Talk:Wales/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 19

Quick note

Quick note: just realised my last edit summary sounded a little arrogant and was rambling - better clarify. I agree that the previous note regarding the initial mutations of 'Cymru' was too excessive - I think I may have been the one who originally added it. Regarding my re-additions to the lead; I think the information about politics is especially important, because the rise of socialism in Wales defines the country and its people and is important for any user quickly glancing at the lead. -- Peter Talk page 11:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur, the rejection of Liberalism and the adoption of Socialist values has defined the values and stance of Wales for the last 100 years. I think it's needed in the lead. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've made an additional reversion, to reinstate the sentence "Over 580,000 Welsh speakers live in Wales, more than 20% of the population." Removing that factually correct sentence - when coupled with other statements in the lead about promoting the language, and with the order given in the infobox of "Welsh, English" (implemented following earlier discussions) - could give a misleading impression to our global readership that the Welsh language is predominant across Wales, when it is not. Implying that the Welsh language is more prevalent than it is in reality, could have a detrimental effect on tourism. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem, people. Peter's point (above) about the lead needing to be useful to readers giving it only a quick glance, is perfectly valid. However, It was generally agreed, some time ago, that the introduction was far too long. If you compare other country leads, you'll probably agree that it still is. Loads of information was cut (including many things dear to me), and I tried to be neutral. Featured Articles are: Australia, Belarus, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Nauru, Peru and Rwanda. All their introductions are shorter than the Wales article, some significantly so, even after the cuts. More than happy to discuss any further reductions - and whether or not you think they are necessary. Daicaregos (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree the lead is very long. A reduction to approx. 1/3 would probably do well. I just don't know where to start. Also, I removed the note about consonant mutations as a form of brute force "mediation" ;) - If the note was removed nobody could battle about it. Besides that, it was somewhat confusing IMHO. I think people who don't know about initial consonant mutation will be very confused with all these variant spellings; and those who do know about initial consonant mutation do not need the information. We already know, even if we have to spend a couple of hours decoding a single paragraph in Harri Potter a Maen Yr Athronydd (so much for my theory about vocabulary being more important than knowing grammatical constructs) ;) Dylansmrjones (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that notes on Welsh language grammar are best left to that article.

Do editors think the lead should be left as it is, or should it be shorter (I assume no-one would argue it should be lengthier)? If shorter; how should that best be achieved? BRD (by each, some, one, or all of us), or should each change be agreed here first? Daicaregos (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've had a first stab at it, but am quite happy for my changes to be reverted, and/or tweaked further, and discussed here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I made one small change to the improved/shortened text. Couple of points:
“Devolved policy matters” is mentioned twice.
The National Assembly for Wales was established by the Government of Wales Act 1998. It opened in 1999.
The change made to the sport section gives 'though' and 'although' in consecutive sentences. The Welsh language has a disproportionate amount of text dedicated to it. As cutting reference to the actual number of speakers was not accepted, how about saying something like 'although everyone is able to speak English, for many people Welsh is their 1st language.'? Or, change “Although Wales shares a close political and social history with the rest of Great Britain, it has retained a distinct cultural identity. Wales is officially bilingual, the Welsh and English languages having equal status. The Welsh language is an important element of Welsh culture, and its use is supported by national policy. Over 580,000 Welsh speakers live in Wales, more than 20% of the population.” to “Although Wales shares a close political and social history with the rest of Great Britain, it has retained a distinct cultural identity. Wales is officially bilingual, the Welsh and English languages having equal status.” Daicaregos (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Re the Welsh language, how about: "Although Wales shares a close political and social history with the rest of Great Britain, and almost all people speak English, the country has retained its distinct cultural identity. Wales is officially bilingual; the Welsh language is spoken by over 20% of the population, including a majority in parts of north and west Wales." I've no problem with the other changes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
If one or the other is used, I would rather the absolute figure to a percentage. How about “Although Wales shares a close political and social history with the rest of Great Britain, and almost everyone speaks English, the country has retained a distinct cultural identity. Over 580,000 Welsh language speakers live in Wales, where it is spoken by a majority of the population in parts of the north and west.” As to the other changes, I was rather hoping for suggestions. Daicaregos (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been bold again, and made changes and further text reductions along those lines, with the effect of removing the references to England and Wales and to association football. Open to further discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we could also lose 'exemplified in the early 20th century by Lloyd George' from the lead. Takers? ...oh and the (coal, steel, copper, tinplate and slate). We should have nothing in brackets in the lead. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I've tweaked it again to remove the brackets and link to the coal and steel industries - slate is already mentioned, and copper and tinplate are probably less iconic and notable. Personally I'd keep Lloyd George in - very important UK figure, certainly Welsh (even if born in Manchester). Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
My view is that Lloyd George is unnecessary in the lead. Quick question: does the population need to quote the census figure? It had a population in 2011 of 3,064,000 is already out of date. Its population is over three million ... would have longevity. Thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem with "over 3 million" is that it's unencyclopaedically vague - it could be 3,200,000, or 3,400,000, etc. The 2011 census figure has only just come out - I think we should be as accurate as possible, and I think it's normal to include the latest census population in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Lloyd George is a great Welsh figure, but he is in the article, and the sentence works without him. I think remove. Has a population of 3 million works for me, people will accept that (India states over 1.2 billion). But I dislike the 'almost everyone speaks English', how about 'and is now a predominantly English speaking'. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
My view is that "almost everyone speaks English" is actually clearer and more informative to readers than "predominantly English speaking", even if it is in a less conventionally encyclopedic style. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If Lloyd George is mentioned, others should be mentioned too - Nye Bevan, Saunders Lewis, Rhodri Morgan etc. Best to leave him to the article itself. Daicaregos (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

