Talk:Pembrokeshire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pembrokeshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coastline[edit]

Why, and a portion of Carmarthen Bay. ? Do we need it and if so, which portion? ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 10:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth: This part of the coastline section I had flagged as needing refs, but for now I have added "western". Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that makes sense now. Cheers! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 11:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Templates under 'Further reading'[edit]

The Pembrokeshire template has a list of 'Towns and Villages'; there is also a 'Communities of Pembrokeshire' template with a similar, but not identical list. Is there a need for both? Should they be merged? Should both be updated?SovalValtos (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I should prefer that both are retained. A merging would not be possible, given the complexities of the Communities' given names.
Cheers! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 09:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SV: There is a need, as communities are administrative constructs and liable to change at the whim of the politician. What updating were you thinking was needed? Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted that both are kept. The updating I had in mind was checking that there are no names just on one or the other that should be on both. Best left to someone who remembers the subtleties of Welsh community naming. Not me.SovalValtos (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Motorway[edit]

Hi Tony, You are doing great work on this article. I know that this is not your contribution but I am unhappy with the following, "The nearest motorway to the county town of Haverfordwest is ..."
Seems clumsy and why, in any case, single out the county town? Cheers! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 11:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am revising it as follows:
There are no motorways in Pembrokeshire. The nearest motorway is the M4 from London and South Wales, which terminates at the Pont Abraham services in Carmarthenshire some 46 miles (74 km) from the county town of Haverfordwest.
‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 11:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Gareth. I was working on this section last night and got too tired to carry on. Your changes are good. There could be more trimming and tidying, though, and everything (with GA in mind, as I always have!) needs to be sourced. Between us, we will make it not just a Good Article, but a great one, eh? Cheers, Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proportion of Welsh speakers/Landskeer map[edit]

The map Proportion of Welsh speakers (Wales 2011 census); Pembrokeshire's language differentiation can be seen in the most southwesterly part.

could benefit from Pembrokeshire's boundary being added. I am sorry but I do not know how to do it.SovalValtos (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SovalValtos: Agreed. I will ask at the teahouse, as I know there are Wikipedians who do such things. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)  Done[reply]
Update: now asked at WP:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The map now has the county line on it. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

So far as I can see, the article is now fully sourced. But have I missed anything? Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am proof reading and may have found some, but will come back when I finish.SovalValtos (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sunshine hours for Dale not supported by the given source. The only places with reliable records are the three weather stations.SovalValtos (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)  Done[reply]
Tenby and Penycwm climate figure comparisons are likely based on WP:OR. A discussion is under way at [1] which may well end with such a comparison being disallowed.SovalValtos (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All three stations are Met Office stations, so unless I am missing something, they seem OK. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The second and fourth sentences of the Coastline and landscape section could do with some copyediting.SovalValtos (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)  Done[reply]
SV, please do, as I'm not sure what to make of them. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should a source be found for an addition to the article about the significance of the Cleddau Bridge in terms of journey length etc?SovalValtos (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably more detail than is needed for the county article - maybe for the linked article (which I haven't looked at yet). Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination[edit]

I have nominated the article again, and hope this time the review will not throw up so many faults. I think we're close. Thanks, Gareth and SV for your support and most useful input. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have worked on this tirelessly, Tony, and it would be a crime if not accepted. Thank you! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 08:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very kind, Gareth. There may be more to do, but hopefully not too much. Then I can get back to my lepidopteran WP habits. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

The lead seems a bit light. Any comments? Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural, political and linguistic separateness. The political section does not have much on historic allegiances to summarise though.SovalValtos (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Filming location[edit]

Should the 'Filming location' section content be moved to the 'Media' section, either as is, or as a sub-section?SovalValtos (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a thought, and I don't have a strong opinion either way. I'm more concerned about whether imdb sources will be challenged. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK leave as written.SovalValtos (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pembrokeshire/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 19:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Starting first read-through. Comments to follow in the next day or two. Tim riley talk 19:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some general comments before I get down to a detailed scrutiny of the text.

  • Links
I struggle with your rationale for adding or not adding blue links:
  • "County town" is not linked in the lead, but is linked in the main text  Done
There are some topics that I'd expect to see linked but aren't:  Done
  • Pembrokeshire County Council
  • Cretaceous Period
  • Carboniferous period
  • nonconformists
  • Church in Wales
And some topics are linked twice or more within the main text:  Done
  • Haverfordwest
  • Milford Haven
  • Preseli Hills
  • Carmarthenshire
  • Pembroke Dock
  • Fishguard
  • Caldey Island
  • Ramsey Island
  • Grassholm Island
  • Skomer Island
  • Llys y Fran
  • Stephen Crabb
  • Place names
If, as it appears, you are following the line that place names are in Welsh in the Welsh article and English in the English, why add a stray translation for Mynydd Preseli? – Tim riley talk 20:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Comments on the text[edit]

  • Info-box
    • Two of the topics are a bit perplexing: you have to click on "Area rank – Ranked 5th"  Done or "Population Rank – Ranked 13th"  Done to discover that they mean compared with other parts of Wales. (I realise this may be the fault of those who concocted the info-box rather than yours, but I mention it here anyway. If there's nothing you can do about it, fair enough.)
  • Lead
    • Percentages (in lead and later): I don't propose to press the point, but the Manual of Style prescribes the words "per cent" rather than the "%" symbol in the text. (Symbol is OK in tables etc.) Leaving the symbols as they are will not be an obstacle to promotion to GA, but if, as I see from the talk page, you are thinking of FA in due course I'd advise replacing the symbols throughout before you go to FAC.  Done
    • I am not at all clear about the linguistic point. I cannot be sure whether you are saying that in the north more people speak Welsh than speak English or merely that there are more people in the north than in the south who speak Welsh. The section of the main text dealing with this point makes me think you mean the latter, but even there it is not really clear. What would be helpful, if you can find them, are figures showing the first languages of the people in the north and south of the county.  Done (figures difficult to come by, but hopefully clarified)
    • Lead – general: it will pass muster for GA, but if you do go on with FA in mind, you'll need to beef the lead up quite a bit. It's rather thin at the moment (e.g. "The county has a diverse geography and a complex history" and not a word more about either.)
I'm of the same mind, and will look at this later, if the GA review doesn't depend on it. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geography
    • The source link to the Met Office in the climate chart box is broken. You'll need a replacement to substantiate the data in the box.  Done
  • Coastline and landscape
    • A viking wreck – the Wikipedia article capitalises "Viking" and I'd be inclined to follow suit here.  Done
  • Oil and gas
    • a controversial pipeline – rather unhelpful to call something controversial without a word or two explaining why it was (is?) so.  Done
  • Culture
    • There seem to be some glaring omissions under this heading. Is there no music in the county? No theatre? No gallery or museum (other than one for motor cars)? The criteria for GA do not require complete comprehensiveness of coverage, but a "Culture" section that ignores music, theatre, art and heritage is pushing matters more than somewhat.  Done (more could be found, I'm sure)
  • Cuisine
    • I'm not buying the local tourist board as a reliable source. The word "biased" leaps to mind. If this section is to remain, the quote – mere puffery – must go, and you need to find a proper citation for the proposition that Pembrokeshire is "well known for its excellent food".
My response to this is to drop the subsection for now until Cuisine of Pembrokeshire can be fixed. Is this acceptable? Tony Holkham (Talk) 01:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A sensible solution, it seems to me. Tim riley talk 08:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Education and health
    • "but suffers from the library service not having a catalogue of the CDs in stock" – is this really of encyclopedic importance?  Done
  • Images
    • The Manual of Style bids us include alt-text for the benefit of blind or partially-sighted users who rely on screen readers. I hope you will do so for this article.  Done
  • References
    • There's rather a hotchpotch of styles, but the main requirement of citations is met: one can see where the information is from and where it can be verified. So OK for GA, but again, if you go to FAC you'll need to get your references into a uniform style – making sure pp and p all have full stops after them, inclusion and hyphenation of ISBNs (and changing 10 digit ones to 13 digit: I kid you not!), stating the source within the citation (e.g refs 2, 4, 5 etc).
I have noted this. Tony Holkham (Talk) 01:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 81: broken.  Done

