Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board

Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board/Archive1 January - May 2006

Welsh topics template

I've created a Welsh topics template, copied from the Scottish one yet again! It's been attached to Wales and History of Wales so far - have a look, add, amend etc. Rhion 18:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Added Welsh people to Template, and added template to Welsh people (does this sound like gibberish?). Nice work. Alun 11:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Template seems a good idea. I note that the list of lakes still points to the Scottish list! I would change it myself but I can't find the page with the list of Welsh lakes! Hogyn Lleol 15:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems there isn't one, or at least I couldn't find one either. It's now a red link - maybe that will inspire somebody to create one. Rhion 16:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have created one and populated it initially from the List of reservoirs and dams in the United Kingdom - so its mostly reservoirs at present - but more to come. Please feel free to add ! Velela 17:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wales

We're having some trouble with an apparent troll at Wales today - if anyone feels like mucking in with the reversions they would be welcome. Thanks. :) Vashti 14:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I see the page has now been protected, with the current version the apparent troll's. Another glorious victory for trollhood! Rhion 16:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

He's just been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism, immediately after a particularly nasty personal attack at Talk:Wales. We'll get it sorted, the point of the protection is to let everyone talk it out. Unfortunately your average trollvandal won't want to talk it out. Vashti 16:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The user concerned now has a message on his talk page User talk:Bazzajf asking for protection to be removed and promising not to put the POV tage on the section again. However there doesn't seem to be any actual request for unprotection made, so presumably nobody knows about this. Should we apply for unprotection on the basis of this message? Rhion 17:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. We can put it back on again if there are problems, right? Vashti 17:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem I would think - maybe leave it until tomorrow? Rhion 18:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I shall ask for the protection to be removed this evening. Rhion 11:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The page has now been unprotected, and I have removed the POV tag. Rhion 19:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems at Wales and Cardiff South and Penarth

Bazzajf is banging on the same old gong at Wales again, and someone at Cardiff South and Penarth is insisting on removing the Welsh translation "De Caerdydd a Phenarth", despite its common use by the Boundary Commission and the media. Help plz? Vashti 13:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Parliamentary constituencies only have a single name defined by law. There is no scope for a translation, which is why Anglesey was renamed to Ynys Môn. You will note that the Ynys Môn (UK Parliament constituency) page specifically states this. Owain (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's probably best to discuss this on the article's talk page. Vashti 14:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Welsh

I recently found the Anglo-Welsh article. I've never heard the term Anglo-Welsh applied to people, only to Anglo-Welsh literature. Has anybody else? Should this article be put up for deletion or is it a valid usage that I am unaware of? Rhion 19:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been there since January 2005, and it's still a stub with no references. 'Nuff said? Alun 19:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it's in common usage. Deb 12:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you all. To check, I spent about half an hour (I was bored :)) playing with Google and excluding "literature", "author" and so on from searches. There's the rugby cup, a narrow boating company, and a geological feature, but not people, particularly. Certainly not in a consistent form. The word isn't in my Shorter Oxford at all, strangely. Clearly I need a bigger dictionary :) Perhaps ask User:Calgacus where he came across the term, but I'd be inclined to redirect. Telsa (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Standard naming scheme

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Regional notice boards#A uniform naming scheme. Zocky | picture popups 00:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Fork of Welsh self-government

User:Normalmouth has created a fork of the Welsh self-government article under the title Welsh nationalism, which was previously a redirect. As far as I can see the content of the two articles remains identical apart from the first sentence. I changed "Welsh nationalism" back to a redirect and pointed Normalmouth to Wikipedia:Content forking; however he has immediately changed it back to a fork in clear violation of a basic Wikipedia policy. Assistance would be appreciated. I am leaving both articles in place for the moment so that other users can see what has been done.Rhion 05:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What's this lang-cy template?

I have vaguely noticed a couple of people changing mark-up from [[Welsh language|Welsh]]:''gair'' to ''{{lang-cy|gair}}'' (example) or to ''{{lang|cy|gair}}'' (example). It doesn't seem to happen very often. But obviously some people are incorporating -- or experimenting with? -- Template:Lang, which allows you to mark up sections of text so that people can tell their stylesheets how to portray text in specific languages.

I understand the potential use of the template: I use the lang attribute and stylesheets to get different languages to appear in different colours, fonts, or so on on my personal webpages, and have done for a couple of years. But I haven't seen much discussion or use of this template on Wikipedia apart from on Template talk:Lang. So.. well. Should we really be using it everywhere? When should we? When shouldn't we? And wouldn't it be simpler to get a bot to change them all? (Ugh, yet another round of bot-action on my watchlist.)

I am sure it must have been discussed elsewhere, but whether that would be the Village Pump, the Linguistics wikiproject, the Languages wikiproject or what, I don't know. I can't find any discussion on those pages, but the search system baffles me at times. Since it will certainly affect nearly every article to do with Wales, I brought it up here. Thoughts?

Telsa (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories for deletion:Welsh-speaking people - the saga continues

Further to the above (way, way above), this category's deletion is now under review, and there seems to be a consensus for it being re-listed for deletion. I know not everyone agrees with its existence, but I would ask you bear in mind the following when you decide whether to vote:

1. Minority languages are not the same as major languages in this context.
2. The category had been in existence since April and was well-populated.
3. Almost all the articles in the category specifically mention that the subject is/was a Welsh speaker. This suggests that being Welsh-speaking is as valid as a category as, for example, being born in 1955.
4. The purpose of the category is not anything sinister or political. It is simply to enable users to find all articles about Welsh-speaking people easily. I can think of many circumstances in which people might find this information useful.

Deb 17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to vote on the above can now do so HERE

Help with translations

I'm currently working on a script intended to create short articles on political parties on a variety of wikipedias simultaneously. However, in order for the technique to work I need help with translations to various languages. If you know any of the languages listed at User:Soman/Lang-Help , then please help by filling in the blanks. For example I need help with Welsh. Thanks, --Soman 12:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

An excellent historic resource

The good folks at British History Online have just put A Topographical Dictionary of Wales (Samuel Lewis, 1849) online here. I haven't examined the Welsh one, but the Scottish one Lewis did was excellent - some villages were just a couple of lines of bare factual information, but some (especially parishes near large cities got decent articles. The level of coverage for large towns was good, and the cities went into great detail. This will probably be about the same level of detail, I suspect.

