Talk:Newport, Wales/Archive 3

Newport Landmark Buildings
I think Newport Market (in city centre) and Newport College of Art (Joe Strummer went there) deserve a mention. Could anyone contribute some history on these buildings ?Pwimageglow (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Between 1966 and 1974 Jack Crabtree was lecturer at Newport College of Art. Between 1974 and 1975 Crabree went on to work, on commission from the National Coal Board, on producing a pictorial record of the changing face of the coalfields of South Wales. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Novo burgus"
Quote: "The name 'Newport' derives from novo burgus (new borough), first mentioned in 1126. ". Umm... just goes to show you can't trust an encyclopaedia, doesn't it? The name "New port" is English, and means "new port" or, perhaps, "new town/borough". "Novo burgus" is Latin for "new town/borough". Does the Welsh Academy book really say that "Newport" derives from "Novo burgus", as it seems pretty obvious to me that "Newport", "Novo burgus" and "Cas newydd" are all the same name, but in the different languages used at the time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's on page 610, where Casnewydd is explained as a contraction of castell newydd ("to the Welsh, the significant innovation was the castle"). I think that FruitMonkey also has a copy of the book and should be able to confirm. If there's another interpretation of the name in a different source, I think it should be mentioned as well - the Encyclopedia of Wales is a great reference but does have a few oddities. Pondle (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The point I'm making is that the name "Newport" does not derive from "Novo burgus" in the same way as, say, the name Brecon derives from Brycheiniog, rather it is a translation of "Novo burgus" into English. "Casnewydd" indeed is a contraction of "castell newydd".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying; I'll make an amendment to say something such as, Newport is originally recorded as 'novo burgus' (new borough) in 1126. The exact text in the Encyclopedia is "the novo burgus (new borough or new port) first mentioned in 1126." Pondle (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Newport also has the Latin name Novus Burgus..." this sentence in the History section is now a partial repeat. But in any case am very unsure that it desrves use of the present tense. Is The Welsh Academy Encyclopedia of Wales simply stating that "Novo Burgus" had historical precedence over the English and Welsh equivalents, even though it seems very likey that spoken names in bith native languages would have exsited long before 1126? The English can't have "derived" from the Latin or it would have become "Newborough" and not "Newport" (cf Middlesborough? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My reading of various sources is that it was indeed originally occasionally known as "Newborough" in English, in the period before "Newport" - reflecting its trading role - became standardised in English and "Casnewydd" - recognising the castle - became standardised in Welsh. But there seems to be uncertainty as to why, or precisely when, this happened.  Pondle's proposed wording looks fine to me.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have now tried to remove the slight repetition with a minor re-jig/ rationalisation. I hope that the result reflects what you both have said. If not, please edit further. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Newport ship
I like most of the new changes, but shouldn't the Newport ship be put back under history? It seems a bit incongruous to be in the lead section. Owain (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I left the ship reference where it was because I thought it would make a nice little 'unique' point as per the guidance on the lead in WikiProject UK Geography's guidance on leads for settlement articles. But I'm happy to stick it in the history. Speaking of which, I'll add a lot more on Newport's more recent past over the next few days. Pondle (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In Gwent?
The article at present has no reference to the facts that Newport was in the administrative county of Gwent from 1974 to 1996 and is now in the preserved county of Gwent (except in the Infobox). This seems to conflict with the consensus guidance in WP:UKCITIES, which recommends the inclusion of ceremonial (preserved) county in the lead section. It is also confusing to a reader who may be following up a reference to "Newport, Gwent" - there is plenty of material out there which refers to the place as Newport, Gwent, either written between 1974 and 1996 or (sometimes) later. A quick Google search throws up these post 1996 examples
 * aboutbritain.com
 * Newport Gwent Dragons
 * NewportGwent.co.uk
 * Chavtowns
 * Hotel website
 * Newport (Gwent) & District Canine Society

and there are plenty more, especially if you include pre 1996 material.

