Talk:Swansea

• Archive 1: Feb 2002 to February 2006. Contents: figures and sources for Welsh language numbers and schools; lots of things to do--largely done now; counties debate; discussion on Swansea places, regions, and wards and which to use for articles; this page wants archiving; Beyond TV.

Swansea Valley

Apologies if this has been covered in the etensive archived material , but.... the history and significance of the Swansea Valley and its industrialsation seem to be barely touched upon. I would have thought that it would have justified an article in its own right which would have included references to the growth of the Nickel industry, the Siemens factory, Swansea porcelain, the great copper smelters, the links back to Parys Mountain etc. It would probably include discussion of the immense impact across the world of this industrialsation and the impact of the envirnment of Swansea (which perisists to this day). If this article exists, many apologies , but it didn't appear when I searched ! Velela 15:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I started a History of Swansea article a year ago, got some facts down, and then forgot about it. It has quite a bit about the industrialisation, and consequently has to touch on the river and the Lower Swansea Valley. I must go back to it and finish it. I have quite a hit list of "things that are not clear" -- I really could do with scanning some old maps in, for example -- and I must get the references into a proper format. Also, I bought the book Copperopolis since then, which is huge and looks useful. I think today I shall try to update the references.

But I definitely agree that we need a Swansea Valley article. We could do with quite a lot of valleys articles. I wondered whether it could be built around the River Tawe article, but perhaps it should be separate. That way we can include all sorts. There's a couple of people who have listed themselves on WP:WWNB who would probably be interested in such an article, so you might want to mention it there.

Telsa (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Traws-Cambria source

User:Velela asked for a cite for the comment "Swansea is also on the TrawsCambria route which connects the north and south of the country together via Aberystwyth, a bus so well-known in Wales that songs have been written about it[citation needed]."

I assume it's the remark about the songs you want a cite for, rather than the bus route :) Just for the record, the song I was thinking of was Steve Eaves' song, "Traws Cambria". It's actually about a person, not about the bus: the point was that the song just mentions "she's travelling on the Traws Cambria" without explaining "so it's the whole length of Wales" or anything: it's just expected that you'll know that. Having explained that, I think it can probably go away from this article. It's not relevant to Swansea. There is a TrawsCambria article now, so if anyone wants to resurrect it, that's where it could go.

Telsa (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It was exactly that. I should have posted an explanation but I was submerging trying to put together relevant stuff for the Lower Swansea valley artcle, without success as it happens ! Velela 08:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

More pictures please!!

I've added a few from my old collection of snapshots. Admittedly, they are not the best quality. There must be loads of great photographers in Swansea. A lot of Swansea articles need pictures to liven them up. Give us your pics!!! (Sloman 22:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC))

Station Names

Swansea railway station is known as High street station and is called as such even on the National Rail Enquiries site: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/SWA.html

This is because there used to be other stations in Swansea, They were called Swansea Bay and Swansea Victoria. One, I don't know which, was situated approximately where the leisure centre is now. It was a terminus for the old railway that ran along the coast to Blackpill and then turned in-land up the Clyne valley, to Pontadulais. It was closed as part of the Beeching cuts. See The Beeching report Part 1 Appendix 2 p39(of the Appendix) and see http://www.joyce.whitchurch.btinternet.co.uk/maps/BR1961c.jpg for a map of the line. Tonestock (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The main bus station in Swansea is more often referred to as the Quadrant Bus station than Swansea bus station. See http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/wales/swwales/timetables/timetable.php?day=1&source_id=2&service=66&routeid=853877&operator=24&source=sp (Sloman 14:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

But there's only one bus station in the town. Why confuse people?

Actually, is there only one? Deb 20:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a few in the county, there's the Quadrant bus station in the city centre, one in Gorseinon, one in Pontarddulais and a small one in Mumbles. Not all bus services in Swansea call at the Quadrant bus station. For example, park and ride services from Fabian way Park and ride facility call at the bus station outside St Mary's Church. And a number of services operated by minor bus companies only stop at the Kingsway. (WelshBloke 12:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

In that case, I'd say it's worth mentioning the Quadrant by name. Deb 12:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to learn the difference between a bus station and a bus stop

But that is the problem, what is the difference? Seddon69 22:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

General and Physical Geography

Could someone add a paragraph about the physical and general geography of Swansea to this article? Please reply.. Cepb 13:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean Swansea#Geography ? Telsa (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of argument about city size. Let the LSE resolve it: "Cities outside the major conurbations are described in the classification we use as non-metropolitan. There are 14 large non-metropolitan cities, places such as Edinburgh, Cardiff, Swansea, Bristol and Nottingham, with populations of between about 150,000 and 450,000. These are typically large industrial centres or ports. We also have 17 ‘small non-metropolitan cities’, with populations between 80,000 and 180,000, which are either smaller industrial centres (such as Middlesbrough), educational centres (like Oxford and Durham), and/ or the major urban settlements serving largely rural hinterlands (such as Worcester)." Pondle 18:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the source of this? It seems odd how one can compare the likes of Edinburgh and Cardiff to Swansea 217.46.243.122 14:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"The Growth and Decline of Cities and Regions". Publication from CASE at the LSE http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cbcb/census1.pdf Why on Earth is it odd to compare Swansea with Cardiff and Edinburgh? They all have populations in the 150,000 - 450,000 range. Neither Cardiff nor Edinburgh is particularly 'large'.Pondle 19:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Medium or small

