Talk:Wales/Archive 12

Demographics
I notice that the Demographics section makes a point that only 51% of the population of Flintshire is born in Wales. Surely this is just a natural consequence of the fact that if you're pregnant and live in eastern Flintshire, as a matter of course you go to hospital in Chester to give birth since it's the nearest? It might be worth adding a note that this statistic may not be of too much significance - I wouldn't say that where you spend the first few days of your life determines your nationality! -- 21:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have changed the section slightly to state the border counties of Flintshire and Powys, which does at least aid the reader in their understanding of the issue. But stats are stats, Wikipeida should not be a resource where we set up an article to infer all possibilities of an issue or spoon-feed the reader, just state what has been recorded. There is a sub article: Demography of Wales, that if a person was interested in drilling into the statistics could go and hunt the information there. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request
The link page in reference 183 to Tourism - Sector Overview Wales no longer exists as the GO Wales website has been updated. Please remove this reference to the tourism page as it is a broken link. Please keep the link to the GO Wales wiki page. You can still link to the GO Wales website for labour market information here http://www.gowales.co.uk/en/graduate/jobs/labourMarketInfo/Index.html. Gowales (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A bit disappointing, to say the least. According to the Internet archive 'Wayback machine' here, access has been blocked by the site owner. A whole chunk of info seems to have been sourced from that page, which will now have to be re-written and re-sourced. So ... thanks. I can see so reason to have any link to the 'Go Wales' site, which is obviously not as reliable as thought. Daicaregos (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies that the pages for working in wales are no longer there for GO Wales. The site has been recently updated so the content that is on the GO Wales site is now up-to-date, but unfortunately the GO Wales site doesn't currently have any working in wales pages as this information is not supported at this time due to management changes. Again, apologies for this. Gowales (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox
In the languages section, I put English before Welsh, thus following alphabetical order. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a problem from me, as far as I'm aware both languages have equal status, and most other articles follow alphabetically on languages of equal footing. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Welsh Assembly Government's website notes on the 'Legislation' page of their 'Welsh language' section here: "The Welsh Language (Wales) Measure was approved by the National Assembly on 7 December 2010. The Measure fulfils the commitments in the 'One Wales' document by: Confirming Welsh and English as official languages; ..."The Welsh Assembly Government state Welsh (first) and English (second) as official languages. This article should follow their lead. Daicaregos (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It states 'Equal treatment of the Welsh and English languages', therefore it does not matter which way the languages are written in a document, Welsh is not the preferred language of Wales politically so I can see no problem in placing the languages alphabetically. But to be honest it's a minor squabble that I won't comment on further. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like a spill over from the excessive debate on United Kingdom. Best to leave it as the long term stable version -- Snowded  TALK  11:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I agree. It does look very much like a spill over from the UK debate. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Which is the Welsh government saying - they're not equal or they are? GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, anybody wanna clarify? GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I provided a link. There will be others. Should you wish to read it, no-one is stopping you. Daicaregos (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then, a note/link should be placed next to Welsh, showing it's the primary language. Otherwise, it appears as though both languages are of equal status & in non-alphabetical order. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The source doesn't say Welsh is primary & English is secondary, however it does show'em in non-alphabetical order (Welsh and English). Therefore, I will not put English ahead of Welsh in the infobox, again. Wouldn't want to offend anybody. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of Wales
The article on Wales urgently needs to be updated to mention that it now includes Australia, Ireland and Northern Ireland as mentioned in this article. I am also curious about the background as I mysteriously haven't heard any reporting on this extreme change in the political landscape. Cheers! &mdash; 217.85.60.73 (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well taking responsibility for fellow celts is one thing, but maybe we should be more selective in the case of Australia? -- Snowded  TALK  10:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No citation tags
After tackling the citation tags scattered all over the England article my intention was to come here next and do the same. What do I find! No citation tags! No, seriously, well done people. You have made me feel a little bit redundant though. Sigh! Fred DeSoya (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Informal Vote: Official Status of Welsh
Please see Talk:United_Kingdom where an informal vote is taking place on displaying the Welsh translation of "United Kingdom" at the top of the United Kingdom infobox. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