I think we are heading in the right direction (and I am greatly enjoying the article) but there's a bit to do yet before it quite qualifies for GA. As you were so quick off the mark dealing with my preliminary comments I shan't bother putting the review on hold for a week unless you would prefer me to do so. – Tim riley talk 21:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim, for dealing with this so quickly. We should be able to sort out most, if not all of these in the next day or so; I imagine there will be more from you after that. On the FA point, this only came up recently and is not in our (at least my) sights yet; I'll be happy to clear this hurdle first. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, I think I have sorted all this as best I can; I know there are some areas where improvements can be made - see my comments. Time for bed, I think! Look forward to hearing from you when you can. Tony Holkham (Talk) 01:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Final batch of comments

This is coming together very well. I shall be promoting the article, but before I do, may I make a couple of minor points that I missed on my first perusal, and quibble further about points already made?

  • Duplicate links
    • Milford Haven is still linked five times.  Done
  • Lead
    • "the only coastal national park of its kind" – it isn't absolutely clear what "of its kind" means. I took it to refer to the fact that although some other national parks have coastal bits, this one is all coast. Checking, on rereading, I see that the Wikipedia article on the national park calls it "the only one in the United Kingdom to have been designated primarily because of its spectacular coastline", and I think something on those lines would make things clearer here.  Done
    • Language: you've clarified the matter in the main text, but the lead is still ambiguous. I think if you changed "Welsh being more widely spoken in the north, and English in the south" to "Welsh being more widely spoken in the north than in the south" it would make the position clear. In passing, I don't press the point but I was a little surprised to find no mention of "Little England beyond Wales" in the language section of the main text, or even possibly in the lead.
We have steered clear of the "Little England" topic because it can be contentious, with all Pembrokeshire people considering themselves Welsh, irrespective of their first language, and to some the designation is distatsteful; it is in any case hardly used now. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info-box
    • You've found a good way of dealing with the problem identified above. One other point: is there a reason to show the political parties of the MPs but not of the AMs and the MEP?  Done
  • Alt-text
    • I've tweaked. Screen readers will read out the existing captions, so it's no help simply to repeat them. What is wanted is a short description (rather than title) of what is depicted.
Thank you. I get it now. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I look forward to cutting the ribbon very soon. Tim riley talk 08:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've missed anything. Is all OK now? Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I enjoyed this article, and hope you will develop it with FA in mind. If you do so, please ping me when you go to peer review or FAC. Tim riley talk 11:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim, for such a quick and fair review. Will do. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations Tony!
Very well-deserved award. You must be feeling proud and, with all that "burning the midnight oil", exhausted.
I am delighted and glad to have been involved. Cheers! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 13:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Planning progress from GA to FA[edit]

No harm in thinking ahead. What might be changes needed for the next step? The GA reviewer might have some ideas. How about mentioning

  • mental asylums
  • prisoner of war camps  Done
  • courts
  • workhouses  Done
  • YHA
  • prisons  Done
  • caravan sites
  • Masons
  • smuggling
  • Rebecca riots, with effect on toll roads. Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry for South Wales [into the present state of the laws, as administered in south Wales, which regulate the maintenance and repair of turnpike-roads, highways, and bridges]. as a sourceSovalValtos (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

etc?SovalValtos (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SV, I must admit I hadn't thought about any of these institutions, and wonder whether they would be more pertinent to the localities where they are (or were), unless they were county institutions. It's a big and interesting list that you've raised; do you have any more information about any of them?
As for FA, I hadn't given any thought to that, either, which I believe is a big step from GA, but well worth considering when we do achieve GA. Thanks for your thoughts. Look forward to more detail, if you have it. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SV: As we have come this far, why not proceed? @Tim riley:, who reviewed for GA asked to be told if we wanted to do this, as I hope he will be able to advise on WP:FAC. I think I'm a glutton for punishment! Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further: the list of institutions has intrigued me; not sure how much detail it needs, but worth looking. I know the lead needs expanding. Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about advising you on getting the article to FA: I am more a history and arts man than a geographer. I was co-nominator of the Keswick, Cumbria article which we got through FAC some years ago, but the driving force behind that was Dr Blofeld, who is much more accomplished with place articles than I am. Nonetheless, I shall be happy to comment at any point. If you do go to FAC I strongly advise going to peer review first: at FAC one can feel a bit under siege, and it helps enormously if one has already had the very helpful comments and suggestions that peer review invariably delivers. Tim riley talk 12:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Tim, I will check out peer review. Dr B and I have worked together on Welsh articles in the past and he may be interested in helping to get the first Welsh geography article to FA. Do you want to be kept in the loop? Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At your service if wanted; happy to sit on the sidelines if not. Tim riley talk 16:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're interested in promoting this Tony but Wikipedia isn't floating my boat at the moment I'm afraid!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry to hear that, DB. All the best, Tony Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I echo that. Best wishes to you and Tony. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 10:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Harrison[edit]

Eleanor Harrison (what a star!), best known for presenting Countryfile since 2009, opened last night's programme in Pembrokeshire saying, It is bordered by Carmarthenshire to the east, Ceredigion to the northeast, and the sea everywhere else.
I wonder where she read that(?)! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 08:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, missed it. I'll watch it on iPlayer. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you must. A great strand on a lovely couple running a goat farm and The Church of St. Brynach are the best bits. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 10:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geography stubs[edit]

Over a long period I have been trying to reduce the number of Pembrokeshire stubs (target=zero, maybe?). Some of these are rocks, islets and tidal islands. A precedent has been set with Meini Duon and Trwynmynachdy, which have now been redirected to their "parent", Ramsey Island. There are several others near Ramsey that I believe should be treated in the same way, because they are unlikely ever to be more than stubs. Rather than go through the proposal procedure for each one, would anyone have any objection to my doing the same with these? I would make sure any info on them was preserved in the Ramsey Island article, as was done with the two examples above. They are:

I can't see that any of the other major islands around Pembrokeshire have nearby rocks and islets as separate articles, apart from St Margaret's Island, which is anyway notable on its own. Thanks. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tony,
What a good idea! I agree fully with your analysis and conclusions, as well as with your proposed plan of action. If no one else disagrees, then please feel free to go ahead, as I am sure you’ll do a great job, as always. And thank you also for your courtesy in floating the idea for consideration by other editors interested in this article.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 16:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also agree with your proposal, Tony. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony Holkham: Yes I think it makes sense although Ynys Bery is a bit larger and appears to have more coverage than the others. I have also started User:Crouch, Swale/Sheep Island, Pembrokeshire which may well be notable, if anyone has more content or sources that would be great. As you said if you can find more in old newspapers or something then maybe that might be enought but otherwise I'd say the last 3 could probably be merged. Maybe Ynys Cantwr could be merged with Ynys Bery. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ynys Eilun  Done Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ynys Cantwr is actually nearer to Ramsey Island than Ynys Bery, its just from smaller scale maps it doesn't look it. My point remains that we should probably take a closer look at keeping Ynys Bery (for now) although it may still be a WP:PERMA. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: No problem with that, so Ynys Cantwr can be redirected to Ramsey? Just so it's clear... Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony Holkham: Yes Ynys Cantwr should go to Ramsey, not Bery per my counter comment above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ynys Gwelltog  Done. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ynys Cantwr  Done Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments below have been copied to Talk:Ynys Bery, where discussion can continue. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just the small matter of seeing whether we can de-stub Ynys Bery, then. Maybe tomorrow... Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at archeology and geology for Ynys Bery I would struggle to de-stub but maybe Tony will ace it. My guess is that it would be better combined and calved when due. Even the shipwrecks prefer Ramsey.SovalValtos (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is considrably larger than the other 5 islands that we merged. I agree we may well need to merge, but lets see. Middleholm has a separate article to Skomer of which we added more content to recently. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue this discussion at Talk:Ynys Bery, as the other three islands have been dealt with. Thanks. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