Is there any reason not to refer to Gwent in the article? Mhockey (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps editors are striving to escape "the Chav Hell that is Newport, Gwent", or was (your fourth example). But I see no reason why Gwent should not be referred to, even if in hushed tones. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP editor who removed the reference to Gwent stated that "no other Wales article mentions preserved counties in the lead section". Is that true?  If so, should it be rectified?  Is this a matter for WP:WALES?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not really reason to remove it. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We recently discussed naming conventions at the Welsh Wikipedians noticeboard, which confirmed the preference for the format 'Name of settlement, type of settlement, county or county borough, Wales'. Ideally we should apply this kind of consistent approach, unless there are very special circumstances. In my view, Gwent deserves a mention in the Governance or History sections, but I don't see a reason for it to feature prominently in the lead. The 8 counties that existed between 1974 and 1996 were a short interlude in history; according to the Encyclopedia of Wales they "had few champions" when created, and the remaining legal functions of the preserved counties are obscure.Pondle (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. A long-defunct and much-hated administrative area has no place in a lead section. Neither does an esoteric ceremonial area with no real-world significance. Owain (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Then why is Newport so often still referred to as "Newport, Gwent"? I suspect the key reason is that it is often necessary to distinguish this city from other Newports. "Newport the city" or "Newport the principal area" do not work for those unfamiliar with Welsh local government. "Newport, Wales" is still ambiguous. So how else can people distinguish this Newport? If people still use the expression "Newport, Gwent", that should be enough to mention it in the lead. Mhockey (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, It is often referred to that way by people ignorant of reality. People don't need to be familiar with local government, and in fact it was a confusion of geographic counties and local government areas that got us into this mess in the first place. People can use the geographic county of Monmouthshire to distinguish this Newport. e.g. Owain (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is often referred to as "Newport, Gwent" (and I think it sometimes is), it should be easy to find suitable references, and in that case I would argue that it should be mentioned in the lead, as a de facto common disambiguation for the other "Newports". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to point out that www.thetrainline.com calls it Newport Gwent. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. A throw-back from the 1974-1996 BR days - the fact that their database is wrong is no reason to incorporate their wrongness here! In fact the printed tickets state "NEWPORT S. WALES", but railway ticketing would be an entirely spurious reason to include anything in this article. Owain (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Newport, Gwent, is terminology that clearly has current usage, and mentioning it is justified. I've reverted Owain's edits, which are based on a long-established and biased POV.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The only real criterion for inclusion is whether it is verifiable that Newport is in the preserved county of Gwent. That User:Owain considers Gwent to be "an esoteric ceremonial area with no real-world significance" is purely opinion and has no relevance.  If it is verifible (and it clearly is) then it stays. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is verifiable has no bearing. It is also in the "South Wales Fire and Rescue Area", "Masonic Province of Monmouthshire", "Newport Local Health Board Area" and soon-to-be "Aneurin Bevan Local Health Board Area" &c. These things are verifiable but need not be mentioned in the lead section. That is the issue here. Your revert has re-introduced Enaidmawr's Welsh nationalist PoV. These things can be mentioned in other sections. I will make the appropriate changes. 84.92.28.92 (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "My revert" has done no such thing as I made neither a revert nor an edit.Skinsmoke (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The changes regarded as appropriate by the IP do not appear to have consensus here. I have reinstated the lead to the version last edited by Ghmyrtle. Daicaregos (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What is relevant, in my view, is whether it can be verified that the city is for some purposes referred to as "Newport, Gwent", now - to which the answer is clearly yes, see Mhockey's text above; and whether it is helpful to the general worldwide readership that that is mentioned in the article - in my view, yes.  The latter criterion does not apply to the more obscure local designations referred to by 84.92.28.92; and, of course, Owain's personal opinions are irrelevant.