PM in infobox
The Prime Minister of the UK'S inclusion in the infobx does not look right. This article is not about the UK as a whole but about Wales, a part of the UK. If he should be included in this infobox, then should he not be included in every article on cities, towns, villages etc. After all, they are also part of the UK. I may be in the minority here but I thought it worth while to bring this up. Am I the only one who thinks there is no need for the PM to be included in the infobox? If I am you won't hear from me on this subject again. :) John Hendo (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you're the only one, but I certainly think that the PM needs to be in the infoboxes for each of the UK's constituent countries. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  19:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the PM should be there in the infobox as the Welsh Assembly does not have the power to govern over a vast array of very important political issue. Taxation being the largest. This is not something you would add to towns and villages, as Wales is a country, and therefore people may be confused that as a country it is totally autonomous. Placing the overall controlling government in the infobox I believe prevents confusion. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before (see archives) and the consensus was that the UK PM should be included. I agree with that.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I am dragging up old news here. If I could make just one point before I'm chased out of here. :) I believe Catalonians pay their taxes to the Spanish Government and it is then distributed throughout Spain, including Catalonia. The info box there does not include the head of the Spanish Government. Are the choices for who is and who isn't in the infoboxes a choice for individual articles? John Hendo (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll leave you with the basics for how the tax in Catalonia is collected and distributed. Cheers. John Hendo (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Catalonia is not a GA article so should not be placed above this article as a paradigm of Wikipedian geographic expertise. Also the political system in one country can not be compared identically to another. Wales is governed by Westminster and not Cardiff, though this may change in time. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, Catalonia is not a country. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  07:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the connection between Wales being a country and the UK Prime Minister being in the infobox. How anyone could mistake Wales as being an independent country if the UK Prime Minister were not in the infobox is beyond me. Within the first sentence we can see that Wales is part of the United Kingdom. I have no idea why anyone would think otherwise but, whatever floats your boat. John Hendo (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is that articles on countries have the leaders of their governments placed in the infobox. Regions of countries do not. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  13:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I said if I was the only one who thought the UK PM did not belong in the infobox then you wouldn't hear from me again on the subject. Well, looks like that's the case, so I'll shuffle off. :( John Hendo (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you John Hendo, but consensus was to have it there, regardless of how obvious it is that Wales is part of the UK. Catalonians would consider themselves as a nation just as the Welsh do, so I'd say Cataloia is nation/country. As Wales is now governed as one entity (granted still within the UK) and has it's own government, I'd have thought that would be enough to show in the infobox (like the Autonomous community o f catalonia and fedral US states). But anyway, a consensus was reached to inlcude the UK Prime Minister.--Rhyswynne (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot see the logic of including the UK PM in the infobox, either. However, this subject has been discussed before (see Talk:Wales/Archive 9 and Talk:Wales/Archive 10) and, as has been said above, consensus was to include. Can't see any likelyhood of common sense prevailing here any time soon, though. Daicaregos (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed the UK Prime Minister should be excluded from the 4 constituent country articles. Just like the Canadian Prime Minister is excluded from the Canadian provinces & territories articles; the US President is excluded from the American states & territories articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about federal states here, there is no valid comparison between Wales and Delaware, for example... Wales is a country in its own right and as such it is appropriate to list the government leaders. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  21:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You can call Wales whatever you like. The fact is, Wales is a part of a country called the United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So what governance do we attribute to England. None? FruitMonkey (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we getting a change of consensus? John Hendo (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not in my opinion. Do you realy think the England article can state that its only governance is a monarchy. This is not true. The infobox must state to people who have never heard of England that its government is Westminster and if leaving blank will make out that the queen is the sole power of the country. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I have already explained why there is no need for the UK PM to be in the infobox. As I said, consensus seems to be changing. John Hendo (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't care either way. It's small fish in the bigger pictue of what we are trying to achieve.FruitMonkey (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not our fault England doesn't have a devolved government. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm giving fair warning. The consensus at the moment is for the exclusion of the UK PM from the infobox. Unless it changes by tomorrow morning I shall remove him from the infobox. John Hendo (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus. This has been discussed before correctly. Other editors coming together and discussing a point does not give you the right to then over-ride a previously agreed opinion. Please go through the proper channels before deciding that you are the master and commander of this debate. FruitMonkey (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The UK PM shouldn't be deleted from only this infobox, but also those at Northern Ireland, England & Scotland too. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have every right. The discussion on this was so long ago that there are probably editors from then that are no longer editors today. I will change it tomorrow because right now there is a consensus for it. John Hendo (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not bully others because you see a god given right of opinion. There is no consensus. FruitMonkey (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are only six people in this debate, that is not a consensus. Change the England article first. Wait a day and see what then debate there is. FruitMonkey (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's not be too hasty. For consistancy sake, we should have a combined discussion on all 4 contituent country articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As you can see I have removed the PM from the infobox per consensus. please don't change it unless you have consensus to do so. John Hendo (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Recommend you restore it. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay I agree with you. My challenge was towards John Hendo who believes that the his debate is somehow a consensus on a spikey topic on a GA article. Personally I would never make such a massive change to a GA article without a lengthy discussion on the talk page first. I was making a devil's advocate point that it is easy to pick on Wales, but if you had real coviction you would change the England page first as that would cause far larger debate. FruitMonkey (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the UK PM should be deleted from all 4 constituent country articles infoboxes, but it'd have to be all 4. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We either agree to all or delete from all. FruitMonkey (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Article protected for three days There are far too many changes and reverts on this matter so I've upped the article protection for three days; this protection may be renewed if necessary. (And yes I know I've protected The Wrong Version.) Please discuss things on here first and establish a clear consensus rather than changing back and forth. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You've protected the status-quo version, so no probs. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not add anything to the article that is not already there. It is there because of the political beliefs of the majority of Wikipedians. It's a case of let's make sure these Welsh/Scottish people know what's what and don't let them get above their station. John Hendo (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The UK PM should be deleted from all 4 consituent country articles, not just this one. GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Without getting emotive about the politics of it, I agree with GoodDay. Since the PM is Prime Minister of the UK, not specifically of the constituent countries, there is no need to put him on each page. As was previously noted, if one accepts it on the constituent countries, why not extend it to each county or town? However, as far as the Wales page goes, I vote to remove the PM and let's move on. If anyone wants to continue the discussion on the Northern Ireland, England and Sotland pages, go ahead.Apau98 (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Making assumptions about the "political beliefs of the majority of Wikipedians" is not useful. There is no majority of Wikipedians on this talk page--there was a consensus of editors of this article. The next few days will confirm if there still is or not, and making assumptions about people's political beliefs--that is, impugning that their opinions about the editing of this article are "political"--is less than useful, and amounts to a strawman argument. What I saw here today was dissent that was proclaimed to be a consensus, with the opposition condemned as political. Well, the opposition could say the same about you, and the only way out of that impasse is to move to a different argument. Good luck to you all. Drmies (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The current situation is that Wales is a country. This is not simply a romantic nationalistic desire on my part, it is a fact that is supported by numerous reliable sources... see Countries of the United Kingdom for a summary. By Wikipedia convention, countries have their system of governance detailed in the infobox and have the leaders of their government listed. Wales does have a devolved government that has limited control over certain areas of legislature... but over a number areas (detailed in Reserved and excepted matters) Wales is governed from Westminster. The extent of devolution/independence may or may not go far enough and I'm not sure whether to find the allegation that I'm attempting to make sure these Welsh/Scottish people know what's what and don't let them get above their station offensive or comical.
 * If this helps at all, the compromise consensus reached for Scotland was to list the First Minister above the PM. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  09:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The First (& Deputy) Minister is listed before the PM here too. Daicaregos (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In my view the infobox is fine as it now is, showing Cameron and Gillan below the two Joneses. That gives correct, sufficient and balanced info to our global (not necessarily well-informed, which is why they're here) readership. As Catfish says, Wales has limited self-government over a number of issues, but it is still part of the UK which on many key matters is a centralised state governed from Westminster. We are here to describe the position as it is, not as some people would like it to be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, the fact they are countries with devolved powers makes them different from the Canadian Provinces given that the UK PM retains powers. I would prefer it not to be Cameron, but that is another matter!  -- Snowded  TALK  09:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems we're in agreement, to leave the UK PM in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. You have stated more than once that the UK PM should be deleted from the infobox. John Hendo (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

But not at the expense of disrupting the consistancy between the 4 articles infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

To move this debate on a little... there seems to be some sort of consensus that we are debating whether to keep the status quo or whether the PM should be deleted from the infoboxes for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and retained only in United Kingdom. Would this be a fair assessment? Catfish Jim  &#38; the soapdish  10:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to recognise that the position is different in each case. England has no devolved responsibilities - there is no government other than Westminster - and the positions in the three other jurisdictions are different in each.  So, each may have a different-looking infobox, refecting the different situations. Efforts to assert a consistency that does not exist in reality are unhelpful.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I got carried away earlier with my accusations of political bias so would like to state here and now that I'm sure there is no bias editing of wikipedia and that I got it wrong. I do however stand by my argument that the UK PM should not be listed in the infobox. John Hendo (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears that unless there is a major change of opinion there will be no consensus to remove the PM from the infobox. I'll leave it there and go back to editing articles. I know that my reverting has resulted in the article getting protected for a few days and I'm sorry if thats inconvenienced any of you. John Hendo (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No probs. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For what is a pan-UK debate, it seems rather daft to have taken it to such an extent on one article, that all editors are now blocked. Hopefully all will act in WP:AGF, but please take this dabate to the UK article; and yes, please add a note here when you do. Secondly, for those of us who are in Wales and WikiWales group, and for noting where the debate should take place, I'd like to thank FruitMonkey: rightful reverts for what is a fair debate, but as was pointed out in the wrong place. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