It's a hundred and sixty years old, of course, so not something to base an article on - but it looks excellent for fleshing out "history of..." sections in articles on towns and villages. Thought people might like to know about it. Shimgray | talk | 01:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Welsh industrial history

We seem to be very thin on the representation of Welsh industrial history both in Wales and History of Wales. Industrialisation seems to be begin with the development of the coal fields and the iron works at Gyfartha. In reality there were very significant pockets of industrialsaition both before, during and after this in many other parts of what is now rural Wales, Shipbuilding on the western coat such as the high level of industrialised ship-building in the River Mawddah estuary being one example. Much more significvant was metal extraction and working with the hugh mining complexes in the valleys of the River Ystwyth and River Rheidol with outposts in the headwaters of the River Severn and River Teifi not of course forgetting Parys mountain and the smelting activities in the lower Swansea valley (where we do have the start of an artcle). Then there was Slate and its depradations in north Wales. I only know of these things adventitiously but they do indicate that we somehow need to represent a much more balanced picture that the rather simplistic one of industrialised south and pastoral north and west. Mrs Trellis 08:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but the Wales and History of Wales articles would get too long if you put in more than a brief mention there. What is really needed is either an Industrial history of Wales article or (for example) History of Wales in the 19th century, which would give space to cover all these industries. "Wales" and "History of Wales" could then refer to these articles. I have been thinking of doing a History of the North Wales slate industry, but can't decide whether that is the best title for it. Rhion 17:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Shipbuilding at Porthmadog which is a particular interest of mine. Rhion 17:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose "History of the slate industry" would be too wide. What about "History of the slate industry in Wales", which would avoid any problems with deciding whether something is in the north - or is that not likely to be an issue? Deb 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be really interested in both your suggested titles, Rhion! Hogyn Lleol 20:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have started a Metal mining in Wales article which would welcome additions. Mrs Trellis 13:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need an article on the Welsh slate industry. Does it make sense to restrict this to just the history of the industry? There is still some active industry, notably at Penrhyn and Blaenau Ffestiniog. How about calling it "Slate industry in Wales" or similar? I started a related category a while ago called Category:Slate quarries which doesn't have much in it (and its not all Welsh) but should probably be linked. In fact perhaps the category is misnamed and should be Category:Slate industry? Thoughts? Gwernol 17:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact there's already a nascent article on the slate industry at Slate mine. Its currently mainly about the Welsh slate industry, and is rather misnamed. How about renaming "Slate mine" to "Slate industry" and creating a "Slate industry in Wales" article that is a sub-article of "Slate Industry"? There could also be articles on "Slate industry in America", "Slate industry in England" etc. Gwernol 17:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made a start on an article on the Welsh slate industry in my sandbox (and found out some information about my great-grandfather in the process). I'll put it out in a day or two. So far, I have followed Deb's suggestion and called it "History of the slate industry in Wales", since sadly it is mainly historical despite the small scale activity at Penrhyn. Are they still working at the Oakley in Blaenau? I think Category:Slate industry would be better for the category. Rhion 17:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The beginnings of the article is at User:Rhion/History of the slate industry in Wales at the moment. Rhion 18:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, great stuff, Rhion. I agree with.. well, practically everyone seems to be in agreement that there is loads that could be done, so I agree with everyone. I did start a History of Swansea article which is really quite awfully-written now that I read it again, but I'll see if there is anything that can be done to/with it. (Actually, as well as general "putting into context", what that one lacks is the non-industrial side. The area was agricultural for a long time, and even at the height of the copper industry there were local farmers complaining about the effect of the copper-smoke on their animals.) Mrs Trellis, I think I can dig out some references for your Metal mining in Wales article. I'll see whether they are where I think they are. Telsa (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Oakley is still worked sporadically. There is also some activity at Aberllefenni though mining there has ceased and its just the mill working Chinese slate stocks now. There is also some recovery of slate waste at Glanafron and talk of a major operation to reuse some of the tipped material at Blaenau. So there is still a little of the industry left. I've already changed the category name: Slate Industry is definitely the better term. What do you think of repurposing the current Slate mine article to Slate industry? Gwernol 16:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now put the article out as Slate industry in Wales. It still needs work, but I think it could be put forward as a Featured Article candidate in a while. I think it would be a good idea to have a Slate industry article, and the current Slate mine article would give a good basis. I suppose it would be possible to also have a short "Slate mine" article, concentrating specifically on mines as opposed to quarries, differences in methods of working etc. Rhion 13:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Great work, Rhion. You've already improved our coverage of the Welsh slate industry by an order of magnitude or two. I'm going to rename Slate mine to Slate Industry. My library is currently in storage, but I should have access to most of it later this week, so I can hopefully contribute directly to this effort. Best, Gwernol 14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

After doing a bit more work on it, I have put Slate industry in Wales forward as a Featured Article candidate. It should really have gone to Peer Review first, but it doesn't fall under any of the projects and the main Peer Review is pretty moribund at the moment - it could well sit there for three weeks without comments. I have time to deal with any objections or suggestions at the moment, but probably won't in three weeks' time. Any comments here please. Rhion 13:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinions sought on naming conventions

This is a request for your opinion on place names (before I post RfC)

I have discussed this problem with an admin and neither of us were able to find guidance on: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities)

The problem arises following attempts by a Wikipedia user to seek out references to "England", "Scotland" and "Wales" and replace them with "United Kingdom".

One example of this can be seen at Atlantic Ocean where User:Owain recently made changes including changing text:

from "Aberdeen, Scotland" to "Aberdeen, United Kingdom"; from "Liverpool, England" to "Liverpool, United Kingdom"; and from "Newport, Wales" to "Newport, United Kingdom".

I came across this change while using VP and had made no contribution to this particular article myself but reverted on the grounds that there was no problem with the original text and that the changes reflected a minority POV, and certainly did not conform to "common usage". My revert was immediately reverted by User:Owain so I issued a warning to him using VP, which he chose to delete from his home page. I therefore requested that VP admins protected the disputed page.

I believe that:

• the edit was non-sensical, totally unnecessary and politically-motivated.
• the edit made the article imprecise in not giving sufficient detail to pinpoint a place by omitting the obvious (i.e. the country), and gave less information than the original edit
• to deliberately ignore the country is to disrespect the people, culture and traditions of those nations
• there have been a large number of edits to this page by many other Wikepedians, all of whom saw no problem with the identification of the country

User:Owain recently made changes the article on Lisvane by changing the text:

from "For the village in Conwy, see Llysfaen" to "For the village in north Wales, see Llysfaen"

as before leaving out the obvious and replacing it with that ill-defined region of "north Wales"!

Again I had made no contributions to this article but believed the edit presented a biased POV, expressed by a small number of users involved with County Watch and Association of British Counties who attempt to wipe out, or depreciate, any references to the counties of England, Wales and Scotland which were formed following local government reorganisation in 1974 and again in 1996.

