Talk:Wales/Archive 16

Demographics section - ethnicity (2)
To repeat: Matt Lewis has proposed the inclusion of the following paragraph:"Identity was also the theme of the following question, which asked 'What is your ethnic group?' The most-chosen option was 'White: Welsh / English / Scottish / Northern Irish / British' at 93.2%, a fall from 96% for the equivalent option of 'British' in 2001. The next most-chosen option was 'Asian or Asian British' at 2.3%, followed by 'Mixed race' at 1%, 'Black or Black British' at 0.6%, and 'Irish' and 'Other' 0.5% each. The figure given for 'Total Black and minority ethnic' people was 4.4%, a significant rise from 2.1% in 2001." I support the inclusion of a paragraph on ethnicity, but would remove any link with "identity" and would greatly prefer the substance to be derived from secondary not primary sources. Any suggestions on wording? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Look, I told you the first time this was connected to a particular preceding paragraph on the national identity results. It's intended to directly follow it, and following this parag is the unified mess of all the currently hanging parts on race etc. You can't split everything into controllable 'themes', that's no one can make a decent copy edit, and various stuff is floating everywhere. They were following questions on the census, and the census people clearly had them linked. They reveal a lot about the preceding question.


 * To repeat: stop controlling everything in here for God's sake. It's my text. You just expect me to repeat everything I said above. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So... you are disagreeing with your own proposed paragraph? Or do you want to rewrite it so that it fits better with the preceding paragraph?  In any case, your view that there is some unidentified connection between national identity and ethnicity is pure original research for which you have provided no justification - other than your own personal opinion that because one question followed the other in the census they are in some unspecified way "connected".  Implying a connection that does not exist is synthesis, which is equally disallowed.  If it helps, it's clear, so far as I'm concerned, that when we agree a paragraph on ethnicity it will immediately follow the paragraph on national identity.  But your statement that "Identity was also the theme of the following question..." is unjustified and false - except in so far as identity can be an element of ethnicity, which anyone understanding the concept of ethnicity will understand.  Are you trying to claim that the census asked "the wrong questions"? - if so, that's again irrelevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * e/c on your edit (sorry I'm having a break in a sec).. You put my paragraph up, what are you talking about? Read the this particular census question, and how it describes British as mutually inclusive with Welsh etc. (The irony is that you want to call Welsh people an indigenous "ethnic group" in the intro of Welsh people.). You just don't want to accept that British are seen as the same thing in the census (just like 2001), as it rubs against your desire to inform the word that people who are British somehow can't be Welsh etc unless they 'say so'. You are wrong. The census simply asked "how would you describe your national identity?". It's asking ideally for a single answer, which is what 80% gave. They don't care if if people say British or Welsh: they mean the same. Haven't you go it yet? It was just giving people all of the options they asked for after 2001. They had to let people put more than one, as some people have to. As far as the census is concerned British IS Welsh! As a nationality and an ethnicity - everything. Maybe you can't fully see it yet, but you really are reading things in the identity part that are just not there. You've completely misunderstood the whole thing myrtle. These census questions were not designed to be interpreted like you want to interpret them. It was NOT a poll on national division within British identity (or gauging Britishness in any way), and it was never intended to be anything such. It's just a dumbed-down census that most people hated filling in. Are you going to create a THIRD talk section now with my text? Matt Lewis (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone here who hasn't "completely misunderstood the whole thing" apart from you? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A few big fishies, an extremely small pond. I'd love to hear you say you disagree with the above - about what they intended the nationality to question to be. Just so I have it on record. I fully expect to have you buzzing around my ears for the rest of my Wikipedia life btw. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are trolls supposed to buzz? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @Matt: Please. We are not talking here about "national identity".  We are talking about ethnicity.  They are different concepts.  You seem to be trying to mush them up in a way that suits your opinion, when the census explicitly kept them separate, and what we are trying to do is to report its findings in a neutral way.  As Martin implies, it seems that you're saying that everyone except you is out of step with reality.  Sorry, but no-one else sees it that way.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Back to national identity again...

 * NO. THIS IS MY APPROPRIATED TEXT HERE. THE CENSUS EXPLICITLY KEPT THEM BOTH TOGETHER. YOU HAVE COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD THE CENSUS QUESTION ON 'IDENTITY'. AND YOU CANNOT SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE EITHER. And we both know why Martin is still here.


 * The first question essentially asks; Are you of British nationality or not? (which is a bit different to a passport holder). 91% in Wales were. It just asked it in the way we asked them to ask us. It essentially means the same as it did in 2001. The next asks us if we of British 'ethnically' or not? Matt Lewis (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "The first question essentially asks; Are you of British nationality or not?" Absolutely, 100%, categorically, wrong - it did nothing of the sort.  "The next asks us if we of British 'ethnically' or not?"  Equally, absolutely, categorically, 100%, wrong - it did nothing of the sort.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)4


 * If you are going to say "100% NO" - can you at last quote the full thing? I added "(which is a bit different to a passport holder)". But we do disagree with each other 100%, and on the ethnicity question 100% too. I am of course talking about their intentions: what they were trying to get from us. You just seem to be dead set on making it seem like they were surreptitiously testing our Britishness - they were doing nothing of the kind. British is a default on the census all the way. You've put a whole swagbag load of meaning into this thing that just absolutely was not intended to be there. That's why when you interpret the figures through your lens they completely go against the public grain. Same with England too, unsurprisingly. And the Northern Ireland figures from the Wales/English census too. None of the results hold up to your skewered interpretation. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @Matt - How can you possibly suggest that "I am of course talking about their intentions: what they were trying to get from us." - and then say that it is other editors who are trying to put a slant on the figures? It's baffling.  We have no interest in, or knowledge of, the intentions of ONS.  We are here to report the census results, as unadorned as possible, using prose.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Who is this "we"? Wikipedia? It is not your job to "report" on anything. You have 'reported' that "No British national identity was indicated by 73.7%" - finally in terms of being less 'definitive' (purely thanks to me - it originally said '73% do not identify with being British'!). But it's still based on your own interpretation of the census data. Nothing in the census states that 'Welsh' is not 'British' - and this is a legal and cultural fact whether you like it or not. Nothing states that to tick one box is exclude any other. That was not intended at all. But you have DEMANDED that to be the case. The spreadsheet columns are purely comparative - they SAY nothing.


 * It's your job to A) UNDERSTAND the area in which you are editing (which embarrassingly for you, you just don't - and you now suggest you don't need to!) B) follow policy and not interpret and develop the sources (you haven't attempted to do either), and C) avoid all your personal bias (you clearly just can't do that at all imo).