The former article History of Pembrokeshire was merged into and redirected to Pembrokeshire because it was not up to scratch. Now there is a decent and well-sourced amount of history, I wonder: is it time to re-establish the former article and cut back the history section in this one, as it is getting quite long? Thoughts? Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I expect there is a convention as to size in kB for when to make such a change, which I have not found. Meanwhile IMO it does not look overlong in comparison to some FAs; all of it fitting on one PC screen.SovalValtos (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with SovalValtos. It is better kept here, all in one place. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another way of looking at it is to consider how the precis in the county article would be written in comparison to the full text in the History article. How much detail overlap would there need to be? I suppose in a way the History in the county article is already a precis of info from settlement and other articles on the area. I think the county precis would still need full cites. It would not be like a lead/lede where they are not needed. Things may soon change regarding splitting given the rate of addition of material by our hard-working editors.SovalValtos (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, thanks both. Happy to leave it as it is. (But I may still tweak it a bit!) Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style[edit]

Dear Tony,
I hope you are keeping well? I am making contact since you (plus Gareth Griffith-Jones and SovalValtos) have worked so hard to bring the present article to GA status, with advice from Tim riley above (February 2018), which included Tim's comment:

"There's rather a hotchpotch of styles, but the main requirement of citations is met: one can see where the information is from and where it can be verified. So OK for GA, but again, if you go to FAC you'll need to get your references into a uniform style – making sure pp and p all have full stops after them, inclusion and hyphenation of ISBNs (and changing 10 digit ones to 13 digit: I kid you not!), stating the source within the citation (e.g refs 2, 4, 5 etc)."

... and your reply ...

"I have noted this. Tony Holkham (Talk) 01:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)"

The purpose of the present post is to offer my services, in case you would like some assistance with implementing a consistent citation style. To begin with, today I counted that, out of the current 184 entries in the References section, 167 already use {{cite ...}} templates (95x 'web', 57x 'news', 12x 'book', 2x 'work' and 1x 'journal'). Therefore, it shouldn't take anyone very long to complete the task by converting the remaining 17 to use the {{cite ...}} template(s) also, not forgetting the 16 entries currently listed under the Further reading section, per MOS:FURTHER ("Publications listed in further reading are cited in the same citation style used by the rest of the article.")
Please may I therefore suggest that you consider my offer and let me know? I would be very happy to do the donkey work myself, having recently completed that task in the article about Robert Desnos. Thank you for your consideration, but please know that if you (or either of your colleagues) would rather do this yourselves, then that's obviously fine with me too!
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 16:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Patrick, I had forgotten about this. WP has so many distractions. As far as I am concerned, of course you can help tidy this up. I hadn't thought about FA since GA, either, very remiss. I'm keeping well enough, thanks, apart from the inevitable ageing processes; hope you are, too (well, that is, not ageing!). Best wishes, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tony,
Thank you for your trust and vote of confidence. Please be assured I won't make any changes to the prose or any other content; I'll focus entirely on that specific task. From prior experience, I have learnt that it takes quite long sessions (up to two hours) to make good progress, and I therefore tend to deploy both the {{In use}} and {{Under construction}} templates, so as to avoid the risk of edit conflicts. Thank you for your patience, in case you want to apply some edits when you see those templates, but feel free to send me a brief post at my talk page if you wish to have access to the article, and I'll vacate the premises asap . I'll probably make a start early this afternoon. Yes, thank you Tony; I am both well and ageing with good grace, and particularly pleased to see the early blooming of daffodils and to be able to resume long walks on our lovely coastal path or local beaches.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 12:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great to read this from you, Patrick. It is a task that I could not even consider taking on at my age, so thank you very much! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gareth,
Many thanks to you also, for your trust and vote of confidence. Please note my suggested method of approach in my reply to Tony, immediately above; thank you. It will be a pleasure to be of some assistance to you gentlemen, as you prepare this article for FA status.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 12:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tony and Gareth,
So far, I have completed the conversion of twelve book citations (13, 26, 33, 36, 37, 40-43, 46, 61 and 62); that is to say, all the books cited in the History and Demography sections. You will see that I have used the {{rp}} template, which displays the book page number(s) immediately alongside the reference number generated by the {{cite book}} template, per MOS:IBID. There now remain about eight inline book citations for me to process. Then, I will add the hyphens required in |isbn= tags, in one single pass (much easier that way!), per the guidelines listed at Pattern for English language ISBN numbers. Then, I will convert all the books listed in Further reading, per MOS:FURTHER. I believe I should be able to complete all these tasks by the end of this weekend. After that, I will also review all the other citations ({{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, etc.) and see if I can add value there too.
For reference #33 (Davies, John (1994). A History of Wales), I have ordered the book so that I can double-check that all the page numbers are true to the book itself, as I had to work out where the page numbers had to fit in the text (see this diff); once the book has been delivered to me in a few days' time, it won't take me long to correct any errors I may have introduced, and will report back at that time also.
I hope my long editing sessions are not too much of a hindrance to your own need to access the article? Thanks for letting me know if they are, in which case we could perhaps agree some sort of editing schedule between us. Have a good weekend!
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 16:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick, you're doing an absolutely marvellous job - thank you. No problem with your "in use" sessions. I'm only slowly beginning to realise what a complex job this is, so it's great that you have taken it on. Eventually, it will be good to go for a peer review, but for the moment I am taking a back seat and admiring your dedication. Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your supportive feedback Tony; it's much appreciated. By all means, let's plan for a peer review in due course, and please let me know if there's ever anything you'd like me to do differently, as I can certainly adjust my method of approach if required. Yes, it's quite a meticulous job, but I am enjoying it immensely!
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 16:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Patrick, you are amazing! I thank you for not only tackling the task with such enthusiasm but also for your kind consideration of others. I echo all of Tony's reply above without hesitation.
Wishing you both a great weekend! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gareth,
Thank you for your kind words; it's a real joy to do this work and also to be of service. Let's see what it looks like when all is done, and hope it will facilitate the journey towards FA status. Have a great weekend also, Gareth; thanks! With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 23:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tony and Gareth,
OK; I have now completed the conversion of the remaining nine book citations (66, 90, 92, 99, 139, 141, 166, 167 and 171). In order to convert some of these, I had to make the table of films non-collapsed, as I would not have been able to reach them via the '^' link (see this diff and the next two); however, please let me know if you'd rather have the table collapsed again, and I'll make that change tomorrow. I have now also converted all the books listed in Further reading, per MOS:FURTHER.
There now remains only the hyphens to add in all |isbn= tags, which I'll do tomorrow, and I will also review all the other citation templates ({{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, etc.), as promised earlier. I'll report back again tomorrow.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, Patrick, and for your detailed updating. You are so diligent. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not to have commented earlier, but thank you for your meticulous work. The advantage of collaboration. I may be coming before Spring to take photos for another article, Tintern Abbey, that is going for FA and could be easily tempted to Pembrokeshire if specific pics are needed.SovalValtos (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick, I had no idea what was involved. I will try to understand it, but I have not used formatting templates; I suppose I should have. I don't think the table needs to be collapsible; it's not that big. Thanks again. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tony, Gareth and SV,
Thank you all for your words of appreciation. The Wikipedia 'cite' templates might seem a bit complicated but are well documented and quite easy to use for most citations, although the George Owen entry in Further reading proved a bit tricky. When I do this kind of work, I also make sure to validate the details, and a great tool for this is BookFinder, which gives access to all the data you need about a book (including the all-important isbn-13), except the publisher's location, which can be obtained easily through a Google search. For our list of books, I found and fixed a few discrepancies and, although the entries look almost the same as before, they now adhere to a consistent format. Another benefit of this effort is that, if future editors want to cite from any of the books in 'Further reading', then all they need to do is simply lift the 'cite book' code from there, surround it with the <ref name="AuthorYear"> ... </ref> tags, add the page number(s) (using the {{rp}} template) and insert the lot into the prose. Later today, I will start adding the hyphens required in all |isbn= parameters and will set up the "In use" templates as usual. Please don't hesitate to send me a signal if you require access to the article, and I'll deactivate them at once. Thank you. With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 10:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Patrick, for your detailed explanations. You are greatly facilitating our future additions to this and other articles. All the best! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've studied what you've done with the refs, Patrick, and I think I understand. I will try to follow suit in future. Cheers, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tony, Gareth and SV,
Just a quick update to confirm that I have now added the hyphens required in all |isbn= parameters. I have also reviewed all the other citations ({{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, etc.) and added spaces around all their parameters, as these spaces make it a lot easier on the editor's eye (IMHO), when the refs need reviewing or editing. In passing, I have fixed a few things here and there, such as adding |publisher= parameters, and replaced |author= by |last= and |first=, so that the names of journalists would be displayed in the same order as for the book citations: "surname, first name", in the References section. I will give it a rest for today and might do a bit more tweaking of these citations tomorrow, but I'm nearly done. I will set up the "In use" templates as usual. As mentioned before, please don't hesitate to send me a signal if you require access to the article, and I'll deactivate them at once. Thank you for your patience with me! With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 20:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great going, Patrick. Not done much WP today (put my back out this morning—on my birthday, too) but following and appreciating your edits. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Birthday for yesterday, Tony! I am so sorry to hear about your back, and hope it gets better very soon.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 09:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellant work Patrick. Thank you so much. A belated many happy returns of the day, Tony. Sorry to read about your back. Hope you get better soon ... the computer can be the cause.
Best wishes to you both! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tony, Gareth and SV,
Another quick update to confirm that I am carrying on with my systematic review of all the non-book citations (all the book citations have already been done, of course) and adding any parameters required for a consistent appearance. It's quite time-consuming and I have now stopped at #70 (see References), but will carry on tomorrow and into next week, until it's all done. Thank you for your patience with me, and have a great weekend! With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Tony, I hope your back is getting better.