Finally User:Owain recently made several changes to the article on Aberdyfi by changing the name of the town to the anglicised version of "Aberdovey" throughout. Again I must point out that I had made no previous contributions to this article. Despite being presented with several 'reference' articles, all using the spelling "Aberdyfi", he continued to revert to the out-of-date spelling, thus flaunting the "common usage" policy. The comment he makes on his talk page "I attach absolutely no authority to the 'National Assembly'" (the elected parliament of Wales) reveals his political motives.

I believe that what we are witnessing is an attempt a small group of people to use Wikepedia to put forward a heavily biased, right-wing, "British Nationalist" agenda, views which are rejected by the vast majority of the population as being out-of-date. I am informed by other Wikipedians that these antics have been going on since before I began contributing to Wikipedia.

If Wikepedia is to be accepted as a serious source of information then this cannot be allowed to continue and must be stopped at the highest level. Should an investigative journalist attempt to compare Wikipedia to other conventional encyclopaedias I believe that we would be totally discredited on the grounds of neutrality.

I am not a member of any political party and have no political axe to grind, in fact I treat all politicians with equal contempt!

Can we please have some views on the convention to be used when referring to Britsih place names?

-- Maelor  15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the test to be applied here is what serves the interests of an unbiased encyclopaedia best rather than what any one editor regards as his or her personal crusade. I would therfore strongly prefer a convention thatprovides the right level of geographic distinction to give maximum information to the reader. In the case cited I would opt strongly for Aberdeen, Scotland (because that tells us more precisely where Aberdeen is) and similalrly Llysfaen, Conwy. For the record I would also very strongly opt for Aberdyfi for the simple reason that is the name of the village in question. So I guess that you have my support. Mrs Trellis 16:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Likewise from me. "Newport, United Kingdom" is so vague as to be useless. This is an encyclopædia, and anyone who gets confused by terms like "Scotland" and "Wales" instead of "United Kingdom" can look them up and find out the difference. --Stemonitis 16:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Naturally you mean the one in Pembrokeshire. Agathoclea 16:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the second comment - but Agathoclea's comment hits the nail on the head. How useful would Newport, United Kingdom be ?! Even Newport, South Wales wouldn't make the grade.Mrs Trellis 16:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. I agree with your comments, Maelor. Any politics aside, "Wales", "Scotland", etc. are far more informative than just "UK". However, in the case of Llysfaen I'd prefer to see "Conwy, North Wales". To those who don't know where Conwy is, that is clearly usefully informative. Hogyn Lleol 16:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with the points made above. There have been two recent major controversies of which I'm aware, both of which I think are relevant. One was the furore over what to call the Newport article. Personally, I would have favoured a proper disambiguation page rather than the assumption that the Newport in Monmouthshire is the one most users are most likely to be looking for. T seemed to be in the minority on this. The other is the current debate on the use of Gaelic names for Kings of Scotland, in clear defiance of the Naming conventions. We ought to remember that this is the English wikipedia, and the conventions that apply are meant to make it easier to use by English speakers, not just in England or even the UK, but worldwide. We ought also to avoid slipping into the same tendency towards parochialism that the English generally show. I would like anyone who feels passionate about their nationality and language to take a trip over to the Welsh-language wikipedia, which is still struggling to build up a basic stock of articles and can always do with more help. Deb 16:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is normal practice to use British English on pages related to the UK and American English on pages related to America. In this regard it is normal practice for Americans to name places thus City, State as in Los Angeles, California or New York, New York, often they impose this convention on places in Europe, like Paris, France or London, England and it just sounds daft to me, I don't think it is normal in British English to do this. I would neither use Aberdeen, Scotland nor Aberdeen, United Kingdom, rather I would use Aberdeen is a city in Scotland in the United Kingdom, this way both Scotland and the UK are mentioned. I don't know if the reason for the change from Aberdeen, Scotland to Aberdeen, United Kingdom is due nationalistic reasons or simply due to pedantry, but I don't like the inference that one way is based on a form of nationalism and the other isn't, both stlyes have nationalistic overtones, is any form of nationalism acceptable? Both are in a literal sense correct and both display a stylistic POV. Alun 17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am with Mrs Trellis and Hogyn Lleol here. We need the right level of detail, and I think that we need at least Wales and very often where in Wales included. When it gets to "where in Wales", I think that sometimes the valley is much more important than the county (whatever sort of county), but that is probably a separate issue. (Ie, "in the Dysynni valley, north Wales", or "in the Rhondda valley of south Wales".) Telsa (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

S4C programmes

Over on the S4C page, there is an ever-expanding list of "notable S4C programmes", all of which are acquiring their own pages. Many of these pages are going to need some clean up. Before it gets out of hand, perhaps we could come to some degree of consensus about what makes a programme notable on S4C? I have stuck some suggestions on Talk:S4C#The selection of notable programmes. Some more opinions (even if it is "Don't be stingy, of course S4C Closedown Screen should have its own page") would be great. Telsa (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there need to be some criteria for deciding what a notable S4C programme is. I'd add something about longevity to the list as well - but I'd also keep the Closedown Screen, as it is unique for being the only one left on a terrestrial channel. I'm a little worried about the list of children's programmes that was added today, though - shouldn't they be linked to by their Welsh names on the S4C page? ("Fireman Sam" instead of "Sam Tân", for instance). Vashti 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Audio

I had a go at uploading audio files for pronunciation of Cardiff and Caerdydd and have included them in the Cardiff article. I am not under the impression that these are any good, it's just me speaking into the microphone of my skype headset. I was inspired by the Jerusalem article. Is it worth including this medium in the articles? Should we try to include more audio (especially Welsh language pronunciation) in Welsh related articles? What's the consensus? Alun 17:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK

The DYK section featured on the main page is always looking for interesting new and recently expanded stubs from different parts of the world. Please make a suggestion.--Peta 02:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wales Labour Party

I have created an article on the Wales Labour Party. Comments and suggested improvements welcome. Normalmouth 20:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A nice suitable-length article there. Do the other parties with Welsh variant names have separate articles? Sorry the comment is a bit late! :p Marbles 17:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. No, neither the Welsh Conservatives nor the Welsh Liberal Democrats have an article. Both should. Normalmouth 20:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye

I have decided to leave Wikipedia - I'm losing patience with the assorted vandals and POV-pushers on here. Basically it's just not worth the aggravation any more. Rhion 09:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Back momentarily to request that my user page be deleted and to thank everybody who left a message on my Talk Page. It's good to know that my work was appreciated. There is in fact another reason why I'm leaving, not just the vandals etc - I work in a fairly senior position in local government and I have heard of at least two people recently who have been forced to resign as a result of material they posted on the internet in their own time. It seems the spirit of the late Senator McCarthy has taken up residence in Wales, and while I have always done my best to avoid putting my own POV into articles, I'm aware that I have made certain comments on discussion pages which could be interpreted as being critical of the party currently in power. I'm concerned that there is material on here which would enable me to be identified - Wales is a small country after all. I may return in a few months, but it will be under a new user name and with no possible clues to my identity. Rhion 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Llanfair PG move request

It has been proposed that Llanfair PG be moved to Llanfairpwllgwyngyll or Llanfair Pwllgwyngyll. Please share your opinion at Talk:Llanfair PG. --Blisco 17:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Pembrokeshire and Welsh

The article "Little England beyond Wales" is a bit one sided, and I have added my own comments on the talk page of it. I would be grateful if some clued up Welsh language experts would look at this and the article on the Landsker Line.