I have changed the term for describing Swansea from small to medium sized because I believe it is more accurate description of a European city with over 200,000 people (though if located in Asia, it would definitely be categorized as small). A small city, at least to me, is a place with a few shopping streets, like Bangor, and certainly no larger than urban areas such Bath, Chester or York. Swansea, however, has a population and urban sprawl compatible to other cities that I would describe as medium sized, such as Southampton, Plymouth or Aberdeen. Personally, I believe that describing the city as small is incorrect and creates a wrong impression for first time visitors. However, if the majority of contributors believe that small is a more accurate description of Swansea, then so be it. I am happy to follow the consensus, but at the moment it seems to be just one persons opinion, and so I am continuing to revert. Thanks for your input. Anon

The use of terms like "small" and "medium-sized", in this context, are rather subjective. I would rather we said that it is a city of (whatever) population, and leave it at that. Deb 11:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is an official definition of small and medium cities that can be backed up with a reference it can go. We have the population and we have the council area's rank compared to other Welsh councils. The article really needs a demographics section, and that should include a sentence explaining where it comes in the list of Welsh and British cities by population. Population stats, coupled with comparisons to other Welsh and British cities will give the reader a much better idea of the size than an ambiguous and subjective term like "medium sized". Joe D (t) 12:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Joe and Deb for your feedback. I agree that the terms "small" and "medium sized" are subjective, and as the article already includes information about the city's population in the side bar and population ranking for the UK in the Geography section, I believe that they can be omitted. I support Deb's solution that we just refer to Swansea as a city and "leave it at that". Anon

One of the largest Saturday local football leagues in the country?

One of the only mentions I could find on the web was on a fan site: http://www.scfc.co.uk/natter2608.html, could do with a more respected third party reference for this one, if it's true 81.103.161.25 17:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio, but which way round?

A lot of very promotional material was added by User:Swan07, who has not edited much since. Specifically, this diff added a lot under the categories of "activities" and "beaches". I was surprised to see exactly the same material on Morgan's Hotel website and I suspect that it came from there originally. To complicate matters, there is separate content on that Morgans webpage which looks as though it came from Wikipedia (the bits above that with the Wikipedia reference numbers still intact). I suppose they might have borrowed lots of Wikipedia content after Swan07 added this stuff about "up there with the best" and "stunning Gower landmark". It's all a bit confusing. But the promo blurb from User:Swan07 is very consistent within itself and noticeably different from the tone of the rest of the Swansea article. I think it might be worth finding it and pulling it out unless User:Swan07 can let us know where it came from and under what licence. Only I am in a hurry and not doing it right now :) I'm mostly leaving this comment here because there has been a bit of editing of that content for tone, and I don't want someone to go through it all when I am only going to delete it anyway! - unless anyone has other suggestions? Telsa (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Statistical comparisons with Cardiff

What purpose do these serve? This article is not an appropriate venue to discuss the relative demographics of the two places. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it gives the reader an idea of the size of the area, comparing with the nation's capital. Haven't you seen other city/town article comparing population/area with another's? Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any other examples which compare the "size" of a city with an arbitrary other location. Why is the specific comparison to Cardiff significant? 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with comparisons, as long as they are accurate, consistent and not too obtrusive. I think that if we use comparative material here, we ought to adopt the same approach in discussions of Newport relative to Cardiff, or Cardiff relative to Bristol, London or Edinburgh as appropriate. If this becomes too burdensome, perhaps we ought to start a new article on "Urban Areas in Wales" or something, which could be a more natural home for this type of material. Pondle (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, statistical comparison pages for UAs already exist. See List of Welsh principal areas by population and List of Welsh principal areas by area. 195.27.12.230 (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The point of the comparison with Cardiff was obviously that they are the two largest cities in Wales, and one is twice the size of the other. This won't apply in the case of most other towns/cities. Deb (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't that simple, because depending on the definition of 'Swansea' or 'Cardiff' that you use, the population of the former as a percentage of the latter is either 58%, 82.5% [1], 73% [2], or 71.5%[[3]]. Besides, a comparison here creates a precedent for comparing the two largest population centres in any given county, state, region or country. You could extend the principle and compare the sizes of the capitals of UK nations, EU member states, US states, etc etc etc.Pondle (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Immigration

I don't think its worth mentioning comparisons other cities here. We can say on their pages how much immigration they did or didn't receive - if someone can find a source.Pondle (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Further to why I think it's inappropriate to mention comparisons of immigration history in the lead section: 1. It doesn't fit the guidance for the lead section according to the UK geography wikiproject - particularly with respect to comparisons. 2. It gives undue weight to a particular aspect of a highly-specific subject: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."Pondle (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio from September

It appears to have been pointed out but then left unfixed before, however I think that User:Swan07's contributions from September are a copyvio, not from the Morgans hotel website but from http://www.visitswanseabay.com. Just compare the beaches section to http://www.visitswanseabay.com/index.cfm?articleid=13943 and it seems pretty cut and dry. I'm not sure what should be done about it at this point, however, since some of the sections involved have been edited and tidied up since. MorganaFiolett (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

#Redirect Template:Infobox Settlement

shouldnt this have the better Infobox:Settleent rather than the boring one.

Local media

Can editors comment on whether or not this is relevant to Local Media: Digital radio is also broadcast via the Astra Satellite3 and terrestial freeview Radio Wales and others can be received this way. Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds more like a national issue to me; one for Media in Wales perhaps? Pondle (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Pondle, except in this case Radio Wales often broadcasts from it's studio in Swansea via the Astra satellite to the World. I believe it is therefore relevant to a, previously established, Local media section on Swansea. Canol (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What studio in Swansea? Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Swansea Broadcasting House, 32 Alexandra Road, Swansea, SA1 5DT (BBC Regional studio) [[4]] Canol (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tallest building

