Talk:Wales/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Wales is not a country...

Land of my Troll Fathers?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know a lot of British and Welsh people refer to Wales as a country but it is not. Wikipedia's own page on "country" starts by saying "distinct national entity." Then there's a bunch of what some Welshman probably put on the "country" page about how a country can be occupied by a another sovereign state but that's simply not true. Does anyone refer to Scotland as a "country?" Does anyone refer to "Northern Ireland" as a country? Both have more autonomy than Wales. So if you're going to call Wales a "country," then you need to change the "Scotland" and "Northern Ireland" pages to list them as countries. Why don't we go by the UN's definition of "country" and say that it requires UN representation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 05:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC) FratGrad (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC) We have been here so many times before. Please read through all the archives; this argument surfaces in probably every one of them. If you have a new justication supported by authoratative sources that has not already been discussed, then please post it here. However arguments along the lines presented above are most unlikely to get any traction here.  Velella  Velella Talk   05:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC) OK so I read through the comments on the previous article. How many of those "75 reputable and independent sources" are sources from within the UK? I bet the vast majority of them are sources from within the UK and the only reason people from different regions refer to themselves as "countries" is because of FIFA. So any source from within the UK is going to be biassed that way. Nobody outside of the UK, maybe (and that's a big maybe) some "sources" in commonwealths refer to them as countries or in reference to FIFA but that's going to be it. Otherwise, in the legal, diplomatic, definition of country, they are not countries. Texas even has more autonomy than Wales. Texas, unlike Wales, can operate and manage its own military force. So are the moderators going to change the Texas page to "country?" Let's be honest, every aspect of the word "constituent countries" as the moderator defined them and now the wiki definition for "country" would apply to Texas; and any other US state for that matter. FratGrad (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC) For the record, I tried following the "links" on a lot of those "sources" and several appear to be dead links. The ones that appear to be still active are all British domains (containing ".co.uk"). And the Welsh one? Seriously? Of course they're going to call themselves countries. The whole reason they never send a soccer team to the Olympics is because they would have to go as the UK and they could potentially lose their statuses as "countries" in FIFA. They made an exception for the London Olympics because they had assurances from FIFA that they wouldn't lose their status as "countries." If you don't believe me I can try and go find an article on that but I would think it's recent enough most here would remember. FratGrad (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC) You are arguing a case not referencing sources, which include EU and British Government designation. A brand new editor, jumping straight into a old controversy reusing old arguments.... -----Snowded TALK 07:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC) I just told you I can cite sources if you want. Which source said that Wales was recognized as an independent country in the EU? Are you saying that if the UK parliament votes "leave" for a "hard brexit" that Wales would automatically remain in the EU since Wales, as a "country," would not have invoked Article 50? Here's a credible source for you. And it says "Glenn has said: "The big fear in the past was that if we did it [enter into the Olympics] we would jeopardise our independent country status. But that was sorted out under [former FIFA president Sepp] Blatter actually and [new president] Gianni Infantino has reinforced it." (http://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/17560425/gb-football-team-gets-fifa-go-ahead-2020-olympics) This supports everything I've been saying but nice try. You do realize there are documents that say Texas is a Republic? Namely the Republic of Texas Constitution passed in 1836? Who outside of the UK recognizes Wales as a country? The UK government did not recognize Rhodesia as a country yet they were recognized by South Africa and still most people regarded Rhodesia as a country; so the UK saying something is or isn't a country is not a necessary and sufficient condition. FratGrad (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Back to your opening line, FratGrad, in what way is Wales not "a distinct national entity"? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC) I'm really not sure how Texas calling itself a Republic is relevant here. Nor Rhodesia. Nor South Africa. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Oh! For the ***** **** of *****! Not this yet again, surely? ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 09:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Roger, distinct from the UK. Wales is no more distinct from the UK than Texas is from the United States as an entity. Therefore, you'd have to say Texas is a country also. And we know that isn't true. Martinevans, It's the same as Welshman calling themselves a country (in Texas' case a Republic which was infinitely more autonomous) or people within the UK calling each other separate countries. Rhodesia is definitely relevant here because it shows that just because the UK classifies something as a country or not is not necessary or sufficient for whether that something is universally recognized as a "country." The British use the term "country" parochially because of their sports clubs, notably FIFA and rugby, have domestic regional teams but also play internationally so they refer to each of them as countries; their sports are rooted in and have fomented a lot of nationalist tendencies hence the intensity with which Welshman, Scotsman, and Northern Ireland residents are so competitive and often refer to themselves as if they were independent of the UK. But regardless, the rest of the world does not use that definition of "country." It usually refers to fully autonomous states. And if you want to get really technical, they have to be recognized by the UN. Hence why Taiwan is disputed as a country but even Taiwan is at least sovereign. FratGrad (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "It's the same as Welshman calling themselves a country (in Texas' case a Republic which was infinitely more autonomous) or people within the UK calling each other separate countries." No it's not the same. It's very different, both in history and in law. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Martinevans, really? How so? Can Wales raise it's own military force? Can Wales have a standing army? Does Wales have international relations with any other actual country other than the UK? I think you're missing the point here. If Wales or the UK pass a law saying that they're a country, that doesn't necessarily make them a country at least in the way the rest of the world uses the word... — Preceding unsigned comment added by FratGrad (talk • contribs) 10:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Even more to my point, it appears we have a very nationalist Welshman, in Griffith, here using expletives. Note that Welshman like him will probably fight to the death on this page to keep Wales a country due to the predisposition to feel separate and special as a people that this terminology promotes but also paying homage to a romantic and very glorious past. But alas, I think he even realizes that it's not the same definition that the rest of the world uses. FratGrad (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC) In the absense of any support, perhaps we should call an end to feeding time?  Velella  Velella Talk   10:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC) FratGrad, you are embarrassing yourself. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Troll, guys, almost certainly a sock - just ignore -----Snowded TALK 14:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2018

Could the post-nominal letters AM and MP in the infobox be removed in line with MOS:POSTNOM? Thanks, 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Spintendo      10:56, 11 March 2018(UTC)

Which symbol should represent Wales?

I looked through this article and noticed that the three feathers which original from Edward the Black prince of England was shown as the prominent symbol representing the symbols section, I changed it to the leek as that is more suited for all of the Welsh rather than the English feathers with a German motto, I understand that they are owned by the English prince of Wales, however.. in the article it mentions that the feathers are; "is also sometimes used to symbolise Wales." which leaves us to believe that it's not a full-time symbol of Wales, now even Prince Charles wears the leek on his clothing, so why can't we just agree that the staple symbols of Wales are the leek & the daffodil? they are neutral by nature that represents both republicans & royalists alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 12:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

All three are used and have citation support so we can't agree something like tha. The Daffodil and Leek tend to be associated with St David's Day. The three feathers is the WRU and many others -----Snowded ^TALK 13:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Like Snowded says, all three are used. Choosing just the leek, for the reasons you have explained, is slightly political? Personally I'd say the feathers take precedence given their greater use in heraldry. The leek and the daffodil seem to be more folk symbols. If only we had a Welsh fruit too? But we already have quite a few nice things. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it seems like there are some who want the feathers to be the primary symbol due to royalist views, the reason the feathers are on the rugby shirts is due to royal intervention, therefore we have no say in how it's represented in our rugby team.. due to the patrons being the royals themselves, using the feathers is political and is less Welsh than the daffodil or the leek, you could just agree that the leek and the daffodil have equal weight to the feathers, however, you opt to keep the feathers because you let personal feeling get in the way.

I don't believe that "personal feelings are getting in the way" at all. I think the feathers are used more widely that the other two. Whatever the reasons, that's the way it is. Wikipedia is not here to right great leek wrongs. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh no, the feathers are forced on us, like I said, we have no say in it because it is out of our control, however, thank you for thanking me for adding the origin of the feathers, it seems you agree with my edit yet snowded does not. so lets see how things go from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 14:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

A National Referendum on the feathers, maybe? A great idea. But until that happens, I think we have to live with something that started in 1343. 1985 wasn't such a bad year, was it? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hogyncymru look you need to WP:AGF, we are not here to take a position based on our personal view. I'm a republican, I'd throw the whole royal family back over the Severn given an opportunity. But here we work from the sources - its life, live with it. -----Snowded ^TALK 15:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

1. The 3 feathers are imposed upon Wales, and are offensive to me and to many others. Yes, one sentence should refer to the fact that they existed, but no more, otherwise it becomes political. Wikipedia articles should not be offensive; leaving them out does not cause offence.

2. The sentence The feathers are traced back to Edward the Black Prince of England is incorrect. The reference is outdated. The Encyclopaedia of Wales (John Davies; 2008) mentions that the "three feather were originally used much later than the 1343 -76 and were used for the Marches as well as Wales." (I translate here from the Welsh version; page 933). We therefore need a date as to when they were first used for Wales only. Until that is found I suggest we delete all references to them.

3. As it stands, it seems to me that too much prominence are given to these feathers, as other symbols are more widely used by the people of Wales, from day to day, not just by RUW. There is, therefore, an imbalance. Sian EJ (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Personal offense or not (and there is very ticky balance to be struck at Wikipedia, I think) I'd have to agree there is a large disconnect between the most used "official" symbol of the feathers and the much more widespread "popular" use of dragons, daffodils and leeks. I guess it's partly a question of whether the article should "take the official line". It may be a mistake to include only one image here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

UK Flag

Hello again Snowded. About today's edits in the Culture section - Relevant? I agree. Why, and to whom, it is relevant is another matter that leads directly to bias if not carefully handled. Factual? What is? The fact that Wales is represented by the English flag? If so then we agree. The phrase I removed is, if nothing else, contradictory. It says that Wales is not represented on the Union Flag, and then says (reluctantly) that it is. That alone justifies removal or a change. The whiff of Welsh nationalism is pretty strong on this article, with this sub-article being especially contaminated. I do agree with your strong stance of the feathers debate which makes your position on this flag issue somewhat suprising. If you want to reinstate the phrase, please obtain a top reference because it is currently unreferenced and has been disputed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Would you agree that it has "has no separate Welsh representation"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible. How about, "...no exclusively/specific Welsh representation...'? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It says accurately that when the Union Jack was created Wales was considered to be represented by the cross of St George and that no distinctly Welsh elements were included. Please don't use silly language such as 'contaminated' You attempt to interpret editors actions within a political context as you yourself point out is not supported by the facts. If you want a reference it would take you two seconds on google, this for example. Personally I don't think its necessary but if you do have the decency to do some basic investigation rather than issuing demands on other editors -----Snowded ^TALK 05:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is the statement, for ease of recognition: The British Union Jack incorporates the flags of Scotland, Ireland and England, but has no Welsh representation. Technically Wales is represented by the flag of England, as the Laws in Wales Act of 1535 annexed Wales to England, following the 13th-century conquest. Has no Welsh representation? Yes it does, the Cross of St George. Note weasel words: British and Technically, designed to give the implication of a seperate occupied and possibly suppressed group, being in Britain but not really. You claim I do not assume good faith. When have I ever done that? Pushing an agenda can be done consciously or unconsciously. Thank you for the reference: I will use it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually they were saints flags which also were used nationally but never mind. I have simplified it,-----Snowded ^TALK 18:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Wallia

From Cumbric:

The Latinate term Cambria is often used for Wales; nevertheless, the Life of St Kentigern by Jocelyn of Furness has the following passage:

When King Rederech (Rhydderch Hael) and his people had heard that Kentigern had arrived from Wallia [i.e. Wales] into Cambria [i.e. Cumbria], from exile into his own country, with great joy and peace both king and people went out to meet him.