Bravo Patrick. It is great watching others work!SovalValtos (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick, you are star. Do not worry about us; your task takes priority at all times. Any matter we may want to attend to can wait.
Have a lovely weekend! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tony, for your thanks via the button, plus Gareth and SV for you kind words above!
I worked on another article today but will resume normal service tomorrow, and will post a final signal here in a few days' time, when I've completed the present task. Have a great weekend too! With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Patrick. Don't forget to batten down the hatches; we're in for more wild weather. Tony Holkham (Talk) 00:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tony, Gareth and SV,
That's it! ...  Done!!!
I have now completed my review of all the citations in References and I am hopeful they will pass the test of FA scrutiny; the only slight concern I have is that the table of films contains 8 references citing IMDb, which is generally unacceptable because it is user-generated content, per WP:UGC. It is therefore likely that a FA reviewer would consider these 8 refs invalid, simply because of that guideline, even though the refs don't point to anything controversial and simply confirm those locations.
Here are a few other actions I have taken, over and above the task of making the citations adhere to a consistent format:

  1. Where links were no longer working (Error 404 etc.), I have replaced the previous |url= with a working equivalent, and then adjusted the other parameters accordingly: here, here, here, here, here, and here;
  2. I removed only one citation altogether, because it wasn't displaying corroborating evidence, and I couldn't find any either, after searching via Google, so I replaced it with the {{citation needed}} template: (see this diff);
  3. For ref #13, I noticed the link was displaying a page about "Seasonal Seabirds" (i.e., the same as #34, in fact), whereas the prose was talking about the coastal path (but without any mention of such birds); so, I have replaced that apparently unrelated link with a new one pointing to the "Pembrokeshire Coast Path" page at National Trails (see this diff);
  4. For ref #85, I noticed the link was displaying a page about "Types of farming", whereas the prose was talking about the wool industry; so, I have replaced that link with a new one to the "Woolen Mills" (see this diff);
  5. For 5 citations, I added the |accessdate= after checking back in 'View history': 2 in Notable people (see this diff), 2 also in Sport (see this diff), and 1 in Coastline and landscape (see this diff).

Best wishes of good luck in your efforts to take this article to FA status, and thank you once again for your patience with me, and for your hospitality while I was squatting in the article for hours on end...
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's so good of you to spend all that time on those tricky details, patrick, a marathon. We'll have to consider FA now, but perhaps peer review first. Cheers, T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You’re most welcome, Tony; it was a real joy and I am really pleased to have done it! I agree with you fully about a peer review next, as recommended by our friend Dweller in his advice to Featured Article Candidates (this essay is also listed in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria). Good luck and very best wishes of success with that next step.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 22:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick - I read advice to Featured Article Candidates, and will do so again. First steps... Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A marathon? More like an Arctic exploration. And here, above, we have a detailed lexicon for future explanation and comparison. I am so impressed with your professionalism.
Again, thank you! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gareth; I appreciate your kind words and sense of humour . All best wishes of success with your plans for this article; just let me know if/when I can be of further assistance. Until then, please keep well. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 14:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this thread from the outside for a while now. Patrick, you are a star. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Hogyn Lleol; . With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 14:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The sea"[edit]

UnknownBrick22 - sorry to revert your edit, but defining "the sea" around Pembrokeshire is almost impossible - parts of Pembrokeshire are bordered by the Atlantic, Bristol Channel, St George's Channel, Irish Sea and Celtic Sea, so "the sea" is the best option. Cheers, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine. Its phrasing just felt rather colloquial and even blandly imprecise, lazy. UnknownBrick22 (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crime[edit]

I've found some interesting crime statistics showing the relative "safety" of Pembrokeshire compared with most of the rest of the UK -

Is crime something that should go in the article? If so, where? I am in two minds (not an unusual occurrence...), so would be interested in others' opinions on this. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it should. Position it under a sub-heading in the Governance, politics and public services section. Cheers Tony! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Care would need to be taken that the coverage is not just recentism and the sources are truly independent. The police might be considered to have a vested interest in putting things in a good light. Rather like Estate Agent speak of areas that are 'best in the country'. 16th, 18th and 20th century comparisons if available would be good. Similarly comparisons with similar sized areas in say Brazil, India and South Africa. Crime figures are notorious for caveats.SovalValtos (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gareth; I agree with your placement suggestion. SV, I agree with your first point, but I wasn't thinking of going beyond the boundaries of the UK for comparison, which would be almost impossible to compare directly, and for the same reason I wasn't thinking beyond the current century. I will do some more digging - unless you already have any direct comparisons to hand? Clearly, we have to avoid original research wherever possible, but are any crime figures independently gathered, I wonder? Tony Holkham (Talk) 18:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard style?[edit]

To: Tony, Gareth, SV, Hogyn Lleol, and other editors watching this page.
From: Patrick.