I appreciate that the Marina Tower is unlikely to remain the tallest building in Wales forever, but at this stage the building that will surpass it, Bay Pointe, is simply a proposal with planning consent - not an actual structure under construction. Since many projects approved by planners are never actually built, and the estimated completion date for Bay Pointe is 2014, devoting space to this scheme in the Swansea article is both premature and irrelevant. When (if) the Cardiff Bay scheme actually begins construction we can change the Marina Tower reference to "second tallest building in Wales" or whatever. Pondle (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I Agree with Pondle but at this point in time (Spring 2008) Marina Point is not complete and has not reached the height of the current tallest building (ie The Capital Tower, Cardiff). So Pondle, you might be premature as well. Canol (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe I guess! But I struggle to think of a comparable recent project that has been abandoned halfway through construction.Pondle (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Scope of this article

There seems to be some confusion within this article and other related articles about its scope. My feeling is that it should be limited to information about the city as per Swansea (disambiguation) and that the county and administrative content moved to City and County of Swansea. Comments? Derek Andrews (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There's relatively little information about local government in this article, so I don't really think there's much duplication with City and County of Swansea.Pondle (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the User meant the Swansea county ie. Gower against the actual city. Maybe split into two becuase it is a bit confusing with the county being so big compared to the city as opposed to other city-counties like Cardiff and Newport which effectively contain just the city Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I take the point, but the I can foresee endless, tedious arguments about whether places such as Bishopston should be discussed as part of the Swansea subheading or the Gower subheading. Pondle (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bishopston, Swansea already has it's own article. I think the city of Swansea deserves its own article. Derek Andrews (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that since 1974 the Swansea and Gower have been merged (see Swansea (district)). In the time since then, the built-up area of Swansea has spread; there's no clear distinction between the 'city proper' and areas 'outside' the city, but within the 'county' (see the ONS urban area map here [5]) Pondle (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well there must be a distinction, otherwise how would the census come up with 169,000 people living in Swansea city and the 55,000 or so living in the county but outside the city. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, see City status in the United Kingdom. Under UK law, city status is granted to the county of Swansea, whose boundaries are well defined. If you are going to attempt to define the city of Swansea within the county, this will be open to endless POV arguments. Also note that the "City and County of Swansea" article is about the council that governs the Swansea unitary authority area. I've moved it to City and County of Swansea council to prevent any confusion in the future. Sloman (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to Welshleprechaun, there's no distinction between Swansea 'city proper' and the 'rest of the county' in any legal or administrative sense. The ONS-defined urban areas, as I've explained to you before, are simply statistical constructs. They do not adhere to administrative boundaries; for example Greater Manchester Urban Area is 4.8 times larger than the local authority district of Manchester and neither do the urban area’s boundaries follow those of the former metropolitan county of Greater Manchester. What's more, the ONS urban area boundaries are not static: changes in land use can lead to a boundary change of an urban area. Pondle (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about all that has been said, my main concern is that traditionally Swansea is the name of a city, and might be what readers are expecting to find on this page. I did read this page again and came across a link to city centre which I added to the disambiguation page, and think should be given greater prominence here. I wonder how this this would have all turned out if the county had been named something else? Derek Andrews (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

But is still don't understand. The Leader is free, yet retailers display it. No one i know (except you and your claims) has the Swansea Herald. It does not have any valid information anywhere in the City. By the Way, i can't get that link you sent me. Jonny7003 (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Swansea Herald

Pondle, you have placed incorrect data on this website. The Local Media selection about the Herald is incorrect - it does not get published any more. You leave me no choice - you have performed abuse to this article for repeating false information. Jonny7003 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

IT IS PUBLISHED - I have a physical copy of the Swansea Herald of Wales in front of me, dated 30 OCTOBER 2008. It says "printed by the Northcliffe Press and published by South West Wales Media Limited, Adelaide Street, Swansea SA1 1QT... If you have any queries about the distribution of this newspaper contact Elaine Williams on 01792 514583." Just because you haven't been delivered a copy, don't assume that it has ceased to exist! The paper is listed on a number of media sites [6][7][8] You deleted the text relating to the paper without reference to any source to back up your spurious and bizarre claim that the publication has been discontinued; you then engaged me in an edit war. I'm going to request third party intervention in this, because I don't intend to violate the three-revert rule.Pondle (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Further to the claim you make on your talk page about the Herald being discontinued in 2005, here's a story from 2008 referring to Russell Brand reading the paper onstage in 2007 - "Last July, the wacky former host of Channel 4's Big Brother's Big Mouth was the subject of police complaints following his live show in Swansea's Grand Theatre. He scoured the classified listings in the Swansea Herald of Wales, the Post's sister paper, and phoned a number of sellers during his sell-out act."[9]Pondle (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And where do you get the Herald from exactly ?? 81.157.90.27 (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Various relatives and acquaintances who live in the Swansea area all get free delivery of the paper. If you want more sources, 2007 readership data for the Herald of Wales is here[www.jicreg.co.uk/documents/downloads/topline010407.doc] Visit Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government's tourism arm, also lists the paper here[10] You can calculate the cost of an ad in the paper here[11] By the way, is that IP a sock puppet, Jonny? It seems to be editing all of the same articles that you do.Pondle (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because Wiki does not let me sign in sometimes - my computer is slow, but works fine other occasions. If it is still going, then why doesn't the Quadrant display it along with The evening post and the Leader ?? The same goes for swansea Market. You can't receive it anywhere in the city that i have been and trust me i have been to every retail store in the city by now. Jonny7003 (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a free paper Jonny, it isn't for retail. It's main distribution is to households, as far as I'm aware. Why don't you give Elaine at SWWP a call on that number I listed above? I'm sure she'd be happy to ensure that you and your family gets future copies. Gee, all this hassle over a rag that everyone I know just throws straight in the bin or recycling! Pondle (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Many retail outlets refuse to handle free newspapers as there is no profit to be made from stocking them. Free newspapers are usually delivered door to door, it you don't receive it and wish to you should contact the publisher and request it. I don't live in Swansea but my uncle tells me he still receives the paper each week (although there was a gap of several months when he didn't) 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 21:13, 2

