21:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Changes made. Thank you all. Daicaregos (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

History of legislation in Wales

Having just discovered this source, I wonder whether a summary of legislative provision for Wales should be included in this article - particularly covering the section headed "Administrative / biographical background". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If it can be done concisely, in a sentence or two then I don't see a problem; but considering our position on the cusp of GA status I would personally make as few changes as possible (IMO). The pre-1965 departments can be covered in their relevant sections (Education, Health, etc.) but the creation of the Welsh Office could be mentioned under Government and politics. The information would be very relevant to the Politics in Wales article which does not cover several of the major points brought up in the reference you have found. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair point - I've been trying not to interrupt the process so far, though I'll suggest one or two tweaks to the intro tomorrow. I'll look at the Politics article as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, your input in the lead would be gratefully received. More voices will aid the article at this important point. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been hoping for input from interested editors. It seems unlikely to me that only FruitMonkey and myself would have been able to cover everything relevant. We've been looking at this for weeks now, and are bound to be too close. Sometimes it takes a fresh pair of eyes. Also, with more editors having input in the final version, the more likely it is that the article will remain stable. I look forward to your comments. Daicaregos (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Welsh variants of non governmental bodies

Not wishing to upset the effort being put in to raise Wales to GA status, I wondered whether there was space for a mention of the various Quangos that are particularly Welsh contrasted with those that are UK wide but have a presence here. I had in mind CCW and Environment Agency Wales as examples. The former gets a passing mention but their existence as Welsh entities is one of the many indicators of the degree of organisational and political autonomy in Wales.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This is already a large article. Mentioning something in passing is probably as good as it gets. When you consider the massively important articles that are missing, many very personal to me, such as Tonypandy Riots, Aneurin Bevan and Aberfan disaster, you must make a decision of where to stop. And these are not major factors in autonomy, and may take longer to explain than their mention requires, we must ensure that recent history does not overpower the article. I believe these issues should be addressed in the Politics of Wales article which is already linked in the article. FruitMonkey (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

I don't have any problems with the content, but have three questions. Firstly, should we - or do we need to - have references in the lead section? I thought they were discouraged. Secondly, although the language issue is clearly important, I question whether it is sufficiently central for the last three short sentences to be needed in the very first paragraph. Should they be moved, either to a new para in the lead section, or to one of the other paras? Or... Thirdly, is the para about the "principality" really needed in this section at all? I know it's a frequently asked question by people who don't know the history or administrative arrangements, but mentioning it in the lead section seems to me to give it undue weight and be almost a tad defensive, when the lead should be describing Wales as a real place, not dealing with relative minutiae over the historical background or royal connections. Just a thought (or three). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should listen to the reviewer and follow the advice given. The lead reflects the article. Four paragraphs is probably fine. Though I feel they should be split into

• Opener: what is it, where is it and geographic facts.
• Brief history: in a nutshell from Celtic nation, Roman withdrawl, Celtic Briton, Glyndwr, Act of Wales, industrialisation, Assembly.
• Demographic facts: including in this part the language.
• Culture: Distinct differences from rest of Britain.

The references in the lede argument appears to be give and take. There is discouragement towards them but it doesn't impact GA status. If someone wants to move them (rather than delete them) then I see no issue. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It was noted in the GA review (above) that the lead should be an "... introduction and overview of the main article, summarising its most important aspects.". It will fail GA as it stands. A suggested rewrite is here: User:Daicaregos/sandbox. Any suggestions, amendments or improvements would be welcome. Daicaregos (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No problems from me. It's a big improvement. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it's an improvement, but I'd also like to see a more open (easier-to-read) intro which might be achieved by reducing the barriers posed by undue emphasis on language (compare Canada and New Zealand, both good articles about bilingual countries), and the stats of geography and climate. Remember, most readers by far are non-Welsh (even non-UK)!! Can most of the stats be moved to the infobox? and can we have a good version of Hen wlad fy nhadau in the infobox like they've done for Ukraine? Daicaregos, you've done well, and it's far from easy, but I will try to come back with a constructive alternative draft. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

We need to be careful about comparing one article to another. Concessions have already been made and the language section reduced and lowered in importance in position in the lead. New Zealand has a different issue regarding language as Maori is spoken by about 5% of the population and as far as I am aware is not a central part of the education system. Welsh is presently given the same weighting in Primary education as English, Maths and Science, and in Secondary education it is compulsory until 16. In Canada neither English nor French are indigenous languages. We must take each article as it comes, and the issue regarding Welsh in the lead is normally argued over internally in the Project, the reviewers don't appear to have a problem with its prominence. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Points taken. OK, I'll leave well alone. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with Dai's draft - and congratulations to all those who have but the work in --Snowded ^TALK 09:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, on behalf of us all. The introduction has now been replaced. It is a major re-write. Editor input would still be welcome. For example, would anyone else prefer the 'stats' (or some of them) to be removed from the Lead, or should they stay? Daicaregos (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think, to be honest, it would be stronger without the numbers. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 21:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I am late to this, and its overall an improvement. However I think the stats are excessive and I would remove "and the island of Great Britain", it adds nothing --Snowded ^TALK 12:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. The Lead para without the stats could look like this:

Wales ... is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain, bordered by England to its east and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. Generally mountainous, the highest are in the north and central areas, especially in Snowdonia ([Eryri] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)), which contains Snowdon ([Yr Wyddfa] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)); Wales' highest peak. Its offshore islands include Anglesey ([Ynys Môn] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)); the largest island in the Irish Sea.