Dear Colleagues,
I wonder whether or not there might be consensus among you (per WP:CITEVAR) for me to apply Harvard-style referencing to the present article? The outcome would look the same as displayed in the References section (and subsections) of the article on the Australian Antarctic Expedition, which has recently achieved FA status. The benefits of doing so would be as follows:

  1. all the existing {{cite}} templates would be removed from the prose and transferred into a new Sources subsection, thus making the effort of editing the prose quite a lot easier (this is a major benefit, I'd say);
  2. all the current ref tags (<ref name="xxxxxxx">) and {{rp}} templates would be removed and replaced with {{sfn}} (= "shortened footnote") templates including page numbers, and the references themselves would now appear in a new Citations subsection and automatically linked to the sources (via the {{sfn}} templates);
  3. the current, single note (there might be more in future, of course) would be similarly relocated under a new Notes subsection nested under the main References heading;
  4. the article would be FA-ready (from a citation point of view, of course), if we ever decided to submit the article through that process.

In terms of workload, I don't expect it to take me more than a few long-ish sessions, since all the references now use standard {{cite}} templates. Unlike the consolidation effort that I carried out this time last year, there won't be any research involved and the process would simply be a very mechanical one of copying & pasting stuff, from the body of the article to the back matter. So, I anticipate it would only take me a few days. Of course, I would put up the {{In use}} and {{Under construction}} templates as usual, to warn you I'm on-site.
Please let me know what you think, and thank you for your consideration.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 17:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fo the ping Pdebee. Referencing systems are not my forte so am happy for others to decide. Do the hoped for benefits justify the labour and will the average editor be able to follow the new system?SovalValtos (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, SV. Re-the effort involved, I’d certainly enjoy doing the work. As for other editors’ ability to follow the system, I’d suggest you consider looking into the Australian Antarctic Expedition article as an example of what it would feel like, to you personally, to have the present article organised in Harvard style. I would certainly take your opinion into consideration and, if you ended up feeling hesitant about going ahead with my proposal, then we would simply not proceed, and that would be perfectly fine with me. Thank you for taking part in the discussion.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 20:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am only a basic-level referencer, Patrick, so can't really take a position on this one. Thanks, though. All the best, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, Tony. Since you are one of the main contributors to the article, I wouldn't wish to recommend any change that doesn't have your support. Would you rather we continued with the current approach? Or would you be prepared to have a quick look into the Australian Antarctic Expedition article, at your convenience, to see what it looks like? You might conclude that it's actually much simpler than what we're doing at the moment. Thank you for having a peek if/when you have a moment.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 23:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did have a look at that article before responding, Patrick, but couldn't decide whether it was simpler or more complex, which just goes to show my lack of competency in the field. I can see there is less clutter in the text. So long as other editors will follow it, I'm sure you will be, as you do in many areas, improving the article, so please don't take my reticence as objection to your proposal. Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for clarifying your current thinking, Tony. I dare say the lack of clutter will be a big bonus, and is my main motivation for suggesting the change, and for putting in the hours to implement it; I am confident it will be a big improvement, as long as we have consensus, of course. If it helps, I would be happy to assist during an initial transition phase, if everyone were to agree to give it a go. I'll wait until other colleagues have responded, and am attaching a sample below. But for now, many thanks once again for your reply, Tony.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 23:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Example: Here is a single, short sentence and its {{sfn}} (= shortened footnote) template:
Shackleton, who was in London investigating the possibility of organising and financing an expedition of his own, suggested to Mawson that he could act as its chief scientist.{{sfn|Riffenburgh|2009|p=38}}, where:
"Riffenburgh" is the author's name;
"2009" is the year of publication; and
"p=38" is the page number.
That's it! The rest is taken care of automatically by the system, since the book itself is cited in the Sources section, down in the back matter:
* {{cite book |last = Riffenburgh |first = B. |date = 2009 |title = Racing with Death: Douglas Mawson, Antarctic Explorer |location = London |publisher = Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn = 978-0-7475-9671-4 |ref = harv |url-access = registration |url = https://archive.org/details/racingwithdeathd0000riff }}
I'm with Tony and SV on this, in that referencing is not something I'm especially skilled at, and I only do what is necessary, but I'm happy to go with the flow. I do agree that the {{cite templates can really make editing awkward at times. Got to say that I'd never heard of Harvard-style referencing before! Regards, Hogyn Lleol (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for joining the discussion, Hogyn Lleol. Having now seen the example I posted immediately above, do you think you might adjust to seeing the article in this format, or not? Once a {{cite}} template (for a book, or anything else) is placed in the Sources section, it's then really easy to apply the shortened footnote template ({{sfn}}) in the prose, in pretty much the same way as you'd apply the <ref name="xxxxxxx"> and </ref> tags at the moment, only it's simpler, since the three varying parameters are all under the same roof, so to speak. And, of course, it's the format most prevalent in FA articles. Thank you for letting me know, whenever convenient.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 18:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tony, SV, Hogyn Lleol, (and Gareth),
Would it help if I were to create a temporary, draft copy of the present article (Pembrokeshire) in my user space, and then apply the changes in a few sections, so you'd have a realistic impression of how it would look? It wouldn't take me too long and, if you'd all conclude you couldn't support it, then we'd forget about it. Thank you for your patience with me...
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 18:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Patrick, but I have only just switched on my pc for the first time today. My opinion is that if you are prepared to undertake the task then who are we to prevent it. Should the result not please then the status quo can be easily restored. For my part, I think we are fortunate to have you offering to do it. All the best! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your reply, Gareth. Please see my final post, below.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 20:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There must have been many discussions elsewhere about citation styles so rather than rehash pros and cons amongst us few could we be given a link to any conclusion that we should move to Harvard? Is there a consensus that Harvard should be the style of choice for Wikipedia FA articles? My experience suggests that many editors have difficulty doing any referencing let alone moving between styles. Asking old Corgis to learn new tricks without good reason could divert effort to learning a new system rather than editing. I see the article Parenthetical referencing gives more disadvantages than advantages for Harvard. Pdebee please do not do a draft on my behalf. It is not the look that is my concern. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To: Tony, Gareth, SV, and Hogyn Lleol.
Dear Colleagues,
The above exchanges have been helpful in clarifying that we don't have consensus in favour of my proposal, which I am therefore withdrawing. Thank you all for your time, consideration and patience with me. Please know that if it should ever be deemed useful to adopt Harvard-style citations for our article, perhaps as part of a future drive towards FA status, then I remain ready and willing to do the work required.
With kindest regards, as always; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 20:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Patrick! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea: "de-cluttering"?[edit]

To: Tony, Gareth, SV, Hogyn Lleol, and other editors watching this page.
From: Patrick.

Dear old Corgis Colleagues,

Please forgive me for contacting you again so soon with another proposal: Tony’s use of the word "clutter" (above section) reminded me that it is possible to "de-clutter" the source of an article thanks to list-defined references; it works as follows:

1. insert the full ref tag into the References section itself: <ref name="blabla">{{cite|...}}</ref>;
2. invoke it from the prose by using its short form (with the usual /> at the end): <ref name="blabla"/>.

So, I have done this in User:Pdebee/Pembrokeshire, which is a test copy identical to Pembrokeshire. As you can see, the two articles look identical to the reader all the way down to, and including, their References sections (aside from my two 'In use' templates at the top of my test copy, and the absence of the back matter I commend out, per the rules.)

But if you edit any section, you will see that it is now free of all citation templates, and now only has <ref name="..."/> tags (and their {{rp}} page templates for the books) left in the prose.

And, if you edit my test References section, you will see that this is where all the {{Cite}} templates now reside, each with a unique name invoked from the short-form ref tags in the prose. Since 44 of our 205 references already had the ‘name=’ parameter coded, I gave unique names to the other 161. I also listed all the references in the order in which they appeared in the article, and provided a comment block as a heading, to help identify the section where they were originally coded.