November 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted Richard Jones on the matter - he said that the paper has rebranded as the Swansea Leader by the council, yet because of how successful and well - known the edition was, people still refer to it as the Herald. Finally some sence has been stored. I have contacts with him as i remember going to his department for work experience many years ago.Jonny7003 (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing the monthly Swansea Leader, published by the Council [12], with the weekly Swansea Herald of Wales, published by South West Wales Publications (part of the Northcliffe Group, which I think has been bought out by, or changed its name to, DMGT).[13][14][15][16] The Swansea Leader has been called the 'Leader' since 2004; I'm not sure if it ever had another name. Anyway, these are two different papers.Pondle (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The jobs page for South West Wales Publications also lists the Herald - [17]Pondle (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Proof that it still exists: a copy of the front page dated October 30, 2008(Shakey123 (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC))

File:Swansea Herald.jpg

Monopoly

Swansea isn't the first place in Wales to feature on a Monopoly board. In the Wales edition, places from Cardiff, Penarth, Camarthen etc. feature on it. Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the reference, the manufacturers stated that Swansea was the first city in Wales to have it's own version of the game. I'll amend the text to reflect this more accurately. Avebury (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there was a Cardiff one in existence about ten years ago. But maybe I'm remembering wrongly - maybe it was the Wales one. Deb (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no reference to a Cardiff edition on the Winning Moves' website [18] - there is a "Wales" version though Pondle (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Major cities" POV statement

I removed User:Welshleprechaun's unnecessary edit, which added irrelevant text to the Transport section calling certain places 'major cities'. This doesn't improve the article one iota, it simply opens up old POV debates about what is a 'major city' and what isn't. I'd like to remind User:Welshleprechaun to avoid POV pushing - while being proud of your hometown is fine, Wikipedia isn't a forum for promoting local interests and peacock terms don't add anything useful to articles.Pondle (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed from past edits your slight bias against Cardiff. If Cardiff hadn't have been included in that sentence, you wouldn't have brought this issue up. It is undeniable that Cardiff, Bristol and London are major British cities as they are described so by almost every unbias medium. So why if, say, the BBC describes Cardiff or Bristol as a major city (and I can find references for this) wouldn't that satisfy you when a reference from the BBC for another claim would? Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact to end this edit war, I'm going to reinstate it with a source from the BBC stating that Cardiff is a major city. Major cities exist whether you like it or not and it is not a matter of opinion, let alone pushing an opinion. The Verifiability policy requires claims to be supported by a source well known for checking accuracy which the BBC is. Here are additional sources if you are still not satisfied: [19], [20] (Puts Cardiff as a major world city rather than UK), [21]. If you still have problems, please discuss it here rather than edit warring and reverting. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your edits add nothing to the article - the section is about transport links from Swansea, not about which places are or aren't major cities. The existing text made the point that the M4 connects to various towns and cities (including Cardiff) - your additions were pointless. I'd remind you about the policy on personal attacks - making accusations of anti-Cardiff bias is not only incivil, considering my history here as established editor with a long-standing record of contributing on Welsh interest (including Cardiff articles) it's laughable. Pondle (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As an ex-resident of Swansea (Sketty if you need precision) and someone who has worked in Cardiff (Longcross Court), they are both two cities I could both call home. But, despite that I do agree that in an article about Swansea, calling Cardiff a major city sound pompous, pretentious and, if I may so, wrong. It just isn't relevant here. If one was discussing Llandudno, for example, would the article say that it is connected by the A470 to the Major city of Cardff? No, I don't believe it would (and for the record it doesn't - it just says Cardiff). Sorry Welshleprechaun I think your ardour is misplaced here, let each place have its own piece of ground to trll its own story and let Cardiff's reputation stand on its own without this adventitious help. Velela (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And a final thought, the staff at the BBC are equally parochial and unthinking in their reporting and the references used are in no way convincing that in an article about Swansea that Cardiff should be referenced in this way. Can you imagine Derek Brockway saying "heavy rain today in Ystumtuen but bright sunshine all day in Cardiff, the capital of Wales" - oh no he wouldn't. Velela (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Major cities of... is not what I added and is different to 'major cities like.... It is not irrelevant to say that Swansea is connected to major cities in its transport section. It is not about whether cities are major or not, it is the fact that Swansea is connected to them. I fail to see how calling a city major is pompous and pretentious. They exist whether you like it or not and it is interesting how the only editors who have disputed this are from Swansea, an area known for its hostility towards and, might I add, jealousy of Cardiff. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Welshleprechaun, get over it. Stop trolling and making personal attacks on regular editors who happen to disagree with you, or you'll be reported to the admins. You have a history of trying to use Wikipedia to promote Cardiff in multiple articles, often without reference to reliable sources, in blatant disregard for WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NPOV- here are just a few examples that didn't stand: [22][23][24][25]. I've had to pull you up for knowingly using misleading information to promote your agenda. You also have a history of edit wars, petty, disruptive and nonsense editing (exactly like this incident) on Swansea articles.[26][27][28] The only person showing any bias around here is you.Pondle (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Welshleprechaun, this is not a Wikipedia based flame war between Swansea and Cardiff. And, as far as I can see, you are the only one trying to make it so with your provocative edits and commentry. There are plenty of very reputable editors from Cardiff who have also reverted your POV in Cardiff-related articles. Avebury (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Swansea City Centre

Shouldn't Swansea city centre be included in this article, prehaps somewhere greatly visible, as it is relevent. Jonny7003 (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Title of the image

