Talk:South Wales

Comment

I made some pretty extensive changes, based primarily on the couple of years that I lived in England and Swansea, Wales. I think that it is important to note the connection between South Wales and the M4, as well as the Anglican nature of South Wales as compared with the rest of Wales. Jdfoote 06:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Before I go adding my two pence, I'm surprised to see 'South Wales' limited to SE Wales. When I was living in Caerfyrddin, I was always under the impression Cymru De was pretty much everything south of, say, Aberystwyth (give or take a bit). Anything more specific was referred to by county (or heritage county, or whatever the blazes they are nowadays). Corgi 22:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I would call the region described here south-east Wales. Rhion 09:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. There's no real defined South Wales IMO. For one thing the view of NESW Wales changes depending on where you are, which makes it difficult. I'd call Pembrokshire, for example, part of West Wales, but think a lot of people over there think of it as South Wales. I'd propose that the entry should be considerably shortened and reflect the ill-defined nature of South Wales. There's already an entry on the South Wales Valleys, which some of the material could be migrated to. --Vjam 13:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean 'Anglicized' nature of south Wales as opposed to 'Anglican', which refers to religion? South Wales is (or was) as non-conformist as other areas of Wales, and you'll see more chapels in the Valley areas than most other places. The map does seem to refer to SE Wales, though i agree that Sir Gar and Sir Benfro are West Wales, and most inhabitants identify as both South Walian and West Walian. With regard to the Gymraeg, which this article is not about, us speakers would regard De Gymru as being to the south of Aberystwyth, due to the greater intelligibility of dialect with regards to the North.

The boundary as regards to south western Powys could be scrutinised - the ex-Coal mining areas of the Upper Swansea Valley have much in common with the rest of South Wales, while also sharing much with the other mainly Welsh speaking coal mining areas of the Gwendraeth Valleys and around Ammanford. GarethRhys 16:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Breconshire

Why have I changed Breconshire to Powys ? For the very simple reason that Wikipedia is about providing information to everyone and anuone and for the very great majority of the world the divisions of Wales are the current administrative boundaries and not the old ceremonial counties. Can you please provide a justification as to why I should promote counties that have no meaning to most people living in 2006 ? The ceremonial counties aren't even on any modern maps ! Velela 09:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the qualification altogether as it is completely unnecessary. The article itself was describing what many people think the divisions of Wales really are - i.e. north Wales, south Wales, west Wales, &c. Do you honestly believe that people looking for an article on Rhymney would use the qualification that it is "in Caerphilly"? Of course they wouldn't, they'd probably just say that it is in "South Wales". There are many overlapping geographies and it just so happens that the current administrative geogrpahy is one of the worst. What sensible geographic system would have divisions that range in size from 5,196 km² to 111 km²? Some of which are named after towns, despite being vastly bigger, some are named after other well-known divisions but with a completely different area, e.g. Monmouthshire, Denbighshire. The administrative geography exists, but to use it as the only general-purpose geography is confusing to say the least. Owain (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

16 suicides in two months

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=514778&in_page_id=1770

do you think this is notable enough to add in? 74.140.225.97 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source, so should not be reporting "news" anyway. And I certainly don't think Wikipedia should go down the tabloid path of linking multiple tragedies into one interconnected "news event". There are guidelines about how to report suicide responsibly (which include not going into detail about the means). I don't believe that much of the recent reporting in the UK press adheres to any of it. A more useful and encyclopaedic approach would be to expand Wikipedia's articles about suicide, particularly Epidemiology and methodology of suicide, where there is no discussion of the different types of "clusters" and the possible explanations and associations for such clusters. There is research available on factors that are thought to affect suicide rates, for example, and we are conspicuously lacking in that. Once that is done, it might possibly be appropriate to mention Bridgend. However, I think that if you look at the statistics, Bridgend (whether the town itself or the area -- and note that most of the papers are talking about the town but giving the figures for a wider area) may not in fact have the highest rate of suicide in Wales . So no, tabloid-fuelled "suicide town" speculations have no place in Wikipedia. Telsa (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"most densely populated and richest region in the South West of the U.K."

1. I've heard people mention South West England as a region, but south west UK is rarely used 2. It's quite possible that the population density is highest, but is it really the richest? I'd have thought areas like Bath or Bristol, or the Cotswalds (assuming they fall within this so-called region) would be wealthier.--Rhyswynne (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)76.102.31.185 (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Counties included

My source, www.genuki.org.uk/big/Britain.html, states that Glamorgan is not a shire. 76.102.31.185 (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is (or was) a historic county, and was sometimes known by the English as Glamorganshire, though the more historically correct term Glamorgan tended to supersede it during the 20th century. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Picture

The picture does not indicate the whole of South Wales. It should be changed to fit the needs of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.245.97 (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I was about to change the caption to something like "South Wales as widely understood..", until I realised that it probably derived from this site of official statistics - where, however, it is shown as South East Wales, which is what the current caption now shows. The area to the west, which is often called "West Wales", is captioned "South West Wales" on that site. So, I'll leave it as it is in this article. The area shown excludes Swansea, which most people would probably consider to be in South Wales. What we probably need is a better map (say, with some relief, transport, towns and cities), with a fuzzy boundary as clearly it is not an area which has a standard definition. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Ghmyrtle - ideally, we need a new map but in the meantime let's either label the existing map as per the apparent source, or remove it entirely. Pondle (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree - it's even worse than the "West Wales" map. Out with it! Deb (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Map removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Translation?