'Industrial Revolution': Copper was an extremely important industry in Wales: mining (in the north); bringing ore to Wales from South America; kitting ships out for the Napoleonic Wars; and manufacture (see here) – particularly Swansea, which was known as 'Copperopolis'. Iron - Merthyr was Wales' largest town due to its ironworks - and tinplate should have a mention too. As you say, not iconic now, but they were an important part of Wales' transformation from agriculture to industry. Each deserves a name-check. Daicaregos (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure - I don't mind if they're put back in, but we should try to avoid lengthy lists, and in my view coal and steel are the two most iconic and most frequently-mentioned industries and so most deserving of mention in a cut-down paragraph. Or, perhaps we just mention mining and metallurgical industries in a general sense in the lead, and leave the specifics to the text? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
That's probably better. Mentioning one means the others should be noted too. Daicaregos (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Economy: is there a case to state Wales' GVA in comparison to Europe and/or UK? Daicaregos (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

NUTS in the lead.

Objections have been made to the inclusion of the following sentence in the lead: "Wales is one of twelve official regions of the United Kingdom at the first level of NUTS for statistical purposes.". I think that is is accurate, verifiable, notable and consistent with every other level 1 region of the UK, all of which have the sentence in their respective leads. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, please stop using the others have it as your argument, as you added them yourself just 2 days ago. That's very bad form to use that as an argument or reasoning. And it's obvious across multiple articles that you added it to that there are people objecting to it's inclusion in the lead. Canterbury Tail talk 20:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It adds nothing, maybe in the main body but its not for the lede ----Snowded TALK 21:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It is certainly not notable enough for the lead. Having agreed the lead was too long (see this talkpage), editors have been reducing its length, quite ruthlessly. Examples of information important to an understanding of Wales that have been removed from the lead include:
The way the EU classifies Wales is not more important than any of those facts recently removed from the lead. I am doubtful it is notable enough to be included in the article at all. This article is, of course, about Wales, not about the EU, where that information would be relevant. My vote is that it should be removed completely. I would be interested in the views of others. Daicaregos (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You wouldn't expect to see something as technical as a European statistical classification for spatial areas featuring in the lead of an article about a country.Pondle (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Am I missing something here? Within the NUTS you will find Wales under the category "Country", of which England, (also a "Country"), given her larger population, is subdivided into nine "Regions", ("statistical regions of England"). Whereas England is divided into "regions", Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not, and for statistical purposes remain whole countries which, when combined with England's nine "regions", form a total of twelve "Level 1 Subdivisions". The "region" category is applicable to those nine within the "country" of England and not to the remaining three Countries/NUTS Level 1 Subdivisions.
What on earth is the OP trying to do here other than to prove they have grossly misunderstood what it is they are referencing/refering? Frankly, "Wales is one of twelve subdivisions of the United Kingdom at the first level of Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics within the European Union." is meaningless drivel for most readers and brings absolutely nothing to the table.217.42.118.93 (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
People don't always come to Wiki to find facts that they already know; sometimes they like to find new facts. Some parts of the lead do not lend themselves to repetition in the main body. Having stated that "County X is a metropolitan county", would you really need to explain what a metropolitan county was in the body? Isn't that what links are for? And yes, there is a large share of nationalism involved here. Bad enough that some should doubt that it is a country, but to be relegated to the level of region, well that realy takes the biscuit. No such sensibilities have arisen in those regions in England. Indeed, in the case of the Republic of Ireland, not only does it figure in the lead of level 1, but also in the lead of level 2 and 3 regions. Lastly, it is the way that the govt of the UK uses in making cases to the EU for special funds for disadvantaged areas. It has very real implications for the lives of people in those regions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Your behaviour is becoming problematic here. You keep claiming precedent in other articles, then when its checked it turns out you made the edit. Please stop this behaviour, its tantamount to deliberate deception and if it continues would justify an ANI report. Its also very clear you have zero support for these mass edits, please stop wasting people's time. ----Snowded TALK 23:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Horrid, horrid, horrid. This would not appear in an encyclopedia, as it would need another tome to help the person understand. In English, simple and precise, that's all we need.FruitMonkey (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I am the person who went to the trouble of creating a load of NUTS maps for the UK. But I agree with the consensus that seems to be emerging, that the status of Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland as a NUTS-1 region isn't important enough to appear in the article lead. It probably deserves a brief mention somewhere in each article, but not in the lead. In the case of the English regions, I added a NUTS map to each regional article (but didn't mention NUTS in those articles' leads — Laurel Lodged did that just recently). In the case of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, I didn't add the map to those articles, but instead to Local government in Wales, Subdivisions of Scotland and Local government in Northern Ireland, which seemed the most appropriate articles I could find. (There may, perhaps, be better ones.) -- Dr Greg  talk  20:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Since when is Wales a country?

