Talk:Wales/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Status parameter in infobox

Over at Talk:Northern_Ireland#Status_of_NI a person is disputing my removal of the status parameter from the country infobox. They insist there is some standard that it should be 'country'. I dispute this because firstly the infobox is in world context and there is no qualification that it means in the UK before one gets to 'country' - and most books that list countries of the world exclude the constituent countries of the UK and other such places. In the lead that is okay as it has more text as for instance here 'Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom'. Secondly what on earth is the point of sticking country in there if they are all countries. Thirdly the status parameter for a country does not look like it is meant for anything like this anyway, it is described as 'Status of country, especially useful for micronations'. I had a look at a number of other constituent countries and none I looked at besides in the UK used this parameter. In the list of micronations including the fantasy ones though I found a few uses - 'active', 'current', and 'government in exile'.

I am unable to get a reasonable idea from the dispute about country in the lead that they point to for why 'status of the country' in the infobox should be set to 'country'. That debate was about the lead for Wales. So I am removing status from the infobox here in the hope that if someone has a good reason for sticking it in they will present it thanks.

p.s. I'd have no objection to 'Country of the United Kingdom' or 'Constituent country' or something like that but they are insisting on 'Country' and nothing else. Dmcq (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Previously agreed and much discussed and have you have been given the link to the archive page where country was agreed. Your reason to remove it seems just to be that you don;t like it. It has been there for some time so please don't edit war see what other editors think ----Snowded ^TALK 14:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The page referred to is here Talk:Wales/Archive country poll. I think eight years is quite long enough to wait for some better answer. This is thee article it applied to. Is there someone here who is actually willing to defend this idea or is it just Snowded reverting without bothering to discuss? Dmcq (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

In agreement with removal of parameter, from all 4 constituent countries-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

And you lost that argument in the mediated process last time GoodDay as you well know. You were tendentious on the subject after than and ended up taking a holiday. Since then no new data has emerged and no reason is being given for change by you or Dmcq other than some personal preference. Eight years ago a lot of editors put a lot of effort into resolving this. One or possible two editors just not liking that is no reason to change----Snowded ^TALK 15:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You have not given a single reason for preferring status to be country or pointed out what is wrong with even one of reasons 1, 2 or 3 above. Please give some reason for wanting status to be 'Country'. No discussion about status has been started here yet. And can I point you to the actual conclusion of that discussion eight years ago - "The conclusion is of this discussion/debate was that Wales is commonly described as a "country", and can therefore be described as such on Wikipedia. The consensus in the final poll was to use the word country in the first line of the introduction, pipe-linked to an explanatory article (currently Countries of the United Kingdom)." No mention of what should be in the status field of the infobox or if it should even be used in the first place. And it wasn't a mediated process, the unofficial mediation at the beginning broke down. Anyway just give some reason for what you keep sticking in. Dmcq (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The consensus agreement notified to all editors on this talk page is that Wales was designated as a country. As such that is reflected in the lede and the information box and has been so for many years. You are seeking to make the case to remove long standing text from the information box (I am not sticking it in). The mediation process did not break down it was resolved per the talk page link (hence the link above). Your are repeating the reasons advanced by GoodDay and a few others at the time of the resolution based on your own preference, no new argument. You have provided no evidence to counter the original basis of the consensus namely weight of reliable sources. WP:BRD is pretty clear, you were bold, you were reverted you now discuss. You do not continue to make a controversial removal unless and until you get talk page consensus to do so. As far as I am concerned unless you can provide a weight of sources that undermine the original consensus you do not have a case for change. I can't see any reason to remove a long standing designation in the information box so I will restore it. If you choose to continue to edit war on this rather than use the talk page then so be it. Normal process will have to kick in.

So if you want to make a change to a long standing and stable aspect of this page - what has changed in terms of citations (not your own opinion) since the original agreement. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Just saying long standing without a reason when good reasons are given for changing is simply disruptive. My reasons are given at the start. If you can't give some reason other than wait for somebody else to give a reason when this discussion has been going on for a while at Northern Ireland and a notice has been put on the UK project page then you have no reason to dispute the consensus here. Which is to remove it if my count of two to one is correct. Dmcq (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Lets see, we have long standing text and a talk page warning not to change the country designation - with all the reasons clearly stated. You have the support of one editor who was permanently blocked from wikipedia for some time for exactly this type of edit on British Isles pages and readmitted on promise of good behaviour. You have not even allowed a day to pass to see if other editors agree with you. That is called edit warring. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not said that Wales is not a country. That discussion didn't say status in the infobox had to be set to 'country', it was talking about the first sentence of the article. The description of status in the template and other uses gives no indication it is for this purpose. GoodDay above says it should go and noone has come to support you even though you say it will raise lots of people edit warring over it. How about you not edit warring saying other unspecified people will object but actually giving some objection yourself so an actual real discussion can start? Dmcq (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The dispute was over country status and that was resolved. It does not limit the use of country to the lede, it says that Wales is a country so there is no reason to remove that from the information box. You have been around wikipedia long enough to know that long standing text should not be removed simply because two editors within a few hours agree against one other. The normal process is to make you case for the change then allow some days for other editors to engage. Even then 2:1 is not a consensus,and please see note on GoodDay above. I'm not sure he isn't breaking the terms of his readmission here. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I listed 3 reasons at the top why it is inappropriate to say plain 'country' there. It would be real peachy if you would actually address at least one of them. Dmcq (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I oppose removing the field. The infobox being used, Template:Infobox Country, is really irrelevant. These countries are subdivisions of the UK, not sovereign states like most uses of that template. The purpose of the field here is to differentiate the countries from other subdivisions like regions, counties, etc, which all state what they are in their infoboxes. For example East Midlands. Furthermore, Scotland and Northern Ireland are also jurisdictions, while Wales and England are not. The status field also conveys this when comparing the countries using the infoboxes. Rob984 (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, places like Alberta & Texas, don't use the field & they make up a part of sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