--Espoo (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020

Please change the population estimate in the right hand summary from the 2017 (3,125,000) estimate to the 2018 (3,138,631)

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/latest PopEstUnit (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The table there gives 3,139,000? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: that could be because the number may be rounded, as with all of the other numbers on this table. PopEstUnit probably did some calculations with the general UK population and the percentage (4.7%), but I tried that and I got 3,142,890. I think it's best if we go with the rounded number. (please WP:PING when replying) –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 03:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done I agree, the rounded value, used in the source, should be used. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Lowercase i

Lowercase i isn’t listed in the Welsh IPA. Is it a mistake to use that for the Welsh pronunciation of Wales? Shiggity (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I edited it to reflect what the pronunciation of Wales is written as at the Welsh article Shiggity (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Etymology split

Most readers are not interested in intricate details about proto-Germanic roots. Would it make sense to split Etymology of Wales into a separate article and condense the information here into a paragraph or two? Many places have separate etymology articles, such as Etymology of London and Etymology of Edinburgh. buidhe 23:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it would make sense. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)  Done Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"West of the Rhymney" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect West of the Rhymney. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 24#West of the Rhymney until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"Welsh mountains" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Welsh mountains. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 24#Welsh mountains until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a proposal there to redirect to a list of mountains in England and Wales. I have suggested splitting that list into two then the redirect becomes easier -----Snowded ^TALK 04:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2020

"The Roman conquest of Wales began in AD 48, took 30 years to complete and lasted over 300 years."

The conquest didn't last over 300 years. Could you reword it?

"The Roman period in Wales began with the conquest, a 30-year period starting in AD 48, and lasted over 300 years." 64.203.187.98 (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Tony Holkham performed the edit but forgot to comment here. 64.203.187.98 (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Didn't need to comment; answered=yes. Cheers, Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

GA reassessment

More comments have been added (below), but they are not triggering the talk page on watchlists. Can anything be done about this, as most people watching Talk:Wales will not see the changes? Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This article will need GA reassessment if not improved. There's a considerable amount of unsourced text (fails WP:V), MOS:IMAGELOC issues, and needs significant trimming per summary style as it nearly 100K readable prose (focus). buidhe 06:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair warning. I have to agree that the article has "slipped" over the years, and should be tightened up; not the worst offender, by a long way, though, in these respects... Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Wales

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept This has been here six months and undergone a lot of trimming and sourcing in line with the reasons for delisting. I still feel there is more progress to be made with reducing the sections, but as it stands it I feel the Focus criteria is met. AIRcorn (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page a week ago, "There's a considerable amount of unsourced text (fails WP:V), MOS:IMAGELOC issues, and needs significant trimming per summary style as it nearly 100K readable prose (focus)." buidhe 18:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

A week is not very long, is it? I made a start but other editors need to be given a chance to comment and edit. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to close this reassessment unless you list the specific statements on this page that are unsourced. If you feel there is a problem then the onus is on you to point out what it is and not expect other editors to second guess you. With regards to the article size and placement of images, you've linked to guidelines, not policies. These are superceded by consensus and common sense. If the location of the images are a problem in your eyes, move them. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The article as it stands does not meet the GA criteria. GA reassesments must be open at least a week and may only be closed by an uninvolved editor. You are welcome to voice your opinion which will be taken into account by the closer, but you are not uninvolved. buidhe 21:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

(a) It wasn't a week, it was six days. (b) Triggering a formal reassessment with so little warning causes much more work (not to mention aggravation) than giving those interested time to bring the article up to scratch. Re-assess the article if you think that is the right path. Simply tagging unsourced paragraphs (and threatening loss of GA status on the project page) will not do. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Reassesment can be open as long as necessary as long as improvements are being made. It isn't intended as a threat but as a process of improvement. buidhe 21:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the "inline" part of the relevance template used. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

In what way am I invloved?Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You expressed your personal opinion that the article should not be delisted. That's equivalent to !voting keep in an AfD and then closing the AfD as keep, which is not allowed. buidhe 12:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Catfish did express the opinion that the article should not be delisted. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No I didn't. I'm a little concerned about the interpretation of WP:INVOLVED here and suggest Buidhe reads it again. However, I see the article is being improved as we speak so I'm going to step back. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hi all. Just a process note at this stage. I might get around to looking at the article at a later date. There is no guidelines on how long to wait before bringing an article up for reassessment. In my experience leaving a note at the talk page and waiting any length of time is the exception rather than the rule. Also I would not worry about the deadline. We require at least a week, but in practice these are left open much longer. As long as editors re working to get the article up to standard I don't see anyone closing it. The aim of everyone here is to improve it. AIRcorn (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comments: As noted above, this article is far longer than our guidelines recommend. There are some obvious areas that can be cut, for example there is no need for historiography on such a high-level article. The section headering in History is also quite excessive. There are other areas throughout the article with headers covering a single paragraph of even a single sentence. "Cities" is a level 2 header that could be literally just a sentence in Demographics. There are also many tiny paragraphs throughout the article, which are discouraged by MOS. The Culture section lacks any sort of cohesive focus. There's nothing that tells the reader facts about Welsh culture, merely a series of sections with various specific examples. Lastly, there are various citation needed tags scattered throughout the article which should be fixed. CMD (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we are clear now what is wrong with the article, and that probably doesn't need repeating. I just hope there are some editors willing to come and put it right so it can retain GA status. Sorry if this sounds grumpy (it probably is), but there are more than 900 editors watching this article. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added some cites to the Transport and Music sections, which I think deals with the remaining Citation Needed and Failed Verification tags. Is the outstanding concern broadly about the length of the article? Wales's population puts it around the Albania/Puerto Rico mark, both of which have substantially longer articles, 245,347 bytes and 322,351 bytes compared with 209,487 bytes for Wales. I know that's a bit of an "Other stuff exists" argument, but it doesn't seem unduly long to me. That said, I'm sure there's some trimming/combining that could usefully be done. KJP1 (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is not over-long by some standards, I agree, though some of the topics that have a main article could be reduced a little as some do "go on" a bit. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I've had a go at combining some of the very short para.s and will have a look at doing some judicious trimming particularly, as you suggest, where's there's a corresponding Main article. KJP1 (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

There are specific guidelines regarding length and style, Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Article size, which are included in the GA criteria. Wales is currently 40% longer than the 60kB of prose probably should be divided threshold. There's room for variation, but given country articles naturally come with numerous subpages, they have easy routes to become more concise.

Regarding citations, there's no tags, but there's clearly areas which lack sourcing. For example, over half of the Music section is currently unsourced. CMD (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

“probably should be divided threshold”? Not getting what you mean there. KJP1 (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Sorry, on re-reading, I think you’re saying it’s 40% over the threshold at which it should probably be divided. Don’t think I’d agree that it should be trimmed by 40%, nor do I think it infringes the GA criteria by not being. An article on an entire country will likely be longer than an article on a rather more circumscribed topic. As for sourcing, I think you’re probably closer to FA criteria requirements than GA. As a comparison, the USA, another country GA, is a third as long again, with about a third more sources. But there are clearly areas that can be tightened, and more strongly sourced, so we’ll crack on with those. KJP1 (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The most recent featured country article, Bulgaria, is currently at 53kB of prose, so that may be a good example of a country article which meets GA Criteria 3. As for sourcing, GA Criteria 2 is "Verifiable with no original research". CMD (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: United States is also undergoing GAR, with multiple editors commenting that its length is an issue. (t · c) buidhe 16:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Tony Holkham - Not entirely clear as to how community consensus is reached in GAR but wanted to note that there doesn't appear to be consensus here. The criticism had two limbs - uncited material and length. In my view, the first has been addressed, certainly to GA standards. The second is a matter of opinion, but I think it is clear that two editors, Tony and myself, both of whom contribute extensively to Welsh topics, are not of the view that it is overlong. I've pinged Tony in case I'm not representing his view accurately. KJP1 (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is too long, given that sections with main articles could be cut (even more). Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The sourcing has improved in my view. On size, criteria 3b points to specific guidelines on the matter. The length is probably related to some minor MOS:OVERSECTIONing in the article. CMD (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Was going to close this as keep as while it is still a bit lengthy it probably just meets our requirements. I did make some edits to the article though and after another reading through again have a few more suggestions so thought I would put them here.
  • Shouldn't the Medieval Wales, Norman conquest and Annexation to England sections in history be combined. They cover the same era and fit under the same daughter article. They could then be reduced and summerised better.
  • Modern Wales is a bit too long. It smacks a bit of recentism and doesn't have a main article. I would suggest creating a main article and moving most of the info there.
  • I think the same could be done with climate. There is no main and things like the highest recorded temperature and other misc stats would fit in better if there was one.
  • The culture section is probably a bit bloated. I know it is hard to choose which ones are worth mentioning and everyone has different tastes they want to highlight, but there are main articles for each one so they can be trimmed without any real loss. I am not Welsh so it is hard for me to say what should be featured and what not. I do know a bit about sport and a whole paragraph on rugby and another on football are probably a bit excessive relative to the scope of the article (it also mentions hosting the World Cup twice). Cricket probably doesn't warrant two sentences and Tony Farrs mention seems disproportionate too.
• Overall I would say as it stands it meets the GA criteria, it could just be fine tuned a bit more. AIRcorn (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn - Very much appreciate the interest and the helpful comments. I like the suggestions a lot and will look to action them over the next few days. The culture section is tricky, as it is hard to make value judgements on notability between different musicians etc. Just one point of difference - a mere paragraph on rugby is hardly sufficient! Football I know nothing about, but I shall ask Kossack. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. If we can get away with a couple of sentences I am sure Wales could too. I don't know if it needs the four professional sides mentioned or the competitions outside the world cup and six nations. Also documenting a two year period of league being professional doesn't seem that relevant. You get a lot of if X is mentioned then we should mention Y. Sometimes it is better to not mention too much of either if we are trying to keep it overviewish (for example I am not sure any sporting person should get explicit mention unless they are extremely famous). For comparison Wales mentions 25 sportsmen (Gareth Edwards doesn't make the cut) while NZ mentions just Hillary. I am not suggesting that this is the blueprint for a country Good Article, it just happens to be the country article I am most familiar with. AIRcorn (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, hardly anyone is watching this reassessment sub-page because it doesn't automatically link to the article or its talk page, and any changes to it do not trigger the talk page watchlist for those watching the main article. I'm not sure why this is, but it's an unhelpful function of Wikipedia. Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A positive and useful list provided above by Aircorn - thanks for that. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It is transcribed to the talk page and the edit transcribing it there will trigger the watchlist. Not sure if it is possible to link the two pages anymore than that. As someone who used to and occasionally still does a lot of maintenance of GA and GAR noms it is useful having these on a separate subpages. If you want to ping anyone here or leave notes anywhere that is not usually an issue as the aim is to improve the article not delist it. These comments will be triggering the talk page now, but they will not be added to the reassessment page. AIRcorn (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