As far as I’m concerned, the pros/cons of list-defined references are as follows:

1. There are no dis/advantages to the readers.
2. The main advantage for editors is that citation templates are no longer cluttering the prose.
3. The disadvantages for editors are that:
3.1. citation templates must be coded separately in the References section instead of inline (but then we wouldn’t have the main benefit of uncluttered prose without doing that!);
3.2. all ref tags must have a unique name="..." parameter (but isn't this what we already do anyway, when we cite books to which we need to refer more than once?).

Please let me know what you think, and thank you for your feedback, whenever convenient.

The good news is that, if you all agreed to adopt this approach for our article, then I could implement it in one single edit, since all the work has already been done in my test copy. (All I’d need to do is remove my two templates from the top, and remove the comment tags that I wrapped around the GA template and the back matter when I copied the original, and we'd be good to go.)

Thank you for your time and consideration.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 09:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. You have my commendation, Patrick. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt reply, Gareth, for your support and kind blessing, too.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 11:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still hoping for Tony, SV, and Hogyn Lleol either to support, comment on, or oppose my second proposal. Thank you for your time and consideration. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 13:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, Patrick. It may seem odd, but I don't grasp article-scale referencing very easily, so cannot comment with any degree of knowledge of the subject. I see no reason to oppose. My only concern, as with any "across the board" changes, is that other editors can and will follow the style and, if not, there won't be any unforeseen consequences. I think this means that if you are happy, so am I. Best, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your reply, Tony, and for raising a fair point about other editors not following this referencing style and resulting consequences. Here are some thoughts, in response:
1. As you know, many articles have a mixture of citation styles (as indeed this one did until the GA Review in February 2018), and I am quite certain that deviations will happen, inevitably. What I could do (assuming we have consensus on implementing the present proposal), is keep the present article on my watchlist and act as its steward for the purposes of adjusting any new citations to the format of list-defined references, and use the edit summaries to point to this talk page section. (Like you do, I keep watch on it against vandalism already, so it's no problem for me to do this as well.)
2. I'd like to think that occasional, visiting editors will notice the consistent use of named ref tags and wonder where the citation templates are, until they find them located in the References section. To help them, I could easily put a comment block at the head of the article with summary instructions, and I'll put one now in my draft test copy.
3. A related point is that our article now seems quite stable, and might be the object of fewer updates from now on, thus making the task of keeping to an agreed citation style fairly easy.
Thanks again, Tony; please let me know if your "no reason to oppose" might have become a "support".
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 15:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. Agreed. 2. probably not necessary, as most edits (IMO) are at section level, rather than whole article. 3. Agreed. Ergo Support. Best wishes, Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, Tony; it's very much appreciated. I dare say the lack of clutter will make things easier for us all. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 16:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: To address your point 2. above, Tony: "most edits (IMO) are at section level", please see this diff, which now provides a comment line in each section, pointing editors to the instructions at the top of the article.
Thank you. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 10:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pdebee. I come from exactly the same place as Tony in terms of how I feel about this. Like him, I am not a wizard with citations, and have only recently got to grips with the {{cite format! Yes, other editors will no doubt add things in the future, but as you say, many articles have a mix of styles. However, if you're happy to watch this article and convert any non-'list-defined' citations to the new format, then great. There is no doubt that this method of citations keeps the text itself uncluttered when editing, and, most importantly doesn't affect the article when reading it, which is what 99% of our drive-by readers will do. So I too am happy to support. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support, Hogyn Lleol; it's most useful to have your positive feedback about the resulting clarity when editing, which was the whole idea, triggered by Tony's earlier remark on "clutter". And, of course, I'll be happy to steward future citations, as this won't require a lot of time or effort. Thanks once again for your support.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 17:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SovalValtos,
Today, I'd like to apply this change, as agreed above with Gareth, Tony, and Hogyn Lleol; so, I thought it would be polite to offer you another opportunity either to support, comment on, or oppose it. Thank you for your consideration.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 07:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pdebee. I am responding now as you are pressing for time although I have not re-read the above. Essentially I am neutral as I am ignorant of the benefits of one style compared to another. I would like to see comments from users with experience of the different styles before concluding there was a permanent consensus for the change. Maybe a request for comment would help as though the article is read by many it is watched by few? Again RFC is not my field. Not wanting to put a dampener on your enthusiasm I am quite happy to support your experiment in cit style going ahead but without conceding it should be enshrined for the future. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear SovalValtos,
Thank you for your reply, and for your excellent suggestion of launching an RfC, which I have now done (see section below).  Done
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 15:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To: Tony, Gareth, and Hogyn Lleol.
From: Patrick.

Dear Colleagues,

I think the time has come for me to disengage from this discussion, because I am so convinced of the merits of "de-cluttering" that I can no longer maintain the patient detachment required to persuade other editors to support the consensus reached (above) between the four of us. I was delighted to be able to devote time and energy to this article because I live in the county, and have wholeheartedly enjoyed helping you guys with sorting out its citations two years ago. However, my work here is done and I will now remove the article from my watchlist. I'd also like to apologise for wasting everyone's time with my detailed approach to explaining things. Please keep well & safe, and thank you for all your contributions to this article and to Wikipedia.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 00:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: As for what happens to the RfC below, please note the guideline on "not closing contentious discussions that you are involved in"; I would suggest you simply let the RfC follow its natural course until someone in authority to close it does so.

Patrick, thank you, and I think I understand your frustration with this, but I do hope you won't disengage to the extent of removing Pembrokeshire from your watchlist; your contributions have been immeasurable and experienced eyes such as yours will always be reassuring. For my part, much of the discussion above (and below) is well over my head, possibly due to distraction by health matters, but equally I may just not get it*. All the best, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Patrick,
Reading today's post above saddens me considerably. Your intention is straightforward and highly commendable; I support your ambition to continue with your improvements as I have detailed above.
Empathetically, I urge you to stay with the project. Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post script
As far as I am concerned here, you must never say that you have been, wasting everyone's time with my detailed approach to explaining things. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick - (see my comment above) *consequently, and with regret, I have not been able to contribute much to the discussion other than "inspiring" it in the first place. However, it seems to me that the consensus above is support, no? Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tony and Gareth;
Thank you very much for your kind words of understanding and appreciation. I have always viewed the two of you— without prejudice to the contributions made by all the other editors who have contributed here— as the current, lead stewards of this article: you have vastly enriched it with content and references, and successfully brought it to GA. Therefore, if you were to instruct me to proceed with the single edit that would implement list-defined references as discussed in more-than-sufficient detail above, then I would go ahead but not otherwise. If we took the position that the article's development is largely complete and that adding content and references will now be in the form of occasional updates, I see no reason why we shouldn't go ahead since (also as discussed above) it would be very easy for me, or any editor with knowledge of citation templates, to keep watch over the article and ensure its internal quality remains high at all times. The only concern that remains (raised by GPinkerton; see section below) is whether other editors might be using VisualEditor and be unable to add citations, due to limitation(s) in VE. But if neither of you (nor Hogyn Lleol) use this tool, then the four of us should be able to support the change on consensus. So, thank you for letting me know of your intent, and I will take action, one way or the other, so that we can all return to more productive work soon thereafter.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 15:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, Patrick, and you have my instruction to proceed. All the best! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick I am pinging you as I am not sure whether you have stuck to your decision to remove the article from your watchlist and disengage your work being done, as there are indications that you may have changed your mind. I am also pinging Hogyn Lleol and GPinkerton as you did not ping them or me in your recent edit. I would like to see several weeks more time given to the RfC as as yet there has been just one (most helpful) responder so far. We are not in any hurry are we? The article's development is by no means largely complete (see above). Changing a referencing style from the original can be problematic particularly if it were that an editor offering to steward a new style then changed their mind. Best wishes all.SovalValtos (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear SovalValtos; Thank you for your post, above. Just for the record, I did ping both GPinkerton and Hogyn Lleol in my post to Tony and Gareth above (15:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)). You are correct that I did not ping you, after your post (13:44, 28 March 2020), in which you stated: ... although I have not re-read the above. I am quite happy to leave this pending for however long it takes, and will now wait until there is unanimity, which is what you seem to be seeking. I will remove this article from my watchlist until then.[reply]
With kind regards to all; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 16:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following GPinkerton's reply to me in the section below, the only objector is User:SovalValtos. I fail to comprehend how Patrick should be advised to remove Pembrokeshire from his watchlist.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Griffith-Jones Please can you explain why you have said I am an objector with a specific link to the article Conscientious objector? I am not a military Conscientious objector, although conscientiously objecting to swastikas. I suspect it was done without thinking but if intended I would find it offensive. I have posed a number of questions and in particular asked for input from those with experience in the field of referencing styles and their advantages and disadvantages. I still think more input from outside the regular editors should be a pre-curser to action. Not all of my questions have been answered. This article does not have many watchers and if RfC is not further productive maybe there is another route to try? Nowhere do I see that Patrick has been advised or that anyone intends to advise him to remove Pembrokeshire from his watchlist, so why the comment? Meanwhile best wishes for your progress to 85,000.SovalValtos (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully suggest that everyone steps back for a while. We all want the best for this article, and I see no reason to fall out over it, bearing in mind that nothing said on here can be unsaid. For my part, I am sorry I raised the point in the first place. The virus has killed someone not a mile away, so I am in sombre mood this week, and feeling the pressure of the lockdown; I expect we all are. Best to all. Stay safe. Tony Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse that. Thank you Tony for your intervention. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about adopting list-defined references[edit]