(ec)All three 'reasons' were variants on arguments made when we went through this in detail before. The only way we resolved it was by seeking out the weight of citations which is the way to resolve things on Wikipedia. But to help out: (1) a Country is a country and the EU and others clearly list the four UK ones as such. A country is not the same thing as a sovereign state and the pipe link goes directly to an elaborate explanation. (ii) No idea what you are talking about, it is because they are all countries that it belongs there (iii) I think your interpretation of the template is incorrect and there are no other real precidents for the UK constitutional position and naming convention. The 'especially useful' quote supports insertion as the fact they are countries but not sovereign states is notable. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay have you got any reference that calls Alberta or Texas a Country? ----Snowded ^TALK 22:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't. Why? GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Just because the USA has states which make up a sovereign state, doesn't mean that other sovereign states can't be made up of separate countries. Also Joe and Jake are now allowed to fly the flag, which obviously proves the matter beyond all possible reasonable doubt. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC) [1]

Sigh. Yes, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. So what? Even if that kind of argument had any value, they are both federated states, not simply sub divisions. Interestingly they don't even mention the sovereign state they are part of. Rob984 (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I just don't see the necessity for the parameter here or at England, Scotland & Northern Ireland. The descriptions & links, are already in the intros. Anyways, it certainly isn't up to me, so perhaps an Rfc on the matter for all 4 constituent countries, should be held. It's all up to you folks. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that is a variant on what Rob894 says and thank you to him for actually addressing the issue. I think that is countered by what I said as point 1 - status is in world context in the infobox as there is no mention of UK in the infobox before when status is encountered. A reader coming and reading the infobox would see just 'Country' and in world lists of countries they do not in general list subdivisions of sovereign states like the UK. If putting 'Country' under status is supposed to convey that it is some sort of subdivision of a bigger state it is most definitely going round it the wrong way. As I say above things like constituent country or a country that is part of the United Kingdom as in the lead of the article would be fine. However for instance a lead that just said 'Wales is one of the 200 odd countries of the world' would just be wrong. It isn't a country of the world in any sense a naive reader would straightforwardly appreciate. And by the way where are all these 72 references mentioned as being in Countries of the United Kingdom as supporting just 'country' without context? For instance list of countries in Wikipedia redirects to list of sovereign states. Dmcq (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

On the other stuff exists side even if you don't go by it - have a look at any of the countries in constituent country and try and find one that uses status. It sounds like it could be used for something useful - but just saying a country is a country is not useful and in this case can be misleading. Dmcq (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I just had a look at East Midlands mentioned above. It is worth a look - it has sovereign state before status rather than a number of lines further down. That would also be acceptable I think - either move Sovereign state up or what is probably less disruptive move status down. Dmcq (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

If 'country' is an ambiguous term perhaps then it should not be used in infoboxes? Juan Riley (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

On balance, status seems a useful parameter to have in the infobox. As can be seen from this talkpage, some people are not aware that Wales is a country. This may help to educate them. Daicaregos (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

That is not the problem. The problem is the context where it has no clear meaning to a naive reader and can give entirely the wrong impression. For instance a title on the infobox saying 'Countries of the United Kingdom' would fix all the problems. Status however is being used instead of such a title. Articles in Wikipedia are there for people to read and get information from - not for editors to write and feel happy about. Dmcq (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

To you perhaps. I don't see it as a problem. Rather, it is informative - one of the main purposes of an infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Try substituting some other name for Wales like Oblonia and read the infobox. Of course it is no problem to you if you already know what you are reading and have a learnt idea that country in this context does not mean sovereign state. It is like a person hearing something that is mumbled if they already know what to expect. Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Seeking a compromise here. I wonder if we showed the status as Country of the United Kingdom, would that suffice? GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Well it certainly would be good by me and in fact Country in the info box links to Countries of the United Kingdom. But that's what the dispute is about in the first place, they seem to think we should just put in 'Country'. I view it as a kind of WP:EGG at the moment. Dmcq (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It's likely that an Rfc on this infobox matter, will be required. A local consensus for changes or deletion, won't be forthcoming, IMHO :( GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

For the infobox, I have little preference on the exact variant on "Country". "Country of the United Kingdom", or the generic (and thus probably more appropriate) "Constituent country", are fine by me. Or even "Country • administrative division". While I oppose persistently referring to the UK's countries as "Constituent country", here we are referring to the status of the polities. However, "Constituent country of the UK" is preposterous. Rob984 (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

How about an asterisk? E.g., Country*. With a footnote saying "Country as defined by blah-blah-blah". Please feel free to fill in blah-blah-blah. Juan Riley (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Why would I substitute "Oblong" for "Wales" - nonsense and offensive nonsense. Its pretty simple at the moment, the sources say country and we pipeline to a longer explanation. Wikipedia goes by sources which is how we resolved this dispute the last time. Done, dusted and no reason to resurrect ----Snowded ^TALK 06:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I was suggesting a way of getting some of the feeling of being a naive user instead of someone who already knows and has preconceptions about what they are going to read. What gave you the impression of offensiveness? Putting in one word that may mislead and a link to something else is classic WP:EGG. Even gov.uk pages talk about the countries of the UK rather than just countries and when one looks for countries of the world one doesn't get Wales on its own in such lists. Give an example or two of the type source you mean. If the infobox was headed 'Countries of the UK' would that be offensive to you? Status is the first line of the main textual information in the infobox and this would put that there rather than the top. Dmcq (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Snowded, you're such a square. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Jeez I just picked Oblongia out of the air as some name that probably had no use or relation to anything but sounded countyish. Dmcq (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, at least you weren't rude. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