UK Prime Minister - Infobox

Has anyone thought about adding the British Prime Minister to the Infobox below Parliament of the UK? I just find it strange that it’s not there already! The office is the head of the central government of a sovereign state that Wales is part of, so why not add it? What’s everyone views on this? Ciaran.london (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

UK PM should not be added. Note - We don't have the US President in any of the US state infoboxes or Canadian PM in any of the Canadian provinces/territories infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Welsh Royal Badge

Hello, Tony Holkham, I have noticed that you reverted one of my edits on the addition of the Royal Badge of Wales to the Wales article. May I know what seems to be the issue with the inclusion of the said badge? Regarding about the use of the badge in the Welsh government, here's an article by the BBC that talks about the royal badge of Wales being used for all succeeding Welsh laws by the government. [2] Here is also an example of a legislation with the use of the said badge. [3]. The template of the Politics of Wales (which Welsh articles about law have) also uses the badge. PyroFloe (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

PyroFloe I don't see an issue with the badge itself, or the use of it. I simply thought it wasn't relevant to the main article on Wales the country. Others may disagree, which is why I transferred your comments from my talk page to the proper place here, where it will attract the attention of other editors interested in Wales. Thanks for your comments and links. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

My view is that it's not necessary for the country article. It's a "niche" symbol which, I suspect, would go completely unrecognised by 99% of Welsh people. Similar logos were also not in the infoboxes of the articles on the other UK countries, until recently added by Pyrofloe. KJP1 (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@KJP1 I do understand that it is a pretty unfamiliar symbol of Wales, however it is still officially a symbol of the said constituent country, besides that, I think that it should be included like how the coat of arms are included in sovereign countries, where it is a niche symbol that is unfamiliar with their citizens although a national symbol in the meanwhile. PyroFloe (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

PyroFloe, you could put it in Wales#Government_and_politics or Wales#National_symbols_and_anthem, I suppose, with a reliable source, but I don't see the need to put it in at all, given that it features prominently in Politics_of_Wales. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Tony Holkham, I suppose we could just insert it under the National symbols of Wales heading for now. Even though I think that it should be included, I'll just respect your decision until someone brings it up again and hopefully it will be inserted in the infobox in the near future just like how the Netherlands, Curaçao, Aruba, and Sint Maarten as a constituent country of a Kingdom of the Netherlands has it's coat of arms in it's infobox. PyroFloe (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed before if you check. There is no reliable source which says it is anything more than a Royal Badge. There is a very brief BBC article but nothing which says it will always be used on Welsh Laws and even if it is used there that is all that could be set. We also resolved a long time ago that we would talk about countries not constituent countries by the way. Its on the Welsh Politics page, without better sourcing that is all we should do. -----Snowded ^TALK 15:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2021

The only official language of Wales is Welsh, de jure. In practice, English is a common language, but has no official status in Wales. 2600:1006:B050:CFCF:8516:C7E5:3A3C:1BDC (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

What do you think 'official' means? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I am fairly certain one can present arguments in English before the Cardiff Crown Court.--Creoda (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

What? Are you joking?? Have you read over Languages of Wales] and all it's sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Not wishing to be overly pedantic, but I know of no UK statute that assigns English as an official language in any part of the UK. I think it possible that the Welsh Government has assigned the formal status of Welsh as an official language in Wales, but I have not been able to locate such a statute. The reference used in Languages of Wales is to Official Languages Scheme, July 2013, a policy document about bilingualism in Welsh Government, but it cites no underpinning statutory powers. It is just possible that nowhere in the UK is there a statutorily defined "Official" language. With regard to the original question asked , I suspect that Martinevans123 was simply reacting with incredulity - of course both English and Welsh can be used in any court in Wales.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Your suspicions are wholly justified. As far as I know, court proceedings, in both England and Wales, are conducted in English. That's the norm. Section 22(1) of the Welsh Language Act 1993 provides that: "In any legal proceedings in Wales the Welsh language may be spoken by any party, witness or other person who desires to use it, subject in the case of proceedings in a court other than a Magistrates’ Court to such prior notice as may be required by rules of court; and any necessary provision for interpretation shall be made accordingly." Whether this has been superseded or amended by more recent legislation, I don't know. What I do know is that any "official communication" by means of printed material is written in English, typically with a Welsh translation second, lower down or on the reverse side. Martinevans123 (talk)

I’m assuming you’re referencing your many court summonses here, Martin! KJP1 (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

D'oh! Can't you keep your mouth shut KJP?! I thought those bargain windows were enough for you! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It’s brave of you, Martin, to publicly acknowledge your earlier transgressions, and to seek to repay your debt to society by ceaselessly contributing to Wikipedia. It’s like your own, personal, Toynbee Hall. I’m in awe. KJP1 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Ta, KJ. Yeah, me and Polly are bezzies. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

part of England

Although the Berwick act was repealed, Wales's status as a country seems mainly to be defined by what the seanadd says about itself, not an act of the UK parliament (which is what counts). It would seem that the governmental arrangements for Wales are really an English local government structure, providing a super-council (a la GLC) for the Welsh counties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfedanon (talk • contribs) 11:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM applies - along with other thoughts. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I assume you meant Senedd. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

And what's your point?--Creoda (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond trolling, nothing I think. Best ignored. KJP1 (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record: yes, the fourth section of the Welsh Language Act 1967 repealed the provision in Part 3 of the Wales and Berwick Act 1746 that the term "England" should include Wales. That's a simple legal fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Links added

I added links in Post-Roman era section: to Mercia, Anglesey, Northumbria, and Ceredigion articles, where those names were first mentioned in text of Wales article, and also link to homage (feudal) page when first used in Norman conquest section. For adults of UK these names and are known; for children and people from elsewhere they should/could be usefull, and I hope nobody objects. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• I also added a link to fascism; similarly, a link to description of meaning of staple industries would be welcome, but one that offers good description is actually about a historical merchant company Merchants of the Staple and does not quite fit here. Maybe someone else can find something better (or that page can be changed so definition is in a section and here that section is linked).

It is an excellent article and I came here to see how it is done, to make some others better in similar way. But I am not sure this is correct:

Various public and private sector bodies have adopted bilingualism to a varying degree and (since 2011) Welsh is the only official language in any part of the United Kingdom.[254]

English I learned up to now taught me the part of the statement I bolded would mean also that no other oficial language exists in any part of United Kingdom.

I have some slight doubt that is true because here and there in UK English seem to be official too? I tried to look into reference (Davies), but failed to do it online (up to now), so this is WP:OR, but could please a native speaker see if this sentence could be rephrased so an outsider like me wouldn't be confused? --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

-Marjan Tomki SI, it seems your last comment here is relevant to the thread immediately above. I wonder had you thought of splitting your comments to fit the two separate threads? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Have seen it addressed - and partly clarified - in section #Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2021. Part of it seems to have got a bit out of hand, so I wouldn't like to get much involved. Anyway, it would be nice if a consensus could be reached, and changes reflecing it made in apropriate section of the Wales article. Possibly, in the rephrased contents in question a link to Languages of the United Kingdom, where the phrase "de facto official" seem to be referenced to more than one WP reliable source, should be included. Regards, --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Largest denomination

Is the Church in Wales still the largest denomination? The figures here are from '08, and it seems to me the Catholics may have caught up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.224.45 (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021

There is a stray footnote in the Wales infobox:

| cctld = [[.wales]] [[.cymru]] {{ref label|footnote_f|f}}

which was never added. It was copied from Scotland's infobox which is also broken but with an appropriate note already in there, just with a technical error preventing it from linking successfully, as shown here:

| footnote_f = {{note|footnote_e}} .scot is not a [[ccTLD]], but a [[GeoTLD]], open to use by all people in Scotland and related to Scotland. [[.uk]] as part of the [[United Kingdom]] is also used. [[ISO 3166-1]] is [[Great Britain|GB]], but [[.gb]] is unused.

I suggest that the Wales infobox is edited with these changes:

| cctld = [[.wales]] [[.cymru]] {{ref label|footnote_a|a}}

| footnote_a = {{note|footnote_a}} Both .wales and .cymru is not a [[ccTLD]], but a [[GeoTLD]], open to use by all people in Wales and related to Wales. [[.uk]] as part of the [[United Kingdom]] is also used. [[ISO 3166-1]] is [[Great Britain|GB]], but [[.gb]] is unused.