Hello, what I am about to say is obviously heresy to many here. Since when is Wales a country? Does it have a head of state and its own currency? Welsh passports and Welsh army? No. As the article itself points out, Wales has been in the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Great Britain for many, many centuries, thus constituting a part of the United Kingdom, which is a country. The anthem is de facto; the flag - well, counties have flags, even towns. Wales may have a regional assembly but promoting it to the status of country is plain fantasy, and demoting the UK to the status of some sort of convenient, optional, loose trading federation is just erroneous. By the same token may we describe Bavaria, Galicia, Brittany and Xinjiang as countries? This is not to say Wales could not one day become a country, if it secedes from the UK and elects its own president and mints its own Welsh dollars and sends Welsh diplomats to the UN. The hope is of course that if you tell enough people over the web for long enough that it is a country, it will become one, and till then any edition of this page to reflect the truth of this matter will be summarily censored, in line with the globalist world view that the UK must end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.114.0.224 (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2012‎

Rather than rehashing old arguments here, I suggest that you read the box at the top of this page on this very topic, read the relevant articles linked from there (and perhaps the dictionary definition of the word "country"), and return here if you have any further questions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Its understandable it happens considering the primary meaning for many people of the word country is a sovereign state. its why its a shame that we had to use countries of the UK rather than nations of the UK which would have been far less controversial. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Your personal POV on 'country' versus 'nation' is well documented BW - no need to sieze every/any opportunity to keep harping on. Concensus remains for 'country' and Wales corresponds to the definition of such. Go find another hobby-horse. 81.135.131.228 (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Obvious attempt to troll. Maybe he/she (lets be honest it's probably a "he", women usually have better things to do with their time) should get down to the Welsh Assembly and inform all the Welsh law-makers of your opinion on what defines a "country", I'm sure they will be most interested in what one random guy thinks. 86.169.176.224 (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You are blinded by your own points of view if you seriously do not think many people around the world view country as sovereign state.. that is why it gets questioned many times on some of these articles. Im not suggesting we need to change the introduction, just pointing out it would have been less controversial and less confusing for many who do view countries as sovereign states, if it had said nation not country. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Assume good faith please, and remember that this is not a forum. I'm minded to remove all the above comments, apart from my brief reply to the original post. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

So where is the part of when Wales ceased to exist for centuries?

So following the Act of Unions between England and Wales where in this article is the bit about where Wales was for all intents and purposes an actual part of England? Just curious as i see many history books, especially those that focus on maps that show for the British Isles only England, Scotland and Ireland with Wales non existent (with its area being part of England). In fact when did Wales actually become a separate entity again? Maybe i and these books have our wires mixed up but i am curious to the questions. Mabuska (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You're probably looking for History of Wales. Dylansmrjones (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Though it must be said that both this article and that article are rather thin on Wales' history between, say, the 15th and 18th centuries. Wales was never "non-existent", obviously, but it was administered as part of the Kingdom of England in that period. The administrative history in recent centuries is covered at Modern history of Wales. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
There's also some tidbits in Wales and Monmouthshire. While Wales did cease to be an independent entity, a number of laws were passed specifically for Wales alone, implying that Wales wasn't quite like England proper. It is unclear to me exactly at which stage Wales became an separate entity within UK, but 1955 seems like one option. But pick'n'choose... Dylansmrjones (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I think when the article was passed through GA there wasn't anyone with a keen interest in this period, and it became a little forgotten. There is quite a large piece on this in the Encyclopedia of Wales under The Historiography of Wales, which brings up the entire issue of the lack of historical account of Wales from the Acts of Union until the industrialisation. They place the blame on historians obsession with political history, and thus Welsh history was ignored until the massive industrial changes gave them something to write about again. (as in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica - 'For Wales see England') That said, we have missed a bit of a trick here, for instance Henry VII doesn't get a mention until the flag of Wales, now that must be a bit confusing for the lay-reader. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It is something that definitely should be given more coverage as it does seem to be quite downplayed - that Wales existed as an entity within England for several centuries until modern time. Though i'm no expert in the history of Wales and England to suggest how exactly to give it more of a mention. Mabuska (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the English maybe. Not to the Welsh however! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.55.8 (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No help then? Mabuska (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Climate Units