To call something what the sources say it is should not confuse. To resurrect an issue with no new arguments or no new sources is a waste of everyone's time. There are a lot of these around British and Irish mattes. Derry for the town, Londonderry for the country was an agreement, Ireland for the country not simply Ireland with a page name another. Some I agreed with at the time, some I disagreed with but they are now resolved and people can focus on other issues. Move on, be square :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 11:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

How about a couple of these sources please. How about "Country • administrative division" as proposed by Rob984 above? I'm not keen on "Country • jurisdiction" as has just been stuck in Northern Ireland it is another EGG pointing to Law of the United Kingdom. Not keen on administrative division as it has its own parliament, it isn't just administered. Dmcq (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The top of this talk page has a clear note on this and there was a full table of citations. If you ask DDStretch he probably has it somewhere as he managed the process. The overwhelming weight was for Country which is how we resolved it. The fact it is recorded as an agreement means that you should come here with sources to challenge the statement rather than demand we all go through things again. But to help you out, subsequent to that process being settled here the controversy here came to the attention of the Welsh Government and political parties and as a result the matter was officially clarified It is not our place to change what the sources say because we don't like them. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

We're not discussing if Wales is a principality or a country. Nobody has said it isn't a country. If you will read the source you gave it talks about Wales being a country in the UK as in "The offending ISO newsletter said the United Kingdom consisted of two countries, England and Scotland, with Northern Ireland described as a province and Wales a principality." It doesn't say or imply that Wales is a country of the world independent of context like France or Chile. It says it is a country of the UK. That is what is meant by context. That is the sort of thing that should be done here because no previous context like for instance that newspaper being a Welsh one is given. Dmcq (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

1) Deletion of the parameter or 2) changing Country to Constituent country or 3) Changing Country to Country of the United Kingdom. Those are better options to what's currently shown in the infobox. Again, your best chance of getting a changes to those infoboxes in the 4 articles-in-question? would be an Rfc on the matter, as a local consensus is impossible. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

So what's changed since the original agreement noted by Snowded? There's been no political change, except perhaps that Wales is now more independent. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, nothing changes no new evidence presented, the lede making things clear along with the pipe link. This was one of a series of issues affecting British and Irish articles that results in significant disruption to Wikipedia. GoodDay was one of several editors who went on enforced holidays for provoking such disputes and far too much energy was used up on trivial issues. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

So you see this as a trivial issue. But you are willing to put a lot of effort into trying to dissuade discussion and none into an actual discussion. Exactly how is a discussion ending in July 2008 about the lead sentence so it now says Wales is a country that is part of the UK justify that an entry that was put into the infobox less than a year ago absolutely must be 'Country' rather than 'Country of the UK'? Has it occurred to you that describing the place properly might stop some of this 'disruption' as you see it? And how much of this 'disruption' over the status in the infobox has there been anyway in the last year? Dmcq (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that all of the arguments you raise were raised before and were resolved by checking citation history rather than the opinions of editors as to what should or should not be the case. You have not introduced any citation based evidence to support a change in the result of a mediated consensus. This has been stable since 2008 bar the odd bit of vandalism until you chose to raise it and to edit war on the basis of your opinion of the validity of objections to your assertions, breaking WP:BRD. Other issues resolved such as Derry and the name of the Irish State were also resolved through RfCs or mediated processes and we generally calmed down issues on British and Irish articles in general. I did you the courtesy of replying to your specific points (so don't make false assertions about actual discussion) but you didn't bother to respond you continued to assert a position. The only disruption is being caused by you and GoodDay (who has been previously sanctioned on this issue) raking over old coals. I suggest you move on or come up with some serious evidence that there is an issue with the long standing, mediated stable text. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Well what you actually supported at that discussion eight years ago was 'Wales is a country which is part of the United Kingdom' and that is essentially what is at the start. Would putting in 'A country which is part of the United Kingdom' instead of 'Country of the United Kingdom' be okay by you? Woulkd piping that to Countries of the United Kingdom be okay by you, I can't see it having any WP:EGG problems. Dmcq (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

No that was the agreed text for the lede. A full review of all sources was undertaken and the majority (a very clear one for Wales, England and Scotland less clear for Northern Ireland) was that country was the proper title per the sources and that text has been stable and unchallenged other than by vandals for many years. It is currently pipelined to Countries of the United Kingdom if anyone has an issue. Have you got any evidence (other than your opinion) that this is a problem? A long standing mediated consensus position involving many editors needs some evidence to shift it. Not just a couple of editors who don't like it especially when one of those editors was sanctioned for constant provocation on that and related issues ----Snowded ^TALK 17:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Are we talking about the discussion eight years ago where they decided on the sentence in the lead? And if so why does the lead sentence say it is a part of the United Kingdom? And if not where was this other discussion? Dmcq (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

As this discussion effects 4 (Wales, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland) articles. It should be linked to the talk-pages of those other articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Well I did tell WikiProject UK but okay I'll go and do that. Dmcq (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for removing the country parameter. It links to "country of the United Kingdom". What's the problem? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It is the first line of the main text of the infobox that says anything about the topic. That line classifies the topic. That it is part of the UK comes quite a bit after. For a new person coming along just saying 'Country' is misleading as for instance list of Countries points to a list of sovereign states. Without knowledge of the subject Country on its own is misleading. It violates WP:EGG, why would anyone think to click on country?. Why do you think hiding that it is part of the UK is a good thing? Dmcq (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I see you were talking about the original idea of removing it which I'd proposed after the original idea of saying constituent country was reverted, Now it is just to make it Country of the United Kingdom. Dmcq (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The lede is clear, the pipeline is clear (which is the point made by Jmorrison). I repeat; what evidence do you have either that (i) people are confused or that use of country is misleading (other than your personal opinion) or (ii) that citations no longer support the previously agree and long term stable position. The word country in English is not the same thing as Sovereign State Nothing is hidden, everything is visible and we have had the best part of decade of stability until you raised this storm in a tea cup ----Snowded ^TALK 20:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

