Talk:Wales

The issue of whether Wales is a country or not has been repeatedly raised. The result of all these debates is that Wales is indeed a country. This has been confirmed in formal mediation. The discussion is summarised in this archive here. Further information on the countries within the UK can be found at Countries of the United Kingdom, and a table of reliable sources can be found at Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2015

Average rain fall.........53 inches

Average summer temperature..........48-63

Average winter temperature...........35-45

Capital city.................Cardiff

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

Section 2.4 - Medival Wales - spelling mistake in third paragraph "the whole of Wales recognised the kingship of Gruffudd ap Llywelyn." change to "The whole of Wales recognised the kingship of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn". Originlausername1 (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Well spotted. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Capitalisation: "First Minister" or "first minister"

We appear to have an edit warrior using one wikipedia (not policy) as an authorty for the style on this article That isn't the way things work. If there is a formal style guide or similar then lets have the reference. In the mean time the use is capitalised in Welsh Government sources which carry more authority than a wikipedia article on the general subject or the opinion of one editor. -----Snowded ^TALK 21:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Wales has a first minister, and must elect a first minister.

Editor Snowded is edit-warring about this, as she is trying to insert caps (Wales elects a First Minister)

In this instance, "first minister" is not capped because we're not talking about the title of a specific person. Eg, correct would be, "First Minister Bob Smith is one of several first ministers in the UK".

Not only is this Wikipedia style ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_minister ), but it's also the BBC's style. See here, for example: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-45448158 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a title. I think it should be upper case. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom seems to use upper case throughout i.e. in every instance, e.g."... politically it gradually became necessary for him or her to govern through a Prime Minister who could command a majority in Parliament." So why can upper case not be used for "First Minister" here? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources vary in their style. For instance, the BBC, the Independent, the FT, the Guardian, and the Times all use lower case. The Telegraph and ITV use upper case. Personally, I find that split quite surprising - but if the majority of high quality reliable secondary sources like those use the lower case form, and it accords with WP style, we should use it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to accord the Welsh Assembly itself more weight than newspapers, even if they are WP:RS broadsheets. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't we give preference to secondary rather than primary sources? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Carwyn himself also uses upper case. But that probably only amplifies your argument? However, secondary sources closer to home seem to agree with him. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Guardian style guide: first minister (Scottish parliament, Welsh assembly, Northern Ireland assembly). I haven't found any other specific references in other style guides. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Two points initially on the process (i) user Newzild is the one making the change (and against two other editors who restored the status quo per WP:BRD) so accusations of edit warring seem a little wild not to mention aggressive (ii) another article on the subject and one tagged as needed further references is not a Wikipedia style guide so again we have a false claim in the edit summary.

Then to the arguments:

1. Other established UK articles provide better precidence that the weak one sited by Newzild for Wikipedia practice. So the use of capitalisation for Prime Minister on the UK article and First Minister on the Scotland and Northern Ireland articles give us a strong indicator and we should be consistent with those.
2. The various Wikipedia articles that start "First Minister of..." all use capitals
3. We have mixed use in the quality newspapers so no clear guidence
4. A quick search on Google scholar shows extensive use of Capitals (I didn't check in detail but scrolling the first few pages of half a million hits said most used Capitals)
5. Welsh Government sites use capitals

If there is to be a change here it flies in the face of practice on multiple other UK articles. So the proper place for discussion is either a style guide or more likely the UK project. Unless some strong argument is put forward I'm going to restore the long standing, and stable version pending a wider resolution -----Snowded ^TALK 05:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Is wales.com a reliable secondary source?

The site is a promotional site with the aim of putting Wales and all things Welsh in as positive a light as possible. Look here [1] and you will see that it does not pretend otherwise. As such much of the information posted on the site might just as well come from a tourist guidebook. Being published by the Welsh government does not make this fact any less true because, as the site itself claims: Its aim is to promote Wales as a country in the UK and internationally. This site is being used often on Welsh related articles to verify all sorts of statements, some fairly contentious. It provides no source information so none of the information can be checked. I suspect that much of the information it publishes is taken from wikipedia and similar unreliable sites. Should we put out guidelines about the potentially unreliabilty of wales.com or even that it should not be used at all as a reference source? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

its a qualified source I think - exercise care -----Snowded ^TALK 08:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I question how much it "is being used often on Welsh related articles" - it seems to have only been set up in 2019 in beta form. If it's a government site it's unlikely to set out blatantly incorrect information, but, as Snowded says, it needs to be treated with some caution and better sites may be available. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree that 'treat with caution' is the best approach. Set up in 2019? Without checking, I am sure the site has been around on WP since well before this year? I am not suggesting the govt run site is intentionally giving false information, but rather that it is following its mandate, which is to as quoted above. Doing so results in a slightly unbalanced account of the facts, similar to any well presented advertising promotion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it is older, I may have misread the information. If we only relied on "perfect" sources, Wikipedia would be a great deal smaller than it is! Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Bilingualism

Not unexpectedly my edit was reversed. Wales is "officially bilingual", so say some. Really? English has unrestricted official status anywhere and in any situation. Welsh has restricted official status in limited clearly defined situations. English just is official; Welsh is official thanks to statute - the de facto, de jure buzz words. They are therefore not equal and not the same in any capacity. Bilingual means equal: English and Welsh are not equal except in only a small number of situations, such as the Welsh Assembly, which is not enough to make Wales a bilingual country. We have synthesis happening here: English is official (under one definition) and Welsh is official (under another definition), therefore, assume some editors, Wales must be officially bilingual. I hope my removal of the phrase will soon be accepted and my edit reinstated. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps bilingual is not the right word in this context, as it just means fluent in two languages, with no implication of equality, legality or official status of either or both languages. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you might be on the right path there. An interesting comparison can be found in Canada, although I am not sure it helps much. Perhaps we should simply say the Wales has two official languages and leave the bilingual word out altogether.

I've made what seems to me a sensible change, leaving out the term officially bilingual, as I don't think bilingual is a term that can be used to describe a country, as opposed to an individual. Note that the phrase is not used in the section on demographics, so logically should not be used in the lead. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I like your revision. BTW Roger, I took the liberty to correct your formatting regarding the Canada point. Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2019

I suggest that an category for the Ethic Groups of Wales be added to the breakdown by percentages as it is for England and Scotland on Wikipedia. Reliable information for this is available here: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/national-and-regional-populations/population-of-england-and-wales/latest 86.2.119.248 (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)