I noticed that in the Climate section, all °C are also converted to °F. I don't know the policies on this, but makes sense to me. However - I did notice two occasions where the conversions were made when referring to the discrete units, such that the converted number reflected a position on the scale rather than the unit itself. The problem text reads: "...coastal temperatures are 10.5 °C (51 °F) and in low lying inland areas, 1 °C (34 °F) lower ... annual temperatures decrease on average approximately 0.5 °C (33 °F) each 100 metres..." The first instance is a correct conversion of temperature to temperature, while the second and third are relative measurements incorrectly converted to temperature: ie. a difference of 1 °C does not equal a difference of 34 °F, and likewise with 0.5 °C to 33 °F. I was excited to make my first contribution to Wikipedia, but the page is Semi-Protected, so I cannot. :( Hopefully someone else can happen upon this and make the changes: "1 °C (1.8 °F)" & "0.5 °C (0.56 °F)" Thank you! 24.252.249.102 (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I made the changes: "1 °C (1.8 °F)" & "0.5 °C (0.9 °F)". Good Spot, thanks. Have you considered creating an account? It doesn't oblige you to do anything - just makes life easier, for you to edit (like on semi-protected pages), and for other editors to communicate with you. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Plaid in the lead

I don't really see what relevence the founding of Plaid has in the lead, even within the context of the sentence on the rise of Welsh national identity. Surely there are more notable factors than what was at the time a minor regional political party being founded? The Sunday Closing Act? The Welsh Church Act? It seems a bit undue. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Reading your comment first, my gut was to agree. But, after reading the text, I think it is balanced. The establishment/existence of a separate "national party" (like Sinn Féin or the SNP) is a significant development in the modern expression of national identity. The same sentence mentions Welsh Language Society too. --RA (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree with you if it were an analogous situation to Sinn Fein or the SNP, but we're dealing with what is the third party in the Welsh assembly (tied for that position in terms of Westminster seats) who advocate for a position supported by under 10% of the Welsh population. I think there should be a higher standard for inclusion in the lead for the article on Wales itself, especially when there are more momentous events in the development of the Welsh national identity than Plaid being established... Cardiff being designated the capital city, the Welsh Office being established and those I mentioned above are all better (and politically neutral) choices for such prominent placement within the article. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm with RA on this, numbers change over time, the fact is that a national party was established ----Snowded TALK 01:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
So was a national museum and a national library and a national university system, etc. The fact is, the lead is supposed to summarize the article and include an overview of the most important aspects of the topic. Can we really honestly say that Plaid Cymru's foundation is worthy of inclusion there? Frankly, I also dislike that we have a sentence talking about how Welsh voters shifted from supporting the Liberals to supporting Labour but it's also the only mention of Lloyd-George in the section and I felt like that made it worth keeping. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The liberal tradition deserves more than such a dismissal, but the split between a socialist industrial south and a nationalist, welsh speaking North & West is very much a part of welsh identity and needs to be reflected. Maybe rather than pick of one aspect look at the most important things and go from there? ----Snowded TALK 04:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I am anti-Plaid, but believe they have a place in the lead. I also don't understand the problem with a mention of how the nation shifted from a Liberal voting country to a Labour voting country. It was a massive political change. Is it just the Liberals you have a problem with, as you didn't mention removing mention of Labour? I don't understand your objection. FruitMonkey (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
If User:MichiganCharms would like to make a firm proposal here on the wording, we can judge whether it is better or worse than the current text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd propose turning the single paragraph we have now into two, one addressing the rise of Wales as a distinct polity from England and another discussing the rise of Welsh politics. Ideally the latter, if party politics must be delved into, would impart the context Snowded mentions above... ie. the sharp north/south divide. As it stands I do wonder if an uninformed reader (as we must assume they all are), wouldn't walk away from the paragraph thinking that Plaid had eventually replaced Labour as the dominant party in Wales. --MichiganCharms (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Should .uk be listed in the info-box?