We're not talking about the lead. We're talking about the infobox parameter which has been there for less than a year. How about letting Jmorrison speak for themselves? Dmcq (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I see your user page lists you as supporting independence for Wales. Well I suppose that explains why you want to remove the reference to being in the UK but can I ask you to approach this with a neutral point of view thanks. Dmcq (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Stable text, mediation establishing country, no evidence presented by you to say it is confusing people or to challenge the citation based and mediated consensus. You may have identified a reason why I'm prepared to persist in dealing with your attempt to change something for no apparent reason other than your personal opinion. I was one of the main actors in getting a citation based agreement (including clear reference to 'within the UK' so try and get your facts right) and shifting away from POV positions. I commend you to the same approach ----Snowded ^TALK 05:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your beef is basically that "country of the United Kingdom" is piped as "country". Then why did you delete the whole parameter? That doesn't make any sense. In any case, I don't see any problem with it being piped as country. On numerous pages of the UK government's website the component parts of the UK are referred to as countries ([2], for example). This desire for the UK countries not to be referred to as such is an imposition by people with different values, where perhaps the term is more coterminous with sovereign state. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes deleting it is what I did after the alternative of actually saying it is a constituent country or a country of the UK was strongly rejected by Snowded. I did it because the parameter was misleading and was not used for that purpose anywhere else in Wikipedia and the description of the parameter indicated a primary use for micronations, there is a list of constituent countries and you can check there. Just removing a parameter from an infobox and leaving it to the text to explain better is a common way of dealing with problems and it would have encouraged a person to read further down the infobox. However I believe if it could be set to something which a naive user would immediately understand instead of this WP:EGG of having to click on Country that would be best so I'm trying now to do what I originally tried to do.

Saying country on a UK government website sets a context because such pages are about the UK. A page on Wikipedia has no context. Country in no context means something like Argentina or Germany. That is why List of countries on Wikipedia only lists sovereign states not Wales. Status is the first item in the main text of infobox and the UK is not mentioned till after a number of other things that a person using a tablet or smartphone might not go down to. It is classic WP:EGG. It is like those April Fool jokes which Wikipedia does on April Fools Day on its front page. You know that piping the Country to Country instead would be wrong as you talk about having to click on it to know what it really meant. Why are you so keen on having it piped to hide the UK part? That is what really needs to be explained. Dmcq (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

As to the gov.uk site and what it says about countries can I point you to [3]. It seems Wales isn't in the EU or EEA. Dmcq (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I think I've found the list of references to Country Snowded keeps referring to but never actually linking to Talk:Countries of the_United_Kingdom/refs. I invite you to try and find an instance of Wales being referred to as a Country without the UK context being already firmly established. Dmcq (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The context is fully established by the pipeline and the lede, there is no ambiguity. You are also being disingenuous in referencing List of Countries it actually diverts to List of sovereign states, another negotiated agreement several years ago to prevent the type of edit warring you resurrected. Noted that you think an EU designated category is an April Fools Joke, makes it a little difficult to discuss sources when an editor takes that sort of position ----Snowded ^TALK 15:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The lead is not part of the context of the infobox. WP:EGG is part of a WP:GUIDELINE. It mentions no exceptions but if you have some reason why WP:IAR should be followed in this case then please present it. Dmcq (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is hidden: Country is the official citable name for what Wales is. The use of the pipelink will hopefully help out editors like you who have a problem, I could argue it isn't needed but it seems a reasonable compromise. The arguments have been rehearsed many times, result mediated with a significant number of editors involved, vandals and sock puppets have handled every few months. The resultant text stable and I see no reason to change. Once something is settled by consensus it requires evidence not opinion to open it up again. You edit warred before in defiance of WP:BRD because you set yourself up as judge, jury and executioner as to what policy is or is not. I suggest you avoid doing that again, I've made the argument several times now, including expanding on it. Your response? Continued assertions without supporting citations and references to 'April Fools Jokes". Please ..... ----Snowded ^TALK 05:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If you could just point to a place where the status field has been discussed before that could save a lot of difficulty. I've looked at the archive and this seems to be the first time as far as I can make out, I would have thought I would have spotted it if it came up every couple of months. Other uses say things like 'government in exile' and I see nothing official about that and the parameter description says nothing like that. And as far as I can see Talk:Countries of the_United_Kingdom/refs supports saying it is a country of the United Kingdom rather than just country on its own. You have engaged in bluster and obfustication in this from the very start and I really do not appreciate that. Dmcq (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"bluster and obfuscation" hardly lends itself to a polite response but you are obviously getting worked up about this so I will try and help. The prior mediated consensus says that the proper designation is country, not one of the constructs you have given. For the sake of stating the blindingly obvious that consensus did not just cover the lede of each country article it covered all reference on any article or for that matter any information box.----Snowded ^TALK 16:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