 * All you have done is "adorn" and heat-up cold figures into outrageous "fact". The column headings say nothing of people's intentions, or the census' intentions either. You and Dai have decided that they do (and what they mean), and have given an interpretation that entirely matches your own minority political views. You claim that terms like Welsh and British are intended to be "ABSOLUTELY" (your word) exclusive of each other - BUT YOU ARE JUST WRONG. I think there is no way you would have turned your nose up at the best compromise I could make if you did have the nationalist bias that you do. You are guilty of insisting upon a number of obvious issues, against a normative edit that removes those issues. That is NOT policy. You have become totally entrenched too. You should hang your head in shame. This was what I put to you (to adapt at least in part to your insistence on a summarising style):


 * The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity. Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?". Respondents were instructed to "tick all that apply" from a list of options that included Welsh. 80% of respondents chose to tick one option only, with 20% ticking two or more options. 57.5% of respondents exclusively ticked Welsh, 7.1% ticked both Welsh and British, and 16.9% exclusively ticked British. A further 2.3% of the respondents ticked British with one or more options other than Welsh. 11.2% of the respondents exclusively ticked English. 8% of respondents did not indicate one of Welsh, English, Scottish, Northern Irish or British.


 * We need the '80:20' boxes-ticked ratio as it makes sense of the new multi-option way of presenting the 2001 question. I used "exclusively" before the word "ticked" to avoid the various issues with saying things like "exclusively British" (which sounds misleading) and "stated" or "indicated" (which is just a weaselly version of the same over-difinitive thing). It's the only fair way I can think of doing it at least partly in the summarising style that you prefer. I made it to try and compromise, in 'style' at least (which is what you keep pointing to, after so-wrongly saying I am interpreting things myself - you are so wrong to say that you really are).


 * But the above is something you personally refuse to debate. (And I can show it you wherever we are discussing it too.) I'm having to take it elsewhere because of the sheer abuse of collegiate consensus in this place. It makes no outrageous statements that are A) completely 'developed meaning', and B) we know not to be true anyway. Nothing in it rubs against anything else. We don't need to create a percentage for the amount of respondents who didn't put British. It's a needless thing to do. It is nothing but dodgy, as we know it made no difference to anything as far as the compilers were concerned (ie it's all British to them, as it is to most of the respondents), yet it is highly politically to pick it out and highlight it as if it has some kind of exclusive meaning. You have been continually saying that I'm somehow breaking the rules in not wanting to include an utterly-needless, Original Research, POV, meaning-developed and real-life-misleading line. I am not breaking any rules at all - far from it.


 * Your current version says a number of things like "The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population indicated their sole national identity to be Welsh" It's nonsense Original Research. NOTHING SAYS THAT IS THEIR 'SOLE' NATIONAL IDENTITY AT ALL. You have no source for it - you are just fucking around with columns on a fucking spreadsheet like a corrupt politician. STOP DOING IT. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the length of this reply..... Matt claimed here that "there was general acceptance" for the wording he set out above. There's no evidence that that's true. In response to his comments....  In my comment above, "We"  means the collective endeavours of WP editors; I didn't think it was necessary to explain that. We (collectively) do not report that boxes "were ticked by" census respondents in relation to any other issue. We (collectively) do not say, for example, "50% of census respondents ticked the box marked male". We say that 50% were male - or, at most, 50% indicated that they were male. We (collectively) have no right to infer that, in relation to this census question and no other, respondents did not realise what they were doing when they ticked boxes in relation to their national identity. If people ticked the box marked "Welsh", for example, we (collectively) must accept the meaning that they saw their national identity as Welsh, as we do for every other census question. However, there is one point on which Matt has been confused, and where that confusion may be shared by other readers. The current wording says that "No Welsh national identity was indicated by 34.1%", and that "No British national identity was indicated by 73.7%". To many readers that may suggest that 34.1% expressed a view that they had no Welsh identity; that is not the case. And that 73.7% expressed a view that they had no British identity; that is also not the case. Those proportions are the residuals - the proportions of respondents who did not tick the Welsh or British boxes respectively. By omitting to tick those boxes, they were not necessarily giving a positive statement of their lack of identity. The wording, "No Welsh national identity was indicated by 34.1%", for example, can be read as meaning that 34.1% positively identified themselves as having "no Welsh national identity". That is incorrect. What is correct is that 34.1% did not positively identify themselves as having any Welsh national identity. That is a subtle but significant difference - there must be a term for that error of interpretation in statistics literature, but I can't think what it is. What the ONS figures show is that 57.5% ticked the "Welsh" box and no other, 7.1% ticked both the "Welsh" and "British" boxes; and 1.2% ticked the Welsh box and more than one other boxes. And, the remaining, residual, 34.1% [Note: The figures tot up to 99.9%, but that's a trivial point to do with rounding.] did not tick the Welsh box at all - a response which ONS tabulates as "No Welsh identity". But, that does not mean that they were actively, positively, saying "I do not have any Welsh identity", it means that they simply did not indicate that they had a Welsh identity. The way the text is written now is certainly not "original research" - it's an appropriate and neutral summary of the ONS table of statistics. But, because of the English language (which finds it difficult to differentiate between the two meanings), the current wording can be read in two ways - the correct way, and the incorrect way. In my personal view, nothing meaningful would be lost by removing those two sentences, "No Welsh national identity was indicated by 34.1%", and "No British national identity was indicated by 73.7%", and leaving the remaining text unaltered. The sentences are open to misinterpretation, and it can be argued that the current version gives undue weight to residual statistics. So, the revised paragraph would read:"The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity. Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question 'How would you describe your national identity?'. Respondents were instructed to 'tick all that apply' from a list of options that included Welsh. The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population indicated their sole national identity to be Welsh; a further 7.1% indicated it to be both Welsh and British. The proportion giving their sole national identity as British was 16.9%, and another 9.4% included British with another national identity. 11.2% indicated their sole national identity as English and another 2.6% included English with another national identity." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to revisit this topic. The current version has consensus. The ONS statistics show that no Welsh identity and no British identity was noted by 34.1% and 73.7% of respondents respectively. This is not original research; the cited reference is the definitive reliable source for the 2011 census results on national identity and should be shown on the article. Daicaregos (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But that statement - "The ONS statistics show that no Welsh identity and no British identity was noted by 34.1% and 73.7% of respondents respectively" - can be read in two different ways. It is not correct to say that 34.1% noted that they had no Welsh identity.  It is correct to say that 34.1% did not note that they had any Welsh identity.... etc..   But I accept that it is the ONS terminology, rather than anyone here's use of that terminology, that can lead to misunderstanding.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ghmyrtle, you're right, but why is the answer to delete it? Why not have "34.1% gave no indication of Welsh national identity". And use the same formula for British. DeCausa (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a perfectly acceptable wording - but I don't personally think it adds anything meaningful. If x% express one view in a survey, we don't normally add "...and y% didn't".  It's more complicated in this case because of the variety of different permutations, but including the residual percentage isn't actually saying anything - other than indicating the proportion who didn't tick a box, for whatever reason.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * True, I suppose. But, personally, I find those two percentages the most interesting in that paragraph and, for me, brings home the over all position most clearly. But I don't have a strong view and I agree deletion is preferable to retaining what is actually misleading. DeCausa (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that shows part of the problem - the proportions appear to be interesting. But, actually, they are not as interesting as they seem, and presenting those proportions at all could be interpreted as giving them undue weight.  A proportion not ticking a box is not inherently very meaningful, even if it appears to be.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that the ONS reported those percentages with as equal prominence as the other permutations (as linked to by Daicaregos, above). Unless a secondary source has deprecated those particular statistics in the way you suggest, I don't think that can be used as a reason in itself to exclude them on the basis of WP:UNDUE. Of course, it's very unsatisafactory relying on a primary source to cover such a complex issue (there doesn't seem to be anything much else to use.) DeCausa (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm... well, I don't think ONS did report those percentages, and they certainly didn't comment on them - they just provided them, in a statistical table.
 * But, on the basis of this report - which I hadn't seen before, and I don't think has been mentioned before - I'm prepared to withdraw my suggestion of deleting those two sentences. It's a secondary source (Welsh Government), and clearly says: "Nearly two-thirds (66 per cent, 2.0 million) of the residents of Wales expressed their national identity as Welsh in 2011.  Of these 218,000 also reported that they considered themselves to be British.  A third of the population of Wales (34.1 per cent) said that they had no Welsh identity..." (p.1)  "... Over half the population of Wales (57.5 per cent) described themselves as Welsh only....." (p.6).  So, I think that makes it clear that it is appropriate to use the current wording.  When the page is unprotected, I think we should link directly to this source.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: Obviously I'm ignoring Matt's comment below as I assume it's been put there in error and will be withdrawn, given his assurances not to comment here for a while. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear Ghmyrtle. You don't have to apologise for writing three paragraphs btw - it's only considered too long on Wikipedia, and I've not been able to explain it in any less myself. You've done it well there. I think that the very manner it's caught DeCausa's eye (and therefore many others surely?) is a great example of how these lines can mislead. From what I've gathered, my wanting to remove it has made me look entrenched to him when he came to vote on the poll. I think my difficulties here have largely stemmed from the impression given by the existing prose. But as Ghmyrtle says above, removing the offending parts isn't Original Research: removing needless and confusing negatives like the above lines - to benefit understanding as much as anything else - is the kind of thing we are all meant to do.