20 devolved 'matters'
There is a small error in the final paragraph of the section titled Government and Politics. The twenty devolved areas are not called 'matters' they're called 'fields'. Each field is then broken down into a number of matters. The Assembly has power to make laws on those matters as explained in the rest of the paragraph. Tralban (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox
I changed Monarch to Monarch of the United Kingdom, so nobody would mistake the Queen for Monarch of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Shall we change Prime Minister of the United Kingdom entry to Prime Minister, then? GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay has posted identical questions on Talk:Scotland, Talk:England, Talk:Wales and Talk:Northern Ireland. As debate is already in progress on Talk:Scotland, I suggest that interested parties comment there. Catfish Jim  &#38; the soapdish  18:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Repitition.
"Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom (UK)" - this is stated in the lead with very similar wording. Can the wording for the one in the Government and Politics section be changed to avoid repetition? To say, is "Administered"? I dunno. I'm useless. Also, It should be mentioned in the same sentence that Wales has a devolved parliament which directly effects its position in the UK. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the point of the lead. It is a condensed version of the article as a whole. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But I wasn't er, talking about the...well it's repetitive all the same. Keep the meaning change the wording. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think that the opening sentence of "Government and politics" is necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be about it's position in the UK only. Stating a cat is a cat is silly. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a point, what should be mentioned in the lead section of the Government and Politics section, it's representation in the UK Parliament or the Welsh Assembly in Wales? What's more important? When you hear about Welsh Politics on the news it's almost always about the Devolved assembly. Sorry if I'm not making sense, but I hope so. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean. Trouble is, everything in the lead is repeated in the main text. That is because (as noted above) the Lead is a summary of the article text. So, how do we state that "Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom" in the Lead (which is rather important), if it isn't in the body of the article too? Daicaregos (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One way around it would be to expand the section covering Wales' history between Owain Glyndŵr and the Industrial Revolution, which is barely mentioned at all at present. That new section could, among other things, mention that when the UK was formed, Wales formed part of the process, constitutionally as part of the Kingdom of England at the time.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That would solve the issue. However ... the article is nearly 200,000 bytes already (194,534 as I write) and is in desperate need of reduction, rather than expansion. Daicaregos (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * True. So, perhaps the questions for editors here to consider may be whether the overall balance is right now (and I do think there is a big chunk of history missing, though it may only need a short paragraph to summarise it); and whether there are any sections which are over-long and well linked to other articles which cover the subject more fully, and which could therefore be reduced in this article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Rugby league in Wales
The reason for the removal of rugby league during this articles promotion to GA status was due to tightening an already bloated section of the article. Association football has but two sentences to convey probably the biggest sport in Wales, rugby league is, in the history of Wales, a minority sport and does not deserve a large paragraph discussing a sport which is showing some success in just the past few years, having failed completely in their previous two incarnations. Also this is a GA article and there was no argument at that point, when the article was listed, to add rugby league. Additionally a GA article requires strong cites, those added are, IMO, weak and incomplete. Also added is future information for 2013 which should never be used in an article, especially due to the events that have overtaken RL in Wales in recent years. RL is strongly covered in Sport in Wales, which is linked in the sub section, and also has its own page Rugby league in Wales. If we gave the level of coverage listed here to RL then we would have yet another massive page when all other people with their favourite sport add their two-penneth, at least in the likes of darts, snooker, horse racing and athletics Wales has produced World winning individuals and teams. No Welsh RL team has won a major competition at club level. There is no cabal trying to remove RL from the article, it is just not notable enough to warrant such a massive inclusion, and that's not a bias slant from myself, as you can check out the Welsh League and all its subsidiary teams which I set up. I am a heavy contributor to early RL myself. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see your point but Wales is one of the stronger nations in RL. The national team will be playing in the 2011 Four Nations and has had some success in the Rugby League World Cup although they have not won and are the 2010 European Cup Champions plus we have seen many Welsh rugby union internationals play rugby league such as Gareth Thomas, Iestyn Harris, Scott Quinnell, Rob Ackerman and Jonathan Davies to name a few the sport is also growing at youth level and the sport is on the up and will only get bigger.Youndbuckerz (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The trend if anything is from League to Union (while it was the other way round a few decades ago). Not many current names in that list.  I think you have to wait and see.  If the sport gets bigger then yes we can include it -- Snowded  TALK  11:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Years
Please use BC as a reference for dates. BP, wherever it came from, is relative and not apparent as a ready reference for dates and too "PC". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.149.77 (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The relevant guidance to editors is at WP:ERA. So far as I can see, the article complies with that guidance.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't relative, as BP is a standardised measure, refering to number of years before 1950. It's used correctly here and not for PC reasons (if that were the intention, you'd probably see "BCE"). Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  06:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Eisteddfodau not traditional?
Reverting the removal of “the revival of” from the sentence “From the late 19th century onwards, Wales acquired its popular image as the "land of song," attributable in part to the revival of the eisteddfod tradition.” an editor said “Why? "Revived" is accurate here, and matches the 19th-century context from the previous clause. The tradition is centuries old, but the revival is largely 19th-century.” Well, several reasons: The sentence refers to eisteddfodau (plural of eisteddfod), which have been held more or less continuously since the 1700s. The Welsh Academy Encyclopedia says ”During the 18th century, a number of poetic assemblies were held in taverns. They were advertised beforehand in Welsh almanacs and called eisteddfodau.” Something happenning for getting on for 300 years has earned the right to be defined as 'traditional', no matter that it had disappeared for around 200 years previously.Would nothing in the New World of less than 300 years duration be condsidered “traditional”? As it stands, the sentence contains redundancies. “... attributable in part to the revival of the eisteddfod.” would scan correctly, but would be inaccurate, as discussed above. “ … attributable in part to the revival of the National Eisteddfod.” would be better, but dismisses the part played by local eisteddfodau for over 100 years before the 1861 National Eisteddfod. “... attributable in part to the eisteddfod tradition.” says it accurately and succincly. There is also a need to reduce the article's size (currently at 194,692 bytes). Perhaps the whole sentence should be deleted instead. Daicaregos (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the "300 years" comment is stretching the chronology, but the point is still well made. The substantial revival of the eisteddfod tradition occurred in the late 18th century, while the sentence is talking about the late 19th century. That dating doesn't clearly appear in the article body, so we'd better correct it in the intro.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Appellations such as "land of song" do not spring up overnight. I see no contradiction in a (revived) eisteddfod tradition that appears in the (late) 18th century producing a 19th-century image of Wales as the land of song. Leaving out the word "revival" results in no connection between the two parts of the sentence. (Why should an ancient tradition suddenly lead to a popular image in the 19th century?) More importantly, however, it is not up to us to decide what the popular image may be attributable to; that would be a novel synthesis. We should instead be following the sources we cite. The suggestion that eisteddfodau led to the name "land of song" does not appear to be directly cited; even the citation just for "land of song" is insufficient for verification.
 * On the second issue of shortening the lead, you may like to compare the shortened version I made at Portal:Wales/Intro where, for reasons of space, the full lead could not be accommodated. I don't think that curtailed version can be directly used here, but it might give some idea of where space could be saved. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As it doesn't appear clearly in the article we need to fix it, stat. The issue is with the dating and with the connection of the "land of song" name to the eisteddfod. The whole thing could be replaced with something like "Wales has been known as the "land of song" due to its musical and poetic output" or somesuch.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Welsh Academy Encyclopedia actually has an entry for 'Land of Song, The'. It states: "The image of Wales as 'The Land of Song' was minted in the 1860s and 1870s. In the 1860s, the tonic sol-fa movement revolutionised music making, teaching thousands to read musical notes. Chapel choirs multiplied, the hymn singing festival (Cymanfa Ganu) took a hold and, from 1861, the National Eisteddfod provided a stage for rousing choral competitions and fashionable concerts." ...it continues in a less notable vain for another few sentences, but the main point I believe I have reproduced here. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As the source refers to the National Eisteddfod, rather than eisteddfod traditions in general, the lead will have to be amended. How about: “Wales acquired its popular image as “the land of song" from the 1860s, attributable in part to the National Eisteddfod which, after an absence of almost 300 years, was revived in 1861.” Of course, with an additional 28 characters, this compounds, rather than solves the size issue. I would be happy for the sentence to be deleted entirely. Daicaregos (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the National Eisteddfod is a particular event which was founded in 1861. I don't think it can be described as having had an absence of 300 years, or as having been revived (it has run almost every year since 1880). Eisteddfodau were revived, but the National Eisteddfod was not. We must avoid giving the impression that events are older than they truly are. The cultural heritage of Wales is rich enough not to need this sort of exaggerated claim. I see no problem with
 * Wales acquired its popular image as "the land of song", attributable in part to the foundation of the National Eisteddfod in 1861.
 * Of course, since the foundation of the National Eisteddfod in 1861 is, plainly, a revival of the tradition of eisteddfodau, the current wording is equivalent:
 * Wales acquired its popular image as the "land of song," attributable in part to the revival of the eisteddfod tradition.
 * These solutions also manage not to introduce any extra verbiage to the lead. I cannot see what the problem is with the current wording. Daicaregos seems unduly keen to stress the ancientness of something which is basically Victorian. That is not a denigration of Welsh cultural or linguistic heritage, not at all, but an honest statement of the facts. The traditions may be old, but they had fallen largely into disuse, and the current institutions are relatively recent. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm trying not to mislead. I made a suggestion for a more accurate sentence, if you disagree, just say so. There's no need to suggest any motivation on my part. And there's no need to act like a Dick. According to Eisteddfod Genedlaethol Cymru “The National Eisteddfod of Wales can be traced back to 1176 when it is said that the first Eisteddfod was held, under the auspices of Lord Rhys, at his castle in Cardigan. There he held a grand gathering to which were invited poets and musicians from all over the country. A chair at the Lord's table was awarded to the best poet and musician, a tradition that prevails in the modern day National Eisteddfod.” Doesn't sound basically Victorian to me. The point is that the “eisteddfod tradition” had been revived around 100 years before the 1861 National Eisteddfod (certainly before 1789), so to say “Wales acquired its popular image as the "land of song," attributable in part to the revival of the eisteddfod tradition.” is inaccurate. It needs to be changed. The question is: to what? Daicaregos (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I do disagree. The eisteddfod can be traced back to 1176, but the National Eisteddfod can be traced back to 1861 only. The revival began, according to the current text of eisteddfod, in about 1789-1792 ("In 1789, Thomas Jones organised an eisteddfod in Corwen where for the first time the public were admitted"; "Iolo Morganwg founded Gorsedd Beirdd Ynys Prydain in 1792 to restore and replace the ancient eisteddfod"). It will have taken a few decades to get going so, as I explained above, there is no contradiction in an ongoing revival begun at the end of the 18th century having inspired the mid-19th-century designation of "land of song". Claiming that the National Eisteddfod is more than 150 years old is, however, misleading. The current wording does not need to be changed, and none of the suggsted alterations have represented an improvement. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source and the contention that it would have taken a few decades to get going so, is original research. As already pointed out, the current text does not say "National Eisteddfod", it says "eisteddfod tradition", so the saying about the National Eisteddfod can be traced back to 1861 only is meaningless. The current wording is misleading and needs to be changed. But, we appear to be going round in circles. Perhaps other editors could engage. Daicaregos (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. How about "From the late 19th century onwards, Wales acquired its popular image as the "land of song," attributable in part to the foundation of the National Eisteddfod in 1861."  The best reliable source seems to me to be the Welsh Academy Encyclopedia cited by FruitMonkey, and the intention of my suggestion is to summarise that as briefly as possible.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. two points: 1. "onwards" is redundant. 2. the source has it as The land of song. Is this better: "Wales acquired its popular image as “the land of song" from the 1860s, attributable in part to the foundation of the National Eisteddfod in 1861." ? Daicaregos (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It would probably be better to avoid two references to similar years (1860s, 1861) in the same sentence. The ref says "1860s and 1870s", so "in the second half of the nineteenth century" would cover it: "Wales acquired its popular image as “the land of song" in the second half of the nineteenth century, attributable in part to the foundation of the National Eisteddfod in 1861."   Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree with noted from number of angles above that the current version in the article lede: From the late 19th century onwards, Wales acquired its popular image as the "land of song," attributable in part to the revival of the eisteddfod tradition. is more concise and preferable per If it ain't broke, don't fix it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You seriously think it isn't possible to improve that sentence? No possible improvement to its style? No possible improvement to its accuracy? And no possible improvement to adhere to its sources? Perhaps you could review the article for WP:FA. Daicaregos (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to put in a quick spanner :) - Wales affirming it's image as 'the land of song' would in my mind be easy to attribute to the adoption of Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau and the second line "Land of bards and singers" though obviously referencing any such image shift would be difficult EdwardLane (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