Any views on the title of the image?[29] Jonny7003 introduced this pic as 'Swansea city centre'. I agree that this title is most appropriate as the foreground is taken up by the Tawe Bridges, Parc Tawe, and the BT Tower (see map of city centre [30]). However, Welshleprechaun thinks the image should be titled "Swansea" as part of Sketty is visible in the far distance. Any other opinions? Pondle (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd call it something like "Swansea City Centre from the east" (or whichever direction it is) or maybe "Swansea City Centre with Swansea Bay in background" (?) Deb (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Welshleprechaun's accusation of bias in local government stats, 11 January 2008

I fail to see how a UK local government statistical reference can be deemed a 'biased source' - it isn't a piece of promotional literature and it hardly falls within the definition of 'questionable sources'. Pondle (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Any council would be keen to promote their area as important. It's fine to cite Swansea Council for statistical informational obviously. And anyway, what does the Council base it on? Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a statistical publication, not a piece of promotional literature. If you read the source, you'll see the following: "Analysis of employment by occupation group using the latest resident-based data from the Annual Population Survey tends to reinforce Swansea’s role as a regional service centre." Anyway, the Assembly Government also sees Swansea as a regional hub in South West Wales [31][32] Pondle (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's how Jane Davidson AM (pictured) sees it with her use of the first person. Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're trying to split hairs. Jane Davidson is the Assembly Government Minister responsible for that spatial plan area (various Ministers have been assigned to 'lead' in each area)... anyway, if you need yet another Assembly Government source, I'm happy to oblige: see page 139/140/141 of the Wales Spatial Plan update. "Swansea is the regional capital and the main driver for economic growth in the region. It should continue to develop its role as regional centre with the surrounding hinterland benefiting from its growth. To achieve this wider growth it is important to build on its regional capital function as the regional hub for culture, leisure, commerce, health services and retailing serving South West Wales."[33] Pondle (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read closer, the region that it's referring to is the Swansea Bay region not South West Wales. It identifies Camarthen as a regional centre in SW Wales.Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph 1, p.141: To achieve this wider growth it is important to build on its regional capital function as the regional hub for culture, leisure, commerce, health services and retailing serving South West Wales. Pondle (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another one (not from the Assembly Government but from SWWITCH) also describes Swansea as the regional centre for South West Wales here - [34] Pondle (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no solid defintion of a regional centre. Also it's interesting how you're keen to use the work centre for Swansea but when it came to the Cardiff article (being the centre for culture, sport, government etc. etc. in Wales) you were quite quick to find alternative expressions. Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I was quoting official sources that give contextual information on the local economy, not making up a POV statement. As far as what constitutes a regional 'centre' is concerned, the Wales Spatial Plan defines Key Settlements ("likely to form the focus for the region’s future development") and socio-economic hubs ("places with greater concentrations of population and economic activity compared to the rest of the region"). On page 140, the term "regional centre" is explicitly used in relation to Swansea, as I quoted above [35] It's all in there if you read the source. If you disagree with these Spatial Plan definitions, with the language WAG uses or with the list of places they've chosen, well that's your concern, but Wikipedia isn't a place to publish personal ideas or arguments. As far as the Cardiff lead is concerned, I objected to "centre of tourism, education etc etc" and the like because - as I said on the talk page - they were ambiguous and just looked badly written. The IP in the same discussion also felt that the text was South Wales-centric. I made changes that continue to give due weight to Cardiff's importance as a commercial centre, visitor destination etc etc. and in my opinion, the current text in the Cardiff lead looks a heck of a lot better now than it did previously. If you have a problem with me you should stop making insinuations of bias and take up your complaint through the proper channels. Pondle (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Have I missed something? Could the two of you please stop arguing for a moment and state what exactly the issue is? Deb (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the discussion is over Swansea being called a "regional centre" in various WAG and City Council documents. They are documents which either set out or refer to official policy, and the term is unverifiable as an objective statement in that there is no single definition of what a "regional centre" is, other than in policy terms. However, it would be accurate to state that Swansea is defined as or is stated to be a regional centre, with appropriate citations to the relevant document(s). Is that the nub of it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That was exactly my point. It would be incorrect to simply say that Swansea is a regional centre, because of the above reasons. However I accepted that it's possible to "go around the houses" and say that so and so states that Swansea is a regional centre, as there is no hard defintion of one, even if Swansea Council or whoever claims it is one. Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've lived in Swansea, and, in purely semantic terms, it's definitely a regional centre. What I suppose you're saying is that this implies it's more important than other towns in the region/area/district? Deb (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not "incorrect" at all to say that Swansea is a regional centre - in fact, by almost every criterion I (as a geographer by training) can think of, it is absolutely correct - but in WP terms it is unverifiable, unless you use and refer to a specific definition of "regional centre" which is set out somewhere. It's one of those vague terms - unlike, say, "city" or "capital", but like, say, "town" or "village" - which does not have a clear definition. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Deb. I'm saying more or less what Ghmyrtle is saying. Swansea's a city - fact - because there's a clear definition of city. However, whether it's a regional centre or not is subject to opinion and debate because there's no hard definition of a regional centre. It's, as Ghymyrtle said, a vague term. It's unverifiable and therefore calling Swansea a regional centre doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The idea of cities as 'regional centres' goes back to concepts such as central place theory, the idea that urban settlements function as nodes providing the population of surrounding areas with goods and services. As far as the use of the term in this article is concerned, I really don't see a problem: the source that I originally cited says that "Swansea status as the regional administrative, retail, leisure, educational and cultural centre for South West Wales is partly reflected in the high percentages of employment in the service sectors, and corresponding lower rates of manufacturing employment"[36] and what I actually wrote in my original edit was simply a shortened version, "this pattern (of employment) reflects Swansea's role as a regional service centre for South West Wales". If you think that the Council's economic stats document is just local boosterism, then the Welsh Assembly Government's Spatial Plan (which surely can't be accused of being partisan) is very specific in saying that Swansea is a "regional centre... the regional hub for culture, leisure, commerce, health services and retailing serving South West Wales".[37] The term is in common use elsewhere, although usually less well defined - the South West Wales Integrated Transport Consortium says that Swansea is a regional centre (source linked above); the Audit Commission has called Swansea a regional centre;[38] an article in the academic journal Cities (Volume 22, Issue 1, February 2005, Pages 65-76) also refers to Swansea as a regional centre;[39] documents such as this one on the EU regional policy website refer to the city as a regional centre.[40] Pondle (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no point in throwing more sources, we can see your case. We've already agreed on the compromised content, that is that so and so states that Swansea is a regional centre. We can leave it at that, because as we've already mentioned, the term is loosely defined and would therefore be unsuitable to simply say that Swansea is a regional centre, full stop. So enough. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can leave it at that, and I'm very glad you've found a compromise. I'd just like to point out that the wikipedia project is not meant to be hide-bound by rules (yes, I know we are getting that way these days, largely thanks to some of our co-contributors on the other side of the Atlantic, God bless them) and, whilst a neutral point of view is something to be striven for, there are such things as uncontroversial statements. To say that something "doesn't belong" suggests that there are hard-and-fast rules about what does belong, and there aren't really many of those. Deb (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