So as I suspected there has been no discussion about the status parameter in infobox before. And you're pointing to that discussion eight years before that decided between 'a country which is part of the United Kingdom', 'a country within the United Kingdom', 'a subdivision of the United Kingdom', and 'a constituent country of the United Kingdom'. Now as far as I can see 'United Kingdom' seems to be the common point of all the suggestions and was included in the lead of this article. The discussion was between the 'country' constituent country' and 'subdivision' bits. Yes the closure said 'country' could be pipe linked in the lead - but as part of the sentence "Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom". If the lead followed your interpretation of that mediation eight years ago the first sentence would be: "Wales is a country". Yes I do find your continued misrepresentation annoying. Dmcq (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The "consistency" argument is ridiculous. Your comparisons to other uses of Template:Infobox country are meaningless. The template is intended for sovereign states, not subdivisions. The guidelines for how the template should be used are hardly applicable here. It certainly is conventional to include a status field of some form for divisions of sovereign states. The top-level subdivision of the UK is named "Country", so this use is consistent with other UK subdivisions' articles. Snowded's right that there is consensus for Wales to be referred to simply as a "Country" throughout the article—hence it is. Like you say, the discussion on the precise wording—"a country that is part of the United Kingdom"—is only applicable to the lead. Also the context is fairly clear by the map, its caption and the lead sentence, which all refer to Wales being part of the UK—a well known sovereign state. So while yes, "Constituent country" or "Country of the UK" would only help clarify this, it isn't exactly necessary. Continuing this argument on whether there is consensus for the field to be included is just wasting everyone's time. I added it nearly a year ago and no one contested (see Wikipedia:Silence and consensus). You are now wanting to remove or change it and you don't yet have consensus to do so. Rob984 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you ever wonder what you guys could have achieved if you put this much effort into making and improving articles. I too have opinions on this matter but it saddens me that such talented editors just appear to spiral down the plug hole rather than use their talents to do what Wikipedia is meant to do: Educate, Inform, Inspire. I get both points of view, but please... FruitMonkey (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It saddens me I have to spend time dealing with editors who refuse to accept a long agreed position. The trouble is that if you don't they end up getting their own way through persistence and I don't think Wikipedia benefits from allowing that sort of behaviour.

Who appointed you to act as policeman to oppose any change by all means possible? If you had just given the facts about why country was there and what you based your interpretation on we could have gone much faster. Yes persistence has been necessary to find out anything about the basis of this and I see very little correspondence between what you have said and anything you have pointed at. I shall raise an RfC and notify the appropriate forums and then it should be over and you won't be bothered more one way or the other. Dmcq (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox country UK is a wrapper around Infobox country. There is no explanation of status in Infobox country UK but there is for Infobox country. You are simply asserting that your idea of what status means is what should be used and what you put in is right. I had a look at a number of entries in constituent country, none of them used status, only ones in micronation do just like the definition says.

Anyway as I said I am happy that status be used but as it is the first text field in the infobox it should be reasonably explanatory rather than be surprising like it is. The guideline is very clear, we should not do things like that. Country does not have an obvious meaning in that context, it does have a clear meaning in how the lead is phrased. Look at the map in the infobox for United Kingdom and you'll see your idea about the map explaining that it is not a sovereign state but part of another one is simply wrong. Dmcq (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we have done this to death now. There is no consensus to change ----Snowded ^TALK 03:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite see the problem here. Wales is a country, as commonly and more formally described. That country is part of the UK. Both the lead and the link from the entry in the "Status" field in the infobox explain that. Not every piped link fails under WP:EGG – sometimes links provide the extra detail that might be missing in the simpler formulation or phrasing that is more appropriate, or at least pefectly OK, in context. I agree the infobox field doesn't have to be there, and that declaring a "status" as such might be a little overformalised for this kind of thing (even if we refer to ISO and government terminology), but it's not technically incorrect, surely. N-HH talk/edits 21:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

More than happy to see it stay exactly as it is. It's been almost as exciting as living in Mexico. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

My stance on the parameter-in-question, hasn't changed. We already have things explained in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

My stance is also unchanged. The status parameter is fine as it is. Any other editors want to pointlessly re-iterate their position? Daicaregos (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Well I can see I won't get anywhere so I'll give up. Dmcq (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Getting a local consensus for these British constituent country articles, isn't possible. An Rfc on the matter is an option, though such an Rfc would likely be heated. It's your call. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

"these British constituent country articles". ffs GoodDay, have some respect. Daicaregos (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I put notices on the relevant talk pages and I explained as well as I can. I pity the editors here if something this simple is so difficult to discuss rationally but I've enough other things to occupy my life with. Dmcq (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Dmcq. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see what the response is at Talk:England and Talk:Scotland. After 4 days, no stampede at the moment, I see. I feel your invitation for editors to look here may result in a certain degree of disappointment. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the prior (rational) efforts to resolve these issues I'm not surprised () that no one wants to go over it all again or that (ii) GoodDay is back to trying to provoke conflict on BI related articles. I hope this is an exception ----Snowded ^TALK 21:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Latest bout of discussion

I'm glad there has been a discussion of this. I would like to re-open it when I have more time.

The designation "country" in the instance of Wales is fairly meaningless, and something often repeated by the British government to assuage nationalist insecurities, but is potentially misleading. Obviously, when we refer to Wales as a "country", we don't mean "country" in its conventional sense, that is, a sovereign state. Someone reading this page might leave under the impression that Wales is a country in the usual sense, i.e. that it is a country in the same way that the United Kingdom is a country, that is, a sovereign state. Clearly, "country" here adopts a very particular meaning.

The definition applied here appears to contradict the Wikipedia article on this subject, furthermore: Country. Perhaps in its place something more descriptive could be used. Niue, for instance, is described as an Area of the Realm of New Zealand and an Associated state.

As for the argument: several sources refer to Wales as a country, therefore we describe what the sources say - could someone refer me to the actual Wikipedia policy regarding this kind of thing. Hayek79 (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:NOR. Daicaregos (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read the article on country - which may be an independent sovereign state.... etc. Note: may be.... Wales is not a sovereign state and no-one suggests it is. This article does not contradict the article on "country". The problem is with readers who do not recognise that their assumptions about the definition of "country" - that it is necessarily a sovereign state - may reflect their own incomplete understanding. As an encyclopedia, we should explain the position carefully, but the term most frequently used to describe Wales is "country". Clearly, assertions that it it is only described as a country "to assuage nationalist insecurities" might be misleading and untrue - as well as unsourced, of course. The article states very clearly that Wales is "part of the United Kingdom", and I don't see any reason to make any substantive change. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"Country" typically refers to a sovereign state, but it is often used to describe territories that are not sovereign states. For this reason it's a fairly meaningless designation; and since "country" is such a vague term, describing Wales in this way wouldn't be helpful to readers.