GDP PPP in infobox - source query
I am trying to get a source for the GDP PPP for England (the currently quoted figure in that infobox is wrong) to act as an infobox comparitor for Wales and Scotland - I note that we have a figure for Wales GDP PPP quoted here, but no source - it refers in the text to "National Statistics" but I can't locate an ONS table that gives this figure - would be grateful for any help as to how this was sourced. Eurostat gives NUTS-2 region level breakdowns but not for this value. ONS Yearbook seems to be equally unhelpful. Thanks for any pointers to useful sources. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sound clip of the National Anthem
The 1899 recording of the national anthem has been added and removed in the past after discussion on this page during the article's promotion to GA status. It was felt that the recording was of such poor quality (technically and musically) that it did not reflect the National Anthem of Wales and was thus removed. Recently two attempts have been made to add it. If this needs to be discussed again, can it happen on this talk page first. FruitMonkey (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I hadn't seen that it had been added previously and been removed - just thought it had been an oversight, so I added it 'boldly'. Are the rules on wikipedia against copyright infringment so strong that crowds singing at a rugby match could not be recorded and used? EdwardLane (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Welsh Motto
A Welsh friend of mine says the English translation of the motto is 'Long Live Wales', instead of 'Wales Forever'. Shall we edit that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.85.162 (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Royal Badge - Infobox
Apologies if this has been done to death elsewhere, but why no Royal badge adjacent to the flag in the infobox, along the lines of... Regards Endrick   Shellycoat  12:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussed several times in the past and rejected. Use is very recent and restricted.  Agreed to use in body of main article -- Snowded  TALK  12:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox
We don't need non-english versions of Cardiff in the infobox section of the capital city or the demonym section (see England, Scotland & Northern Ireland for examples). -- GoodDay (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Welsh is an official language with equal status in Wales. We need them, stop stirring pots -- Snowded  TALK  12:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's await other opinons on the matter. Though a sovereign state, Canada's infobox section, doesn't have the french version of Canadian in its demonym section.GoodDay (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should. Also GoodDay, you have been here before.  Every six months or so we have to go through the dance with you on this one, its tedious -- Snowded  TALK  13:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We'll let others decide, not you & D. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it doesn't matter what other articles do or don't do unless there's a proper guideline. Does anyone have a reason why "we don't need" the Welsh name of the capital city etc in the infobox? Simply saying that it's not necessary doesn't cut it. If there's no logical reason to take it out, leave it in - it is an official language after all. We're in the business of adding information, not removing it for no good reason. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Such info can be handled in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You just want to wind things up again GoodDay, this has been discussed and resolved before and you know it. Try and find something constructive to do please, for your sake as much as for the encyclopedia.  -- Snowded  TALK  13:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Take your personal attacks elsewhere & allow others to comment, please. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I say we keep them in there, on the grounds that they need to be there - I'm not going to give a reason, but go along GoodDay's logic that they just don't need to be there... --  Xxglennxx  (talk • cont.) 14:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep both names as now, of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a shadow of a doubt - both. Agathoclea (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mulberry212, 25 August 2011
Information about the Presiding Officer still reads Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas when it should read Rosemary Butler of Welsh Labour. Thanks!

