Talk:List of castles in Wales

Historic counties

I have reverted Enaidmawr's unilateral edits because not only was there no consensus (this page has been organised this way for a long time), the organisation Enaidmawr chose was completely nonsensical. Owain (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case you have done Wikipedia a disservice. One of many Wikipedia mantras is "be bold" and improve articles. This Enaidmawr has done bringing the article into the 21st Century using geographical references that are meaningful to people living in Wales and visiting Wales. Using historic counties adds absolutely nothing and detracts greatly. I fully support and endorse Enaidmawr 's edit and deprecate Owain's. Velela (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Velela. I fear that when Owain says that my rearranging of the article "was completely nonsensical" what he means is that I use the modern administrative areas instead of the ones which have either disappeared or whose boundaries have been changed. Where was the sense of having "castles in Cardiganshire" instead of Ceredigion, for instance, as the former has been replaced by the latter and is not found on modern maps? Most of the castles of Wales on this list were also built before the so-called "historic counties" were created, so their retention would be a double anachronism. What needs improving is the sections on Glamorgan and Gwent (both preserved counties), which need breaking down into their respective modern administrative areas. User Owain's agenda has always been to give the "historical counties" precedence over the modern ones, as the record of his edits proves. As Velela says, we are now in the 21st century: the "historic counties" belong to history. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, using modern administrative areas is logical and supported by policy (WP:PLACE). Nev1 (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've done the splits for Gwent and Glamorgan, but they could do with being checked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia policy is quite clear: use the principal areas, that is modern counties and county boroughs, for lists like this. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A little late, but I disagree. Historically, it has not been the practice to match geographical divisions to administrative areas. County boroughs existed throughout England and Wales prior to 1974, but it was not considered necessary (although Bristol was sometimes an exception) to exclude them from the counties which contained them, for geographical purposes. Treating counties and county boroughs in Wales equally for the purposes of geographical division is inconvenient - some might say absurd - in view of the disparity in sizes. Paravane (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Castle lists

I suspect that some of the structure listed here are either non existent, play-on-words or simply not worth mentioning.

Several "named castles" can't be found searching for them on the Internet or do not match any recognised name. More care must be taken to stop these erroneous sites being added.

Logically this list should contain sites that can be visited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.69.62 (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Was wondering the same thing. I am removing Aberaeron Castle until someone can provide referenced information of anything other than the 19th century Hotel. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Aberaeron seems to have existed, although there's very little about it [1]. This website is very good for checking Wikipedia's list for spurious entries. Actually deciding what merits inclusion is difficult, but since the list needs an overhaul the best thing to do would be to work for Cathcart King's Castellarium Anglicanum which is a pretty comprehensive bibliography of castles in England and Wales. Nev1 (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Useful website. Thanks for the information.

For future information, the recent vandalism here has been to add references to http://pulynyaleg.neonblade.com/index.html - which is a hoax site. ("Pulyn-y-Aleg", get it?? Ho ho ho, very funny.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism? Thats a bit strong, lighten up. It's really just a bit of fun. But sorry if I have offended you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.44.230 (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Your website might be 'a bit of fun', but why should you think wikipedia is a forum just waiting for you to have your 'bit of fun' when you please? You may find wikipedia boring without being lightened up, others find flippant additions an intrusion, and especially annoying if you persist in making them, instead of taking the hint when they're deleted. However, thank you for your apology! Paravane (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

ther's much better pictures of castles than the one that is there, just saying. thanks