This will fix the inconsistency on the infobox. - 49.147.235.23 (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done , nice catch, thank you!  A S U K I T E  00:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Blue Books/1847 Inquiry

Llywelyn2000, can you explain your edit summary please. I cannot see where the 'political pov' is in replacing the oblique Welsh-language nickname for the inquiry with its official name in English. And links to redirects are preferable to piped links per WP:NOPIPE. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It would seem to me that replacing the English form with the Welsh name is a political edit. It would be appropriate here to have the official name of the inquiry along with the English version of the nickname - both are relevant - the nickname in the Welsh language less so, though of course it does have a significance in this context. Geopersona (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Simply put: sources, sources and sources. It's always been referenced to as the Treachery of the Blue Books and not as the '1847 Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales'.

The term 'Treachery of the Blue Books' has well and truly been accepted into the English language, and is much more than a nickname, it's the common term used by all. All the sources that follow are English, not Welsh. And as per WP:UCRN: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used . Historian John Davies says in The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales that the name 'took hold of the public imagination to such an extent that ever since the report has been known by that name.' Other modern historians and academics who prefer to use this term include:

1. Frank Price Jones, 'The Blue Books of 1847', in Jac L. Williams and Gwilym, Rees Hughes, eds, The History of education in Wales (Swansea, 1978), 127-44.
2. Prys Morgan, 'From long knives to Blue Books', in R. R. Davies, Ralph A. Griffiths, Ieuan Gwynedd Jones and Kenneth O. Morgan, eds, Welsh society and nationhood: historical essays presented to Glanmor Williams (Cardiff, 1984), 199-215.
3. W. Gareth Evans, '"A barrier to moral progress and commercial prosperity": 150th anniversary of the Blue Books', Planet 123 (1997), 88-93.
4. Gwyneth Tyson Roberts, The Language of the Blue Books: the perfect instrument of empire (Cardiff, 1998).
5. Gwyneth Tyson Roberts and Owen Roberts; (Gwales, 1998)

Even the BBC refer to the 'Treachery/Treason of the Blue Books' here (2005) and here (2011), as does Sky History Channel website, and The National Library of Wales, hyperleap,com, and www.open.edu, and WCC here, and www.iwa.wales, and genuki.org.uk and www.educationengland.org.uk; HMI Today and Tomorrow (1970); London: Department of Education and Science 1970, and www.cambridge.org; The Church and Society.

Lastly, your attempt to change history and facts is a political act; you did the same with the COVID-19 Pandemic articles over a period of 1 year. The sources use Treachery of the Blue Books, Wikipedia should too. The report was written and published for the purpose of forming a compliant Welsh population; your edit was for the same purpose. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

No-one, I think, doubts that the term "Treachery of the Blue Books" is widely used as a common name for the publication of the 1847 report. However, Llywelyn2000's text prioritises the Welsh words Brad y Llyfrau Gleision, which is inappropriate for an English-language encyclopedia. Secondly, to many and perhaps most readers, the words "1847 Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales" are more obviously meaningful than the words "Treachery of the Blue Books". So, I support DeFacto's wording. Llywelyn2000 should avoid imputing motives to editors with whom they disagree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

If there was no English nickname, it might be justifiable. But this is English Wikipedia after all? So I tend to also agree with DeFacto. There's no mention at cy:Cymru? If "Treachery of the Blue Books" really is the "common name" there might be a case for WP:RM. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

??? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, of course. 1847 Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales is just a re-direct. So no need for any RM. I don't think we'll need Brad y Llyfrau Gleision as a redirect. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, WP:UCRN is only applicable to article titles, and not to how the item is referred to in other articles, so not applicable in this argument. To the uninitiated the 'common name' is meaningless and unhelpful in this article. The encyclopaedic approach is to use the official name first, and then perhaps the 'common name' in parenthesis, and then if it needs to be referred to again the 'common name' may be used if the context is clear - a bit like the way acronyms should be used. And I totally disagree with your POV that applying Wiki norms wrt POV, weight, advocacy, verifiability, language, clarity, etc. amounts to a 'political act'. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This deletion by DeFacto removes all reference to the most commonly used term ('Treachery of the Blue Books') altogether from the Welsh Not article. A direct link is preferred to an indirect link (which you created yourself here. Another example is this one, and this one where, once again, you give precedence to the unpopular, technical term, rather than the article title "Treachery of the Blue Books". So why are you doing this? Is the term "Treachery of the Blue Books" offensive to you, and maybe you're preparing to delete it from Wikipedia? Your explanation so far (justifying linking to a redirect rather than article name) falls short. Same here and here where you have removed all mention of treachery. To the uninitiated the 'technical name' of this act is meaningless and unhelpful. In the article on George Thomas Kenyon, the article only mentioned the Act's name, not the commonly used name (see my sources, above). So you decided not to help the reader by adding the words "Treachery of the Blue Books". Odd! Somehow, I do believe that this a part of a wider plan to rename the article with your preferred technical name. Lastly, re The encyclopaedic approach is to use the official name first; link to policy please. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we have the article titled Treachery of the Blue Books. And we have the redirect 1847 Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales. But the opening paragraph of the former does not mention the latter in those words. The first line is: "The Treachery of the Blue Books or Treason of the Blue Books (Welsh: Brad y Llyfrau Gleision) was the publication in 1847 of the three-volume Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales..." (both redirects to the article). Can we all agree this is all as it should be? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

To avoid any further confusion, on this talk page can we please limit ourselves to discussing this article? Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm too confused about how we should or should not be linking that article. But happy to discuss further at Talk:Treachery of the Blue Books. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Can we not agree to deploy both the official name of the inquiry and the name 'Treachery of the Blue Books' - to do so, surely permits anyone new to this topic to understand that the British government's support for schooling in English related to an inquiry that was held (it is not immediately obvious from the phrase 'Treachery of the Blue Books' that it was an inquiry), and that they are further enabled to understand that the inquiry and report have since been regarded in a particular way. The text currently has it thus: State and local governmental edicts resulted in schooling in the English language which, following Brad y Llyfrau Gleision (the Treachery of the Blue Books), was seen as more academic and worthwhile for children. For a reader coming fresh to this topic, it would make sense to read that the said edicts related to an inquiry, which the reader could be expected to want to know the name of. That reader would also be grateful to learn that the inquiry (rightly in the opinion of many) acquired a pejorative nickname, which we can surely all acknowledge is widely used for this episode of Welsh history. If greater interest is sparked in the reader, then more information is available by following the link in the usual fashion. It was the inquiry and the consequent report which strengthened the view of the British government that schooling in English was preferable, not the furore which then ensued. I'd suggest: State and local governmental edicts resulted in schooling in the English language which, following the 1847 Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales - an event subsequently referred to as the Treachery of the Blue Books (Welsh: 'Brad y Llyfrau Gleision') - was seen as more academic and worthwhile for children. (though we might also ask/clarify 'seen by whom?') I await argument against this proposal but please let's all assume good faith on the part of each of the experienced editors engaged in discussion here. Geopersona (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, we should use both terms wherever practicable. As I understand it, there are, effectively, edit wars going on, across several articles - editors on this page insisting that only the Welsh terminology should be used, and editors over at Welsh not insisting that only the official English terminology should be used. Editors need to try to put their personal viewpoints to one side, and reflect on what is best for (predominantly English-language) readers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll repeat: sources, sources, sources. Using the technical version (Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales) goes against the sources, and usage in the real world, and is the start of mass rewriting Welsh of history, bit by bit. John Davies' statement trumps all. 17:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with Geopersona with his suggested wording, which uses both forms. This dual wording should also be use in links from other articles. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, except this talkpage doesn't apply to any articles other than this one, they each have their own talkpages and, potentially, a different set of editors with different views to those here. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The recent use of the technical term continues here. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Ref check please

Can someone double-check that the following sentence from the article is verifiable from the cited source please. The pages I got hold of for checking that cite were about the Rebecca Riots and provision of roads! Did I get the wrong pages, or is the cite wrong?

State and local governmental edicts resulted in schooling in the English language which, following the 1847 Inquiry into the State of Education in Wales - an event subsequently referred to as the Treachery of the Blue Books (Welsh: Brad y Llyfrau Gleision) - was seen as more academic and worthwhile for children.

References

Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Cardiff street today - Prince Charles - Wales Doesn't Need a Prince (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Population

The population of Wales 2021 is now at around 3,247,165 people Cymraeg Defnyddiwr (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source? I see that in ukpopulation.org, but that's an estimate.--Creoda (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Wales

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Cymraeg Defnyddiwr (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Would someone please add Cymraeg as the official language or at least put Welsh in brackets after it. Why must I read a translation of my official language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.118.135 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2022

MossW268 (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC) Change the anthem audio file to this version: National Anthem of Wales- Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau (Instrumental)

 Not done Why? And could you like to the upload page please? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

(Marked as closed) Bsoyka (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"Pays de Galles" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pays de Galles and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26#Pays de Galles until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bonoahx (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2022

The population of Wales is approximately 3,063,450 in 2022 Babapp (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Source? Titus Gold (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DankJae (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022

I request the part that supports that Wales Is a country whilst is a region/state of the UK is being changes cause is a misleading information as you can also see in The United Nations (UN) that support Wales is not a country 176.58.193.103 (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

What's your source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Wales is a country.

Look at the International Standards Organisation; Wales is classed as a country.

This topic has already been resolved, see below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wales/Archive_country_poll Titus Gold (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

I feel the edits recently have not improved the article. In my opinion they have broken each section up into too many multiple sub sections (many are now just short single paragraphs - some which seem not overly relevant like funding), introduced information not appropriate for an overview article, added items too recent for a country with a long history, increased the length of an already bloated article and made the whole thing a lot less readable. I did some editing, but feel it may be best to revert back to this April version. Thought it better to seek outside opinions before removing all the work, done mostly by Titus Gold. Aircorn (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not make large reverts. If you wish to make some specific changes, please suggest them. I agree that certain sections need to be reduced. I have just amalgamated many sub-headings based on your feedback. Please let me know if you have any further feedback after reviewing the new changes. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

On a high level view a shift from a 80kb 37 section page to a 82kb 41 section page is movement in the wrong direction. Looking more specifically, the changes are hard to parse in some areas (especially History and Culture), but from what is easily comparable the edits appear to be written towards a certain slant regarding Welsh independence, from the removal of helpful links to UK articles to explicitly adding an undue mention of Welsh independence in the lead (and lots of links to new articles that have been created by copying over text from UK articles, which perhaps should be discussed elsewhere). Other lead prose changes also seem a bit undue or redundant. The image rearrangements throughout should certainly be reverted as they will cause (even more) WP:ACCESS issues, and [[Category:Articles containing Welsh-language text]] has popped up in the body somehow. The removal of "Wales" from the history subheaders should be kept. The Government and Politics changes see, in addition to the tonal shifts mentioned, a removal of the text section altogether which gives the impression there is no overview to be had. International relations is a quirky subsection to add there, and is very undue. The only change to the Population History subsection was the removal of mention of Black British people, which seems odd although I note that part is terribly sourced as it is. The language changes positively remove a lot of undue information on the Welsh language better suited for the other articles, although perhaps some should still be left in as an introduction for the general reader before diving straight into bilingualism. The only change in Visual arts was to remove the mention of the first British landscapist and replacing it with an undue quote which doesn't say much. The changes to National Symbols were purely to remove mention of the word "British" and to similarly remove mention of God Save the Queen. CMD (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

- There were vast deficiencies in Wales specific articles and the Wales had a significant lack of links to articles specifically on Wales. These pages were linked in hat notes under the relevant headings. Some of the pages are new and are currently being worked on. I do think these additions are particularly useful for information on Wales.