Diolch yn fawr. --MacRusgail 20:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cymru X

There's a proposal to merge this with Plaid Cymru. People may be interested in giving a view. Deb 17:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If it was exanded, I'd oppose the merge. However as it stands it would be better to bulk up the Plaid Cymru article a bit. Marbles 18:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A few Q's from a new member

Hi, this is my first joint venture at wikipedia of any kind. So I have kicked off, amongst other things, by writing most of Cardiff Bay#Cardiff Bay Today. I have listed most of the attractions and notable buildings in the Bay, new and old, and added brief descriptions and lots of links. Many of them do not have wikipedia articles. Would it be ok to add these buildings to the main 'to do' list on the noticeboard? ie. can I add anything to that list, or is there a formal process for approving additions to it? Bards 14:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute regarding treaties relevant to the formation of the United Kingdom

There is currently a dispute going on at the Template talk:UKFormation which regard the inclusion of treaties specific to England within the template which aims to display the treaties leading to the formation of the United Kingdom i.e. the Union of Parliaments and Union of Crowns before that. Comment upon the dispute is needed so that a consensus may be reached. siarach 04:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Welsh mythology

Is Welsh mythology the same as Breton mythology. Well, my references say that is most certainly is not. I see a user has added Breton mythology to the Welsh section on the Template:Celtic mythology, see this edit here [1]. It will just muddy the subject of the mythologies, and is not a step forward for WP. If you believe that this edit is erroneous, then please add your view to Template:Celtic mythology talk page. Manopingo 12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Plaid Cymru

There's been another edit war taking place recently on the Plaid Cymru article. It would be great if a few people could take a look at it and help achieve compromise wording before those involved get themselves into further trouble. Deb 21:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Anglo" (sic) to designate the United Kingdom

Please see:

• CFD discussion

--Mais oui! 07:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC) --Mais oui! 07:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Is there a place to request photos from Wikipedians in Wales? The need isn't just for Wales-based articles on the English Wikipedia; very often the Welsh Wikipedia will have an article about something or other, and have to use a picture illustrating it of something in Germany or Japan or even England. Marnanel 03:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Llareggub

I give notice that the Llareggub article needs to be removed and integrated with Under Milk Wood, which already duplicates much of the content. And what nonsense to provide a specific map reference for a fictitious place! Do us a favour! --Aeronian 03:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles)

A guideline is being drafted at this page which would prescribe that all UK nationals be described as British, rather than English, Welsh, Scottish or N. Irish. Unfortunately the proposer appears to have overlooked notifying the UK based projects. Leithp 07:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Cantref Gwaelod/Cantre'r Gwaelod

Months ago, Cantre'r Gwaelod was moved to Cantref Gwaelod. The move was messily done, complete with cut and pastes. Before I ask an admin to undo it, can someone confirm my belief that Cantref Gwaelod is simply wrong, and there is no "ah, but in English, it might be okay" about it? Telsa (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I much prefer "Cantre'r Gwaelod". Without doubt "Cantref Gwaelod" is a derivation, and not as correct, even though this sort of thing is seen in many place/house names, etc. (It's possible that Cantre'r Gwaelod" is itself a corruption of "Cantref AR y Gwaelod", but that's not at issue.) Having Googled both, and looked at some of the references (more hits with "Cantre'r Gwaelod" by the way, and some of the "Cantref Gwaelod" will be Wikipedia mirrors anyway) it all seems to agree.

The Wiki entry currently starts "Cantref Gwaelod (more commonly: Cantre'r Gwaelod .....)". Well, if it's more commonly this, (let alone correctly & originally), then we really should have "Cantre'r Gwaelod" as the main page, with the other redirecting to it, rather than vice-versa.

For what it's worth, not surprisingly all Welsh references also use "Cantre'r Gwaelod".

And no, I agree with you in that I don't think it's OK to say it might be OK in English - because we've got Welsh words & structure here. As another example, you can say "The Ffestiniog Railway" but it just isn't right to say "THE Rheilffordd Ffestiniog" - in any language. No offence intended to anyone, but non-Welsh speakers will have to trust us on this one. Hogyn Lleol 16:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hogyn Lleol. Even in English-language works of reference on Wales I've never seen "Cantref Gwaelod" before. It's a Welsh name and the ONLY correct form, gramatically and historically, is Cantre'r Gwaelod. I suspect the origin of the erroneous form is a result of people with no knowledge of Welsh language and culture thinking they know better than the "natives" what the name should be (nothing new there!). I hope someone can undo the change as soon as possible. Enaidmawr 20:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Even as a non-Welsh speaker, that's a daft one! Clearly a simplification in English of the original Welsh, where the Welsh is the used term in modern books. I agree with Enaidmawr conclusion re the motives of the move - its something we as a group have to be "understanding" but vigilant of. Rgds, - Trident13 08:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. It's on WP:RM now. Telsa (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. :) I'll take it off WP:RM. -- Arwel (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Translating mottos

Whilst I'm noticing these things, here's another. Over on Swansea University, the motto Gweddw crefft heb ei dawn is translated as "Technical skill is bereft without culture". I don't know whether dawn is better translated as ability, talent, innate ability, or what, but it needs fixing. I have put a note on Talk:Swansea University#Motto. Telsa (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick look at a number of University sites shows that they themselves translate it as the above. Therefore, in this instance, I guess that any mis-translation is theirs, not Wikipedias's. Hogyn Lleol 16:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Frô Gymraeg