You admit that we describe Wales as a "country" in this article only because that is how it is often described in the United Kingdom. It isn't because of any particular feature of the way Wales is governed, or its constitutional status within the United Kingdom.

For this reason I think it is misleading. There is little point in having a "status" parameter in the infobox if it tells readers nothing about the status of Wales, and potentially misleads them into thinking that Wales has some special or unusual status as a devolved region of the United Kingdom, when actually it doesn't. Hayek79 (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

My solution has been (and still is) to use constituent country for this article, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the notice at the top of this page:

"The issue of whether Wales is a country or not has been repeatedly raised.
The result of all these debates is that Wales is indeed a country. This has been confirmed in formal mediation.
The discussion is summarised in this archive here. Further information on the countries within the UK can be found at Countries of the United Kingdom, and a table of reliable sources can be found at Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs."
Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: Yes, and I'm reopening it for the reasons givens. I'm afraid referring me to an archived discussion of this issue from more than 8 years ago doesn't respond to my concerns.

I hope you understand how frustrating it is for people who don't do this semi-professionally. There appears to be a group of several very active contributors to UK-related articles, who all agree with one another about page organisation and style, and regularly derail attempts to make positive changes by crowding the talk page, and referring part-time contributors to (often ancient) archived discussions. This has happened to me before.

@GoodDay: That would be better than what we have at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayek79 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: Do you have anything else to add? Or can I go ahead and make changes? Hayek79 (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus here to make the change you are seeking. Rather than attempting unilaterally to go against the agreement flagged at the top of this page, you could open a new WP:RFC, to see how it goes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I've added a subsection to delineate this latest bout of discussion. I strongly urge User:Hayek79 to make no such alteration as suggested by them, because to do so would destroy the necessary connections between the four countries that make up the United Kingdom. If you alter this one, the others need altering, and that implies that consensus needs to be reached on the other three country articles to make them similar. I suspect you won't get an agreement to change. But the main point is that there is no consensus to change this article in particular in the way you seem to desire. The suggestion that you read WP:NOR, above is relevant here. Furthermore, if you can't make the effort to read past highly relevant discussions, then any problem rests with you. If you are bold, and make a change, I suggest it will be quickly reverted according to WP:BRD and you need to continue to discuss it here (and so you will have achieved nothing). However, to do so, you would need to take into account the past highly relevant discussions, rather than simply dismiss them in a way which seems rather "casual", as you did, above. Are you bringing anything new to the issue? I cannot see much new that you are adding here. Finally, if the term "country" is meaningless as used here, then why was it so convenient and useful to use it in the way I did in writing this response? I suggest your description of the term as being meaningless here is a rather rash, biased comment (see WP:NOR, as suggested, above.) DDStretch (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ddstretch: I would obviously have made the same changes elsewhere.

"you would need to take into account the past highly relevant discussions, rather than simply dismiss them in a way which seems rather "casual", as you did"

That you ask that everyone who wants to make edits to trawl through pages of archived discussion is mostly a means of obstruction, which is exactly why I intend to do it anyway. It also allows you to say things like "I cannot see much new that you are adding here". Perhaps you'd like to directly address my concerns while I read through the archived discussion.

"why was it so convenient and useful to use it in the way I did in writing this response"

It might be convenient, it is still misleading. You are, it would appear from your talk page, a British national. I would suggest that the majority of people who read this page are not British nationals, and even many of those who are might mistakenly believe that "country" designates something more than a constituent part of the United Kingdom with a distinct regional identity and regional assembly. In no other country in the world (notice the confusion that might arise) does the word "country" have this meaning. I think I've made myself very clear now, so it's up to you to provide a response beyond that my comments are "biased" and "rash". Hayek79 (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus here for that change. Open a new RfC. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I've had a look at the Countries of the United Kingdom page. I would invite you all to read the "Current legal terminology" section, and notice that the word "country" is not used once. The premise of that article rests entirely on a link to an archived article from the ONS website, cited twice, which contains no citation, and was probably written by a junior civil servant/intern. The designation country is clearly not an official one.

It is clear there is a problem here, and I realised you've had to discuss this before, but I would invite you all to keep an open mind. I am going to open discussions on all the relevant talk pages. Hayek79 (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I'm looking to form a consensus, so it would be helpful if people address my comments. Hayek79 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Good. If you open an RfC, consensus for or against a proposed change will form. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

THis is getting nowhere. First, the burden of proof is upon you to address the issues described in the pages you have not so far read. Second, it is not being obstructionist to ask that people wanting to make changes acquaint themselves with the issues that have been discussed at length and often before. Third, if you made changes to all the articles, expect a lot of trouble to descend upon you by people who have not been asked to comment here, as far as I can see. Your changes will quickly result in reversions and you will have achieved nothing. Your only course of action is to discuss the issues by pointing out why the previous decisions need no longer apply, and that requires you to do some reading! Lastly, you admitted that people 'might mistakenly believe that "country" designates something more than a constituent part of the United Kingdom with a distinct regional identity and regional assembly.'. So, the aim should be to educate them, not pander to a mistake being perpetuated, otherwise we would be using "England" to refer to the "United Kingdom"! So, just get on and do the necessary work rather than complain here. You have been given the relevant pages where sources have been given, etc, and, once more, the burden is upon you to argue why the previous discussions no longer apply in specific detail, rather than saying you don't want to read them and when we ask you to do so, we are being "obstructionist". DDStretch (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to make changes to the articles, I said I would open similar discussions on the other pages. Where you say "the burden is upon you to argue why the previous discussions no longer apply in specific detail", what exactly am I being asked to do? To demonstrate that the designation is misleading, which is what I am trying to do, or that the facts have changed, which is what your comments seems to apply? If it's the latter, I would like to be shown to the policy.

Since you selectively decided to respond to one of my points, I will respond in turn.