- There is only one sentence in the lead about the independence movement, which was a necessary update (as was the sentence on Welsh football). If you would prefer any of the lead was more condensed, I am happy to help with that with specific suggestions.

- With regards to reducing the number of images: I will have a look at this shortly. Please suggest specific images to remove or change.

- I will shortly radically condense the international relations section based on your feedback. This sub-section was inspired by the Scotland page.

- I agree that the text on Black people in Wales was poorly referenced and I am happy to help replace that with well referenced text on ethnic diversity in Wales. This is definitely worth mentioning.

Thanks again for the feedback, much appreciated. Titus Gold (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok I see someone has noticed all the odd problems aswell....best restore to GA status version and look at what can be re-introduced. Would be an overwhelming amount of edits to fix curent problems.Moxy- 01:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not make this restore, this would undo a significant amount of work. I've just addressed virtually all of this feedback. Please have a look at the edits. Thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The April version you've suggested has far more sub-headings than the current version. The current version is far better, particularly following improvements based on your feedback and recommendations. Titus Gold (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This a WP:Good article written in a WP:Summary article style that conforms with our WP: accessibility as outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. GA level articles are hard to edit especially for newer editors. So far we have 3 experienced editors looking at this with concerns. How many edits are we looking at ....200? Regardless of the national fluff and over details, we have basic accessibility problems as outlined MOS:IMAGESIZE MOS:IMAGELOC....let alone the amount.Moxy- 01:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with the images, however, I will address any points you have. They are all on the right-hand side now. I will make some slightly larger images smaller imminently. Thanks for mentioning it. Titus Gold (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I've reduced the number of images, tidied them up and reduced the size of a few larger ones. Are there other specific accessibility-related matters you want me to address? I'm happy to do so. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

As my feedback has been brought up here, I would note that it has not been addressed. The accessibility and pov problems in particular remain mostly untouched. CMD (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. What in particular are you referring to? Can you quote or mention specific sub-headings or paragraphs you think might need improvement? Since the page is titled Wales, it's important to stay on topic. There are numerous references to, and links to UK and other relevant UK wide bodies for UK content. Do you wish me to include a few more links to UK wide pages? Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I specifically mentioned a couple of items above, which remain unaddressed. Given that, I am not inclined to look through 200 edits whose edit summaries do not state much more than "tweaked" or "tweaking". To be explicit, edits made simply to remove mention of the UK or links to UK articles are detrimental to readers and to the page. CMD (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Addressed based on your feedback

- I have addressed images size, number etc. (please let me known if you require further work on them)

- I have added ethnic diversity and black community detail

- Reduced the number of sub-headings and headings throughout the article

- Introduced politics intro

- Deleted section on foreign policy

- All the info I have ever added on this page is referenced, relevant and factual (please let me know if there's any content that needs improving)

Other improvements based on your feedback?

- I'm happy to reintroduce "god save the queen" although this isn't the Welsh anthem so not sure what the issue is there: seems like content for the UK page

- I just want to clarify that hat notes to a particular matter on a UK wide scale was simply replaced with a similar page specific to Wales e.g Early modern period in Wales, Industrial revolution in Wales, Climate of Wales, Flora of Wales. I think these are valuable links to the matters on Wales and allow easier accessibility to those topics related to Wales. There are still plenty of references to the UK and UK government etc. in the article of course.

Please let me know if there's anything I've missed or any other query. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Titus Gold might you suspend your editing of this article whilst consideration is given to whether it would be better to revert the large number of edits that you have made, some with inadequate edit summaries, which make it laborious to sort the wheat from the chaff? Looking forward to your further collaboration.SovalValtos (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I'll hold off until I am given more feedback. Titus Gold (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Titus you appear very keen and knowledgeable about this topic and I am sorry no one commented on this before you made so many edits. You are a new editor so I don't really want to dissuade you from continuing editing here. With broad topics, like all country articles, it is best to keep them in an overview state. This article should contain a summary of all the important information about Wales. The detail will go into another article which is easily linked from here. Therefore every section in this article will contain a {{main}} linking to these articles and those will contain further {{main}}s linking to even more detailed articles. That way someone can follow the article down the line to whatever details they want.

A lot of effort was put into getting this article up to a reasonable standard (it has been rated as good). As such it is an article that has already been well developed. That doesn't mean it can't be improved, it just means that care has to be taken. The best way to improve this article is not to add information, but to remove information. Or more specifically move the information to the sub articles if it is not already there. It barely survived a reassessment because it was getting too detailed so adding further information (especially stuff like the now removed COVID section) is actually moving it in the wrong direction.

I don't really want to comment on the nationalism issues raised by CMD, beyond saying that the are the best editor I have come across when it comes to country articles so their concerns carry weight. Moxy is also very experienced with articles here and is completely right about the images. You probably need to remove about half of them. When I am reviewing images I tend to focus on removing any that are not mentioned in text. The version I suggested reverting to is not perfect, in fact it could do with some dedicated work, and I feel given your willingness to listen to feedback you could improve it. Its just that your recent edits have tended to compound some of the issues. Aircorn (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the fair and constructive comments. It was fair to bring up the much needed recommendations and I feel that they have virtually been addressed now.

Currently, the article mentions UK 67 times, United Kingdom 28 times, Britain 44 times, British 11 times and Great Britain 11 times. The article always links to relevant UK bodies or organisation where relevant, so I don't think there is an issue at all in this regard. All content on Welsh devolution for example is factual and unbiased, and the Welsh independence movement is only given a mere 4 sentences, again all factual.

I agree that information needs to be reduced, and I'm committed to doing this as soon as you give me the thumbs up do to so. I have very good knowledge of Welsh history and Wales in general and so I'm happy to help cut sections down to summarise better.

If you actually look at the April version, it has more headings and images (particularly ones on the left side) than the current version, in part because I have addressed your valuable feedback.

Like I said, your initial comments were entirely valid, but I think only issue that really remains is to cut down on the volume of text a little.

Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Having worked on this, with Tony, at the last GAR, my conclusion is that we should revert to the April version. The key point is Aircorn’s - we’ve moved to a more verbose, fragmented, article, when we should be looking to summarise. But I am also concerned by Titus Gold’s perspective. Being blunt, I think there is a clear Welsh Nat view which impacts on the neutrality of their edits. This is hard to pin down, due to the multiplicity of their edits with very limited edit summaries, but it is certainly there. On balance, I’d favour a revert to the April version, and then we can discuss intended improvements here. KJP1 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fair that specific remaining issues sand quotations of text should be cited to warrant a huge revert would kindly ask you to quote any content.

The article is about Wales. I have not removed any cited relevant content about Wales or added any any biased content. All content is all factual and is specifially about Wales, obviously as it should be. The aspect of Welsh dolution for example has been the dominant aspect of Welsh politics for at least 23 years and was a major change and aspect of Welsh history in the 20th century. Like I said, if you would like to re-introduce god save the queen (as this seems to be the only quoted issue), I am happy to put it back, but again this is a UK anthem, whereas this page is specifically about Wales. Rather than revert a mountain of good work, I would suggest specifing any specific issues in the article that remain in the newest version.

(There are actually more subheadings in the April versions, which would make the April versions more fragmented than current.)

Thanks again for your time and feedback. Titus Gold (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

P.S I have today made the article as far away from "fragmented" as I can, with further amalgamations and sub-heading removals based on your valuable feedback.I have also for the first time trimmed away excess details form multiple headings to address your point about excess text which now has less bytes than the April verison. Please have a look at the current version. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I have mentioned specific issues and linked to a couple of diffs already (although Moxy has dealt with one in a much better solution). The images still remain less well distributed than in the 20 April version (not that the 20 April version is by any means a good standard, improving on it should be a goal). What hasn't been given here so far is an explanation of what changes were made, and why. That would be helpful, especially as the overall diff is very hard to parse, and there are myriad individual edits. CMD (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Just had a detailed look through the difference between the current and April. The current version contains far less sub-headings and contains fewer images, and less overall bytes and text so no issues there. I can continue to reduce no. of images and bulk of text if you would like. Please quote any hint of bias in the article and I will immediately address. Perhaps there was unintended bias towards UK wide information rather than Wales specific information prior to April. I would suggest that a biased view is hard to pin down because there is no evident bias, only inclusion of factual, well-referenced information, specifically about Wales, relating well to the actual title of the article.

Explanation for three edits that use the word "British" include:

1. God save the queen: This anthem is not currently used in Wales in any major sporting tournament or ceremonies as far as I am aware. E.g, Six nations or Welsh football matches: "Land of my fathers" is played only. When Geraint Thomas won the Tour de France, god save the queen was played in Paris because he was part of team "SKY", but "The land of my fathers" was played when he returned to Wales. Team GB uses god save the queen obviously, but again this is a UK wide anthem. There may be an argument to reintroduce God save the queen if you would like me to do this.

2. Landscape artist quote: "Richard Wilson (1714–1782) described in the Welsh Academy Encyclopedia of Wales as the "most distinguished painter Wales has ever produced and the first to appreciate the aesthetic possibilities of his country". Although more notable for his Italian scenes, he painted several Welsh scenes on visits from London. By the late 18th century, the popularity of landscape art grew and clients were found in the larger Welsh towns, allowing more Welsh artists to stay in their homeland. Artists from outside Wales were also drawn to paint Welsh scenery, at first because of the Celtic Revival." I think this is a far better account of his work and describes what exactly he did for/in Wales, relating to the title of the article.

3. "British pound" replaced with "Pound sterling" which is the official title of the currency. No issue there.