 * I'm not planning to say much in here this week (if anything at all, as I said to Snowded in that link from his talk). If people can remove all the leading words like "sole identity" etc - anything that incorrectly suggests that British, Welsh and English etc were intended to be (and were interpreted as) mutually exclusive of each other - then I'm sure I'll be happy enough with the outcome not to contest it. I'm not a nitpicker, and I'm happy to let go of the surrounding edits too as they were mainly just a tidy up of a rather messy section I thought.


 * I ended up composing the specific version I put in on March 1st because prose just wasn't going anywhere for us at the time: it was meant to be a compromise, and it was one that a few editors here did actually let pass for an evening at least. I know because I kept a check on my watchlist, and saw them continue to edit elsewhere until night about 5 hours later. And I naturally wanted at least some of St David's day (of all days) to be properly representational in this area too - it's where I live and am from after all. It is actually a 'BLP' issue for me - it's a biography of a living people! Matt Lewis (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Alternative proposed wording of new paragraph on ethnicity
"The 2011 census showed Wales to be less ethnically diverse than any region of England. Of the Wales population, 93.2% classed themselves as White British (including Welsh, English, Scottish or Northern Irish), with 2.4% as 'Other White' (including Irish), 2.2% as Asian (including Asian British), 1% as Mixed, and 0.6% as Black (African, Caribbean, or Black British). The lowest proportion of White British (80.3%) was in Cardiff." Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ghmyrtle is the best! I agree with everything he does and says. Especially on him continuing to 'propose' an isolated part of my recent edit on my behalf, and then pitching his own version against it! Having a "straw poll" on something supposedly-different that hasn't even been properly discussed yet is just not policy regarding straw polls.. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't follow that. But, as a serious point, there is general recognition that matters like ethnicity are extremely complex, difficult to summarise statistically, and easily open to misinterpretation.  That is why we must simply summarise what ONS have said - they are the experts in categorising responses, not us, and we must not be drawn into the trap of trying to place any interpretations on the figures beyond what they (or other reliable sources) offer.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I just don't understand the faith you have in your summaries. Can't you see what a nightmare they can be? Admittedly it's easier to do here than the nationality section above it (where it's logically impossible to conclude some of what you have), but what can actually be misunderstood from my attempt? (I did mean to remove the "significantly" at the end by the way - it's not needed). I deliberately did it the way I presented the nationality section above.. they flowed, and the use of "British:" in the ethnicity question highlighted the intentions of the census compilers. Namely that British is the inclusive default, and the other nationalities are just intended to be variations on saying it: nothing more.


 * Also, you really need to read up on straw polls. You've abused just about all the etiquette there is surrounding them. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Matt, you have already gone over the boundary line on WP:Civil, please stop making the personal comments and accusations and focus on content proposals.  Snowded  TALK 05:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am focusing on the content though, aren't I? The other comments come when I'm cynically dismissed and made to repeat things over and over. If you look right up to the top, it started badly and went on from there. Look, I know you are another Welsh nationalist (not a slur - it's just what you are), but what do you think the census national identity question was about? Do you think it was testing our sense of Britishness too? No weaseling around it please: you know what I'm asking. I'd love to have your position on record. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Matt, this is what I find baffling about your strange approach on this page. You say: "I deliberately did it the way I presented the nationality section above.. they flowed, and the use of "British:" in the ethnicity question highlighted the intentions of the census compilers. Namely that British is the inclusive default, and the other nationalities are just intended to be variations on saying it: nothing more." Where is the secondary source to support your interpretation of "the intentions of the census compilers". You can't use a primary source to base an edit on the "intentions" behind that primary source. Ghmyrtle's proposal appears to me, and apparently everyone else on this page, appears to be a simple reportage of the primary source per WP:PRIMARY. So, do you have a secondary source that describes the intentions of the census compilers in the way you suggest. If not, there really is no point in this going any further. DeCausa (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you really saying that you think the census compilers intended British and Welsh etc to be mutually exclusive in the identity section? I'd like it on record please. It is blatantly obvious they were providing a list of different ways to express the same thing: British (with Irish and an 'other' section). It what people like me asked for: not a mini referendum on UK devolution! They just wanted to compare British national identity to British citizenship, just as they did in 2001. Is wasn't a surreptitious test on our level of Britishness! They would have A) never have remotely done that this way and B) never have done that at all in a census!!!!


 * Look at how they expressed this particular question on 'ethnicity' (which I simply presented to the reader to see btw - but of course is removed in ghmyrtle's version, as is everything he doesn't want to see). Matt Lewis (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what they intended and even if I had an idea, my opinion of what they intended is of no relevance or interest to Wikipedia. The same applies to your opinion.DeCausa (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You have no idea? Well I suppose that says something. But I have to say this: Discussion and article-space have very different rules. It's like when someone called my 'anecdotal' comment above 'Original Research'. Saying that doesn't work on discussion space, not regarding general debate. Here, you are allowed to argue in a normal way to aid understanding of the matter in hand and benefit the encyclopedia. I know my temper get's frayed here, but that's what I've been doing time and time again with my customary patience. Unfortunately people never see that amazing patience because I always lose my rag at various points - which naturally makes me appear impatient. It always astounds me whenever I come back here - the various interpretations of the rules I learnt 8 years ago. Look at Ghmyrtle on Straw polls: he's clearly never understood them properly in all his years on Wikipedia.