Would the present article benefit from adopting list-defined references, to look like this? (See above section for earlier consensus-seeking discussion.) Thank you. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 16:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC request for the same discussion (28 March - 27 April 2020)[edit]

Would the present article benefit from adopting list-defined references, to look like this? (See above section for earlier consensus-seeking discussion.) Thank you. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 15:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of this is a little complex for me, but any citation style that makes it possible to jump to the actual full reference itself in one or two clicks, without having to decode Surname, 19xx, pp. x-y by scrolling over to bibliography is best, in my view. Not sure if this is what's proposed, but to me the Harvard style is needless obfuscation and a barrier to simple editing and neat referencing. GPinkerton (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input, GPinkerton, but this section discusses list-defined references, as implemented in this test copy of the article; if you edit this test copy, you will be able to see exactly what the article would look like to editors if the proposal were adopted. Specifically, the citation templates would no longer appear inline, but would be relocated in the References section at the end of the article; hence “de-cluttering”. We’re definitely not proposing to adopt Harvard-style referencing, which was the topic discussed, and already rejected, in the previous section.
Thanks again for your interest in joining the discussion.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 08:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pdebee: I see. Then I'm opposed, since it appears that editing references is now only possible in source mode, which is no fun at all. GPinkerton (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, GPinkerton, although I don't know what you mean by "in source mode"; do you mean Wikitext? Is that because you use VisualEditor to edit articles? I have never done so, because when I looked at it briefly some years ago it seemed to be a prototype, and its User guide still states: Be aware that VisualEditor is still in development and thus has known limitations and bugs. In that case, I'll need to try it out on my test copy of the article and see what happens. Thank you again for your useful input.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 11:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pdebee: Yes, I should have been clearer - yes, using the visual editor makes the whole references list and the references themselves uneditable; a message appears saying it can only be modified in source mode, meaning the automatic citation tool visual editor provides is basically impossible to use in this citation format (... unless maybe you set the references up suing visual editor and then maybe you can't edit the source? I don't know.) If you use visual editor, the references are not a problem because they appear only where they're supposed to. Highly recommend visual editing generally BTW, much more sensible and quick, and I never felt like the tool wasn't finished or had bugs. GPinkerton (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your clarification, GPinkerton. Well, I followed the instructions on opting-in to VisualEditor, and didn't find it listed in the Beta Features on my preferences page. Since I have happily edited in Wikitext mode for over 10 years, I don't envisage adopting VE, and will therefore leave it to other interested editors to progress the present discussion. Thank you once again for responding to this RfC. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 23:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pdebee:. How strange! I just have the option to "switch to visual editing" at the top right-hand corener of the editing area. (Though not on Talk pages: they seem only to be source-editable.) Do persevere because visual editing really streamlines things for me. GPinkerton (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if User talk:GPinkerton were to advertise their interest in Pembrokeshire. At the moment, Wikipedia:VisualEditor appears to be their only grouse/gripe. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gareth Griffith-Jones: No especial interest in Pembrokeshire, never edited here, just responding to the RfC and discovered that the proposed referencing format is ineditable in visual editor. I don't mind what happens. GPinkerton (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt reply. I was aware that you have never edited this article and your User page has not been started, hence my request.
Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pdebee - some additional cons to a list-defined reference format. I work on controlling the backlog at category:pages with incorrect ref formatting, and I can tell you unequivocally that the number one issue I see in that category is cite errors with LDR's. From my experience, most of the time when people are editing an article, they don't realize (or don't care) what kind of citation format is being used, so when they remove content/references, they don't know how, or realize, or don't care that unused list-defined references must be removed or commented out. That's not to say that a LDRF wouldn't benefit this article, because it would, as it does de-clutter, and make it easier to edit the content. I'd offer two suggestions if it is implemented, see about getting a edit notice like at Boy Scouts of America (click on the edit tab to see the LDR notice), which is helpful, and alphabetize the refs by ref name, instead of using sections to organize them. When an editor is unfamiliar with the article, and they are fixing LDR cite errors, they have no idea what section of the article they came from. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive and helpful post above, Isaidnoway . Yes, I could easily reword the instructions I already prepared at the very top of my test copy and also at the top of every section, to convey similar advice to that given at the top of Boy Scouts of America. Also, re-listing the ref tags in alphabetical order would be a no-brainer. It will be up to other editors involved with the present discussion to decide whether we go ahead with such an implementation, but I am happy to serve, as always. Thank you for taking the time to participate in this discussion, and for offering your most helpful advice, strengthened as it is by your practical experience with this particular approach to referencing.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 21:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Isaidnoway,  Done
I have now applied your helpful suggestions into my test copy, including a comment block with instructions similar to the example available at Boy Scouts of America. I also took the opportunity to apply a consistent nomenclature to all the |name="..."> parameters, to make it easier for future editors to locate the full refs in the References section. I also added a short comment block in each section, as a reminder to most editors who apply changes at section level (see comment above, made by Tony Holkham at 15:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)).[reply]
Thank you once again for your helpful contributions to the present discussion.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 15:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC request for the same discussion (10 May - 10 June 2020)[edit]

To: Tony, Gareth, Hogyn Lleol, SovalValtos, and other editors watching this page.
From: Patrick.
Dear colleagues,
Since Legobot removed the RfC template automatically after 30 days (on 16:01, 27 April), and to accommodate SV's wish for this discussion to be afforded more time, I will re-apply it in the near future, per Restarting an RfC and for another 30 days of consultation with other editors who contribute to the RfC process. After that, I am hopeful that we can agree to proceed with implementing this de-cluttering improvement, unless more reviewers come forward with other counter-indication(s). Thanks.
With kind regards for now;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 15:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Patrick for keeping us posted. All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