Thanks again for the valuable feedback. Let me know if you want me to address anything else. Titus Gold (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Conversation will not go far if you pre-empt a conclusion as part of the argument. Given no explanation of what the changes were and why they were made, I am inclined to roll back per the consensus of others here. CMD (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I've literally outlined the changes and explanations previously in the comments above. Please have a read. The main significant change was the inclusion of links to Wales specific pages for better access to information on Wales (again I mentioned this earlier). I've explained everything you've asked me to explain. Please let me know specifically what else you want me to explain, if anything. Thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You're saying the main significant change of all this was the inclusion of links to Wales specific pages? CMD (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The revisions comparison here is of the 20th of April and the 25th of May. The article has been significantly tidied and improved since the 25th of May, partly due to your valuable feedback. Have a look at the current version of the article, it's far better. If you want me to explain edits between 20th of April and today, 4th of June, I can do that for you? Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The revision comparison given is the one that started this discussion, and one which clearly does not have consensus. You are of course welcome to explain any edits, be they before or after the 25th of May. CMD (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'm glad you've brought this up, but it's not particularly relevant now since the article is much improved since the 25th of May, thanks to the valuable feedback. If there are any specific issues with the current version of the article I'm happy to address them. Titus Gold (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Titus Gold, what you were asked for in this thread is an explanation of your edits since 20 April. Instead you made further changes to the article supposedly in response to feedback. Effectively you now say it’s not relevant to answer the original question because of all the “improvements” you’ve subsequently made. The only answer you’ve given is that you’ve added links to Wales-soecific pages. Your replies in thus thread appear to be disingenuous and obfuscation. That makes others difficult to AGF what you have done. You need to give an explanation of hiw the article differs as it was on 20 April and today. Forget the intermediate steps. DeCausa (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that's no problem.

Old edits explanation:

Line 64 subheading

Population estimate updated here.

Line 94 subheading

Clarifying all surrounding seas for geographical accuracy.

Later explained the change in devolution since the turn of the millennium and a brief explanation of independence movement which has evolved more recently.

Just some subtle rewording, used "UK" instead of "Great Britain" for similarities that was discussed in both a cultural AND political context.

Added mention of national football side.

Line 160 subheading

Clarified the circumstance of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd death and also his brother Dafydd who was technically the last independent Prince of Wales of that period. Circumstances and nature of the deaths was not clear or mentioned previously.

Early modern period and industrialisation

This is not new content or paragraph. Think this is just highlighted because of spacing/paragraphing.

History of the Welsh language

Just changed the multiple sub-headings here to one single subheading for readability, accessibility and better flow.

Politics

I grouped into Senedd politics and Westminster politics because they are separate systems, to avoid confusion. Since this version I have subsequently added an introduction which summaries and clarifies Welsh politics as a whole and refers to both systems.

I added a paragraph on international relations after looking at the Scotland article as a comparison, which has subheading for this and far more content. However, based on your feedback I then removed this.

Law

Grouped into historical and current to avoid confusion. However following your recommendations to reduce the number of sub-headings this has been reverted to previous.

Police and military

Added a brief mention to Military activity in Wales as this was not previously mentioned. Later grouped Police and Military together because they were small paragraphs.

Climate and environment

Changed heading from "Climate" to "Climate and environment" because there is content on the environment below also.

Wildlife

Heading simplified, made more understandable for lay persons and the content only refers to wildlife, not agricultural animal for example. I can change this back to "Flora and fauna' if you like.

Paragraph on Snowdonia

This is just a separation into two paragraphs. Nothing added or removed.

Lampeter campus

Again, just pressed return for a new paragraph. Nothing added or removed.

Black Welsh people

This sentence had a dead link and so sentence removed. This has subsequently been replaced with content on Black people in Wales, the Tiger Bay community and is also well referenced.

Language

This paragraph about the history of the Welsh language was moved to the history section because it was more suited to that section. The language section here is now more aptly focused on demographics etc.

Welsh painter Richard Wilson

Replaced previous vague sentence with a sentence that clarified his impact and how he is held in high regard as well as his role in the appreciation of landscape in Wales.

GSTQ

Removed sentence on GSTQ because the citation refers to the history of Land of my Fathers and does not mention any current use of GTSQ. Here is the citation that was used:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/music/sites/anthem/pages/anthem-background.shtml

Currency

Corrected from British pound to pound sterling, which is the official term.

Sport

Moved sport separately from culture as it is in some country articles. However I moved this back after your feedback about too many headings.

Subheading of Music: Traditional festivals and music

This subheading seemed to nicely group together the traditional aspects of Welsh music and dance , e,g Eisteddfod, traditional music, traditional dance, traditional step-dance. However, following your feedback I also removed this sub-heading.

Latter content of article

Some headings switched around for better grouping of related headings and better flow.

General: Paragraphing, paragraph spacing. Added/edited multiple hat-notes to articles specifically on Wales. Easy of accessibility to Wales related topics is now vastly improved.

Hope this is ok for you. Let me know if you require anything else. Thanks for your time in reviewing the article, I actually think your feedback has helped improve it even further. Titus Gold (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Restore article?

Not sure what we should do here. Should we restore the article? Do a GA review? Wondering if its worth my time to fix all the images? @Aircorn: - @Chipmunkdavis: - @KJP1: - @DeCausa: - @Ghmyrtle: - @Deb: Moxy- 14:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not interested in an edit war with someone not willing to read our guidelines. Not sure worth all the work over simple revert and a few fixes. Not sure why something simple like MOS:IMAGESIZE can't be followed. Accessibility should be the primary concern. Moxy- 23:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

What's the issue with the images? Do you want them all below 220px width is that it? I'm happy to address that? Titus Gold (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

For the 5th time pls review MOS:IMAGELOC and MOS:IMAGESIZE.....PLS DON'T USE ANY PIXEL SIZE..just read the links. A GA level article is not the place to learn the basics. Voting for full revert....so less time wasted Moxy- 00:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I have previously read both links, yes, and I am now reviewing them again. I have just checked the article on a mobile device also for accessibility and made three image location corrections. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I can't see any other issues. Anything else required? Titus Gold (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

OK not sure I can make this more clear.... keeping in mind ww are talking about just images. many more aspects to a GA level article than that need to be addressed now. Do not use pixel size as in [[File:I just changed|upright|caption...= photo description for the visually impaired].]] not [[File:I just changed|189px 186px|caption....|alt= photo description for the visually impaired]. Pls use upright parameter as explained at MOS:IMAGESIZE. Again one of many concerns that no longer meet GA requirements in the article. Moxy- 00:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I apologise about the upright parameter. I will do my best to address this for you. Titus Gold (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Just finished addressing the images. Used upright parameter on all of them. Thanks for pointing that out. Any other improvements you want me to make on the page? Titus Gold (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't keep up with all these changes. Is it time for a halt, and a peer review? Just wondering. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I had hoped there would be a halt after seeing this edit [4] from Titus Gold but I have been disappointed. I could do a simple undo to the start of the problem edits in late April 2022 but would prefer to leave the next step to a more competent editor than myself.SovalValtos (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I responded and agreed to a request to pause edits by saying "No problem. I'll hold off until I am given more feedback." Since then editors have kindly provided more valuable feedback. In response to that additional feedback, I made their desired improvements and other editors have also made good edits to the article. I'm more than happy to halt once again. All feedback has been addressed as far as I am aware. Thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we restore the April version, and ask TG to discuss any major intended changes/additions here. KJP1 (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Titus Gold's obviously enthusiastic endeavours on this and many other Wales-related articles has made it virtually impossible for any other editors to keep pace with, and review, the changes they have made - some of which are very good, and others perhaps less so. Restoring to an earlier version here, and reviewing methodically on a section-by-section basis in order to achieve consensus, seems like the best approach. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer a review of the current article if this is doable because I think the current version is better than the suggested restore. Otherwise, if the article is restored, many small improvements I have made will just be undone, and i'll have to re-so them again (minus the one or two not so good edits I made of course). Try to make your mind up soon as this is going on a bit! Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S You may be relieved to hear that I have addressed the vast majority of deficiencies that I wanted to tackle in Wales related pages. As a result, the speed of work will likely be far lower from now on. Titus Gold (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

One change in the past month has been this sentence added to the end of the second paragraph: " A stronger movement for Welsh independence emerged around 2017 and pro-independence groups have gained popularity in the 21st century, although independence is not currently supported by a majority in Wales." I dont think thats appropriate or accurate at all for the introduction. Where is the evidence to back up 2017 as a turning point so noteworthy it gets mentioned in the intro of the country article? This sounds more like its just promoting a new campaign group established then with very limited support. And the way its worded that its "not currently supported".... gives the impression that position will change in time. Its also a bit short termism. if a single poll said a majority supported separation would we have to change the introduction? Not even the Scotland article mentions support for separation relative to polls in the introduction, it only rightly mentions the referendum.

I think that sentence should be removed from the end of paragraph two, its unnecessary, one sided, speculative and not clearly defined. The paragraph is already quite large even without it, i think that paragraph was better worded before all the recent changes over the past month. Also previously that paragraph made clear the Welsh Parliament was previously known as an Assembly, an important clarification and fact that may avoid confusion. it is technically incorrect to say (as the introduction currently does) that the Welsh parliament was formed in 1999. It wasnt. An Assembly was formed in 1999 that later became the Welsh parliament. Considering this is currently listed as a good article, im not sure if it would have passed that rating if these and possibly some of the other issues existed at the time. RWB2020 (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct. It was called the Assembly at that time but is currently known as the Parliament. The emergence of the independence movement is hard to define but 2017 is based on the Welsh independence page and calls for a discussion following the Scottish referendum. I agree that adding a citation here and clarification of the name change would be justified. I'm happy to make these clarifications? Titus Gold (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The above suggestions would, in fact, do nothing to address User:RWB2020’s central point. But they, and the contended sentence in the lead, are typical of the Welsh Nat POV that drives TG’s edits. The claim is not even supported in the body of the article, which shows a drop in support for independence 20221-2022. This is a clear illustration of why I continue to favour a restoration of the earlier version of the article. KJP1 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, Titus Gold, when you say “2017 is based on the Welsh independence page” what exactly are you claiming? Because there’s nothing, at least cited to an RS, in that article that supports that except someone has created a WP:SYNTH heading “Welsh independence movement gains momentum” which is not justified by what’s in the section. Oh look it was you! DeCausa (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it would be wise to base a large restoration on one single sentence and "Welsh parliament". Rather than wasting time criticising this single sentence which could be improved immediately by any of us, I would suggest that other editors assisted me in continuing to review and improve the article, rather than leaving an article to become stale and out of date, which it was before my edits began.