 * Basically I offered a version which avoided all the OR issues, so I had to argue a case to include it. And that meant debate over what the census question was actually about. I had to explain how the then-current text (and ghmyrtle's slightly adapted suggestion) had a number of things wrong with it. I spent a lot of time coming up with something that was avoided the various issues, and simply argued that we should pick the one that doesn't have all the non-policy issues. I mean, you saw the problem with the word "sole" straight away, and it's still in there. It's simply because a group of people feel they are not obliged to listen to me, and only want a version up that misleads those who are unfortunate enough to read it. I even adapted mine yesterday to fit the style of myrtles. I showed it him on my talk page, and he just blew his nose at it. He can't tell me what's wrong with it, he just doesn't want let go of the misleading one he prefers. There's no point bringing it here again, it's just a waste of time. I have to find somewhere else to take it, like I do for my change at Welsh People. Getting balanced stuff in here regarding 'identity' is a nightmare. But this is a huge encyclopedia, so this is all pending folks. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You are indeed wasting your time. You're arguing against simple reporting of a primary source and replacing it with your interpretation of that source, without the support of a secondary source for that interpretation. Because that's against policy, it's not going to happen. DeCausa (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What is interpretation from me? I removed that in my edit. My arguments are not going to go into article! Did you actually read up on my suggestion or did you just come in and vote? (the 'straw poll' canvasing nightmare). I removed the interpretation that was re-contextualised from a column heading! Instead I just presented the raw data as individual percentages, so readers can make up their own minds. I've since even adapted to the other style.


 * People here just demand a line that states that "74%" of Welsh do not feel British in some way. The spreadsheet columns did not say that: they are cold and comparative by nature and interpret nothing. They compare what boxes people ticked, and use the given term: "national identity". There is nothing to say we need provide the negative slant of "not British" anyway, and certainly not use terms like "sole identity". That's simply not logical when we know that British etc includes Welsh be default (and vice versa too). You saw the issue with "sole" yourself.