Mulberry212 (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * actioned -- Snowded TALK  15:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tabulabells, 13 September 2011
In the 'dance' section of the 'Wales' page I suggest that the sentence "while the country's traditional dance lie in folk dancing and clog dancing" be changed to "while the country's traditional dance lie in folk dancing, Morris dancing and clog dancing"

And a link be added to the 'Nantgarw tradition' page through the added words 'Morris dancing'.

Thank you.

Tabulabells (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Most references to morris dancing that I can find - including our article - refer to it as an English tradition. Clearly morris dancing teams are established in Wales, but I'm not convinced it should be added as a Welsh dance tradition. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah - OK, maybe. I'm still not sure it's worthy of mention in this article - other opinions would be useful.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Our friend may have a point. The Encyclopaedia of Wales does brush with this fact. In their section on dance it mentions two notable importance sources that helped revive traditional dance in Wales. Those being the Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod and the recalling of the Nantgarw dances by Catherine Margaretta Thomas. That is as big a call as the tradition gets in the book and the 'M' word is not mentioned. Now we are trying to keep the main article tight and not overflowing with minutia, but it does have a foothold here. The original dance section in the Wales article was penned by myself, and I have little knowledge of the subject apart from what a few books in the house, but it may be worth someone with a better understanding of the subject (hint,hint) to create a Dance of Wales article to tag underneath as a 'see also' to allow the topic to flourish there? FruitMonkey (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert, but I do dabble in a spot or (Welsh) folk dancing. I think 'Nantgarw' is a name of a well known dance 'routine' in the Welsh folkdancing tradition, in tribute to the Nantgarw Dance Fair, and there's a well know dance group called Dawnswyr Nantgarw. There may be a Morris Dancing group who perform a dance they call the Nantgraw dance, but I imagine it's not that well known and we need to be carefull we do'nt mix the two up. Llok like self-promotion to me.--Rhyswynne (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of countries that border only one other country
There is a discussion at the above talk page in which some contributors have expressed the view that Scotland and Wales should be excluded because they are not "independent sovereign states". Any views one way or the other? --TraceyR (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 10 November 2011
At the start of the Sport section of the Wales page please add - Sport Wales (http://www.sportwales.org.uk) is the national organisation responsible for increasing participation and improving performance in sport in Wales. They work with their partners, including governing bodies and local authorities, to achieve shared aspirations of getting every child hooked on sport for life and Wales being a nation of champions.

Please also add the URL address (http://www.sportwales.org.uk) to the External links section of this page.

These requests have been amde as this information is currently missing.

Adam Fairbank (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's in the Sport in Wales article already and the external link is too specific for this article. — Bility (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Cymru am byth
Does anyone have a citation on this? Seems a little odd since most of the bits of the UK technically don't have mottos and it seems unlikely to be a royal motto.©Geni 16:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "bits of the UK"!!! I've read WP:DNFTT, but sometimes it's just too much. Daicaregos (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So do you have a citation?©Geni 05:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted your change - apologies for the "vandalism label, that was a result of editing on the iPad - however you need agreement here, its not just enough to raise something. Personally I think this one is so self evident that the request for a citation could be seen as mischief making.   A simple google search should give you more than enough evidence -- Snowded  TALK  22:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did do a Google search and I'm finding nothing. No act of parliament, no act of welsh assembly, no ministerial ruling, no royal proclamations (I'm not even sure if any of the welsh kingdoms even had mottos). The phrase turns up from time to time but nothing giving it the status if a national motto. Incidentaly ipad use is not an excuse for abuse of rollback (I assume it was rollback admins are generaly whitelisted in semi automated tools).©Geni 22:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally yes it is, very easy to hit rollback instead of edit. Its not abuse if its a mistake and you immediately apologise as I did. -- Snowded  TALK  12:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please get a consenus before changing something that people disagree with. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to. Do you have any citations?©Geni 22:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the motto of the Welsh Guards, though I think it was in widespread use before they were formed in 1915. You can find the phrase inscribed on a stone in the Washington Monument, for example.--Pondle (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And Molon labe predates most of the welsh kingdoms. Thaty doesn't mean it's the motto of greece. I can only find 4 mentions on the entire welsh government website. One of which is a reference to the Washington Monument and the other 3 are in welsh. I'd expect a little more coverage of a national motto.©Geni 11:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Confusing the issue further, the motto on the Royal Badge of Wales is Pleidiol Wyf I'm Gwlad. In 2008 it superseded the old badge on which it was Y Ddraig Goch Ddyry Cychwyn.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We were taught in school that it was on the shield of Llewelyn the Great. A google search on it with "motto'  shows multiple de facto use.  Rather like the English National Anthem, it may never have been formally defined -- Snowded  TALK  13:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. However, it would be helpful to pull out some good quality citations out of this lot.  And, personally, I wouldn't want to rely on any of my old teachers as being "reliable sources".   Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that modern wales is even the successor state to imperial Gwynedd. Was there even a 13th century tradition of having words on shields? Would be a little odd since most people wouldn't be able to read them.©Geni 13:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite. Rather than wasting any more time on this, let's have a straw poll to see whether the motto should be kept in the infobox (without citation), or not:

Keep "Cymru am Byth" is the de facto motto of Wales. Daicaregos (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You can't vote your way around a lack of citations.©Geni 13:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just a straw poll, which we're quite entitled to hold. Your participation is not compulsary. It is to see whether the editors here consider "Cymru am Byth" the de facto motto of Wales. Daicaregos (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What editors here consider to be the motto of wales is an irrelevance. Its what they can provide citations for.©Geni 14:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