If you read Welsh independence, "The modern independence movement emerged following the announcement in 2017 of plans to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence, Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood said there needed to be a national debate on Welsh independence." The only reason I didn't cite this was because virtually nothing else was cited in the intro.

https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/15152790.wales-needs-to-debate-independence-says-plaid-cymru-leader-leanne-wood-after-scotland-referendum-call/

You do raise an entirely valid point and perhaps 2013-2020 would be more accurate descriptor of the increase in support based on the polls on the Welsh independence page. perhaps it would be better to just mention the current level of support for independence or the peak of support.

https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2021-03-04/poll-reveals-highest-support-for-welsh-independence-ever-recorded

I'm more than happy for others to cite or change this sentence if unhappy. A healthy debate is a good thing, but not a pile on. It seems this single sentence is the only remaining need for clarification. Thanks for your time all. Titus Gold (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

No, this is just an example which brings into question your whole editing approach. To go back to the example. The sentence in Welsh independence that you quote, The modern independence movement emerged following the announcement in 2017 of plans to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence, Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood… is not supported by the citation to the South Wales Argus. That’s just reporting Plaid Cymru claims and announcements. There’;s nothing that could justify “The modern independence movement emerged following the announcement in 2017 of…” So, this claim of yours that 2017 was some sort of turning point for the independence movement has no basis either in this article or in that one. Did you add the text cited to the Argus to the independence article? You say I don't think it would be wise to base a large restoration on one single sentence and "Welsh parliament". No, a large restoration would be based on a lack of confidence in either the adequacy of your understanding of WP policy or your NPOV, as illustrated by these examples. What the other editors in this thread have been saying is they don’t know what else has similar problems that’s been added in the last 2 months. DeCausa (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I wrote that original sentence on the Welsh independence page or not. Usually, I add my references but because there is nothing else referenced in the intro I didn't include it, perhaps I should have and I have improved in following procedure on this page since this edit. I was simply trying to define the emergence of the modern movement which is perhaps difficult to define in one year. I think this was the first time that Plaid Cymru was genuinely pursuing a debate on Welsh independence in Welsh politics so it could indeed be seen as a turning point, but it does need further clarification in terms of support, you're right. Again, there's no need to fully restore an article based on one contended sentence. Have a read of the edits explanation I made above, which summarises all the other changes. Thanks for your time. Titus Gold (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Permission to apply your constructive criticism to the article? It seems there have been some recent edits by other users. Titus Gold (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I am now restoring the article to 20 April 2022 as I do not want to delay further. I see disquiet at TG's edits since then which have had little support and some consider have degraded a GA.SovalValtos (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Wales: recent edits

Moved from User talk:DeFacto

I don't think it was necessary or appropriate to revert masses of edits some of which I don't think were mine. Moxy clearly did not read through them all. I apologise I had to revert some of your edits in the process. Moxy needs to undo specific edits not masses of them. I am happy to to address specific edits in the talk page. I am also happy to help implement any of your proposed edits. Thanks.Titus Gold (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Moxy's "string of edits' was massive in comparison to mine by the way. Please have a look at what he/she reverted. Masses of good work. Titus Gold (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Then you should have concentrated on just those, and not everyone else's. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You reverted the edits of several editors, including three of mine, which I think was unnecessary. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I did attempt to revert Moxy's massive revert only but the system would not allow so I had no choice but to revert other edits that followed Moxy's massive revert. Titus Gold (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Article changes after major revert June 2022

I have just introduced some Wales specific hatnotes. Please review, thanks.Titus Gold (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

National rugby and football teams Welsh identity. Please review, thanks.Titus Gold (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Celtic sea to the south west in intro. Please review, thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Amalgamated and tidied historical sub-headings. Please review, thanks.Titus Gold (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Pre and roman era history: Removed one image and moved three other images from left to right. Please review, thanks.Titus Gold (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Political: Summary intro improved. Sub heading of political responsibilities re-named "Westminster" and "Senedd" and text arranged accordingly. Hat notes moved to appropriate sub-headings. Please review, thanks.Titus Gold (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Removed "God save the Queen" sentence because the citation does not mention use of God Save the Queen. The citation is about the history of "Land of my Fathers" only. Please review, thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for asking for a review of your edits. Perhaps you could wait a week or two for other editors to respond before making further edits? I for one will not have time this week to look at the 20+ edits you made yesterday to see if I consider them beneficial. There is no rush. Meanwhile you could form and share your view of how this GA could be developed towards FA to see if there is consensus for your approach?SovalValtos (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

"Police and military" sub-heading formed. Titus Gold (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I will halt until the 22nd of June. Titus Gold (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Images tidied and formatted as was previously requested. Some added and some deleted. May still require some further improvements.Titus Gold (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

A few clarifications of superficial aspects of the introduction. Titus Gold (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Given the above discussions where similar topics were raised, do you really think these changes are "superficial"? CMD (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

What I mean is that some important aspects of the intro were superficial and missed key details. I've added some details and clarification without bulking up the intro. Titus Gold (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Key details like “killing by English soldiers”/“due to English cultural oppression”. I’ve tried to AGF, but your bias is very obvious. KJP1 (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

1. The killing of Llywelyn's description is factually accurate. Not mentioning Llywelyn's cause of death is misleading.

2. You mention a fair point here because there may have been other factors influencing Welsh language decline. I've made an edit outlining specific reasons rather than the vague statement that I previously included. You're welcome to make further suggestions about this point. Cheers! Titus Gold (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Tidied and rearranged "Welsh language" under the history section, "Languages" under the demographics section and clarified reasons for demographic change in language in the intro section. Titus Gold (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Halting for 7 days (until 29th). Please review the edits. Titus Gold (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The lead changes remain POV, and some unexplained. No matter what the content of your other edits, continuing to push a POV despite the previous discussion is liable to see your edits all reverted again. Adding a military subheader is also quite undue. CMD (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If you don't think the changes in the lead are accurate and factual, feel free to revert them. (Please avoid reverting anything else in the process). Titus Gold (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not willing to take it on faith that the edits to the rest of the article are good, given the problems around the edits to the very start of the article, and previous issues with the body in the last glut of edits. CMD (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thinking topic ban.....or limit to a few edits a week on welsh topics. We should really take the time and review other additions to other pages. How much more anti British POV has been added to other articles? Moxy- 02:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

A good place to start would be David Lloyd George, and its Talkpage, where there’s an ongoing issue with TG wanting to insert mention of LlG’s being Welsh into every other sentence. KJP1 (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree but this talk page is becoming too much about the behaviour of one editor - that's really ANI territory. But to ignore my own advice for one moment...I'm astonished, after all that's been said previously, by TG's inclusion and defence of the “killing by English soldiers”/“due to English cultural oppression” points raised above. If TG cannot see that both fail encyclopedic tone so badly that they adversely impact NPOV (regardless of "truth") there's no hope for him. As it is, they are also inaccurate. The conquest of Wales was not completed with Llywelyn's death. The war went on for 6 more months under his brother Dafydd. During this time significant military actions took place including the invasion and conquest of Gwynedd and the capture of Dolwyddelan Castle. It seems to me the phrase "killing by English soldiers" was deliberately and inaccurately shoe-horned in to the lead to associate the end of Welsh independence with a "heroic" last stand with a subliminal martyrdom hint. I've removed the reference to the conquest being "completed" with Llywelyn's death. As for "English cultural oppression", I don't think that needs any further comment. DeCausa (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I only make edits that are factual. I cited the language decline with a BBC article, a British organisation. Titus Gold (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies to some of the other editors about reverts. Moxy made massive reverts rather than undoing specific edits that he/she did not like. I'm happy to help to re-include with some of these recent edits and respond to any feedback of my own edits. Cheers Titus Gold (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Titus Gold, that string of reverts was unacceptable, and I've rolled them back. Your changes were challenged, and as such it was okay to revert them. You need to bring your case to the talkpage now, and explain the changes you want to make, and see if you can get a consensus for them, and not edit war back in without doing that. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Was the best solution to the apparent problem of Moxy making "massive reverts rather than undoing specific edits" really to make a massive revert rather than undoing specific edits? CMD (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The system would not allow it, unfortunately. I made upwards of 40 edits and I believe other editors also made edits during this period, so was a massive unnecessary revert. I couldn't sort it any other way I'm afraid. Titus Gold (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

If you can work a way for all our edits to remain, please free to implement that. Moxy has caused much hassle here. Titus Gold (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Titus Gold: you really need to back off from this article. It's now impossible to follow what's going on. You've mixed reverts with new changes. I think you need to stop editing this article for a few days and let others sort it out. DeCausa (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I still think Wikipedia:Peer review is a good idea, especially now the discussion is being split up (see below). Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

He has now ripped up an article on British Baseball and turned it into article just about Welsh Baseball, whilst creating a new page for English baseball. Sorry but it is impossible to assume good faith with this editor. So many of their edits reek of an anti British political agenda and clear bias. It is not just this article hes making a mess of. RWB2020 (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

RWB2020, that's irrelevant to this talk page, and I have already talked with another editor about the Welsh baseball page who was happy about it. I carefully separated that article into Welsh baseball and English baseball which have separate origins. The article was part of the Welsh culture series and thus should be based on Wales only. Common sense - look at [[Welsh rugby Football in Wales, cnapan, bando,Welsh handball: all Welsh-only articles. Please stop this silly argumentative approach. Titus Gold (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm taking a break from the Wales page and am looking forward to seeing other editors make improvements and reviews to the Wales article, and hopefully at a reasonable pace. Cheers Titus Gold (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

!!! Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Break away

I read over this article & tbh, I can't figure out when Wales broke away from England. I know they're two separate entities within the United Kingdom, but when exactly did this happen. Is there an exact date, is what I'm asking. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "when Wales broke away from England". Do you mean: "The Welsh Language Act 1967 repealed a section of the Wales and Berwick Act and thus "Wales" was no longer part of the legal definition of England"; or, do you mean "The National Assembly for Wales (Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru) was set up in 1999..."? There is no "exact date" - there are many dates. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I reckon 1967, would be the date. GoodDay (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

What’s the purpose of the question? What are you trying to add into the article? Various specific things happened in the relationship between England and Wales. Anything could be argued from none of them constituting “breaking away” (except in relation to particular matters) to Wales was always a separate “entity” anyway. For example, "1967" was quite a technical "narrow" change to do specifically with statutory interpretation which may, in retrospect, be seen as a milestone (more symbolic than anything) in a journey, but wasn't a structural constitutional change. It’s not a relevant question as a general concept without context and I don’t think you’ll find sources using it in that sort of unexplained way. I don’t see how it woukd lead to anything being added or changed in the article. DeCausa (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Ghmrytle's help. There's nothing to add or delete from the page, concerning the topic. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Charles, Prince of Wales.