 * I've just provided some needed discussion on what the census people clearly intended - ie to be in-clusive not ex-clusive with these British options, and I'll get it in writing if I have to. Or even better, get them to stick it up on the web somewhere: ie 'prove the negative' for the sake of Wikipedia. I've had to discuss that, as some people in here are clouded enough in here to be confused about it. I think it's important to understand what we are all doing here (although that never been part of Wikipedia policy I'd agree). Nationalism does cloud the mind I'm afraid. There's a lot of politics in here decausa. That's not AGF I'd agree, but it is true. Most people who frequent these discussions want to break up the UK, most people in Wales don't. It's easy to prove as people have at various times made their feelings clear. Hardly any of us in Wales want to leave the UK, and that's why it's so upsetting here ultimately. The vast majority of Welsh people are Welsh and British, and we can (and do) tick either one in expressing that. Giving us that option in 2011 was all the whole thing was ever about. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any objection to my suggested paragraph, so I've added it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Apart from the one I've always made: that when you get your own text in you will cite the 'polled consensus' and will henceforth not allow it to be changed. It's part of the overall position protecting, mainly for the 'national identity' paragraph above this one. All your reverts in this area from now on will say "see consensus". Matt Lewis (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Matt Lewis, if you feel you can offer an improved paragraph, present it here and ask other editors, not just Ghmyrtle, if they agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are a bossy little thing aren't you. It's destination is somewhere else I'm afraid. I already know exactly what you are going to do to it. I just put it by myrtle because he was already on my talk. Of course I immediately wished I didn't bother. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was making a suggestion about how you might proceed without insulting anyone. Oh well. Perhaps you'd like to tell me what I'm going to do to it... or else just do it yourself and save me the bother. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't actually make sense. Since I've asked you as strongly as I can to have minimal contact with me (ie as least as possible) and to stop continuing to attempt to wind me up? What would you do? I don't know, the mind boggles. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't ask me to "have minimal contact" with you - you called me "a bossy little thing". Then you said "I already know exactly what you are going to do to it." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As you know, on a user talk page I've told you as clearly as I can to stop playing these games with me: more than the once too. You haven't, and are doing so now. Just stop it. 14:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you choose to portray my contributions here as "playing games." The purpose of this page is to find ways of improving the article, not to issue a constant stream of insults and threats to other editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never threatened anyone, not even with ANI, as you trollingly claimed I would do away from the 'safety' of this page. Unless you have something to add to the actual debate then leave me alone. Seriously. You started out here as a totally gnomic troll with nothing to add at all (including your silly picture links), then on someone's talk page you stupidly suggested I'm a liar, clearly just to get under my skin. So I asked you to back off with it all, and you've niggled me over a number of needless little pokey things since. The suggestion that I am not debating for improvement here is utterly ridiculous, especially when you have added 0% to any debate yourself. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you care to scroll up you might recall that I proposed, in this edit, that your proposed addition "The census of 2001 was criticised by many in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe their national identity" should be re-added. I regard that as part of the debate. If you believe that I "stupidly suggested" you are are "a liar" please show us all where that was. And where did I claim that you would threaten someone with ANI? I'm very sorry if you regard my links are "silly", but I don't think that justifies you telling me that I can't respond to your name-calling. If you have a problem with my edits it might be more appropriate to raise with me on my own Talk Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's mostly been boxed up and archived now - you know full-well where and when it was. Can you just stop and analyse your behaviour please? Your talk page looks to me like a joke shop for other editors to have a laugh in to me. Have you ever considered that? I'm not having your clowning mates wade in to my personal affairs. Enough is enough now. Please. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't and I think you should tell us. Yes, that's exactly what my Talk Page is, thanks. I've considered it very carefully and I find it infinitely more productive than pretending that I know everything and that everyone else is wrong. Not sure why any of my mates would want to go wading into those. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision 600725274
Hi Daicaregos. My intention wasn't to 'edit war', I was just breaking up the edit to see what specifically you oppose (I realise this isn't per guidelines, but it's easier). Piping 'UK' to Government of the United Kingdom isn't ideal as the First Minister is still a UK minister. 'HMG', a common abbreviation for the British Government, doesn't have this issue. Regards, Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 18:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem any point in anything appearing in brackets after Secretary of State as it's piped and under UK PM. DeCausa (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to explain Wales' government fully in an infobox. I personally favour including the Welsh Government and excluding the Government in Westminster. But I recognise I am in the minority there. As the two forms of government are shown, it is important to be crystal clear to all readers which government is being referred to. The Queen is noted within the Welsh Government section. The Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Wales are noted within the Westminster Government section. Consequently, referring to her majesty's government, or HMG, for the section excluding the Queen is liable to lead to confusion. Calling the Westminster Government the 'UK Government' is explicit, clear and is a widely used form, with a neutral POV (as far as I know). Daicaregos (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We're not calling it 'UK Government' currently, it just states 'UK'. I don't really think 'UK' tells the reader anything. We could use the full form, 'Secretary of State for Wales', which I think says more then 'Secretary of State (UK)'.
 * Alternatively, we could take the approach every other state sub-division does, and not include entries that are relevant to the entire UK. Then you wouldn't need to distinguish between the Welsh and British Government entries. Of course this would require the same to be done for all UK country articles (we're part way there at England). See User:Rob984/sandbox.
 * Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 14:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, I would welcome removing UK Government ministers. Although I suspect this would not meet universal approval. I accept your point relating to UK Government. If it stays, perhaps this could be expanded from Secretary of State (UK) to Secretary of State (UK Government) or Secretary of State (in the UK Government). Daicaregos (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue with 'Secretary of State (UK Government)', is that, without looking at the linked page, it's not clear what the 'Secretary of State' is. It could be mistaken for the First Secretary of State or the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Surely articles should written be so that links are not mandatory for clarity. Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 15:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For readers with little, or no, understanding of the subject, noting Secretary of State for Wales, without noting him/her as a member of the UK Government would be unclear and confusing. Do you have any suggestions? Daicaregos (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How about like this: User:Rob984/sandbox? Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 18:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That looks pretty good, Rob. May I suggest ... UK is redundant after Prime Minister, as it is within the section defined as British Government. So, that could be remonved without causing any confusion. Also, rather than have Wales bracketed after Secretary of State, it may as well say Secretary of State for Wales. Daicaregos (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to throw a (very minor) spanner in the works, it does look odd to me to have the UK positions in the infobox at all. (And why is the Queen in the Welsh part and not with the PM in the UK part?) I know Scotland is done in the same way, but if you look at other sub-state level infoboxes around WP they all just cover the officials/institutions of that particular level of government (or at least all the one's that I could find) eg New York and Bavaria. Having the Queen there makes it look almost like Wales is in personal union with the UK, i.e. she's Queen of Wales. It's not a big point, I just think it looks slightly confusing to the general reader. DeCausa (talk)
 * That would be my preference also. I would also suggest including a sovereign state entry in the infobox, like I have done at England. Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 16:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Units
Following a recent change to unit order, apparently per WP:Units, the Lead now says “Wales has over 740 mi of coastline …”. the preceding sentence ends by saying that Wales “… has a total area of 20779 km2.” So, the article's second sentence uses metric first and imperial second, while its third sentence uses imperial first and metric second. Looks rather odd. And btw, re change to line 367 12 km ≠ 12 mi. Any thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just checked that coastline figure, incorrectly referenced here. It was way out. The British Cartographic Society give the figure as 1680 mi If no-one has any corroborating RS reference, perhaps we should just provide the length of the Wales Coast Path (870 mi). Daicaregos (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with any measurement of coastline is the coastline paradox - which can lead to widely differing figures. I would think that the British Cartographic Society would be the most reliable source we can use, but there's no harm in giving the length of the Coast Path as well.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The coastal path does not follow the coast for its whole length, I know I am walking it at the moment!  So we should stay with the BCS Snowded  TALK 18:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, happy to. Any thoughts on the metric/imperial first inconsistency? Daicaregos (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The UK undoubtedly uses metric predominantly. Someone has decided that we should be inconsistent, and show miles, with km bracketed, because miles are still used in a minority (and shrinking) of instances. They don't seem to be fussed by km2, and metres, which is illogical. I think a discussion at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board (or whatever place centralised discussions are suppose to happen) on the issue, to gain a solid consensus for all British articles would be ideal. I'm not eager to do so right now however (I might in a month or so, when I have more time, if no action is taken until then). Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 20:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I brought it up at the Dates and numbers MOS page, here. Daicaregos (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed it back. We use square km in the UK now. We use metric for the height of mountains also. We use miles on roads but metric for most other distances. This does make things inconsistent I agree. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What have you changed back? Daicaregos (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Population - census or estimates
This edit, changing It had a population in 2011 of 3,063,456 to It had a population in 2011 of 3,082,400, is incorrect. I have reverted. The reference is to an ONS estimate for June 2013. Do editors think the article should substitute estimated data for the definitive census figure? The difference is less than 20,000 people; marginal at best. Daicaregos (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We can include both figures in the article so long as they are explained - and, as the time since the last census grows, it will become more important to include the official estimates as well as the census figures. Incidentally, it's something of a myth that census figures are precisely accurate counts - they involve a fair bit of estimation, and ONS estimates for later years take them fully into account, so they should be on a comparable basis.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. If editors decide to include the figure in the Lead, please note it as an estimate, note it as as at 2013, add it to the Demographics section, amend the Infobox population figure and provide a full citation. Daicaregos (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