""Cymru am Byth" is established by de facto usage" doesn't even make sense within English grammar as it is commonly used and we still need a viable citation. I mean come on if there is any validity to this claim it shouldn't be hard to find solid citations. There are enough constitution nerds and enthusiastic nationalists around that if the claim is true we should be able to find it documented in an unreasonably large number of reliable sources. Instead nothing.©Geni 19:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That wording was copied directly from the England article's infobox (language section). If this enquiry has any credibility please raise a similar query there, add cn templates and come back. Until then I am reverting. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nyet. If you wish to argue that the article on england needs further citations that is up to you. This is the talk page for the article on Wales and I'm trying to discuss the "wales" article. Despite a good faith search I've been unable to find any reliable sources for "Cymru am byth" being wales's de-facto motto. Despite ah vigorous debate on the talk page an impressive selection of reverts on the article no one else has managed to produce any citations either.©Geni 21:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, no one in Wales would even question this and it appears more or less everywhere. You can say no in Russian as often as you want but you really don't have agreement to make that change.  Any search will show you (try "welsh motto cymru am myth") clear de facto use, multiple statements that it is the welsh motto, its just you don't like what you see.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * SERPS are not a vaild source.©Geni 21:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please obtain concensus here before making controvertial changes to the article. Thank you. Also, the edit summary is not there to make points. Just to say what you're doing. Daicaregos (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please obtain consensus at well WT:V among other places before trying to change our Verifiability policy. I have asked many people many times for sources. Since it appears they are unable to produce them there is no reason for to be in the article.©Geni 21:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no wish to take sides here, but as someone who has lived and worked in almost every part of Wales for 40 years, it has always seemed that Cymru am byth has tended to be used and promulgated by more nationalistic and pro welsh language activists and I have certainly rarely heard in areas where English is the common tongue. Now this comment of mine is equally unsourced and is not any basis for exclusion of any mention in the article, but I would urge that all editors put aside any "ownership" of Welsh issues that they might or might not have and view the article with complete detachment. I personally don't believe that Cymru am byth is the motto of Wales, official or unofficial even though I see it as graffiti on rocks and bridges, but if it is shown to be such, then it must be on the rules of verifiability that governs the rest of Wikipedia.  Velella  Velella Talk 21:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My view is that it is nonsensical to use the (somewhat trivial) parameter "Motto" in the infobox at all, if there is any dispute as to what that motto is. Cymru am byth is certainly used as "a" motto, certainly by the Welsh Guards and, informally, more widely - but no sources suggest that it has any formal endorsement as a national motto.  Apparently, the only motto used officially in Wales is the royal motto, Pleidiol Wyf I'm Gwlad - but I certainly am not suggesting that it be mentioned in the infobox.  Much better if the section were left blank until such time as reliable sources can be found.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Trivial? To some perhaps. Nevertheless, it is ridiculous to call it a nationalist motto. The phrase is said by many people and has been for over 150 years (it's inscribed in the Washington Monument), quite possibly for several centuries. Obviously it would be said more by those who care about the country than those that don't. Admittedly, this seems rather nationalist to me, though possibly not in the same way you implied. These poor unfortunates weren't fighting for their own country, were they nationalists? Is this person a well-known nationalist too (it was a reply to Lloyd-George)? But I conclude with another well known "nationalist" (and serial racist) who says (quoted from Selected speeches: 1948-1955 ) "I cannot conclude without mentioning two things. First, I would like to say how much pleasure it gave me when the King bestowed the Earldom of Merioneth upon me, and secondly, to greet you all with your own motto, 'Cymru am byth'." (also noted by ITN). Daicaregos (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's one slight problem with it, though. This being the English language Wikipedia, the English translation should be prominant, with the Welsh translation in brackets. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Another triumph for GoodDay. See France, Nepal, Spain, Mexico, Syria, Camaroon, Chad. Did you even bother to look at any other countries before you gave us your worthless opinion? Daicaregos (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, those are sovereign states, which Wales isn't. Secondly, I know of those articles & yes, they too should have the English version prominant & the non-English verison in brackets. PS: Please keep out the snide remarks. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I, and I'm sure every editor here, is already aware that Wales is not a sovereign state. I said countries. And Wales is a country, as you know. Please either link to the specific policy that requires that the English translation of a country's motto be prominant, with the native translation in brackets, or shut the fuck up make no comment at all. Daicaregos (talk) 07:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. GoodDay (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * are you going to try and cite the washington monument? Because there is no way you are going to get that passed our reliable sources standard?©Geni 00:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of things around the various countries within the UK which are de facto, the English National Anthem for example.  It comes of having a history and a lot of things get established by president.  Neither is it nationalist as far as I can see.  It is just used extensively on web sites, tourist material, road signs etc. etc. etc.  -- Snowded  TALK  04:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should I bother to provide RS for the Wahington Monument? My purpose was to show the phrase had been in use for at least 150 years. Are you claiming it isn't on there? And if so, why? Daicaregos (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm saying it being on there is of no particular significance (otherwise you end up in the interesting situation where "Kilroy was here" is the de facto motto of the US).©Geni 14:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Its perfectly reasonable to request a WP:RS for content that is clearly debatable. If there is a dispute then providing a source will resolve it. If there is a policy that covers "de facto" content that cannot otherwise be sourced, then again a link to that policy will assist. From my reading here there are no more editor's in favour of inclusion than against. Leaky Caldron  15:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I still have no idea why you want a cite that “Cymru am Byth” is inscribed on the Washington Monument, as it isn't mentioned in this article. Nevertheless, to show my good faith, here is a reliable source citatation for my claim. Now, to show your good faith, please explain 1. what bloody difference it made and 2. why you didn't look for it yourselves if you think it's so important. Daicaregos (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can easily avoid this content dispute and potential accusations of WP:COI by sticking to policy by inserting only material that complies with content policies by citing a reliable, third-party, independent published source. Its not about what you know, what you think you know, what you were brought up to understand, what your personal beliefs are or any other pink and fluffy ideals. Just a simple link to a published source; book, web or broadcast will immediately solve this in your favour. Leaky  Caldron  16:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have linked to a published source here. Please answer my questions. Daicaregos (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Which particular source are you claiming as a reliable source that wales forever is the welsh national motto?©Geni 16:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources are fine in the historical context of the sources. They do not however support the infobox claim, which is about Wales. Also, it is not currently in compliance with this guidance Help:Infobox relating to infoboxes.It is not in the main body of the article and is not a concise fact. Leaky  Caldron  17:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Phil the Greek at his Address on Installation as Chancellor of the University of Wales  (visit to Wales 28 April 1949), saying (Selected speeches: 1948-1955) "We all know what a great part this University is playing in the life and hopes of the Welsh people today. For this we are deeply indebted to those who, by their foresight and persistence, founded the several colleges of the University in different parts of Wales. My generation, although reasonably well-schooled, is probably the worst educated of this age. The war cut short any chance there was of acquiring a higher education. The immense strain upon the resources of all universities at the present moment is largely due to this lost generation trying to make up for what it missed between 1939 and 1945. However, the universities have more to offer than simply the benefit of a higher education. The ties and friendships made and the community life shared are of vital importance to graduates in the ordinary business of living in the outside world. Never before has the value of the universities been more highly appreciated, not merely for the twin opportunities they give to their students, but also for their preservation of all that is best in the national traditions and culture of Western Europe. Today, as many times before, the Fellowship of the Universities is doing a noble service to humanity; it has undertaken the great and increasing responsibility of providing the cradle for the mature thought of the future. I am both honoured and proud to be associated with this your work, and I shall watch your progress and prosperity with great interest. It gives me particular pleasure, therefore, to help you to do honour to men and women who, by their work and leadership, have won distinction in the State, in the Church, and in pure Learning. I cannot conclude without mentioning two things. First, I would like to say how much pleasure it gave me when the King bestowed the Earldom of Merioneth upon me, and secondly, to greet you all with your own motto, 'Cymru am byth'." (my emphasis) (also noted by ITN) Daicaregos (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well thats better than what we have had so far. The problem is that it is unclear who exactly he is addressing and since Phil isn't known as an expert on wales he doesn't meet our WP:RS criteria. Hmmm talking of welsh universities isn't there someone at one of them we could contact about this? If Kilroy was here has been studied someone must have looked into wales forever.©Geni 18:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that it was addressed to the Uni. of Wales on his installation as its Chancellor. That's not Wales. As an act of good faith I think it should be removed until a reliable source confirms it. At the present time it is plainly WP:OR. Leaky Caldron  18:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is good enough. Do you need a translation? Daicaregos (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's interesting to note that there are no sources which show that God Save the Queen is, de jure the national anthem of England, but there is plenty of evidence that it is de facto and it is listed as such (even thought it is also the national anthem of the UK). The same is true for English as a language in Wales and England, although ironically there is evidence that Welsh is an official language not English, but the evidence is there of majority use.  This may be a wider issue of policy as the type of evidence being requested by some editors here could equally well lead to challenges of much which is informative to readers on many articles about the UK.   I am not at home at the moment and won't be for three weeks, but if someone has access to the Encyclopedia of Wales it would be interested to check what it says  -- Snowded  TALK  19:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * thing is we have entire articles on Dieu et mon droit and In My Defens God Me Defend. Thats why I started questioning wales forever. No article nothing obvious on google to suggest where it came from. It's also a bit of a contrast from the other two.©Geni 20:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well for Monarchs you would expect that. Wales while maintaining a district culture is largely treated as a region of England until the 19th C,  so a lot of things that emerge from that period are custom and practice as are so many things in the UK -- Snowded  TALK  20:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * custom and practice even when they do not involve the monarch also tend to be rather well documented. See for example Beating the bounds or the weighing of the Mayor of High Wycombe.©Geni 21:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And you have lots and lots of example of it being used or referenced as a national motto. If it was a specific ceremony I would expect the examples you have -- Snowded  TALK  22:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm does anyone know anything about Edilivre? I've bee caught by vanity publishers on google books in the past.©Geni 20:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This looks to me very like a vanity publishing site. "Submit your manuscript at Edilivre, join a community of more than 3000 authors and share your passion!"  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would struggle at WP:RSN but you can give it a try, D. Leaky  Caldron  22:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC) The content was removed because it has neither a source that is acceptable and, being in the infobox, should also be in the body of the article. An editor has reinstated with no edit summary. I am therefore removing it and think we should discuss it here before agreeing to its re-inclusion. Leaky Caldron  00:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * nonsense, there is no agreement yet to remove it.  I and others have argued that the sourcing is fine, you may not like it but your decision is to final.  Wp:BRD applies.-- Snowded  TALK  02:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "your decision is to final". Maybe you are editing from your iPhone again. All I want is to see the InfoBox content in the body of the article. This is the preferred approach as set out here Help:Infobox. Since clicking that link appears to have been assiduously avoided in this dispute I have copied the relevant guidance: Materially relevant to the subject. A common problem is including material which is trivial and would not otherwise be included in the article body: for example, a fictional character's blood type may be referenced in passing in a work, but it is not especially useful to understanding the subject. Infobox templates should not be used for details that are too trivial to include in the article body. Already cited elsewhere in the article. Infoboxes, like the introduction to the article should contain primarily material that is expanded on and supported by citations to reliable sources elsewhere in the article. No sources per WP:RS have yet been provided. "De facto" has no standing, regardless how many of the proponents support it. If you prefer, I'm happy to take the matter to WP:NORN or WP:RSN where more community expertise can take a look. What I'm not willing to do is let the matter drop because a few long-standing contributors have a preference. That approach doesn't wash with me and it's been mentioned briefly in GoodDay's RFC/U. Finally, do not, as you have done in the past, attempt to sideline me with the spectre of Edit Warring, Civil, NPA, etc. This is a simple dispute about about an unsourced slogan and can be resolved immediately by good sourcing per policy and we can all move on. Thanks.  Leaky  Caldron  13:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Stay civil please. You know perfectly well that a lot of stuff around the British Isles (including the National Anthem) is de facto not de jure. A simple google search shows that it is extensively accepted as a national motto. No one is trying to distract you, but you should not make changes without agreement, simply on your own authority/interpretation of the rules. -- Snowded TALK  14:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the agreement for this content? Where is the consensus for it? Where is the policy that allows unsourced info. in the InfoxBox and not in the article? If Google reveals extensive sources then it should be plainly straightforward to cite them. The earlier discussion in this sections suggests that finding an RS is problematic. What policy restricts me making changes? Who's "authority" or "agreement" do I require to make changes? Leaky  Caldron  14:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been in the article for a very long time. If you check the conversation above and do a simple few searches you will find lots and lots of references to it as the motto.   As to authority you need consensus of other editors.   I put some effort into answering arguments above and you should really deal with those arguments rather than making irrelevant references to the GoodDay Rfc  -- Snowded  TALK  14:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What have been provided so far are ample sources stating that the phrase is "extensively accepted as a national motto" (Snowded's words, my emphasis), and that it is the official motto of the Welsh Guards. But, so far as I know, we have as yet seen no reliable sources that describe it as the national motto of Wales, either officially or de facto.  The statement to that effect in the article text is unsourced.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: For information, the inclusion of the motto in the infobox dates from this edit in 2002. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Snowded. I'm simply seeking to get to the bottom of a very simple content which another editor raised concern about 6 weeks ago. I'm not really keen on having my questions deflected by nuanced arguments about what is de facto, what is de jure and what might or might not be relevant in other UK & NI articles. Being in the article for a very long time is definitely not a persuasive, policy based argument and so can be immediately disregarded. Where is the long-standing consensus for the inclusion of the unreferenced material? At least editors here have questioned the validity of the material as unsourced content. Why is it not in the article body as well as the infobox? I did a simple Google search as you suggested - nothing authoritative there. Where do you think I should seek further advice on this content dispute?   Leaky  Caldron  17:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I remain surprised that anyone doubts it to be honest. It maybe that a sensible compromise is to say "extensively accepted" although to my mind that means the same as de facto.   This is a general issue over a lot of UK terms.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The mention in the article text needs to summarise the best sources available that specifically refer to a Welsh motto, and then whatever words go in the infobox need to reflect that. At present, the mention of the national motto in the text is unreferenced.  I think we should concentrate on finding the best sources for whatever it is we say in the text.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: I am adding a  tag to the statement in the text. It's reasonable to allow a certain amount of time for reliable sources to be found to support the statement. If they can't be found - I would suggest by a month's time, mid January - I suggest that the sentence in the text, and the reference in the infobox, both be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan, 10x Ghmyrtle. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This might help . No idea whether it is a WP:RS but if it can be established it will be better than just accepting it because that's what people know/believe/think/remember from school. My father, who was Welsh, had it tattood on his arm underneath the Rock of Ages, but that doesn't make it acceptable. Leaky  Caldron  19:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't access that source. What does it say, and is it sufficiently reliable?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That source actually gives two mottos:
 * "'The flag and crest of Wales both show a red dragon, and its two national mottos are Ddraig goch ddyry cychwyn ('The red dragon leads the way') and Cymru am byth ('Wales forever').'"
 * It would appear to be a reliable source, albeit a weak one owing to it being an encyclopedia entry not corroborated by secondary sources. It would be better if there were other sources to corroborate it.
 * By the way, is there any relation between this an Erin go bragh? -- RA (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Welsh in the infobox
I agree with GoodDay's edit which Snowded reverted. Why does the infobox capital and demonym bits need to have the Welsh also provided? On no other article that i can find are regional or other official languages provided and the linked to articles clearly provide the Welsh in the ledes for them. Is there any actual need for it?