Hmm, I seem to be monopolising this talk page. Oh well. Anyway, only three or four pages link to it, but we have an article Y Frô Gymraeg. If it's to stay around, it needs help. I don't know where to start. If I remove every sentence which is OR or wildly point-of-view, there will not be much left. Telsa (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Tnx for pointing out the article. Firstly, bro/fro doesn't take a circumflex accent, so I'v moved the page accordingly. Also I shifted the map and tried a quick tidy up. Cut out some ludicrous POV as well (the bit telling people, or rather "you", not to be frightened by the fact that Welsh appears first on road signs as "the locals are friendly" etc has to be a classic!). However, as you say, if I were to really get the scissors out there wouldn't be much left! Needs another look over, if somebody has the time time. Oh, added some categories as well, a bit general but better than nothing (literally). Enaidmawr 19:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Did a bit more work on it myself. (To be honest, I'd never heard the term before.) Deb 11:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Suspected hoax to keep an eye on

Over the last few days the following articles have appeared:

• Edmwnd Harri Puw
• Bro Rhydderch
• The Ancient Traditions, Myths and Tales of Bro Rhydderch, Monmouthshire

They are clearly hoaxes. They came to my notice after a version of the Edmwnd Harri Puw article appeared on cy.wikipedia. Neither the author or his supposed works are known to me. Google has no mention of him or his books or Bro Rhydderch. The British Library and National Library of Wales bibliographical databases drew a blank as well. Take a look at the relevant material added to Llanddewi Rhydderch (genuine village) : following a lot of nonsense "folklore" about trolls, it is said to be twinned with Dinan, Britttany, but of course is not mentioned on the wikipedia articles on Dinan (French and English). To cap it all it is said that Llanddewi's motto is, in Esperanto (what else?), thus Tiu estis fikci (translation : 'This is fiction'!). The contributor has logged on with two different user names in the last few days as well as a number of anon edits, all of them concerned with Mr Puw and spreading his fame (he got added to famous Welsh people as a philosopher). Just got back here after tagging the articles as hoaxes and undoing the other edits only to find that User:EdPuw has turned up and reverted them all. This nonsense is not categorised yet but if we're not careful could end up in the relevant Welsh categories. Please take a look at these articles and keep an eye on them. The three main articles (above) hav just been retagged as hoaxes by me and also proposed for deletion : I suspect EdPuw or another of his atavars may be back to undo this (he/she hasn't offered any evidence to back his claims, other than that he/she is apparently a distant ancestor of the illustrious gentleman). Diolch yn fawr, Enaidmawr 20:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: "Bro Rhydderch" deleted here about an hour ago. Corresponding article and "Edmwnd Harri Puw" on cy. have also been deleted. Enaidmawr 21:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please comment here. Deb 21:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Which century are we in?

Has anyone noticed that the List of castles in Wales has been altered so that they are now listed by the old shire counties rather than the present ones? The change was made by User:Owain (details [here]). This will come as no surprise to some of us as User:Owain has a proven agenda of removing references to modern counties (gets rid of awkward Welsh names like Ceredigion), insisting on obsolete anglicised spellings, etc. (some examples can be found above at 'Opinions sought on naming conventions'). There is perhaps a case for saying someone was born in Waunfawr, Caernarfonshire, in 1880, rather than Gwynedd (although the modern county should be added), but that sort of argument doesn't hold here as most of the castles on the list were erected prior to the creation of the shire system and the modern counties are not mentioned at all. What is more, those shires no longer exist. So where's the logic? The Scottish list uses the modern counties (haven't checked the English list). Why should we be in an irrelevant time warp? Maybe I should have brought this up on the article discussion page but there is a wider issue involved. The other day I came across the new category 'Buildings and structures in Wales by county' (I think that's the wording). Once again User:Owain has been busy populating it with the old counties. I really think we should adopt a policy on this. This is Wales 2007 not Wales 1907. Any suggestions / comments? Enaidmawr 20:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd forgotten that I in fact created Category:Buildings and structures in Wales by county! I put in a few of the existing county categories, rather than creating the whole structure from scratch, if memory serves me right. So as a result Category:Buildings and structures in Gwynedd was on my watchlist, and I saw one day that it had been blanked. I raised the issue with Owain here but I'm sorry not to have followed it through when he didn't reply. It was then speedily deleted as empty. I didn't know that this was a repeat of previous behaviour, or I might have done something earlier.

My view is that it makes no sense to have categories that say (in effect) "this building is in Fooshire" when Fooshire no longer exists. It makes even less sense when a building post-dates the abolition of Fooshire but is included in the Fooshire category anyway. Nor do I see the need for a structure that says "this building was built at a time when it was in a place called Fooshire" alongside a category structure that says "this building is in Newshire". But one way or the other, I'd be in favour of developing an editing guideline by consensus so that we don't get into a revert war on such topics and everyone knows what the preferred option is. My preferred option for such categories is the current county, not the old name, but I suppose there may be some occasions when old counties are appropriate if people can think of examples.

I'll pop over to WP:WALES and leave a message there; is there anywhere else that it would be useful to let know about this discussion? Bencherlite^Talk 22:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the "current county"? There are many concurrent areas that can be called "counties". If you mean administrative areas then they are highly inappropriate - names like Caerphilly and Conwy are totally ambiguous. Encyclopædia Britannica, for example, uses the historic counties throughout. Owain (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the issue. A case in point is Neath Port Talbot - which has in it (as you might expect) Neath and Port Talbot. And you'll also find that the Post Office still recognises West Glamorgan. Not that this is an answer... Deb 11:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In English Wikipedia there is a convention that the term "the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" should be used. It is the requirements of the user that rule, and not the tastes (ancient or modern) of editors. The case of Neath Port Talbot is particularly appropriate: it's a purely administrative entity that was created by the stroke of a bureaucratic pen a few years ago, and will undoubtedly meet its end by a similar process in a very few years' time. Glamorgan, on the other hand, will be Glamorgan until hell freezes over. . . .LinguisticDemographer 20:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Ireland

Portal:Ireland is up for featured portal candidacy. All views welcome! --sony-youth^pléigh 11:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Cardiff Film Festival

I believe in the "To Do List" Cardiff International Film Festival Wales is actually the same article as Cardiff Film Festival  ??? Seth Whales 20:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Court photographs

Does anyone have, or can anyone pop out and take, photographs of current or former county courts in Wales to add to List of county courts in England and Wales or List of former county courts in Wales? I've got Caernarfon, Pontypridd, Cardiff and Carmarthen (Guildhall) for the first and Monmouth (Market Hall) for the second, but photos of others would be good. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 08:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Welsh names to English articles

I've spent a day or two in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Addition of Welsh names to English articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Addition of Welsh names to English articles (2) on what I wrongly thought was a modest proposal that, where Welsh names exist for places in England, particularly those close to the border, they should be mentioned in the relevant article. For example, the article on Ross-on-Wye mentions the Welsh name, but Chester (Caer) doesn't. This originally arose in relation to Wirral, where I thought it would be useful and interesting to refer to the (etymologically unrelated) Welsh name of Cilgwri. It's also relevant in relation to road signs, now that signs to previously unknown (to some) destinations like Llundain and Bryste have appeared on motorways. My proposal has, shall we say, been misinterpreted and over-interpreted by some fellow editors, to a rather tedious extent, and others might like to comment in the debate. I shall now step back! Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Culturenut