A discussion concerning the above question is ongoing on the Talk:Northern Ireland. Tentatively, I would say that a consensus is emerging there. The consensus is to remove .uk on the basis that it is assigned to the UK (not any part of it specifically). If consistency is going to apply, the same approach should be taken in terms of de-lisgin .uk on the Wales, Scotland and England articles. Do people support this deletion of .uk from the info box. Feel free to participate here (or on the Talk: Northern Ireland page where a lengthy discussion has already taken place. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Its useful information for readers please leave it alone and for the record I don't think you have a consensus, more indifference to a remarkably petty issue ----Snowded TALK 04:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
An update: the consensus that has now clearly arrived at Talk:Northern Ireland is not as described above but to keep the relevant domains (in Northern Ireland, those are .uk and .ie). Brocach (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, there is no need to try and impose consistency where it doesn't exist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Cymru am Byth

Here we go again. Firstly any web search clearly demonstrates common use and that includes a search of Google Scholar. If we really really need an explicit reference then Ian Upchurch's article (from Google Scholar) "A motto for Britain: a nation in defiance or definition?" explicitly references Cymru am Byth as the welsh national motto. Can can we please put this one to bed ----Snowded TALK 06:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

A single citation means nothing for something that should be fairly widespread. Particularly when it lists two welsh motos (Y Ddraig Goch Ddyry Cychwyn is the other) rather than one (do you plan to modify the article to take that into account?). Secondly no offense to Rzeszów University but what is effectively a journal of our results from a polish university wouldn't be my first choice of sources here.
Secondly the date of the article means that there is a significant risk of circular citation.
for something that is supposedly the motto of 3 million people sightly better citations should be available.©Geni 16:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The article in question is on British Identity and from a reliable source. Personally I think that is a token gesture for your need to reference what is blindly obvious to everyone who knows Wales or does a simple Google Search. I'm sure we could find more, but I don't think we need to. I'm open to adding another motto if you can find equivalent references. ----Snowded TALK 17:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
err "Y Ddraig Goch Ddyry Cychwyn" comes from the paper you cited page 89. I know a fair bit about wales. I know for example that given its waring principalities the idea of a welsh motto would have been rather odd. I know that post the place being acquired by england the welsh language was heavily suppressed (and in any case like English would have been considered a low status language) making its use rather than say latin in a motto unlikely. I know that in the 50s when we see the return of welsh "Y Ddraig Goch Ddyry Cychwyn" was implemented as a royal motto for wales (which is the closest the UK has to mottos). I know that the welsh assembly hasn't taken any action on the issue. Best I can tell Cymru am byth is actually a welsh nationalist slogan and not in any way shape or form an informal motto with the status of say E pluribus unum.©Geni 18:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
To the warring principalities many modern day aspects of Wales would be rather odd, that is irrelevant. If its a welsh nationalist slogan then they have captured the entire tourist and tacky souvenir business where it is more or less universal in use. The etymology of its use is more recent, its linked to the Welsh Guards who (the last I heard) were not part of Plaid Cymru. Just do a google search and look at some of the sites. Oh, and my point on Y Ddraig Goch Ddyry Cychwyn was that you will not find the same multiple use. But it may have a place ----Snowded TALK 18:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The objection is stated with civility and conveys a sense of sincere belief. Bypassing the statements made in support of the claim of a fair bit of knowledge about Wales, one notes that the assertion that E pluribus unum is an informal motto is challenged by the {{cn}} tag in that article, yet no one seems to be continually erasing the statement, as is being done here. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Cymru am byth was once used as a nationalist motto, and is now widely used in tourist literature and so forth. The issue is whether it should be described here as (the only) motto of Wales. It has no official status outside the Welsh Guards, so far as I know. It would be better - less contentious and perhaps less misleading - if this category in the infobox were simply left blank. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Once maybe, but as you say common use is now established and given that national anthems and the like in the British Isles have defacto use not official I think we would have a hard time if we insisted on the official stamp. Otherwise our purpose is to inform, and its not controversial other than for one editor. Common use was never in doubt, we had a somewhat pedantic demand for a reference, well now there is one ----Snowded TALK 22:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Your reference is an obscure polish journal with a significant risk of circular sourcing. Given how relentlessly self documenting Britain is you should be able to do better than that if the phrase has any actual status as a motto.©Geni 01:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Your opinion, its specifically about Britain by the looks of it a British auhor. I'm sure there are more but we don't need it anyway given common use----Snowded TALK 21:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
If there is common use you should be able to find more sources.©Geni 12:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Your montly visit? See previous responses. ----Snowded TALK 13:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Have done a few times (including the offices of Literature Wales on one occasion). Didn't run across a motto. Coalballs yes motto no.©Geni 13:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Try walking down Queen Street in Cardiff ----Snowded TALK 13:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Welsh Poetry article