Mabuska (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Its an official language, and the purpose of the wikipedia is to inform people. Multiple previous discussions on this have confirmed use.  -- Snowded  TALK  11:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm curious. Was GoodDay involved in any of those discussions? I'd hate to think that he would unilaterally remove the Welsh demonyms if he already knew that a discussion took place where the consensus was to use them. Carson101 (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To english-only readers, these non-english words in the infobox serve no informative value. Those Welsh words are included merely to appease those who speak & read both languages (english & welsh). They're included for prideful not informative purposes. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also the English wikipedia so we tend to inform people in english. It goes against the practice of very sub nation state entity (and for that matter nation state) infobox. Probably the closest would be Scotland not mentioning "Glesga" or "Glaschu". Basque Country (autonomous community) doesn't mention the issues over the capital name in it's infobox and Graubünden doesn't mention the names of its capital in the various swiss languages.©Geni 21:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Vitoria-Gasteiz actually does contain both the Spanish (Vitoria) and Basque (Gasteiz) names. It's similar to the situation if the official name of Cardiff was Cardiff/Caerdydd.  Which, in effect, it is.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. The equivalent for the Basque Country would be Vitoria-Gasteiz (Vitoria) (Gasteiz). Messy no?. Still lets keep things simple. There are 26 swiss Cantons and the only one where more than one name appears the Common English language name is unclear. By comparison at this time by far the most common name for Cardiff in English is "Cardiff".©Geni 22:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that, rather than wasting anyone's time further here, you look through the archives, where this has been discussed on several occasions. You then need to make a slightly more coherent case for changing the existing consensus.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur, you might also like to take the advice on your own user page about edit warring. -- Snowded  TALK  22:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because other pages are not doing so, does not mean that this article is wrong. This has been proven time and time again. In my view a pointles waste of all parties' time arguing this case. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you give links to some of these discussions please? I went through the archives of this page looking for such discussion and all I found was this one-line WP:NPA-violation from 2004 - which I'm sure you'll agree isn't what you guys have described here. Pfainuk talk 07:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is one discussion - there are others if you go back far enough, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah - OK. I was going through the archive box at the top, which meant that I looked through the older archives - but it finished at archive 9.  Will fix it just as soon as I'm done typing this.  (I thought there was some discussion somewhere, but I didn't think it was here - turns out, it was just my involvement that wasn't here).