part of the island of Great Britain?
Wales is not solely part of the Island of Great Britain. It covers part of the island of Great Britain. And part of the island of Great Britain is part of Wales. But much of Wales is not part of the island of Great Britain. You could equally say the island of Great Britain is part of Wales, which you would agree is misleading? We are suggesting all of Wales is within the island of Great Britain. Three words is clarity, not redundancy. Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 10:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please clarify. GoodDay (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Rob, it's not clear what the problem is for you. If you're concerned about islands like Anglesey, we could add "and associated islands" (e.g. "...a total area including its associated islands..").  But stating that Wales is "in the south of the island" is a potentially misleading oversimplification.  True, it does occupy much of the western part of the southern half of the island, but that is an over-complicated wording for the lead, and its precise location can be explained in the full article text.  Or, see map.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I should clarify, I'm contesting this revert by Daicaregos. The additional detail was a different edit. Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 10:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing
 * To
 * Or
 * Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 10:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So.. is your concern that ...part of... should not refer to both the UK and Great Britain? If so, I agree - the current version is a bit WP:EASTEREGGy.   We should revert to Snowded's wording, with the subsequent tweaks to the figures and capital letters.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I love a good hunt. I'm sure we'll find Wales eventually. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's my wording from an edit I made on the 17th. And for the reasons given at the top of this discussion. Sorry, I should have been clear as to which edit I was referring to. Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 11:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As most experienced editors are aware, Intros to high profile articles are invariably controversial. Changes should be explicitly highlighted in the edit summary or, better and as a courtesy to other editors, discussed on the Talkpage first. Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain has been the intro since 2010, per agreements at this Talkpage discussion and this sandbox discussion. User:Ghmyrtle's proposal to add and the island of Great Britain, …, met some resistance, but was accepted by all those involved in getting the page up to GA standard. Other than the stability argument for keeping the Lead unchanged, I oppose adding covers part of to the opening sentence. Covers is unnecessarily wordy, adding nothing, and does not solve the Anglesey and other islands issue. In the proposed amendment, Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and covers part of the island of Great Britain …, part of is redundant. And that eggy pipelink has been there since 2008, following agreement through mediation. I oppose these changes to the Intro. They do not improve the current, stable version. Daicaregos (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's my wording from an edit I made on the 17th. And for the reasons given at the top of this discussion. Sorry, I should have been clear as to which edit I was referring to. Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 11:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As most experienced editors are aware, Intros to high profile articles are invariably controversial. Changes should be explicitly highlighted in the edit summary or, better and as a courtesy to other editors, discussed on the Talkpage first. Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain has been the intro since 2010, per agreements at this Talkpage discussion and this sandbox discussion. User:Ghmyrtle's proposal to add and the island of Great Britain, …, met some resistance, but was accepted by all those involved in getting the page up to GA standard. Other than the stability argument for keeping the Lead unchanged, I oppose adding covers part of to the opening sentence. Covers is unnecessarily wordy, adding nothing, and does not solve the Anglesey and other islands issue. In the proposed amendment, Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and covers part of the island of Great Britain …, part of is redundant. And that eggy pipelink has been there since 2008, following agreement through mediation. I oppose these changes to the Intro. They do not improve the current, stable version. Daicaregos (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The current wording (Wales .. is part of ... the island of Great Britain) is correct. There is nothing in that statement that implies that Wales is exclusively on the mainland of the island. Furthermore, a human reader would easily assume that Wales, like the island, would have off-shore islands and so forth, and so not worry too much about it.
 * Taking it further, however, you could, for example, say that Turkey is part of Asia. It is also part of Europe. The fact that straddles both continents is irrelevant to it being a part of both.
 * On the other hand, saying that Asia is part of Turkey or that Great Britain is part of Wales is incorrect because you are dealing with sets of different magnitudes. There is an implied hierarchical arrangement even if it is not a strict hierarchy. --Tóraí (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The only change being proposed is from "a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain" to "a country that is part of the United Kingdom and is part of the island of Great Britain".  Am I right?   The problem with the first wording is that the words "part of" link to Countries of the United Kingdom.  That's fine in that part of the sentence, dealing with the political make-up of the UK, but the words "part of" are also taken as applying to the words "the island of Great Britain" - and that link is inappropriate there because the article on the countries of the UK deals with the political make-up of the UK rather than subdivisions of the island of Great Britain.  If we don't want to take out the link to the constituent country article - and I don't - the solution would be, as Rob suggests, to simply add the words "is part of" before "the island of Great Britain".  It's not a big deal, frankly, but for greater clarity I favour adding those three words.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, the proposal is the add "covers part of" (or similar). There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it's unnecessary wordiness for the sake of pedantry that most people would gloss over (IMO). I can see your point, however, and why it would be vexatious. I just wonder is it worth it.
 * Personally, I'd say "on the island of Great Britain" but I know that would tip Rob over the edge altogether ;-p j --Tóraí (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I prefer that wording then current wording. It's less implicit in my opinion. And it deals with the linking issue. You could remove 'island of' also. Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 15:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "on Great Britain" is a step too far - it would completely throw those readers who confuse UK and GB - but "on the island of Great Britain" looks OK to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal, but that would turn something which is reasonable readable into something ugly and clunky. But hey ho. I'm with Tóraí. I favour ignoring pedantry and leaving things be. DeCausa (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Tóraí, thanks for actually addressing my concerns, and I agree somewhat, however think it could be misinterpreted. 'Russia is part of Europe' is correct, but still somewhat misleading. I disagree that because of the magnitudes of Wales and Great Britain, it's not misleading at all. Clarity at the cost three words? And it removes the linking issue. Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 15:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've no reason to object to the change on literal grounds. On literary grounds, I'm with DeCausa. I won't add any more. --Tóraí (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

'Cambrian' in geology section
The reference given in this section explaining the origin of the geological term is incorrect. To quote from the given errant source:

''The Cambrian Period was named in 1835 by the geologist Adam Sedgwick, after the region of Cambria in North Wales, where rocks of this age were first found. The name "Cambria" is a version of Cumbria, a latinisation the Welsh Cymry (= countryman, compatriot against the invading Anglo-Saxons).''

There is no such region in North Wales - the name Cambria is a latinisation of Cymru, the Welsh word for the country (and incidentally not one applied during Roman times since early Welsh was spoken by Celts on both sides of what would much later become the Welsh border which we now know). cheers Geopersona (talk)
 * Just to clarify, are you proposing that the reference should be replaced, or saying that the article text is wrong? Currently, the text says, "The earliest geological period of the Paleozoic era, the Cambrian, takes its name from the Cambrian Mountains in mid-Wales where geologists first identified Cambrian remnants.". That sounds right to me, but doesn't quite go with the cited ref. If you agree, please feel free to replace the reference with one more suitable. Daicaregos (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Daicaregos - guess I'm saying that the reference is not to be relied upon and the Wikitext that flows from it is incorrect as a result. I hadn't previously heard it claimed that the name derived from the mountains rather than the country. For what it's worth only a small part of the Cambrian Mountains (per the older, Wales-wide use of the term) are formed from rocks of Cambrian age; most are Silurian or Ordovician (and in the more geographically restricted modern sense of the 'Cambrian Mountains' that is commonly encountered, there are no rocks from this period exposed in mid-Wales so early geologists wouldn't have identified any such remnants there. I didn't have a replacement ref to hand so didn't edit the article itself but I'll perhaps take a look - unless someone beats me to it. cheers Geopersona (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The classification was developed in the 1830s. At the time, the term Cambrian mountains referred to all of Wales' uplands (cf Wiki's article), rather than those in mid-Wales. I have removed 'in mid Wales' from the article.That said, If you would like to correct the paragraph, please do. This ref looks useful (“These rocks have been called Cambrian by Professor Sedgwick, because they are largely developed in N. Wales … ), p 270. Daicaregos (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There was also dispute as to whether certain formations were Cambrian or Silurian, the Ordovician was defined to include at least some of these disputed rocks. Thus, formations now considered Silurian or Ordovician could have been considered Cambrian when the term was coined. --Khajidha (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Country
Why is country linked in the first sentence of this article - just to give emphasis? Surely that's a non-technical word that most people understand? "Country" is not typically liked in any country articles as far as I can see. What about:
 * "Wales (Cymru ) is one of the countries that constitute the United Kingdom and is part of the island of Great Britain. It is bordered by England to its east, the Irish Sea to its north and west, and the Bristol Channel to its south."