Hi all. I see that http://www.gtj.org.uk/ is mentioned on the Project page as a resource, but we ran into a couple of accounts whose edits are only link additions to this site, while there have lately been hardly any users who used the site in a regular way. There is a summary here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/gtj.org.uk and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Culture nut - gtj.org.uk. Some edits have been reverted (they would be in violation of Wikipedia:Spam, and there may be a conflict of interest involved as well, and I am not sure how this is in light of WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL). It would be great if some people here could try and contact (one of) the accounts to see if they can help us improve the articles with some content, and are willing to upload the images. Hope to hear more. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Help for Translation

I've been looking around at the Hen Ogledd and other related pages, and I've also checked out the Welsh versions, but I really have no experience so mostly what I could see is that several of them have a lot more information than the English language version. So I'm looking for someone who could translate these and add any extra information to those pages, if none of you are too busy. It would be a great help.---G.T.N. (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

An Invitation from the Philippine Wikipedia Community

Hello folks,

The Philippine Wikipedia Community will be holding its 1st Meet-up in Cebu City (the fourth one in the Philippines) on June 23-24, 2008. This coincides with the first Philippine Open Source Summit, also to be held in Cebu. The Philippine Wikipedia Community is an Implementing Partner of the Open Source Summit. We invite you to join us in this event. If you are in the IT or IT-enabled services industry, this would be a great opportunity to meet people from the 4th best outsourcing city in the world. This is also a good excuse to visit our beautiful beaches :)

If you're interested in joining the Wikipedia meet-up, please join our discussion. You can register for the Open Source Summit here. If you would like some assistance with local accomodations, you may email User:Bentong Isles.

The Philippine Wikipedia Community
WP:PINOY

Welsh manual of style?

I don't see anything in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions or Category:Wikipedia style guidelines concerning Welsh words or placenames; should there be? You can check those category to see the kinds of guidance people like to give. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be, but you will get opposition from the Land of Hopeless Glory unionist brigade who will oppose all things Welsh!!! -- Maelor  10:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Be bold. Create a draft guideline, list it here for comments, and then at the village pump for acceptance. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pek. Welsh placenames were discussed here, following which I created this. Happy to help further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be very interesting to see what you come up with - I don't envy you the task, though. Deb (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

National Library of Wales Images

Hi, I'm part of a small team who are hoping to explore sharing some of the digitial content owned by the National Library of Wales over August. One of the ways we'll be doing this is by sharing some of our digitised images with relevant Wikipedia (& Wicipedia) articles. We'd really apreciate any feedback you have so feel free to drop by our User page to find out more about the project or leave a comment on the Talk page. Thanks! National Library of Wales (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania 2010 Oxford bid

This is a general call for any wikimedians in the UK who would be interested in getting involved with and extremely active venture to finally bring Wikimania to the UK. To join the team simply sign your name here. It would be good to join the Wikimedia UK mailing list, view the mailing list archives or to join the irc channel at irc:wikimania-oxford. Information on how to access IRC can be found here. We really are pulling out all the stops this year and any help we could get would be most appreciated. All the information about the Oxford bid can be found at meta wiki here. I and the others in the team look forward to working with you. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 23:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:British Isles Terminology task force

Added here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion?

I'm trying to improve coverage of Jesus College, Oxford - the "Welsh college" - and a couple of potentially interesting articles about its history are in this series, which I don't have ready access to. If someone can get hold of them and would be willing to scan some pages for me, please drop me a line. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 08:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bencherlite, thought you might like to know that some earlier editions are available online at www.archive.org. Rather hefty pdf files though. I haven't looked through the archive properly yet - the categories aren't too helpful but there's a search tool - but there may well be other useful sources there as well. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Welsh people

For information - there is an animated discussion on what is meant by the term "Welsh people" taking place here. Consensus seems unlikely but it raises some interesting points. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC on Humorous and Satirical Essays

In his Wikipedia article, the 'essays' of AA Gill (the Sunday Times' restaurant reviewer and television critic) are described as being 'known for their humour and satirical content'. In one of the more well known of those humorous and satirical essays in the Sunday Times he described the Welsh as: "loquacious, dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls." See this No reference is made to this statement in the article and all attempts to include it have been reverted, referring editors to the talk page. I have commented on the talk page, as requested, but here has been no response. You may have a view on this too. If so, please comment on AA Gill:Talk. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Unilateral move of Llŷn peninsula to Lleyn Peninsula

This was a unilateral move with no prior consultation of an important article. Because of redirects it needs an admin to restore it. If anyone has an opinion about this they might like to have their say on the discussion page. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Fellow South Britons!

Sorry about that, but it's one way to gain people's attention! I presume that a fair proportion of those contributing to this talk page will be Welsh. According to an article recently created, we live in South Britain (not southern Britain) and we "may correctly be termed South Britons". May we, indeed? I'm not sure which planet the contributor lives on but it certainly does not include modern Wales, or England. If anybody has views on this misleading article (I've changed the wording of the intro, although I suspect it will be reverted again, so you may need to check the History for the original text), which in my humble opinion reflects the POV of a tiny minority - if indeed that minority even exists in sufficient numbers even to be called that - perhaps they might like to have a look at it and its talk page? Enaidmawr (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Just mischief making I think. I've proposed it be merged into England and Wales, so that a passing reference can be made there if at all. In the meantime an eye needs to be kept on the page's content so that it doesn't sow confusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The "proposed country" of Wales

Did anybody else here know that Wales is merely a "proposed country" rather than the real thing, according to the English-language Wikipedia? Enaidmawr (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! Wales is included in this reference book, Nations Without States, pp. 611-613, but is not listed in this article. Clearly a name change is required for the Proposed country article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Taliesin moved

The article on Taliesin has been moved without discussion to Taliesin (poet) by a certain Mr manilow and 'Taliesin' turned into the disambiguation page. Does anyone else feel as strongly as I do that this move is totally unjustified as the poet Taliesin is clearly the primary meaning? This is like moving Homer to "Homer (poet)" in case someone mistakes him for Homer Simpson! I can't revert the move as a page needs deleting first by an administrator. Support would be appreciated (I've left a message on Mr manilow's talk page). Enaidmawr (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If this should happen again, I could of course protect the page temporarily, but I think we should be prepared for the possibility that this will become a requested move and may attract votes, particularly from our American cousins. We need to be ready with our arguments for keeping it where it is. Deb (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The article hits counter is interesting.