Hello. New account, just created for this, so sorry if not doing this properly. Just to let you know there is some rather unfunny nonsense about "ystafell Trolddylan" instead of "Cynddylan" on the "Welsh poetry" article. I was just going to try and put it back to how it was before, but two things- Firstly, before the rather boring and pointless edit, "ystafell Cynddylan" is referred to as the earliest poetry by a Woman in Europe. I have no idea if it is accepted by being by Heledd herself, so somebody with better knowledge than me might be better editing the article. Also, as the article had this pointless rubbish put in on January 10th and hasn't been altered since then, I don't know if putting this on its talk page would be seen by anyone, so putting it here. Anyhow, hope this assists, and again sorry if any rules broken or not done properly (not intending on becoming an regular visitor, just letting someone know about it!) Ceiniog (talk)

Thanks - I've reverted the vandalism at Welsh poetry. For future reference, a better place to have raised it would have been Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales - or you could have edited out the vandalism yourself! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ta. Just would not have felt comfortable putting back in "oldest poetry by a woman" rather than "oldest poetry attributed to a woman" or some such, and didn't have enough knowledge on the subject to do choose between. And thanks for guidance on where to raise any future such points(if any!). Ceiniog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia uncritically follow political doctrine and/or propaganda?

The strongest justification, that I saw in the article, for calling Wales a country seems to be the statements of politicians. How many nations would be called democratic just because some politicians called them democratic, when really they weren't? You all know what I mean: the so-called "Democratic Republic of ..." fill your favorite dictatorship.

Surely we should judge the case on it's own merits. There's no Welsh passport, citizenship, border crossing point, and so on, is there? Wales is no more a country than Alaska is.

Jack 203.106.160.221 (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article on country, particularly the bit that says: "A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics." You are assuming that a country is necessarily a sovereign state, which just ain't the case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Yes, it should. Brocach (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

University photograph

Hello,

I think the photograph of a university in the education should be of Cardiff University, seeing as it is the second largest and most highly rated university in Wales; this making it the most relavant to an overview of the nation as a whole.

At the moment it is the lampeter campus of University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, which is a more historical perspective considering that it was the first degree awarding institution in Wales. However it is of little modern importance considering it's small size and lower international rankings.

So do people agree ?Xyphoid (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No. My opinion is that the article already shows several images of Cardiff, and we should maintain a balance of images that cover all parts of the country, rather than necessarily choosing the "biggest" or "most important" for every section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
No, per Ghmyrtle. The article is about Wales; the whole of Wales. The image was chosen to provide more depth than just the country's main cities. Cardiff is mentioned dozens of times (quite rightly), Lampeter just the once. Daicaregos (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Prince of Wales

Why isn't the Prince of Wales listed under the leaders of Wales? I realize it's a completely symbolic title and that the Prince does not practice any authority in Wales (other than his role as a representative of Her Majesty on official trips), but since Wales is often called a "Principality" I think it odd to exclude the actual (nominal) prince. --SchutteGod 76.171.231.104 (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Because he is not a leader of Wales. He has no particular authority in Wales, and Wales is not a principality (though it is sometimes misleadingly described as one). "Prince of Wales" is just a courtesy title, effectively unrelated to the subject of this article. See Principality of Wales#After 1542: union with England for more explanation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Atlantic Celtic Edit War

There was a theory a few years championed by John T Koch and supported in part by Barry Cunliffe which said the Celtic languages originate with a maritime trading network and had nothing to do with the Hallstatt culture. Koch said this was supported by Tartessian being Celtic. As the work was held up to scrutiny it was believed less and less. The majority view never shifted from the established one that the Celtic languages do originate with the Hallstatt culture. Nevertheless, this user, Jembana, goes around every page on Wikipedia inserting it and trying to make out that "this is the new way of thinking" when it isn't. This is what has happened here. He also tries to impress with loads and loads of citations which are basically different versions of the same paper in various media. It's a shrinking minority view and shouldn't be given undue weight. Paul S (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is cited text. Do you have anything to support your assertions? As it stands, it seems to be your uncited opinion against Jembamba's cited one. Daicaregos (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Dai. Koch's view may well - I don't know - be a discredited minority view, but we need to refer to sources that demonstrate that, so that we can write something like "Koch said.... but the majority view is that.....". That would be better than excluding entirely any mention of the theory. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, if you believe that Celtic origins in the Hallstatt culture is "My uncited opinion" you ought not to be having anything to do with editing this page. Paul S (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:NPA. You need to cite sources, like anyone else. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Transport