 * But looking through that discussion, I don't see a particularly strong consensus for it, and the related MOS discussion came down fairly firmly against. I also find one here (which doesn't include any of my search terms because I was looking for terms specifically used in the infobox), and it got a mention here - but the first tends to come down against inclusion and the second contains little discussion of this point.  I'm not sure the consensus is that overwhelming here.


 * IMO it's legitimate to note that this article is different in this regard to others (see, for example, Nunavut, Republic of Ireland, Bavaria for cases where non-English local names for cities are not used in this way - the first two being officially multilingual), and legitimate to ask what special circumstances make this a different situation to other articles. Obviously, if it isn't a different situation - and I don't see a compelling argument in previous discussion that it is - it shouldn't be different.  It's a bit colour-of-the-bikesheds, sure, but it is still worthy of discussion. Pfainuk talk 19:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, another one. Not much in the way of reasoned discussion there, mind. Pfainuk talk 19:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If there's no consensus in those archives, why does the demonym & capital 'also' have the Welsh versions? GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Prince of Wales feathers
The edit summary ("Simply untrue. The reference supports the idea that it is a symbol of Wales rather than saying it is controversial") deleting content is wrong. The reference says "And it is bound to provoke debate over whether the Prince has the right to claim ownership of the centuries-old symbol" i.e. it is controversial. As the statement is supported by cited RS reference I have reverted. Daicaregos (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have one major issue against the wording of this section. It suggests that the feathers are a controversial symbol of Wales, while the quote mentioned above suggests that it is a controversial symbol of the Prince of Wales and not Wales itself. So the controversy should not be placed here or it should be reworded (or, even better, a more appropriate reference should be found). Further, the reference is simply wrong. The symbol is a symbol of the PoW before it became a symbol of Wales. Should we be using false sources and passing them on as fact? Colwolyoung (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact, the report does not state anywhere that the symbol itself is controversial to anyone. It states that the Prince of Wales' claim of ownership over the symbol is controversial - that is, it is to do with the use of the symbol by businesses without legal authority to do so.  If there are any sources that state that the symbol itself is a matter of controversy, we have not yet seen those sources here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Map.
Why is it shown where Wales is in Europe? This gives the erroneous impression that Wales is independant. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How do the words "in the United Kingdom" confuse you, precisely? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the only map & wording that should be there. Wales isn't independant & so we shouldn't be showing its location in Europe. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you disputing the fact that it is located in the continent of Europe?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not my point. The location of Wales in the UK map, should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should that suffice? The article makes it perfectly clear the Wales isn't independent, and nothing on the map suggests it - you'd have to be pretty challenged to derive independence from a map of Europe showing a location. If you see a map of Europe with Paris marked on it, are you wondering if Paris is independent? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Locating Wales in the United Kingdom should suffice. We should only show sovereign states locations in their continents. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, why? I'm pretty much looking for a reason, not an opinion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Same reason we don't have a map showing where Paris is within Europe or where United Kingdom is in the Solar System. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just trying to discern whether this is a serious discussion or some kind of point-proving. I've got my answer, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your opinon. Anyways, I'll let other respond, as I've little else to add. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the little map in the bottom right corner, that I'm complaining about. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Previously discussed, GoodDay trying to stir up a bit of conflict over something trivial. -- Snowded  TALK  19:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the inserted World map, that I'm complaining about. Not the large map, which I was a big proponent of. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * More classic trouble making. Look at the wording above, you specifically argue that Wales should be shown in the UK only so you are now contradicting yourself.  You should also discuss this in one place rather than wasting editors time on three other articles  -- Snowded  TALK  19:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant all along the World map. I'm not perfect, Snowded. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw a Barramundi trying to wriggle off a hook in Kakadu over the weekend GoodDay, it had nothing on you. I quote "The location of Wales in the UK map, should suffice" and you repeat it that position, then suddenly say something different.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not as good with words as you & I'm not perfect either. Please keep your attacks out of these discussions. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't fay-pretend a lack of education here Goodday, you have been quick to quote the greats in the past. But this attempt is pointless. Is Wales not in Europe? How is showing the location of a country in a larger geographcal location bad form? FruitMonkey (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Europe map is alright. The inserted World map isn't. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been 8-days & there's no consensus for deleting the inserted World Map. Therefore, proposal is withdrawn. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It might be a good idea to get everything off your chest now about the things you don't agree with on this article and the other UK country articles. That way the users who come here to disagree with you on a regular basis won't have to waste their time having to put you right every time you have a bee in your bonnet. Maybe you should ask the question, does this article in any way put forward the idea that Wales is an independent country? When, as I suspect, the consensus is that it does not, then maybe you will no longer have to waste your own time repeatedly asking the same or similar questions. Carson101 (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No consensus was reached on deleting the inserted World map from this constituent country's article. PS: Please don't comment on the contributor. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)