National and regional radio stations

I think the specific relevance to this article of the pan-Wales and South Wales regional radio stations is questionable. You can receive Radio Wales and Radio Cymru throughout Wales, and you can pick up Real Radio and Nation Radio across most of South Wales... I had a look at the Ofcom Regional Local Radio Licence brief for South Wales (you can download here [41]) and the coverage area for the South Wales FM licence "should include most or all parts of Cardiff, Newport and Swansea, and the areas around and between them, taking in Penarth, Barry, Caerphilly, Cwmbran, Port Talbot, Neath, Llanelli, and at least parts of Pontypridd, Pontypool and Bridgend." If you look at articles on these places, most only refer to local media and not regional or national radio. Pondle (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look at WikiProject UK Geography, which advises that the media section of settlement articles should be "a note on any notable local newspapers, radio stations or other media productions". On this basis I don't think that the Wales or South Wales radio stations qualify for the Swansea article, they have no local production in Swansea and are simply broadcast to the area from elsewhere. If you start going down this road you could mention any national radio stations, newspapers or TV channel in all manner of local articles... What about the Western Mail? Radio 4? The Sun or The Times? Pondle (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Image

The main image on the Swansea page looks really tired, could someone with authority change it for the much brighter lead image on Wikitravel? Here's the link: http://wikitravel.org/en/Image:Swansea_buildings.jpg Cheers. Frequenttrekker (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Monopoly, June 2009

First up Welshleprechaun, you made the initial change, you were reverted so the onus is on you to take to talk rather than starting an edit war - see WP:BRD. Secondly, your text is just badly written - locally-known buildings and structures - what are they if not local landmarks? See the dictionary definition of a landmark[42] and don't don't use five words where only one would do. Thirdly, your claim that these locations are not "true landmarks" is your POV. Pondle (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Origin of name

The text of the article has been edited to state: "the name Swansea is commonly believed to be derivation of "Sweyn's Ey" ("ey" being the Old Norse word for "island"). However, there is no island in Swansea bay, and a more likely explanation is that the name derives from "Sweyn" (a mutation of the Viking name "Sven") and "sey" (an Old Norse word that can mean "inlet")". I've tagged this as needing a citation - the reference I have ("The Place-Names of Wales" by Hywel Wyn Owen) states: "The identity of the Viking Sveinn is not known, but he may be associated here with an island in the estuary referred to as Iselond in 1432, and as The Island in 1641." Definitive clarification one way or another would be welcome - there are other WP articles, such as Welsh placenames, which should be made consistent with this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a copy of the Dictionary of the Place-names of Wales by Hywel Wyn Owen and Richard Morgan, which says that the name 'Swansea' is derived from 'island of Sveinn', with the island either referring to a bank at the mouth of the river Tawe (removed during construction of the docks), described as llond (1400), Iselond (1432) and the Island in 1641, or perhaps an area of raised ground in marshes. I'll amend with the Wyn Owen et al reference.Pondle (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine - if the other editor comes up with a citation for the "sey"= inlet origin, we can discuss it here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The name Swansea does not in all likelihood come from 'Swain's Island', despite repeated assertions that it does. This is pure Victorian concoction based upon names that do derive from Island such as Bardsey, Anglesey, Ramsey etc. This error keeps getting repeated in new publications, but there is not a scrap of evidence to suggest the existence of any island or marsh in Swansea Bay. The name most likely derives from Swain's (Sven's) Sea (sey - inlet). The bit about the origins of the name Swansea used to include this as an option but someone has altered this, presumably on seeing the error repeated in a recent publication and thinking it fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.209.205 (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

According to a reliable source published with support from Bangor University and the Arts & Humanities Research Council, 'island of Sveinn' is the etymology of the name. The 'island' in question may only refer to a bank or area of raised ground. If you can present any reliable sources with an alternative explanation, please cite them.Pondle (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did the 'reliable source' get their information from? Probably from another source that quotes the (in my opinion) fallacy ad infinitum. The etymology could just as equally be from 'Sven's inlet', ('Sven Sey' rather than 'Sven's ey') which seems a far more likely explanation to me. I doubt there are any references to this anywhere as the idea that it comes from Sven's ey has been repeated over and over again, against logical thinking. I propose the alternative origin is mentioned in the description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.209.205 (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Professor Hywel Wyn Owen is probably the leading expert on Welsh place names, whose opinions are respected internationally and (for example) are taken directly into account by the Welsh Assembly Government. I don't have any evidence that the opinions of 86.132.209.205 should carry comparable weight in this encyclopaedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

At the present time the opinions of 86.132.209.205 are just that: opinions. Until he/she can produce a source which backs up those opinions they can be disregarded and dismissed. Whether he/she likes the sourced version or not really doesn't matter. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

you might want to look at the article Viking_expansion#Wales which also has a similar Sweyns Ey EdwardLane (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Mosque Picture

I live in swansea and the mosque is still in the opposite side of Saint Helens road it may be scheduled but nothing official as far as i am aware.