To: Tony, Gareth, Hogyn Lleol, SovalValtos, and other editors watching this page.
From: Patrick.
Dear colleagues,
Since Legobot removed the RfC template automatically yesterday, after another period of 30 days for inviting comments, I'd like to propose that we bring this task to a productive conclusion. There were no comments during this last round, and I have fully implemented (in my test copy of our article) the recommendations made by our colleague Isaidnoway, as well as keeping said test copy in line with the 11 edits applied to Pembrokeshire since 22 March (12:23).
I am therefore ready to implement the change to list-defined references in a single edit now and, if no-one disagrees, would propose to do so in a week from today, to ensure everyone will have had the opportunity to see the present post.
Thank you all for your patience and contributions, and I'd like to offer a special thank you to SovalValtos for proposing this RfC, which has enabled us to refine the solution thanks to the most helpful advice received from our colleague Isaidnoway.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 10:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Patrick,
Trust you are keeping well.
You have my support here.
BTW Do not leave a space after the break instruction. I have taken the liberty of correcting you above in all instances.
Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gareth,
Thank you; yes, all is well here and I hope you are keeping well too, and staying safe? Thank you also for your continued support to this task. I am grateful to you for your advice about the breaks; I had no idea it made any difference, except that adding the space makes the source a little easier to read, at least to me. I must also make an effort of coding the <br /> tag correctly, with the '/' at the end, even though it works without it!
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 11:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In HTML5, the <br> and <br /> tags are equally valid; the space and slash are both fully optional. But some of Wikipedia's syntax highlighting tools don't handle the slashless form at all well. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful comment, Redrose64 ; I didn't know that, and have resolved to use only <br /> as of yesterday, thanks to Gareth's advice; we are learning all the time... .
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 09:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To: Tony, Gareth, Hogyn Lleol, SovalValtos, and other editors watching this page.
From: Patrick.
Dear colleagues,
This is now  Done. As promised above, I will keep watching this article and will remain available to assist current and future editors with creating or maintaining citations as list-defined references. Please also accept my apologies for my part in causing some friction here, earlier on in our discussions.
With kindest regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 08:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Patrick for your assiduousness in getting this completed. Well done! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome, Gareth!
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 14:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Patrick. Glad you said ref can be added in any format, but I will try to follow your instructions! Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome, Tony! I'll be happy to assist, any time.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 14:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh-English?[edit]

At the top of this talk page is a {{Welsh-English}} template, stating that "This article is written in Welsh English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from American English or other varieties of English." I really think that it ought to go. Aside from the fact that the spelling examples given are nothing to do with Wenglish, this article is most certainly not written in Welsh English; it's written in standard British English, as would be expected. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotices[edit]

Dear Redrose64;
Thank you for your edit, pointing me to editnotices, of which I was unaware; I'll set to learn all about them in the next few days. You could have chosen to use less contemptuous language in your edit summary, though; someone of your seniority ought to set the example by remaining unfailingly polite at all times, especially when a colleague makes a mistake out of ignorance and in good faith, as was clearly the case with the comment blocks I had added to assist future editors.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 00:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know of any other page that stuffs every section with hidden text like that. It's not even mentioned (let alone suggested or recommended) at WP:LDR. We do not do anything like that for any other unusual reference method )and your desire to explain it repeatedly shows that LDR is unusual). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Redrose64;
Thank you for your prompt reply, above. I'll readily admit that my mistake was to have assumed (when our colleague Isaidnoway mentioned it in his post above: 8:38 pm, 16 April 2020) that "editnotices" were entered manually instead of being produced on request. Thanks to you, I have now learned from this and I appreciate it. The reason why I "stuffed" (as you say) each section with a short reminder to look at the top was motivated by the suggestion (see post above: 3:43 pm, 22 March 2020) that edits are generally carried out at section level instead of article level, and that other editors visiting the article for the first time might not be aware of our use of LDR here unless we pointed them to the instructions at the top of the article. I would have thought this was all quite logical, as we wanted to make LDR work well for everyone, while enabling our regular editors to benefit from its clear "de-cluttering" advantages. But if your edit immediately above was an apology for your earlier edit summary, then it is graciously accepted.
Thank you for all your help and advice, and for all your contributions to our encyclopaedia.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 09:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added ref[edit]

Patrick: I added a ref. Did I do it right? Cheers, T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tony;
Great to hear from you again; I hope you are feeling better and keeping well? All is well here. Yes, your added ref is perfect: the ref tag itself has a name that adheres perfectly to the established nomenclature, and the citation template is located correctly in alphabetical and chronological order in the References section; well done and thank you, Tony.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 16:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Patrick; I must have been paying attention, then! I am not too bad (under the present circumstances), plodding along, not doing too much of anything; catching up with reading. Glad to hear you are all right. Cheers, T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Density rank[edit]

Does anyone know why density rank doesn't appear in the infobox when there appears to be a template there? Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tony;
 Done!
Happy New Year to you and yours, hoping you are keeping well and safe. All is well here.
With kindest regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 16:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Patrick, coming up with the answer. Yes, all is well here, too. At least, as well as can be expected under the trying circumstances. Patience is a virtue, though...? Happy New Year, too. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to read this. All is fine with me too. Happy New Year to you Tony and to you Patrick. All the best!
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Gareth! Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, and Happy New Year to you too, Gareth; I’m very pleased to know that you are keeping well and safe also.
With kindest regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 22:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be worth watching ...[edit]

@ Tony, Patrick and Martin.
I expect you have spotted this programms tonight.
Mind you, I need no excuse to watch Alice Roberts.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Yes, Alice always "raises my sarsen stones", as they say on Time Team. I just heard on the radio that Stonehenge is actually second-hand! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that made me smile, or is it grin?
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mention the return the Elgin marbles campaign or a convoy of large trucks may be seen heading east towards Wiltshire?SovalValtos (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your reminder, Gareth!
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 14:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A very interesting programme. Maybe we now need an article for Waun Mawn: [2] with a link to Mike Parker Pearson! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed all of it. Surely does need expanding into a stand-alone article.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Msrasnw has kindly started it off. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Martin and Gareth, thanks for this ...Just started the page after watching the lovely little programme on iplayer and was suprised we didn't have one. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I noticed when you added the link on Stonehenge. Well done for all you have done so far. Cheers!
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't spoil the plot for me - I recorded it for watching later because it clashed with progs on Channel 4 and BBC 4. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alice Roberts has bright red hair again Well, there's quite a lot of rain... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Actualy, the "plot" is revealed above in one of Martin's earlier posts.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 34[edit]

Patrick - can you help with this ref? I can't figure out what's wrong. Thanks, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick - It's OK, I've found it. It was the wrong ref that was wrong (er, I think). Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tony;
So sorry that I missed your message yesterday, as I was away from home all day and did not check Wiki at all. Also did not go online at all today until now. But, after following your change history just now, I’m glad that you were able to fix the issue yourself and that there are no cite errors left. Please keep well and safe.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 19:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Patrick, sorry to have panicked! You keep safe and well, too. Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humpback whale sighting[edit]

Is this news item significant enough to include, do we think? I'm not sure. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tony;
Well spotted! One possibility might be to add a link to this news item as an additional citation to the existing prose about whales, perhaps? Hope this helped a little.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 15:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tony and Patrick,
My first reaction was to say no, but on reflection, why not? The poor animal may not survive, so let's give it its place in the article
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Patrick and Gareth - I was tending that way. Best to you both. Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wettest places in Wales[edit]

The 'wettest place in Wales' claims are unreliable. Although the Western Mail (Wales Online) is normally accepted as a reliable source, in this case it seems that the ranking is an inexpert interpretation of raw data from the Met Office. A blog posting by the Met Office says "We often get asked the question about where is the wettest town or city in the UK – and there are some news stories on this subject circulating in the media at the moment. While the current stories use some of our figures, this isn’t an analysis by us and wasn’t done using our complete records from across the UK."[3] This has previously been discussed in relation to Cardiff (see Talk:Cardiff/Archive 2#Wettest city?), where the claim was removed. I will delete this paragraph. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pembrokeshire&oldid=1208703983"