Here in Wikipedia, we always add even ceremonial leaders, who may hold the highest office, de jure or de facto, in an area. Since Prince Charles is the Prince of Wales, should we add Prince Charles in the leaders' section in the infobox under the title of "Prince"?

I personally feel like you should, but what do you all say? GucciNuzayer (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

If you can find a source that says he's the "ceremonial leader" of Wales then that can be discussed. I don't think you'll find one though. It's a title with no specific role in Wales, ceremonial or otherwise. Just like the Spanish heir to the throne, Leonor, Princess of Asturias, isn't mentioned on the Asturias page. DeCausa (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

He's not a ceremonial leader of Wales at all. It's just a title used by the "heir apparent of the British monarchy". Titus Gold (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Wales was granted the status of country by the International Standards Agency after lobbying from Plaid Cymru.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/international-body-grants-wales-country-1813629.amp ChefBear01 (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent insertions

Two new insertions have been repeatedly put back into the article, one on the Epynt clearance and one on the "Military of Wales". I am not involved in the Epynt one, but the current text doesn't explain much due weight. As for the second one, it is on a topic that doesn't exist, and similarly doesn't seem to hold much due weight. CMD (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I tend to agree, certainly on WP:DUE. I'm not sure about "doesn't exist" when we have an article on it: Military of Wales even if that article was created by Titus Gold. Trouble is, looking at their articles created and page moves, they've been busily creating "Welsh" WP:POVFORKs around WP, and then embedding them in this and other "proper" articles. He also created Epynt clearance. Other gems include Kings and Princes of Wales (our existing Prince of Wales article didn't suit his purposes), English rule in Wales (apparently Norman marcher lordships and 19th/20th UK legislation is all part of "English rule" aka List of Welsh nationalist grievances against the English), Campaign for a Wales cricket team (which seems to be based on speech by a Plaid Cymru spokesman). Then, funniest of all, moving "British Baseball" to "Baseball in Wales" swiftly followed by some ethic cleansing of the English to their new Gulag at English baseball which he created for the purpose, and then, for good measure, changed the name again to separate from the anglo-saxon U.S. game. There are plaenty of other examples - many of which have ended up as TG pipe-linking them here. This all seems to be getting out of hand. DeCausa (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no Military of Wales, and looking at the linked article, it's quite OR/SYNTH. I'm not tracking all those edits to other pages, which probably belong in another forum, but given the linked page is so poor, that reinforces the lack of due weight here. I've reverted the additions. CMD (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reversion - I personally think it’s already out of hand. User:Titus Gold, with his customary energy, is now creating a slew of forked Welsh articles. They are generally quite poor quality, with weak prose, and are often on topics that have little secondary sourcing and are consequently weakly-cited. TG is then referencing those articles to shoehorn “facts”, but as often slants and opinions, back into the main Wales article. To me, it is clear we are dealing with an editor who is here to right a great wrong, rather than build a neutral encyclopaedia. What to do about it, I’m less sure. I actually think a ban on their engagement with Welsh-related topics is the likely only way forward. KJP1 (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that major reverts was necessary, and they were very varied. One was about a relatively well known historical evacuation, one about being a constitutional monarchy and one citing Welsh military regiments as part of British army. Not sure there was anything wrong there, but there we go.

Addressing your other comment, I've simply worked to make more Wales specific pages. There was previously a huge bias towards British or UK focused articles which I feel is now addressed. I have just made additional edits based on your recent feedback on some of those articles, so I appreciate that.

I would also note that e.g Military history of Scotland is a military page specific to Scotland. I've renamed the page Armed forces in Wales to make it clearer that Welsh regiments are obviously part of the British armed forces. I fully agree that some pages require additional work, but the vast majority are good pages e.g Welsh devolution which would not exist otherwise.

I would also point out British rule in Ireland, British rule in Burma, British rule in Portuguese India, British Raj etc.

The Kings and Princes of Wales includes the initial three which were known as King of all the Welsh" etc. as far as I know Prince Charles is not described as King of all the Welsh.

Campaign for a Wales cricket team is based on multiple media articles in addition to mentions by two Plaid politicians (I'm not advocating for Plaid by any means!).

Welsh baseball is well cited and has different origins to the sport in Merseyside, Liverpool if you just googled it. Welsh baseball even has a twitter page!

If you want to suggest any improvements or changes to any page, please make a comment on talk pages and I welcome any supporting edits. I don't fancy an unnecessary "ban" and I'm here to co-operate and listen if you want to make any suggestions. I don't think there are any more pages that need creating anyway and my "customary energy" has been used up! Titus Gold (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2022

Adding the category "Category:Countries in Europe" LeicesterToNottingham123 (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland aren't in Category:Countries in Europe. Nythar^T.C 06:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Police and Military

I'm proposing adding a "Police and Military" heading which would include hatnotes to Police forces of Wales, Armed forces of Wales and Military history of Wales. The page Scotland already has a heading titled "Military". Would this be agreeable? Titus Gold (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

What has changed since the July discussion? CMD (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Military history is a new page and all three page suggested for hatnotes have now become stable. I'm also proposing this to gain input and consensus before adding it to the page itself as is seen on Scotland. Titus Gold (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Stability was never the issue with any of the pages you keep edit warring in links to. CMD (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring, I've brought this to the talk page. I would welcome anyone else adding this heading to the article? Happy to consider alternative suggestions? Don't see any reason not to include this heading. If Scotland has it, why not Wales? Titus Gold (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Must have been someone else reverting to restore their edit a couple of days ago. Is there an argument for inclusion that isn't WP:OSE? CMD (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Arguments for I would say are; Sufficient notability, similar page Scotland has it, 3 pages would be suitable hatnotes, most country pages are split into politics, law, military.

I would suggest sticking with "politics, law, military" structure with Police coming under law. Alternatively we could form a "Police and military" heading. Titus Gold (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The notability doesn't seem clearly supported by the sources in the relevant articles, so I don't see evidence for due weight here. CMD (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Titus Gold, I am not sure why you want police in the article, as using your argument comparing to Scotland, that article does not mention police at all (aside former admininistration), so in your argument Wales should not discuss police. The current sentence in this article about police under the "Law" section, I find is enough detail on the topic providing links to the four forces, so as a separate section I find it unnecessary. Considering Police forces of Wales is literally a copy-and-paste article of the four police forces lead paragraphs, with no notable text of its own, I do not believe it should be linked in the article as it already links the four forces which host the same content. Scotland and Wales are not the same in every way, so the argument "it is at Scotland" is generally avoided as there are differences between the two, notable at one but not necessarily notable for the other. I would also note that Scotland is no longer a Good article, Wales is, so make sure your major edits comply with its criteria. Not sure in terms of a Military section, but Scotland's section is largely on current industry, which Wales has little of in comparison, so I am leaning to oppose. Just because you have (quickly) created many Wales-related articles does not mean they all have to be linked or have their own section here.

@Chipmunkdavis, per edit history, Titus Gold has edit warred with you (even now over categories with others), but this is a first that they have started a discussion before making edits, so an improvement. DankJae 09:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't class one revert with an explanation as edit warring. Fair enough about policing. I maintain my view about the military heading. There are over 3,000 personnel in Wales and over 60 MoD bases. That's significant. I maintain that countries generally have a military heading. Don't have to link to other articles. You're welcome to suggest improvements if there are any to be made to articles I have made. Titus Gold (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess "dispute" would be more preferred, as you reinstated your edit with no later reverts by the same or other editors and it did not escalate, however per WP:BRD, it is recommended a discussion is started after your edit is reverted, rather then you revert the revert, however it is an optional policy. I mentioned the reverting as you are likely the subject of CMD's comment, as your edits were the ones largely disputed a "couple of days ago" with CMD. However, for this proposal, thank you for starting a discussion rather than a likely dispute.

"With an explanation", your explanations are usually your opinions (at least recent reversions), whereas reverts may cite a Wikipedia policy or their interpretation of it, meaning there at least is some discussion to be made. Nonetheless, best to discuss here, rather than revert the revert.

Yes there are ~3,000 personnel in Wales [5], but compared to Scotland's 10–20,000 [6] it is not equivalent or has the same notability, therefore just saying "it is at Scotland" is not enough, and I do not believe (by your arguments) it is worthy of a whole section (maybe a short sentence or two), but ofc other editors can disagree. As this discussion goes on, I have no strong opinions if a consensus for inclusion is reached.

"countries generally have a military heading", just because others do, does not mean Wales has to per WP:OTHERCONTENT. For military affairs, Wales is not a "country" relating to military affairs in the same sense as many (independent) "countries" are, military affairs are reserved to the UK Government on behalf of the United Kingdom. Other (sovereign) countries have their own forces and control their affairs, so a more acceptable reason for their articles. Whereas similarly autonomous areas that do not control military affairs such as Catalonia, Flanders, Basque Country, Faroe Islands and Quebec do not have a military section. Greenland's strategic position, and that role's history in international affairs warrants an exception.

In terms of the hatnoted articles, other editors have stated issues with those articles as a reason to oppose including this section, if the article is expanded and improved showing wider notability then some mention of it being place in this article can be discussed here once more. In Police forces of Wales, and Armed forces in Wales I do not really see essential information that needs to be here, in addition to having uncited information. Military history of Wales will likely be within the history section, but not the main subject. A sentence of the number of personel could be included somewhere (idk where) but an entire section not sure.

This is my opinion on the proposal as of now. Thank you for starting a discussion, it may be a while for others to reply. Some can be supportive, so be patient. Many Thanks – DankJae 15:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

These are fair arguments. Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the discussion. I'll accept that this heading is not needed for now based on your reasoning. Titus Gold (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2022

"The Brythonic languages ceased to be spoken in of England". 149.86.190.235 (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. DeCausa (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)