Or can any kind of Easter egg(s) be avoided here somehow? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The current Intro resulted from mediation in 2008, which followed frequent edit wars, failed mediation across all UK country articles and increasingly accrimonious debate. It has been stable since then and was the version that passed GA peer review. My view is that this version (even if slighly imperfect) is better than the possibility of a return to the situation prior to mediation. I see no compelling reason for change. Daicaregos (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Howdy Martinevans123. I recommend you walk away from this topic & just let it go. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems a perfectly reasonable suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain the rationale behind linking the words "part of", rather than simply "part"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think that matters - either way.  Snowded  TALK 12:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My motivation for reverting was to have any changes to a Lead, which has been stable for many years, discussed first. Changes made to the Lead are likely to prompt other editors to make further changes unilaterally, which is exactly what happened here. As noted, linking 'of' “doesn't solve the easter egg link at all”. So, I ask, is an edit that makes little, or no, improvement worth risking six and a half years of stability? Daicaregos (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already walked away. But quickly looking back over my shoulder, six and a half years sounds like it might be time for a change. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Daicaregos and Snowded, it's unconventional for a reason. For example: "part of France" vs "part of France". Just because we don't have that issue here doesn't mean we shouldn't follow the convention. I would personally prefer "part of the United Kingdom" per WP:EASTEREGG. Rob984 (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that it was the clear and explicit outcome of the mediation is a pretty good rationale by itself! It's not entirely clear from the mediation archive why eight editors each preferred or at least accepted that version and they might have had a variety of reasons, including some weariness of that deep time-sink, fine-tuning the first sentence of a UK country article. For me, linking "part of" has the virtue of signalling, more strongly than it would if only "part" was linked but without being obtrusive, that there's something curious and interesting linked there - but if the mediation had settled on linking just "part" then I'd probably give you a rationale for that instead. NebY (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: The word "of", isn't linked in the articles England, Scotland & Northern Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Martinevans123, that the intro should not be linked to country. There's already a link to Countries of the United Kingdom, which should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes GoodDay, and if I go back six and a half years, or more recently to your lengthly ban, you have always sought to argue make pronouncements against the 'country' word in favour of constituent country or anything that lessens the status. When I and others supported your readmission you made various promises about focusing on being a wiki gnome and not engaging in contentious items, I can't remember if that was a formal condition or not but you will know.   The mediation and critically the sources established that Wales, Scotland and England are referenced as countries with more ambiguity around Northern Ireland.  The current wording on all four articles reflects that and nothing has changed constitutionally in the last six and a half years, but the EU now also references Wales as a Country so if anything the position agreed after mediation is stronger. Snowded  TALK 06:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (Almost safely outside the town boundary now), but I don't think User:GoodDay's editing history has anything to do with the validity of his argument here? I was just a little surprised that the fourth substantive word of this article should be a link to "country". If I were a new reader here, I think I'd find that, well, kind of, maybe a little patronising. It's not wrong, of course, it just seems a bit simple. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not calling for changing country to constituent country & neither is Martinevans123. We're pointing out that the link to country is not required. GoodDay (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Links are provided to help a reader understand the topic. It can be argued that the word 'country' is one of those “everyday words understood by most readers in context”, which should “generally not be linked” (per WP:OVERLINK). However, as some readers appear to see “country” and read “sovereign state”, linking the word avoids confusing the less well-educated. On balance, I think it should stay linked. Daicaregos (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a fair argument. Except - try looking through the items in this list and I think you'll agree that consistency across articles is very obviously lacking. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The link to "country" should certainly stay, in my view - simply because the first two sentences of that article makes it clear that the word "country" - as applied to Wales, Scotland, or elsewhere - does not necessarily mean "sovereign state" - which is a very common error made by many casual readers. And because, as has been said, it was agreed by mediation and there is no need to change it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GoodDay's history is not relevant to any argument, but it is to his participation. In particular as part of the issue for which he was banned was adding comments without substantive discussion.  Otherwise I can't see any reason being advanced to changing a long standing consensus.  Snowded  TALK 16:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2015
Average rain fall.........53 inches

Average summer temperature..........48-63

Average winter temperature...........35-45

Capital city.................Cardiff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.170.51 (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Internet TLDs
Is there a good reason as to why ".co.uk" has been removed from this section of the infobox? Just because Wales has some new specific domains to Wales doesn't mean that we have suddenly suddenly stopped using the UK one or it has fallen out of use or anything. The same goes for London with its new .London domain. In my opinion it should still be listed along with the Wales-specific domains which are not Country Code Top-Level domains reserved for countries but rather Geographic TLDs which "use the name of or invoking an association with a geographical, geopolitical, ethnic, linguistic or cultural community." [] 85.255.233.207 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The size of Wales
A recent edit changed Wales' land area noted in the Infobox; from 20,779 km2 to 20735 km2. The change has been cited to the ONS. WP:INFOBOXREF notes that "References are not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere …", which it was before this edit. It no longer does My understanding of an Infobox is that it should be a summary of key facts contained in the article text, per MOS:INFOBOX. The article's 'Geography and natural history' section notes "The oft-quoted 'size of Wales' is about 20779 km2." and is cited by two references. One link appears to be dead, the other cites the European Land Information Service. Searching for a definitive 'size of Wales', RSs give several different answers e.g.:

20,700 km2 ONS

20,732 km2 UK Gov - Offshore Energy SEA appendix page 1, A3g.2.1 Population

20,732 km2 [http://statelessnations.eu/wales.html statelessnations.eu – tab 2, 1. Physical and human environment]

20,754 km2 The Commonwealth

20,761 km2 Mathematics in Education and Industry

20,779 km2 NHS (UK)

20,779 km2 BBC

20,780 km2 visitwales.com

20,782 km2 wales.com – tab 2 Physical 21,224.63 km2 ONS

Clearly, no definitive figure exists. We should reach consensus here as to how Wales' area should be noted, and what should appear in the infobox. In the meantime I have reverted the change. Any thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The European Land Information Service cites the "UK National Statistics" (ONS?). Likewise, I assume the rest are secondary sources. An ONS source is most appropriate I think. 20,700 km2 is rounded. So 20,735 km2 or 21,224.63 km2.
 * This is only speculation, but I think the latter figure must include territorial waters. The figure it provides for the UK area (248,531.52 km2) is much greater than the figure for the total surface area (inland water+land area) reported by the United Nations Statistics Division (242,495 km2) which is close to the former ONS source (242,509 km2). Territorial waters aren't included in most countries figure, so I think we should go with the formed figure.
 * Rob984 (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Take the average of 20,779 km2 & 20,735 km2 (which is 20,757 km2) & go with that. Combine your sources, if that's allowed on the 'pedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course not. Go with the best source, and add a footnote saying that other sources contain slightly different figures.  The problem is in deciding which is the best source, and it's not clear to me what that is.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No original research please. See WP:SYNTHESIS. Daicaregos (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

So, how to choose our source(s)? The WP:NOR policy says “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.” (see WP:PRIMARY). That would seem to exclude the ONS for this purpose, as secondary sources are available. The BBC are generally seen as a reliable source and the area they give (20,779 km2) is mid-range - with a footnote, as Ghmyrtle suggests. Perhaps we should drop a note to WikiProject Geography to ask their opinion. Any thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Welsh Landscape Collection
NOTE: Following discussion copied from User talk:Tony Holkham