After viewing the latest updates on the transport section, I've given it a slightly hung-over look, and I'm querying the phrase that Cardiff Queen Street is a major hub of rail links in Wales. Yes it is one of the busiest, but I'm not sure if it's a hub. Don't all trains that go to Queen street go through Cardiff Central? FruitMonkey (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That sentence (and most of the paragraph) has remained essentially unchanged (and unreferenced) since 2007 (Cardiff Queen Street was added to the sentence in May 2007). According to the Cardiff Queen Street page, trains between Cardiff Bay and Cardiff Queen Street run without passing through Cardiff Central, although all the other Cardiff Queen Street services do pass through Cardiff Central. Latest figures are here – apparently the Excel table is sortable by region, but I don't have Excel. Cardiff Central has 11.5m entries/exits (out of 47.1m entries/exits total for Wales). Cardiff Queen Street has 2.5m; Newport – 2.3m; Swansea – 2.2m; Bridgend – 1.6m. Outside the GWR route, Rhyl and Wrexham General each have 0.6m; Abergavenny & Aberystwyth each have 0.4m. I suggest adding Newport and Swansea to the sentence, to give Cardiff Central, Cardiff Queen Street, Newport and Swansea are the busiest and the major hubs on the national network. Or, removing Cardiff Queen Street, to give Cardiff Central is the busiest and the major hub on the national network. Daicaregos (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
As Cardiff Central has substantially more traffic than the other stations, I'd favour the latter, except that I'm not keen on the wording "..the busiest and the major...". How about: Cardiff Central is the busiest station in Wales and main hub on the UK national network.? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
As the railway connects only to England (with onward connections to France and Scotland), that would be misleading - no rail connection exists to Northern Ireland. How about Cardiff Central is Wales' busiest railway station, with over four times as much passenger traffic as any other station in Wales. Daicaregos (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Fine by me. My concern was only that the term "national network" was ambiguous - it could refer to either Wales or the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 Done Daicaregos (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Government and politics images

I removed the image of First Minister Carwyn Jones from the Government and politics section (since reverted) for two reasons. Firstly, per WP:RECENTISM. Jones has been First Minister of Wales since December 2009 – less than four years. If anyone should be pictured in the section, Rhodri Morgan would be my first choice - he was in office for the best part of ten years. However, while I accept that many articles show their country's current leader, MOS has no requirement to do so AFAIK, and not all country articles do e.g. Ireland and Northern Ireland. The second reason was that the image bled into the following (Local Government) section, making the article look amateurish. The section is too short to accommodate three images (and the image of the Senedd should remain). May I suggest an alternative resolution? Replace the image of the royal badge of Wales with the image of Carwyn Jones. Any objections? Daicaregos (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly none from me.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 11:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I think an image of the current political leader helps reinforce the message to readers that Wales is a current political entity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 Done Daicaregos (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Royal Badge of Wales.

You people are aware that the Welsh government has a coat of arms right? Why isnt it featured next to the flag like all the over government coat of arms from various countries? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Badge_of_Wales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.13.216.142 (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Welsh government doesn't have sovereignty over Wales, unlike other states. I'm bothered either way however. Rob (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Please expand "bothered either way"! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind whether it's included or not, since I have little idea of the extent to which the Royal Badge symbolises Wales. I disagree with the OP's assertion that a symbol of a Government, is by essence, a national symbol. And it may incorrect in this case, since the Royal Badge doesn't represent the sovereign of Wales. Simply, a symbol represents a country, if it is used to represent the country. Rob (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The Royal Badge is not the badge of the Welsh government. It's the badge of the Queen in Wales. "The device introduced in 2008 is accordingly a badge, rather than a coat of arms; Wales currently has no official coat of arms." Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, as ever, to Ghmyrtle for clarifying this! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 21:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think whether it's a coat of arms or not is conclusive, various national symbols are placed along side flags in countries' infoboxes, but I don't think the badge is a national symbol. Rob (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2014

In the second par in the main article, this sentence should have a comma added after "century": "Welsh national identity emerged among the Celtic Britons after the Roman withdrawal from Britain in the 5th century[place comma here] and Wales is regarded as one of the modern Celtic nations."

Listserv (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Listserv

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Commas

If a sentence looks like "(subject) (predicate), and (another subject) (another predicate)" or "(subject) (predicate), (another predicate), and (yet another predicate)", commas are correct. If it looks like "(subject) (predicate) and (another predicate)", commas should not be used. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. So shall we put them all back now? Ian Dalziel (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Okay, I've looked at all of the disputed commas. A few commas, such as the ones in "light and service industries, and tourism" and "governors, and the flower of its youth", are Oxford commas and can go either way. Most of Marimari2k1's removal were correct, and I've fixed the few that weren't. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Revision 593752527

Edits:

  • Infobox tidy.
    • Removed translations out of piped links per WP:OVERLINK.
    • Added native phrase template to motto.
    • Removed links next to names of ministers regarding their membership to legislatures, as they're pointless with the (HMG)
    • UK > HMG, Actual abbreviation for British Government.
    • US$ > USD, USD is more correct. ($ is also applicable)
    • Removed (UK) next to +44, calling codes cover a variety of regions, and are not necessarily specific to sovereign states.
    • Removed dividing line, a section of the infobox lacking a heading is inconsistent formatting. Also, the (HMG) clarifies which ministers are part of the British Government.
    • Added soundtrack for anthem.
    • Other minor formatting edits'
  • Introduction edits.
    • Irish Sea is part of the Atlantic.
    • Expanded location description.
    • 'bordered by England' > 'shares a border with England' Better wording?
    • 'part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain' > 'part of the United Kingdom. Predominantly located on Great Britain' More correct.
    • Other minor wording.