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Daicaregos (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It should not be in the lead section. It has been added to the governance section, where it *is* relevant. There is a standard to be followed and that is to mention the principal area but not preserved county. No other Wales place article does this. There are already redirects from Newport, South Wales, Newport, Gwent, Newport, Monmouthshire and others. We do not need to pollute the opening paragraph with such information, especially when it is essentially duplication anyway. Owain (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand what the introduction is for. I suggest you read WP:Lead. You see, it has to be duplication, as it is a summary of the article's content. That Newport is widely disambiguated as Newport, Gwent is important and notable enough to be included in the lead. Daicaregos (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Other places in the UK called Newport are commonly disambiguated by reference to their location - such as Newport, Isle of Wight, and Newport, Pembrokeshire. In the case of this Newport, perhaps uniquely, there is no consensus over its locational disambiguator - it was for centuries widely known as Newport, Monmouthshire, and after 1974 as Newport, Gwent.  Since 1996, there has been uncertainty - some use Newport, South Wales, some use Newport, Monmouthshire (in the sense of the historic county), and some use Newport, Gwent (continuing the immediate pre-1996 style).  (No-one, so far as I know, uses Newport, Newport.)  This is a complicated and possibly unique situation, and it is important in my view that WP does its best to convey some of this uncertainty in the introductory section, even if this is not supported by the guidelines which would apply more generally. I've reverted Owain again.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As well as re-introducing pointless redundancy, these constant reverts are re-inserting the Welsh nationalist PoV. 84.92.28.92 (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, stop it then. Please set out the problem, as you see it, so it may be discussed. Simply reverting what has been agreed here is just plain rude. Daicaregos (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If by "Welsh nationalist POV" Owain/84.92.28.92 means the statement that Newport is in Wales then I gladly admit my guilt. Heaven forbid, of course, that Owain should have a British unionist POV and agenda that seeks to sidestep any direct mention of Wales and give the priority to the pre-1974 counties at the expense of the existing ones! As for Gwent, it is an historic area and not just an administrative unit so of course it should be mentioned. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said Enaidmawr. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Diolch, Welshleprechaun. All parties involved here may be interested in the discussion Counties of Wales and other cans of worms which I've opened at Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentences
In my view, it is helpful information that the words "in the UK" are included in the first sentence. To a worldwide readership, it will not necessarily be obvious that Wales is within the UK, and in my view it should be stated. (I am certainly not in any way whatsoever suggesting that the words "in Wales" should be removed!) Given that reference to the UK is included, and that the city is located on a map and described as "roughly midway between Cardiff and Bristol", the words "in the south-east corner of the country" are both unnecessary and ambiguous - because the text refers to two countries (one within the other), Wales and the UK. Newport is in the south east of one but not the other. Hence, my suggested (non-nationalist, non-unionist) neutral compromise wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But that would not just affect this articles, but hundreds if not thousands of other articles about places in Wales. There was a consensus, conveniently I can't recall where (if somebody can), that it's fine, if not best, to leave out United Kingdom. If people are unsure where Wales is, all they have to do is click on its Wikilink. Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If that is the case, and assuming that it has been agreed more widely than simply among editors within Wales, then I'm happy for the debate to be there rather than here. One diff between this lede (as your wording had it) and others such as Cardiff, was that "the UK" was not mentioned at all. I think it should be (though not necessarily in the first sentence, if that is the consensus), and I also think that words such as "in the south-east corner of the country" (unnecessary anyway given that it is shown on a map) should be avoided - because, like it or not, they will inevitably lead to confusion about where is meant by "the country".  I live in Wales and know where is meant; others do not, and will not necessarily understand.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look round and see if I can find the debate. Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead convention in WikiProject UK Geography's "How to write about settlements" guidance is name of settlement, type of settlement, its contemporary local government district / council area, contemporary / ceremonial county, and constituent country. My copy of the Penguin Encyclopedia of Places also leaves out "UK" when describing places in Britain. Pondle (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I accept that's the guidance, though I'm quite surprised by it. Was the Penguin Encyclopedia only published for a UK readership? If so, I would have though that different criteria should apply for a global WP readership. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, here's what I've found: Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board from 2006 - No clear consensus but most seem to agree that having Wales instead of United Kingdom conveys more info.
 * You might also want to look at this which is too long and tedious for me to read.
 * This seems to suggest omitting United Kingdom and just having the constituent country, as does this, albeit without consensus.