"Lastly, you admitted that people 'might mistakenly believe that "country" designates something more than a constituent part of the United Kingdom with a distinct regional identity and regional assembly.'. So, the aim should be to educate them, not pander to a mistake being perpetuated"

The mistake, I believe, is to refer to places like Wales as countries in the first instance. Due to Wikipedia policy, we describe Wales as a country because it is often identified as such. This does not mean that other people visiting the page are mistaken. "otherwise we would be using "England" to refer to the "United Kingdom"" obviously doesn't logically follow, but I'll overlook that.

Would it be better if we included a sentence explaining that by "country", we do not mean country in the usual sense, but in a sense specific to the United Kingdom which refers to several regional governments which would not ordinarily be considered countries in any other context? Hayek79 (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Can we at least try to get a consensus for a variation of "Constituent Country of the United Kingdom"? I think anything less would be unreasonable. Hayek79 (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

For consistency, you'll need to open separate RfCs at both Scotland and England. Good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: And you're satisfied with that? That it won't be done because it's impractical? If so, that's fairly sad. I am yet to hear a single response to anything I have raised. Hayek79 (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Why shouldn't I be satisfied? Wales is a country. Not sad, just practical. Please tell us how you think Scotland and England differ from Wales in this respect. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: They don't. Please do me the courtesy of actually reading my comments, and then responding to them fully and systematically. At the moment, the only responses I have had are selective treatments of different points, and when I respond, nobody follows it up. Hayek79 (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

England and Scotland could plausibly differ from Wales in this respect, since both have previously been independent states, where Wales has not, but you've overlooked (perhaps deliberately) my point, which is that they are all described as "Countries" in the status box, when this is only because such an expression is common in the United Kingdom (even if it means nothing in practice). It is also potentially misleading, so I am suggesting an alternative.

"Wales is a country" - what do you even mean by that? Hayek79 (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It means that most sources define Wales as a country, per WP:V. Daicaregos (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Calling for a change in Wales' definition without even providing a single source for is becoming tendentious. Time to close. Daicaregos (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You may open an RFC on the issue for all 4 constituent countries of the UK, if you wish. I will advise you however, it might get nasty. The choice is yours, Hayek. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, we are neither going to see am RFC nor anything else, I think from User:Hayek79. After a similarly fractious series of exchanges about a German political party, Hayek79 was reported to an Adminstrator's board, which resulted in them being blocked and predictable outrage claiming that people had not answered points (which were answered - just not in a way they demanded), and hence a rather dramatic claim that they were no longer going to participate in wikipedia because of the behaviour of administrators. So, for now, I guess this issue is closed until we get someone else with strong views who is not willing to see what has been discussed (endlessly, it seems) before. DDStretch (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm no longer interested in pursuing this. Hayek79 (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Dafydd Alaw was a 16th century Welsh poet. Do you care?

In common with a good few others from that and neighbouring centuries (see for instance the category Category:16th-century Welsh poets) his page is quite short and suspected of being insufficiently notable. May I humbly suggest that some of us work together to consolidate the pages of Welsh-language poets for the period when cywyddau and awdlau were being written, under some suitable title? I can easily imagine which poets could be placed in such an article but what would a suitable title be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SewerCat (talk • contribs) 19:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@SewerCat: Dafydd Alaw appears to be have been one of the Poets of the Nobility (Beirdd yr Uchelwyr). The English link is a redirect to Medieval Welsh literature I just created, but the Welsh article linked has a navbox at the bottom which lists the poets grouped together under that rubric. Other similar groupings are the Cynfeirdd [cy], the Gogynfeirdd [cy] and the Poets of the Princes (Beirdd y Twysogion) – all redirects in English. It might be worth consolidating the stubs on less notable poets in this grouping – Helenrp (talk · contribs) seems to have particularly active in creating these – into articles on the groupings themselves, spun off from Medieval Welsh literature which could then be made more concise. I don't know where we would draw the line on notability but there are some poets about whom the Dictionary of Welsh Biography itself says "little is known". Ham II (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ham II: I tend to agree with you. However, when I canvassed this possibility a week or so ago, this transaction arose 'in' the teahouse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_595#Consolidating_about_ten_or_a_dozen_quite_small_articles). I haven't done enough of this kind of editing to gauge the issues involved. SewerCat (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

As an observer of all this, and now knowing little Welsh as I graduated from Bangor in 1975 having learned only a few phrases anyway, may I make a suggestion? For Notability, you need to know what the "data" is like first. I suggest a good first rule might be "inclusion in The Dictionary of Welsh Biography" but that may need further pruning if only to know who to concentrate on before others. Might some enterprising editor begin completing a big table, with poets down one side, making up the rows, and the columns could be features like "inclusion in The Dictionary of Welsh Biography" and then perhaps a count of how many of their poems are included in key collections of poems, whether they have any collections solely of their poems printed, and number of times their poems appear in other sources. You can also include a column specifying if an article about that poet already exists or not. The number and nature of the columns may need further refining. Key poets based on a crude count of their material could then be seen. There may be poets who have one poem whose importance is immense, in which case, perhaps any article should definitely have a (largish?) section dealing with that poem and they can be "bumped up the list" of poets to be included in their own article. If nothing else, it might make a few things more clear about which articles need writing immediately, and which ones can be included in a generic section of a larger article (allowing them to have their own articles "spun off" if required, later.) Just some ideas which might be useful, if only to think how ridiculous they are, and which might prompt better ideas! DDStretch (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@DDStretch: If you try to follow the link that Ham II embedded in his message for 'Helen', and then see that non-existent(?) user's talk page, you might surmise as I do that Ham II is suggesting that we consider available metadata. nod-nod-wink-wink. SewerCat (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm a simple guy, so please forgive me when I say that I don't understand what you are saying here at all. DDStretch (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ddstretch: My apologies for being so difficult to understand! What I meant was that we could also, or alternatively, take into account available information about the contributions of one editor (already named). I find that all of the articles consisting mainly of two or three lines of introductory text, for example, Dafydd Alaw, were created by that one editor. It's apparent that this person has created one article for each of a series of names in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography. To the extent that I am competent to make a judgement, I think your idea makes perfect sense. But it sounds like the definition of a project that is well outside any area in which I've ever practised. SewerCat (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Houses of Parliament as a Welsh legislature