Issues?

Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 20:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A few (thanks for discussing this):
  • I have never heard Wales' motto noted in English. It is a translation only and, as such, should be in 'small'
  • The national anthem is known as Land of my fathers in English, which should be noted.
  • The sound file is not of sufficient quality to appear in the infobox (this has been discussed here)
  • The dividing line was created deliberately in order to differentiate between the Welsh Government and the UK Government (this has been discussed)
  • The UK Government should be noted as the UK Government.
  • Gruffydd ap Llywelyn's name should be noted in full
  • No need to note 'UK' after +44
  • Dewi Sant should be part of the Wikilink
  • The opening paragraph, and especially the opening sentence, has the been subject of extensive discussion. It must not be changed without achieving concensus on the talk page. I would personally prefer some of the changes made (although none of those made to the opening sentence), but they should still be agreed first on talk. Daicaregos (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't explain some things clearly, I'll go though:
  • The englishmotto section is for translations, and displays the translation in the same way it was previously (this hasn't actually changed anything).
  • National anthem in English - Okay
  • Sound file not appropriate - Okay
  • Dividing line - I'll look further into this
  • UK Government should be noted as the UK Government - I poorly explained this. Currently, next to 'Prime Minister' it states '(UK)', I changed this to '(HMG)', the abbreviation for the British Government, rather then the UK. Ie, it would state 'Prime Minister (HMG)' rather then 'Prime Minister (UK)'. This is because the First Minister is a British (UK) minister, they're just not a British Government (HMG) minister.
  • Gruffydd ap Llywelyn's name in full - Okay
  • No need to note 'UK' after +44 - I'm guessing this means you agree.
  • Including 'Dewi Sant' within the Wikilink is over-linking (WP:OVERLINK). Since it's clearly a translation of the linked text, linking it also doesn't serve any purpose. Although these are part of the same link, it is still essentially linking the same term twice, right next to each-other.
  • Introduction agreed first - Okay
Rob (talk | contribs) 23:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ticking all the non-boxes

"The census of 2001 was criticised by many in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe their national identity.[1] Partly to address this concern the 2011 census offered a list of choices."

I think this is a useful detail that could usefully be included. Or is it just fringe political trivial? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
If it is to be used we should drop "by many", criticised is enough. Also it was criticised inside and outside Wales, as the 2001 Census gave options for Scottish and Irish, but not English and Welsh. There were campaigns to add English as much as the addition of Welsh. It may be enough to just state "in the 2011 Census the option for people to identify themselves as Welsh was added". FruitMonkey (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to drop words like "many" (though a ref could probably be found for that: I was a complainer myself at the time).
I think there is a real danger in trying to pare things down all the time, especially with identity statistics. I think what I eventually came up with was pretty-much what has to be given. I actually went though a lot of different routes. Aside from explaining itself (the best form of explanation I think), it's actually all useful information for readers of the Wales article.
PS should this be merged? Matt Lewis (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Do we have sources that say that the 2011 census form was changed "partly to address this concern"? We may do, but I haven't seen it. If we don't, we shouldn't say it (WP:NOR). Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
There's a mid-90's source which as I remember shows other reasons for developing 'identity' (it's a report on one of the pre-census question polls they made): not least the issue with "English" vs "Scottish" too, as someone already pointed out. I decided to keep the eventual text about Wales. It's unlikely the source uses those exact words, but I assumed that this conclusion can be logically drawn from it. I'll read it though to make sure. Alternatively it's an easy-enough sentence to adapt. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I think you'd have to remember it with authors, publication and dates. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd run around Cardiff in my pants if I could get more sense into these areas. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
And I'd be very careful not to piss on your pants. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC) token trout
You don't expect this to go anywhere do you? Improving these articles is not allowed on Wikipedia. Ghmyrtle has 724, sorry 5 - sorry 726 articles to say otherwise. And he's block-free too! Matt Lewis (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the criticism of the 2001 census for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe national identity is a very fair and relevant point that should be made. In fact, I'd see it as a definite improvement. (.. and I think Ghm's lukewarm approach has much to commend it - I've found myself in enough hot water to know). Old Welshy Socks (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not lukewarm from where I'm standing. Either it's a really cold day or it's pretty damn steamy. Gh has already incorporated the obvious 2001 'missing-option' issue. Not even he could say 'no' to that one.Matt Lewis (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think he's taken that one on board. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Census results 'defy tickbox row'". BBC Online. Retrieved February 23, 2014.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wales/Archive_14&oldid=1136224958"