• In Feb 09, Taliesin was viewed 5482 times, Taliesin (disambiguation) was viewed 696 times and and Taliesin (studio) 12,644 times
• In March 09, the respective figures were 6489, 808, and 13727

In other words, whilst more people view the page about the Frank Lloyd Wright studio named after the poet, they're not getting there by going to the poet's article, seeing it isn't about an artist's studio, then clicking the hatnote to the dab page to find what they are after - they get there by other methods. Many more people view the poet's article than the dab page, which might suggest that the poet's article is what people are looking for at this location (although it would be more accurate if there was a page that gave details of whether an article was clicked through on a bluelink from another article, or by using the "Search" facility). Just a thought. Bencherlite^Talk 22:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not sure we should put too much emphasis on stats though in case someone points out that the studio gets more hits than the poet. It's very likely that more people come here to look up Homer Simpson than "that poet guy" but surely that would not be an argument for moving the bard to 'Homer (poet)'? Hopefully the need will not arise, but surely there must be a policy on this somewhere? Enaidmawr (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Popularity should not be the be all and end all. The poet should stand, like the Homer argument above (and I've seem a similar attempt to move Jason from the Greek hero to Jason the Friday XIII fictional character), the original and historic basis of a word needs to be kept as the main focus for the encyclopedic term. Few terms should lead to a disambiguation page as the first link, Mercury is a good example, as the god, metal and planet are all very high in interest and merit.FruitMonkey (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that assessment. Deb (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Apparently Mr manilow has submitted a Requested Move. Please also leave comment and vote on this at Talk:Taliesin. Diolch, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Welsh rivers

Articles on Welsh rivers are in a fairly inconsistent state at present with some such as River Neath divided up into its many tributaries each with its own article whilst other such as the River Afan (albeit a smaller river) have all the tributaries included. I propose that we adopt a consistent structure will all tributaries included in the single main river article. None of our rivers have articles so long that this would be cumbersome. On the contrary we have rather short articles and searching for information about a whole river system is time consuming linking through to many separate articles. Having all tributaries in one article does not preclude linking to a specific tributary as for example Afon Pelena works very well. I am concious of much good work that has been done by a number of editors including a great deal of recent work by Geopersona, but all of that could be retained in unified articles. Before progressing anything I would welcome comments.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   22:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems sensible enough as a general rule. We already have a plethora of geo-stubs which are unlikely to be expanded. As you note however, there are always a few exceptions to the rule, and allowance should be made for this. Rather depends on the length and importance of the main river as well, which might include a number of subsantial tributaries (Afon Conwy, for instance, where Afon Lledr and Afon Lligwy merit their own articles; the Severn etc.). Enaidmawr (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the merging is a sensible argument. Articles can always be split if they grow too large, but there is little threat of that happening with many of the Welsh river pages. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I waited a reasonable period for any opposition.....but not finding any , and just as an example I have merged the Ogmore tribs into River Ogmore. The old tributary articles are still in existence at present but I will convert them into re-directs once everyone is happy. If no raises any issue now I will slowly work around the rivers of Wales.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. That's when you find real opposition. Though your ideas appear sound. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This sounds good in theory. But in practice? I'm not so sure. Will there be exceptions? The River Ogmore article is 8460 bytes following merger. An increase from 7246 bytes before its tributaries were merged. So not much difference, really, and quite appropriate. However, the article Afon Clun, at 39,476 bytes, is a quite different example. It begins "The Afon Clun is a 14 miles (23 km) long tributary of the River Ely ...". Consequently, it will be merged into the River Ely page. However, the River Ely article is 2703 bytes. It would look quite ridiculous for an article entitled River Ely to consist of (approx) 42,000 bytes, of which only 2,700 concern the epoymous river and all its other tributaries, with 39,300 bytes relating to just one of its tributaries. It would be more appropriate for both articles to remain as they are. There may be other examples too. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it makes more sense to start with the minor tributaries? Some of them are here purely because they are named on the OS map but are likely to remain one-line stubs for the foreseeable future. As I noted above, there are exceptions to every rule and in some cases a tributary may be more noteworthy for historical or ecological reasons than the main river. Afon Clun is one example, perhaps. What's the position of the other wikipedia projects on this, if the question's been raised? Enaidmawr (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Local chapter for the Wikimedia Foundation

We are Wikimedia UK - the group of local Wikimedians helping the Foundation to create "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge". Love Wikipedia? Based in the UK? Can you support us in projects such as generating free-content photographs, freeing up archive material and media relations? Or are there other projects you'd like us to help with? if so, please click here to Join up, Donate and Get Involved

Ni yw Wicicyfrwng DU - y criw lleol o Wicigyfryngwyr sy'n ceisio cynorthwyo'r Sefydliad i "greu byd lle mae pob un bod dynol yn medru rhannu a derbyn am ddim byd cyfan o wybodaeth". Mwynhau Wicipedia? Wedi eich lleoli yn y DU? Fedrwch chi ein cefnogi drwy prosiectau greu ffotograffau sy'n rhydd o hawlfraint, drwy ryddhau deunydd mewn archifau a thrwy gysylltu gyda'r cyfryngau? Neu a oes yna brosiectau y carwch i ni eich cynorthwyo? os oes, yna cliciwch yma i Ymuno, Gyfrannu a Dod yn rhan

AndrewRT(Talk) 22:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Renaming of key Welsh county articles

UK Geo, apparently after "discussions involving editors throughout the United Kingdom", has decided to rename some of our county borough articles. Discussion here: Talk:County Borough of Conwy (and also on my talk page). Does anybody have views on this? In my opinion the new names are simply wrong. In the case of Conwy the council itself uses Conwy County Borough, for instance (most people just call it Conwy and I've never heard it referred to as the County Borough of Conwy: once again, "only on Wikipedia"!). Whatever the arguments about the correct form of the name we should use, I find it rather disturbing that (at least) one of the four UK projects, namely Wales, should once again be left entirely in the dark about this until it is in effect a fait accompli. A notice of discussion posted here was the least they could have done, but then again this is not the first time that this has happened... Enaidmawr (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't something recent Enaidmawr. It's buried way back in the archives, which is why it's taking so long to find the damned thing! Skinsmoke (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can accept that now, but we could at least have been informed of the discussion itself in the first place. I'm not blaming you personally for that but this situation should not have arisen and we need to make sure there is inclusivity of opinion from the four UK wikipedia projects if any similar move affecting us all comes up again. A notice of discussion at the relevant boards should be a matter of course in future. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Way back before I was involved, but I agree. One of the reasons why I've notified the UK Geography project and anyone who appears interested that this discussion is going on. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely the administrators of the UK Geography project would know how Welsh counties should be named, much better than the editors of the country concerned. Perhaps we should just leave it to them. We should have learned to trust our betters by now. I'm sure they have our best interests at heart. Daicaregos (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wales is under-represented at WPUKGEO so even though it's a project for the whole of the UK and it the mother project of WPWALES it is dominated by English editors. But don't portray WPUKGEO as disinterested, it's scope covers the whole of the UK, if there's an imbalance within the editors you should ask why more members of WPWALES are not members of WPUKGEO. It's would be easier to affect its policies if you're a member, if you choose not to be because you think it will do no good you're effectively disenfranchising yourself. Get involved with UPUKGEO, we're always looking for members!