Perhaps I am being a simpleton here but in what way is the House of Parliament is a Welsh legislative body. It has been pointed out that the laws passed there have affect in Wales but that is true for any sub-division of the UK be it a parish, county, unitary or metropolitan council, Scotland, Northern Ireland or an English Region. Maybe it is the piecemeal nature of devolution in the UK that leads to ability of the Parliament to be considered both a British and Welsh institution. It would be absurd, for example, to list the United States Congress as part of the legislature of Kentucky. What is the justification for listing the UK parliament as part of the Welsh legislature? Eckerslike (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we should just put National Assembly. If we add the UK parliament then we should we arguably also add the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (see European Union legislative procedure). Verbcatcher (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a very significant difference between the UK legislatures and the European bodies. Currently, all European laws are enacted through specific UK legislation, either UK wide or from Wales. The European laws don't act here without that enabling legislation. In practical terms, the vast majority of legislation affecting the population of Wales comes form Westminster and not Cardiff. Part of the reason is historical - there are 1000 years of legislation from the British parliament and only a few decades from Cardiff. More significantly however is that Cardiff has only a very limited range of legislative options at present. For most Welsh people the greatest impact on their lives is probably legislation from Westminster. The position in the USA is not readily comparable with the UK asthe federal type approach does not operate in the UK Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

We don't have the UK Parliament in either infobox Legislature section at Scotland or Northern Ireland. Therefore, we don't need it included in this article's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Check the history section. Since Tudor times England and Wales had the same legal system. With devolution powers were given to the Welsh Assembly. Scotland and Northern Ireland always had separate legal systems. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The legal systems argument is a red herring. Laws created in Westminster still have affect in their jurisdictions. So your original argument that Houses of Parliament should be included due to it creating laws that have affect in Wales applies equally to Scotland and NI. We could follow the example of London that links to the article listing constituencies instead. Eckerslike (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No, actually they don't. Westminster now makes Laws for England only as well as laws that affect the whole UK. Those matters that are devolved to Wales (or Scotland or Northern Ireland) are managed in their respective parliaments. Notable examples of areas where this happens include Education and the Health Service. Much (all?) of the legislation created in the Welsh parliament is secondary legislation that relies on primary legislation created in Westminster but it is, nonetheless, legislation, it is made in Wales and it relates solely to Wales. However, as I noted before, the people in Wales are still mostly governed by legislation originating at Westminster. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "No, actually they don't". I don't disagree about any of the rest but it doesn't seem to support the position that the legislature of Wales is materially different from that of Scotland, NI or London. Neither does it seem to justify the listing of the Houses of Parliament as part of the legislature of Wales. Eckerslike (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Your statement that .......Laws created in Westminster still have affect in their jurisdictions. - produced my response No , actually they don't . As I explained above. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

But as you said yourself the laws do apply unless the matter has been devolved. Anyway, to get back on topic, the relationship between Wales and the UK parliament is already addressed in the section directly above the legislature section. Referencing it again seems redundant and only gives the false impression that it is part of the welsh legislature. Eckerslike (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarify: Does the Welsh Assembly in Wales, have the same legislative powers as the Northern Ireland Assembly in Northern Ireland & the Scottish Parliament in Scotland? GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't and not all powers are devolved. There are three main legal systems in the UK: England & Wales, Scotland and Norther Ireland. Welsh Law went with the Law in Wales Acts in Tudor times and is only now starting to diverge again ----Snowded ^TALK 04:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Information noted in Infoboxes is necessarily simplistic. Wales has its own legislature, but... it is only empowered to pass legislation on matters relating to the 20 areas devolved. Laws on all other matters are passed by the UK Parliament. To have Wales' legislature noted only as the National Assembly for Wales would give the misleading impression that Wales was responsible for all its own law. I would not object to adding an explanatory note, or to linking to the Law and order section of the article (which needs updating to reflect current legislative powers). My view, however, is that both UK Parliament and National Assembly should appear in the Infobox in this field. Daicaregos (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2017

This edit request to Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Wales is an independent country located on the west of Englan. It is a member of the united kingdom and has its own language and own parliament. Mullin50 (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Wettest city in the UK

Sahara4u (correction: Iggy the Swan) has changed the "wettest city in Great Britain" from Swansea to Cardiff. In my view both claims are too suspect to mention here, the sources are poor and the mention of Met Office data may be misleading.

The new source identifying Swansea is an AOL report that is based on a blog posting on a rainwater harvesting website. This sources the rainwater figures to the Met Office, but we should not rely on this company to properly analyse Met Office data.

Our previous identification of Swansea as the wettest city was more solidly sourced, to a Western Mail article from 2004 that was based on Met Office figures from the previous 20 years. It is unclear who had made this analysis of the Met office data, and this report is probably now too outdated to mention here.

This Met Office posting essentially disowns this sort of press report, and explains the difficulties with presenting their data in this way: "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."

I will remove the text on the wettest and dries cities and towns. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree. To me that AOL source looks both suspect and incomplete. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2017

nobody really knows us — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaUser,User (talk • contribs) 20:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No-one is going to edit this request as you have not explained what change you'd want to make. Iggy (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Plaid Cymru Seats

Following the 2017 General Election, I am sure that Plaid Cymru hold 4 Welsh seats in Westminster, not 3, having won Ceredigion from the Liberal Democrats, which leaves the Liberal Democrats with 0. Could somebody with editing privileges please alter this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draig ap Dafydd (talk • contribs) 13:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Done, with a source. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Wales. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 20:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Wales. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 12:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Wales. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 15:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)