I have just come across some additions of historic images from the commons Category:Welsh Landscape Collection in pages I watch. They look very useful. Quite how one finds the one required I am not so sure. Maybe a simple search in commons if the name of the place is in the caption? Two editors concerned are User:Jason.nlw and User:Deins101. Perhaps they could liaise with you over Pembrokeshire pages? SovalValtos (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting; thank you, I shall have a look when I have a minute. T  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  18:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello both. These images were added as part of a 'Pic-a-thon' event at the National Library of Wales, co-ordinated by myself as Wikipedian in Residence. The aim was to use images from the Welsh Landscape Collection to illustrate articles of Welsh interest. Most of the images in this collection have place name categories attached so they should be fairly easy to find. Although We just decided to go through them systematical and check if related articles needed images or not. With over 3000 images in the collection there are still lots of great images not yet utilized, and I would be happy to work with you guys to make more use of the collection, just let me know what you need. Thanks Jason.nlw (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Having the images categorized and with a commons link in each Wikipedia page seem more important than immediately adding the images to pages. In many cases their place will be justified on a page but in others not. I have added quite a few commons links, but not systematically. User:Tony Holkham has done a lot of work on settlements in Pembrokeshire, but has been having a break since the spring. SovalValtos (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message! And thank you for your work in adding Commons links to Wikipedia pages. We were careful only to add images where we felt they complemented an article, and I want to avoid adding images just for the sake of it, if at all possible. I take your point about the Commons links, but I also have to consider the importance of making the most use possible of the institutions donations to Commons, as this is a top priority for both the Library and Wikimedia during my residency. This was the first 'Pic-a-thon' we have held (we have done lots of Edit-a-thons) so it's just interesting to gauge the impact and effectiveness of the event, from everyone's perspective, so thanks again for your feedback. Keep in touch! Jason.nlw (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: there are related discussions on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wales  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  13:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Drama
Surely Rhys Ifans should be listed among the better known Welsh actors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.60.99.34 (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a fair cop. His filmography is pretty impressive and he does bridge Welsh drama as well as English language. I've changed the listing. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Church of Wales attendance figures
A recent edit shows the attendance figures of the Church of Wales being 152,000 which is a massive jump from the 56,000 mentioned in the independent cite we are using from 2008. The citation for the increase was |this annual report published by the CoW themselves, based on a questionnaire. Although I'm not doubting the returned evidence, the 152,000 figure includes people "...having attended other major acts of worship in parishes during 2013 (such as family services, carol services and Remembrance services)" The 56,000 are classed as adherents, people attending Remembrance services or family services can not be classed as 'adherents'. The same article also states that 52,021 people attended Easter service and as the most important Christian celebration, I believe that this is more reflective of attendance by adherents and is closer to the 56,000 of 8 years ago. It would be good to update the figures, but I don't think this citation is truly reflective. Thus I reverted it. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing the figure. The full text in the Church of Wales report (not an independent source, of course), says : "In last year’s report it was noted that 105,000 people had also been reported as having attended other major acts of worship in parishes during 2013 (such as family services, carol services and Remembrance services). The figure for 2014 was 152,000. As this is only the second year in which this question has been asked of parishes it is not clear whether this represents a real (and significant) increase in such attendance, or merely an indication that parishes are becoming more used to the question and are including a growing number of “other acts of worship” in their returns. Either way, it certainly provides evidence of the level of broader participation in church life outside our traditional measures of attendance."  I don't there's a case there for deviating from the existing independently sourced figure, though an update would certainly be helpful.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Page protected
I've protected the page for one week to encourage proper discussion rather than the gross edit warring that has happened today. I hope this, combined with the blocks I have issued, will stop an end to this nonsense. DDStretch   (talk)  19:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that the article has been protected, perhaps it would be better to unblock the editors-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked them now. I would have done it before, but a local emergency stopped me from acting until recently. The page protection stays in place.  DDStretch    (talk)  21:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Gross edit warring'? A word that readers wouldn't miss and would do them no good in the infobox? And no 3RR violation or long term war? Strange what admins get up to sometimes but it's no skin off my teeth I suppose. Dmcq (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely you mean nose, or do you feel you have escaped something? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes you're right okay, I need to invest time in getting these expressions just right ;-). Dmcq (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Dyfal donc a dyr y garreg." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

English an official language of Wales
I see in the Wales article that English and Welsh are noted as 'official languages' of Wales.

I am eager to make sure that a reference confirms the official status of these languages in Wales, but I am having difficulty in finding a piece of legislation that confirms official status for English.

The National Assembly for Wales (Official Languages) Act 2012 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/anaw/2012/1/pdfs/anaw_20120001_en.pdf) confirms that the " official languages of the Assembly are English and Welsh," however it seems as though the status is confined to only be official in relation to the National Assembly for Wales proceedings, as opposed to Wales as a whole.

Could someone please enlighten me on how English has been noted as an official language on the Wikipedia page? Is it because English is a de facto official language, although not technically defined as an official language in law? In order to make a distinctions, could English possibly be noted as a 'de facto language', or a 'national language', as opposed to an 'official language'?

Alternatively, I see that the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/mwa/2011/1/section/1) gives de jure official status to the Welsh language in Wales:

"The Welsh language has official status in Wales. [...] This Measure does not affect the status of the English language in Wales." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammyjames60 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Second sentence
Comments on this edit, by uninvolved editors, would be welcome. My opinion is that we should not trim words where the resultant prose is stylistically poor - there is nothing wrong with saying that Wales is "located on" the island of Great Britain. Thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Why not lose the full stop and have "Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, bordered by England to the east, the Irish Sea to the north and west, and the Bristol Channel to the south." . This would avoid the need to have "located" or any variant of the contested phrasing.  Velella  Velella Talk 13:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Where would the mention of Great Britain go? Regarding this new variant, my view is that the sovereign state (UK) should be mentioned before the island (GB).    Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

As information: for various reasons, the editor who was edit-warring without explanation has been blocked. He has a history of this kind of thing, and some means of trying to get him to engage rather than simply and bluntly reverting things needs to be found. DDStretch   (talk)  15:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've reverted to the long-established previous wording.  If anyone wishes to discuss the wording, please do so here.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

In my view, the island (GB) should be mentioned before the sovereign state (UK) in the opening sentence should any change be made, as Wales has been on Great Britain far longer than it has been part of the current state. BUT, I propose we reinstate the longstanding Lead:

Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain, bordered by England to its east, the Irish Sea to its north and west, and the Bristol Channel to its south.

(changed from the mediated and agreed version here), which should solve the located on issue. Daicaregos (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me .  Velella  Velella Talk 12:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ✅
 * Obviously, this does not preclude futher change, but please discuss here first to achieve consensus before making any changes to the Lead. Daicaregos (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2017
Adsdav06 (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --  AxG /  ✉  13:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2017
Nicole Cooke is one of the greatest cyclists of all time. Olympic Games champion 2008, Commonwealth Games star for Wales, World Champion 2008, Tour de France winner, twice a world cup winner, anti drug campaigner and all round superstar. Where did she come from? wales. is she listed? No. 103.36.129.6 (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Now ✅  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Who should be included on an already very long article? Geraint Thomas, for example is Commonwealth Games gold medal winner and double Olympic gold medallist. Why not include Lynn the Leap, an Olympic gold medallist and double Commonwealth Games gold medallist... or Jade Jones? It's difficult to know where to draw the line. Daicaregos (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)