Image sizes

The image sizes at 150px are all too small to see. I am going to change them to default. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There are also major problems with the Layout, per the Manual of Style. Have relocated them to try to avoid the problem of text being sandwiched between images, but problems are still being caused by some of the tables. Is it necessary to have two climate tables, both giving exactly the same information? The population change table needs to be located on the right, but will still cause layout problems because of its length. Can this not be collapsed? Sorry, but I don't know how to do that. Alternatively, can this not be broken up into a couple of lines in a horizontal table? Skinsmoke (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Defining the area covered by this article

I know this issue has been covered before, but it seems to have flared up again. "Swansea", in general parlance, can mean either the area of the local authority, or the contiguous urban area which only covers part of the local authority area and also extends beyond its boundaries. The latter area is covered by the article on Swansea Urban Area. This article generally seems to cover the city (and county) council area, but there is still scope for confusion within the article when the term "Swansea" is used. Some statistical information (2001 Census) is available for the "urban area", as well as for the city area. Would it help to include a table within this article, setting out key statistics such as overall population and some other key variables, which compares the figures for the two definitions of the area, to help avoid confusion? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit, Ghmyrtle, has made the situation more confusing. It was clear what was meant by the City and County, but the City could refer to, as you've pointed out, two different areas. I'm going to revert the edit until we can come up with a solution. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The "city" refers to one area - the administrative area. It is the word "Swansea" which can have more than one definition. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the City and County of Swansea, one of the principal areas of Wales created in 1996. This is clearly stated in the introductory para. The City and County of Swansea inherited city status from the former District of Swansea and its predecessor the County Borough of Swansea. These earlier entities have ceased to exist. All socio-economic statistics for Swansea relate to post-1996 unit - check any table in the Assembly's Stats Wales site or the census local stats. ONS also produces a population figure for the Swansea Urban Area and the Swansea Urban Subdivision within it, but nothing else. Urban Areas and Urban Subdivisions have no meaning beyond Census Table KS01; they are statistical constructs, nothing more.--Pondle (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW I think Sloman summed it up best in his comment on the same issue last year[43]--Pondle (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "city" clearly and unequivocally refers to the administrative area, and I have never suggested otherwise. But, if there is an issue for one editor over that, it can be resolved by using the words "local authority area". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That's much better wording. However, the word "city" does not clearly and unequivocally refer to the administrative area. When most people think of a city, they think only of the urban core - the built up area. This applies to any city, whatever the actual city status may apply to. Welshleprechaun (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As is clear to the reader from the introduction and other references in the text, this article relates to the administrative area. The text needs to avoid any confusion, but references to the "city and county" are unnecessarily pedantic and should be avoided. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Swansea Monopoly

The WP UK Geography 'how to write about settlements' guideline includes cultural and media references. In this context, in my view it is notable that Swansea was the first Welsh city to have its own version of the Monopoly boardgame, as was reported in several regional news pieces.[44]--Pondle (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right in that cultural and media references are part of WP UK Geography guidelines for writing about places, however they must be notable and worthy of an encyclopaedia. The fact that Swansea has its own Monopoly version, or that it was the first place in Wales to have one, is not majorly important, although it would appear so locally and to editors such as yourself. Many UK towns and cities have their own versions. However, this is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to make it appear more important than it actually is. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines say that media productions, references to a place in works of fiction, paintings etc. should be mentioned. Monopoly is a famous board game and fits this criteria. There is even an article on the game's various local editions. The fact that Swansea was the first city in Wales to have its own local Monopoly may not be particularly important in your opinion, but it was deemed worthy of coverage by the BBC and the Western Mail.--Pondle (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with this. It seems entirely noteworthy. Deb (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

For comparison, Cardiff has its own edition but it's not bragged about on the Cardiff article. I'm sure that as a local you're very proud to see your town have some cultural or media coverage, but we don't report everything that appears in the media on Wikipedia. Specifically, why should this be noted? Until its notability is established, I'm removing it. Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, this is notable within WP UK Geography's guidelines and properly referenced. The Cardiff article isn't relevant - editors active there can make their own decisions about appropriate content.--Pondle (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it pending consensus for your view. Deb (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Third Opinion request has been removed from the list of active disputes:

Reason: Deb's statements constitute either (a) a third opinion themselves (any user can be a Third Opinion Wikipedian) or (b) a third editor entering the discussion, either of which makes this dispute inappropriate for a Third Opinion. WP:3O says, "This page is for resolving conflicting viewpoints involving only two editors. ... For more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process." —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 01:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Deb's opinion does not count as a third opinion, as she was directly called on by Pondle to intervene. A 3O should be given by an editor who has no history with either editor so that an unbiased view may be given on the matter. Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked Deb to comment as she is an editor who has previously helped to settle disputes on this article. I have no 'history' with her. I phrased my request for comment neutrally - I didn't specifically ask for her support.[45]--Pondle (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That is true; however, a truly "independent" third opinion does seem like a good idea and I'll ask User:TransporterMan to get us one. Deb (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re the Third Opinion Request: I'm genuinely sorry, but one of the guidelines of WP:30 is that it is applicable only to disputes between exactly two editors. Once a third editor has entered the dispute, opinions are no longer available under WP:30. As set out in my notice, above, even if Deb was not responding to the 3O request, she was a third editor entering the dispute. Though Deb's opinion was solicited by one of the disputants, it does not appear to me that she is a meatpuppet, but that is for you, the disputants, to decide. If you are not willing to accept her opinion, then let me suggest that you might want to make an RfC using the {{rfctag|hist}} template as described at Wikipedia:Rfc#Request_comment_through_talk_pages. Having had contact with the dispute, I now consider myself to be disqualified to give an opinion in the dispute. If you wish to relist your dispute at WP:30 I will not remove it again, but it will not surprise me if another Third Opinion Wikipedian does so. For that reason, the RfC route is probably the best choice. Regards and good luck, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 06:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Deb (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As this seems to be back to discussion rather than dispute, although I have no strong feelings either way, but I would point out that no one has yet put first cities here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensed_and_localized_editions_of_Monopoly Also I can't see it mentioned as a first city for any other country or nation on the geographic list. If we include the Monopoly comment in Swansea, should we also not add the comment to the towns in eg USA or Belgium in all other countries who had geographic monopoly. Canol (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. As usual, it's just another case of trying to make Swansea appear important. Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it is something that is verifiable and in line with Wikiproject guidelines for writing about settlements. And BTW, your provocative comment isn't helpful.--Pondle (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not wishing to broaden the debate, I believe Swansea is important, but that's not the point. Is it appropriate to include the Manopoly comment, is there any common ground here given that all information is useful to someone, what about a link to the localized Monopoly page and a link from there back to Swansea. Canol (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course you think Swansea is important. However, the point is why would it be important for someone to know that Swansea was the first place in Wales to have its own board? What are the reasons? Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the Wikiproject guidelines say that cultural/media references to a place are notable for inclusion in its article. This debate is just going around in a circle.--Pondle (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems there is no common ground for you here on Monopoly. Off to the arbitrators then? Canol (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The debate will only go around in a circle if you fail answer my question, Pondle, and also explain why Wales should be a cut above other countries, given that the first cities of other countries to have a local Monopoly version have no mention of it in their respective articles. Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've answered you several times - in my opinion (and Deb's) this is notable within WP UK Geography guidelines and verifiable. Other editors active on other articles should make their own content decisions. If you don't share my view, fine; it's open to you to pursue dispute resolution if you want to.--Pondle (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is no requirement for Pondle to answer the question in any case. The information is present in the article, and the desire to remove it is what is at issue. The consensus at present is for the information to remain. If no one else enters the debate, it stays. Deb (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The question was why is the fact itself it notable, which no-one seems to be able to answer. Of course cultural/media references should be included, provided that they are notable. You have failed to explain why this specific fact is notable and why this information would be useful. At the moment, it appears to be nothing more than puffery. I suggest you read how existence does not equal notability. Welshleprechaun (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting the general notability guidelines, which don't directly limit article content. Content is governed by the relevant content policies and guidelines, in this case WP UK Geography's 'how to write about settlements' page, which I've highlighted repeatedly. The accusation of puffery is nonsense: the fact that Swansea was the first Welsh city to have its own version of Monopoly is a verifiable fact, reported on a couple of times by the BBC.[46][47] It is, as per the WP UK Geography guidelines, relevant in this section of the article. I really cannot understand your fixation with this, Welshleprechaun.--Pondle (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My fixation is keeping useless trivia off the encylopaedia that would not be useful to anyone. And yes, you have highlighted repeatedly the WP UK Geography's 'how to write about settlements' page, unnecessarily. I am aware of the guidelines.

But the point is not to include every single thing concerning culture and media in Swansea. There is no need to state your argument over and over again. I know it's a verifiable fact, I have no problem with verifiable facts as long as they serve a purpose. However, I must repeat my argument again as I don't seem to be getting through. Why would this single piece of information by important or relevant to know? If this question cannot be answered, it clearly does not belong on an encyclopaedia. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We aren't including "every single thing" concerning culture and media in Swansea. This is a short section and we are only including information that is noteworthy and verifiable. The Monopoly bit is, in my opinion, an interesting - and relevant - fact. The BBC clearly thought so too. You disagree - fine. I might also take issue with much of the material you've added or defended on different articles.For example, is the fact that Cardiff is mentioned once in the Mars Attacks script "important or relevant to know" in relation to Media in Cardiff?[48] The bottom line is that the "importance" of a fact is subjective.--Pondle (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a very petty thing to do purely in reponse to my disagreement. For your information, it wasn't me who found the fact about the Mars Attacks. When I created that article, I copied and pasted from the media section of the Cardiff article. So you can go ahead and remove that if it makes you feel more important because it appears to be trivia as well. However what you have said has essentially proved that to you this argument is personal, where I'm purely interested in content, principally non-trivial information. Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I was highlighting (with evidence) what I believe is a double standard - your attack on alleged 'trivia' and 'promotional text' on this article, but your inclusion of equally-questionable material elsewhere. As for personalising the argument, as far as I'm aware I haven't been rude, aggressive or made any form of personal attack on you in this conversation. If you have a complaint, you can take it up through the proper channels.--Pondle (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, guys, let's end the debate here. Monopoly stays in the article until there's consensus for it to be removed. User:Welshleprechaun can still take this to arbitration if he wishes. There's no need to prolong the argument. Deb (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Twinning

Link No 24 Local Government Association: Twin Town search don't mention about Bydgoszcz. 193.200.82.28 (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Badfinger

Shouldn't we merge The Iveys with Badfinger in the notable people section as they are essentially the same band?--Canadian Reject (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Deb (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Beaches section: "blue-riband"?

Not surprisingly, The Guardian named it one of Britain's blue-riband top 10 category beaches (2007).[106]

Could the writer have meant "blue-ribboned"?