Alright, there wasn't a discussion in this instance because Skinsmoke thought he was working in line with the naming conventions drawn up by WPUKGEO, (he can't find the relevant bit at the moment, and although I can vaguely recall something along the lines he's saying, I'm damned if I can find it). That's not to say the guideline (wherever it is) is correct or fixed. The convention is for places to be written [administrative unit] of [place name] (eg: County Borough of Oldham, Metropolitan Borough of Stockport, Municipal Borough of Sale) but for whatever reason there is variation, such as with urban districts and rural districts are always named in reverse (eg: Denton Urban District Bucklow Rural District). Nev1 (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely disagree with the statement that the editors of the UK geography project should know how to name Welsh locations better than those at the Welsh Project. That's upsidedown thinking; statisticians know more about statistics than general mathematicians, sub-categories are by their nature more specialised. Not sure what the outcome should be, but I just want to state that I feel the argument doesn't stack up. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Daicaregos was bring ironic. Nev1 (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think, FruitMonkey, that Daicaregos was being ironic. But to get things moving, what do people want these articles calling?

As I understand it, we are talking about four articles only, namely Bridgend, Caerphilly, Conwy and Wrexham. These are the four authorities where they share the same name with a settlement or community and therefore need to be distinguished from the place. It would not, for example, affect Gwynedd or Vale of Glamorgan.

Enaidmawr has made it quite clear that he doesn't like County Borough of Conwy, but appears happy with Conwy County Borough. I would be happy with that too, and it appears so would Nev1. Does anyone have any other preferences?

If we can agree on a format, I would suggest that it is added to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Specific topics#Country-specific guidance#United Kingdom#Wales.

Skinsmoke (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with the pattern of Conwy County Borough and if we could get consensus here I think it would definitely be worth adding to the policy page. Nev1 (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That goes for Caerphilly County Borough too. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 23:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. By the way, it's not a case of whether I like the name 'County Borough of Conwy' or not but the fact that it is practically never referred to as such and that 'Conwy County Borough' is the usual (official) style that counts (as a matter of fact, just like the council itself on numerous occasions and the Welsh media in general, the inhabitants of Conwy almost invariably call it a county, but that's just by the way...). Enaidmawr (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the pattern: Conwy County Borough, too. Daicaregos (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As everyone appears to agree, I'll go ahead and make the changes. If Nev1 is still willing, perhaps he can make any consequential changes that are needed. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Now done where possible and listed for Move where not possible. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the three article and have changed a couple of categories to ones with correct capitalisation (a bot will run within the next 7 days to shift the articles to the right category). Take a look here for more details, is there anything I've missed? Nev1 (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Can we agree a standardised approach to articles about places, structures and landscape features? At the moment you see examples of:

• [place], [principal area], [Wales] or
• [place], [principal area], [region] or even
• [place], [region]

Editors are making ad hoc changes back-and-forth, I think a convention would be helpful! Pondle (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There already is a convention at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements:-

Lead (see also WP:LEAD): Include the following

Name of settlement, type of settlement (e.g. suburb, town, city, civil parish), its contemporary local government district / council area, contemporary/ceremonial county (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), for the use of counties), and constituent country.

For Wales, I presume the contemporary/ceremonial county would be left out, so it would read :-

Lead (see also WP:LEAD): Include the following

Name of settlement, type of settlement (e.g. suburb, town, city, community), its principal area (county or county borough) and constituent country.

Skinsmoke (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I would go along with Skinsmoke's suggestion, although there are one or two editors who have a rather unhealthy obsession with the old 'traditional counties' and will probably insist on re-inserting them. I see no point in including regions either.--Rhyswynne (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Rhyswynne's comment causes me some concern. As I understand it, this recent debate started because of concerns over whether places should be referred to as simply within Wales or within a sub-national (regional) area such as South Wales. On that point, my view is that the sub-national level should be included only rarely, where it helps to disambiguate in those articles where the place is not shown on a map or where (for instance, for a physical feature such as a river) it extends over a wide area - simply because the sub-national areas in Wales do not have any unambiguous official status. The position over the use of "traditional" counties in Wales is a long-standing and continuing issue of disagreement and dispute, between, it seems, those who think that only current local government areas should be used in the lead, and those who think that in some circumstances the "traditional" (1526 or earlier - 1974) counties should be used as well. (The best example is probably Glamorgan, which defined a specific area from no later than the 10th century until 1974, but which now does not exist as a local government area.) Personally, I believe that there are circumstances in which only using the current local authority boundaries (which are likely to be less well understood by many readers, in many cases, than the traditional counties) is unhelpful, and that sometimes using the traditional boundaries can be helpful to the reader - who is the person who is ultimately important here, not the editor or any group of editors. I know that opinion may be seen as contrary to WP:UKGEO, but in my view the guidance there is overly prescriptive. I also know that my view may lead to what could be seen as inconsistencies, and - so long as the text helps the readers - I don't think that is very important. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The pattern is well-established, although not always adhered to, not just for Wales and the UK but as a general convention across the wikipedia. In the case of Wales that should mean a lead sentence with, 'Name of settlement, type of settlement, county or county borough, Wales'. Any further information should be included in subsequent sentences, e.g. region, "historical" county etc. I strongly agree with Rhys about the so-called "historical" or "traditional" counties; their insertion in the lead, usually tagged on at the end as something like 'within the historical county of Foo', giving the impression that said county still exists, is just not on. We all know the way [a] certain editor[s] will persist in doing this in pursuit of an agenda stemming from that of the Historical Counties Association or whatever they call themselves with the intention of timewarping Welsh geography (you will have noted that they rarely mention the preserved counties 1974-96...). As for regions, I've no objection to their inclusion after the lead sentence, but not in place of Wales itself. I sympathise to some extent with the Glamorgan argument as it could be termed a distinct sub-region (note I'm not talking about the former county), but again it can easily be referred to in the second sentence of the opener, giving the location a wider context. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)