 * OK, I'll go with the flow, and - given also that the map shows the UK - I've taken out the UK mention I'd put in earlier. I don't support reinstating "in the south-east corner of the country" though - unnecessary and confusing, see above.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I really hate to compare what happens in Wales to what happens in England, but - the English Core Cities Group, comprising Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham and Sheffield, make no specific mention that they are part of the UK, other than as comparitors (e.g. Birmingham states 'Often considered to be the second city of the United Kingdom') or in general (e.g. Sheffield notes 'The beginning of the 21st century has seen extensive redevelopment in many UK cities, including Sheffield.'). That is, they mention that they are in England, but none of them state that they are in England, UK. And nor should they. Daicaregos (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just navigating here from some other issue, but I believe the overwhelming consensus is that we use the constituent country for geographic descriptions; it's the approach most inline with most other reputable journals, encyclopedias, gazetteers etc. That's not to say the UK can't be included (e.g. Greater Manchester's lead is a good example of how it can be woven in IMHO).


 * The whole issue of home nations vs sovereign state is an incoherent mess though. I know Daicaregos is an advocate of "Welsh nationality" (which doesn't exist, verifiabily), and the airbrushing out of "British" and "UK" is never going to be sustainable or be an appropriate way forwards on this project. These are elements that need mentioning and linking, and consistently so, but the constituent countries do get my backing for describing where a place is, where someone was born, and how they are ethnically and culturally appear/claim in lead sections. --Jza84 | Talk  19:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Watching the discussion, as well as that on "Newport, Gwent", with interest, could I chip in with my persistent doubts over "roughly midway between Cardiff and Bristol". I know it is geographically correct, but Bristol is not only in England but is also separated from Newport by the Bristol Channel, even if the two cities are now more directly connected by road with the SSC. Would ".. about 12 miles east of Cardiff" be any better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinevans123 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 2 June 2009


 * Yes, it would be better. Although Newport is accessible to and from Bristol by modern road (and rail), it is not "midway" between Cardiff and Bristol, and historically it was obviously more closely linked to Cardiff.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Historically more closely linked to Cardiff? Let's not put more Welsh nationalist bias into this. If Newport was more linked to Cardiff than Bristol, why did the Ordnance Survey produce a "Bristol and Newport" map (one inch series, number 155)? Maybe not "midway" but "Between Cardiff and Bristol" is better. Removing Bristol altogether is unnecessary. Owain (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Owain, for God's sake, this has been agreed upon and is factually accurate. It is not Welsh nationalist bias and the link with Bristol you described is not one of many. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would have thought that many, if not most, towns in Monmouthsire (or Gwent if you like) have been historically more closely linked to Cardiff, but especially Newport. It's simply much closer to Cardiff than Bristol. In fact, before the Severn tunnels and first bridge were constructed (i.e. many centuries of history) Bristol must have seemed very distant indeed, being reached only via the sea or via Gloucester. If you asked anyone in Newport High Street today how relevant Bristol was to the location of Newport, I don't think you'd get a very positive response. I think Ordnance Survey probably produced the "Bristol and Newport" map as part of the most straightforward and logical way of carving up the entire UK. The notion that this change has anything whatever to do with "Welsh Nationalism" seems to me utterly absurd. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Although Newport did develop as a port, and clearly had some important maritime links with Bristol, there were no direct road links until 1966, and even now the road distances are not similar - Newport-Cardiff 13-16 miles, min. 24 minutes; Newport-Bristol 31 miles, 38 minutes (on a good day!!)  And that's ignoring the cultural links - eg "Newport probably had a Welsh-speaking majority until the 1830s.."   Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And certainly stronger ecclesiastic links with the Welsh capital e.g. "1916: Diocese of Newport absorbed into the new Archdiocese of Cardiff". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. All this is commonsense and not "Welsh nationalist bias". Owain's problem seems to be that Cardiff is in Wales whereas Bristol, on the other hand, is in England, which is were I suspect he'd like Newport to be as well. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)