The section: 'Famous industrialised areas in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries' begins with: Merthyr Tydfil, after which this: "(Tydfil the Martyr)" is in brackets. It isn't a translation from the Welsh, as "Merthyr Tydfil" is the English version of the Welsh name of the town. It can only be a shortened etymology, I guess. Should this be here? After all, if we were to mention Leicester, or Guildford, or Birmingham etc., etc.. we wouldn't explain what it meant in modern English, would we? Thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Have now changed it to show the Welsh version of the name - anyone wanting to know more about the town including the origin of the name can - and surely would - go to the page devoted entirely to it. Geopersona (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Northern edge?

In some ways it is pointless to attempt to define a northern border to South Wales since the concept has such seeming fluidity. In any case if one (or more) versions of a border are described then they need to be on the basis of published material as per usual WP guidelines otherwise it simply amounts to speculation on the part of editors. The current text which suggests that either the A40 or A465 might define that border leaves out parts of NW Monmouthshire and the Black Mountains which hardly seems satisfactory - I am loath to suggest an alternative though - it would simply be my own personal preference (which might change from one year to the next)! cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the Heads of the Valleys is indeed quite a strong boundary in the popular consciousness of South Wales - that article says "It approximately follows the southern boundary of the Brecon Beacons National Park". But we are told that the Brecon Beacons "is a mountain range in South Wales". There's a bit of a no-man's land between Brecon and Builth. But both Brecon and Talgarth are properly placed in Mid Wales. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) The area is not formally defined, so there is no "border" or "edge". Common usage suggests the term usually refers to former Glamorgan and Gwent/Monmouthshire. I don't like the idea that the A40 or A465 mark an edge. I doubt if we can find sources, but personally I'd rewrite the last sentence of the lead along the lines of: "Areas to the north of the Brecon Beacons and Black Mountains are generally considered part of Mid Wales" - and leave it as undefined as that suggests. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I feel more comfortable with Ghmyrtle's suggestion. Martinevans123: I agree that the HOV is a strong boundary but only so far as the eastern and central parts of the South Wales valleys/the coalfield are concerned - not for South Wales per se. cheers Geopersona (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't actually a suggestion - just a subjective note on local views. The HOV does obviously follow local geography. But Wiki puts both Brecon and Talgarth in "mid Wales". I wholly agree with Ghm, it's all a bit vague. Monmouthshire and Glamorganshire would certainly be South Wales counties, And Breconshire, as was, certainly Mid. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll give my wording a whirl and see if anyone objects or tags it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitions

I've added a section on definitions to provide some historical context that helps explain current usage. Some of my changes have been undone, so I'll make a few comments here.

I do find that the opening sentence as it is to be rather misleading: 'South Wales is the region of Wales bordered by England and the Bristol Channel to the east and south, and mid Wales and west Wales to the north and west'. The article as it is goes on to discuss the fact that 'west Wales' is often be considered to be part of south Wales. These points contradict each other. That's why I'd changed the phrasing of the first sentence — to reflect the uncertainty over the western and northern borders.

I also moved the final section of the introduction to the new 'Definitions' section, as it related specifically to how we define 'south Wales'. I see that it's been reinstated in the introduction, but that means that the same material is now repeated more or less word for word.

I'd suggest then that the two issues noted here be changed back to avoid these problems. Troellwr (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Most of your edit is very valuable and informative - thank you - though it would help if you could add reliable sources as citations. However, I don't think it's the case that "'west Wales' is often.. considered to be part of south Wales." West Wales - including Ceredigion, Pembrokeshire, and Carmarthenshire - has an equally uncertain boundary, which overlaps with the boundaries of south Wales. The article says that they overlap - not that west Wales is within south Wales. The introduction is supposed to summarise the main points of the article text - there is no problem with duplication, though I'm sure the wording could be tweaked so that the sentences are not word-for-word identical. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree that 'west Wales' is not necessarily within 'south Wales' and may only overlap it (numerous definitions exist of course). But if the first sentence says that 'south Wales' is 'bordered' by 'west Wales' (as it is bordered by England and the sea), then it would be reasonable for a reader to assume that such a border is identifiable. So from that point of view, I'd suggest that that uncertainty should be reflected in the introduction.

It follows from that the introduction needs some work. We can't really give precise population figures, for instance, for an area that's said in the current verion to be 'loosely defined'.

I'd suggest then that the introduction be shortened, with things like population discussed in other sections where the area inolved can be more firmly defined. Troellwr (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to be tightened up, particularly so that the definitions used for the population estimates are made explicit. Interestingly, this site gives 1,802,803 as the population of "Industrial South Wales", with an additional 377,383 within "South West Wales" (Ceredigion, Pembrokeshire, and Carmarthenshire). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)