An improvement? I understand from Ghmyrtle that he wanted "... the island of Great Britain." in the Lead becasue "The first para is what is shown in pop-ups". He says he will be offline for a few days. Do you want to wait to discuss it with him on his return? Daicaregos (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any reason in the prior discussion (aside from some indirect conversation about Snowdon) but I'm happy to wait G's return --Snowded ^TALK 13:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It was discussed at User talk:Daicaregos/sandbox, while we were knocking the Intro together. Shall we amend the Lead now, to the one just above? Or do you want to suggest any improvements? The mountains sentence could be "It is generally mountainous, the highest in the north and central areas, especially in Snowdonia (Eryri), which contains Snowdon (Yr Wyddfa); Wales' highest peak." for example. Daicaregos (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Snowded's point about GB. It seems to me to be a basic necessity to mention, in the opening paragraph, the island on which Wales is located. It can't be assumed that readers will know that the full name of the UK includes the name of the island. As a comparable example, you wouldn't start off an article on Sarawak mentioning Malaysia, but not Borneo. Re the stats, could there be a compromise which sets out the area and the length of coastline - both of which, but particularly the area, are core to understanding the country - but not the length and breadth (which are less important than giving the total area), and not the information about Snowdon?

Another thought - why does the lead not mention the total population anywhere - which I think is important, especially given that the number of Welsh speakers and the populations of the cities are stated.

So:

Wales... is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain, bordered by England to its east and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. It has a population of 3 million, and a total area of 20,779 km2 (8,023 sq mi). Wales has over 1,200 km (746 mi) of coastline, including its offshore islands; the largest, Anglesey (Ynys Môn), is also the largest island in the Irish Sea. It is generally mountainous; the highest mountains are in the north and central areas, especially in Snowdonia (Eryri).

Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

All fine, but I would add 'Snowdon', to give a final sentence of: "It is generally mountainous; the highest mountains are in the north and central areas, especially in Snowdonia (Eryri), which contains Snowdon (Yr Wyddfa); at 1,085 m (3,560 ft), its highest peak." (with or without its height). Daicaregos (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK for me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be difficult but I still have a problem with "Great Britain". For a start it is as much the name of a country as an island (in fact the island is as frequently referenced as Britain. I really don't see what it adds, and given its inconsistent use it could confuse. --Snowded ^TALK 12:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

How can "the island of Great Britain" possibly be confusing? It is necessary, to provide some sense of where in the world Wales actually is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It is used correctly and appropriately here and the context specifies that it is referring to the island of Great Britain. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The location in the world is clearly indicated by the "Country within the United Kingdom" so that is a bit of a red herring. For the bulk of readers "Great Britain" will be an alternative name for the UK (regardless of its accuracy). The juxtaposition of the term with island will be unfamiliar, difficult to explain in the context of this article and surely unnecessary. --Snowded ^TALK 12:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that "United Kingdom" gives any better sense of place to readers worldwide than "Great Britain". And, anyway, it does not provide the information that Wales is, geographically, part of an island - which is undeniably true and, in my view, an essential piece of information for the opening paragraph. Any further explanation of the relationship between Wales, Great Britain and the UK - which I don't think is "difficult" at all - could go in the main text (as well as through the linked terms). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

UK may not give a better sense of where it is, but it does locate it. So the argument that GB is necessary for location goes. If you really think that an island location is key (I don't) then there would be a stronger argument for "Britain" which at least avoids the confusion with a country name. --Snowded ^TALK 12:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Both are necessary as they formally define its political status and geographical location. Compare with the articles for Scotland and England. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that any more people, worldwide, know where "the UK" is than know where "Great Britain" is. Personally I think that using "Britain" (the accepted short term for the UK) is confusing - the "island of Great Britain" is surely more correct than "the island of Britain", which I would have thought is an informal usage at best - but if that is the necessary price of compromise I'd be willing to accept it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

For me, 'the island of Britain' does not clarify the term, which jars like that. I never use Britain in the context of the island. The island is Great Britain, and 'little' Britain is Brittany. Compare Grande Bretange and Bretagne. Daicaregos (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

We should try to resolve the Lead paragraph. Is it entirely accurate to say that Wales is 'part of … the island of Great Britain' when some of Wales is not (e.g. Anglesey)? Perhaps: 'Mostly on the island of Great Britain, Wales has over 1,200 km (746 mi) of coastline, including its offshore islands; the largest, Anglesey (Ynys Môn), is also the largest island in the Irish Sea.' Daicaregos (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The only unambiguous word here is "United Kingdom" which is defined. Great Britain has a double meaning, one as a country sometimes as an island. What is or is not in the island is not clear or defined. Britian is used sometimes, sometimes not but I do think it has more consistent and unambiguous meaning (plus a reference back in effect to roman britain from which roots comes the welsh nation. I suggest per Ghmyrtle that its a good compromise. --Snowded ^TALK 10:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)