Talk:Wales/Archive 4

its own king
scotland used to have its own soverighn and so did ireland but now they are both ruled by the queen of england i see that the queen of england now rules whales but did wales ever have it's own soverign? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlieh7337 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The last independent "Tywysog Cymru" (means "Leader of Wales", but was translated as "Prince" to make the English king sound superior) was Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, killed in 1282. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EamonnPKeane (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To User:Charlieh7337 there is no Queen of England and hasnt been since 1707 Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and 15 other sovereign countries. Penrithguy (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also to Charlieh7337, Ireland has been independent of the UK for the last 86 years in case you haven't noticed, and so it is not ruled by the cf. "queen of england" (even though such a woman doesn't exist). Yes, the Queen of the United Kingdom still is head of state in Northern Ireland, but the head of state of Ireland happens to be President Mary McAleese. It may be a simple slip of the fingers on your part, but such mistakes can offend quite a lot of people. Dennisc24 (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the use of the title prince (twysog) was used to make Welsh rulers inferrior to English kings. The Scottish king was simularily a vassel of the English king for hundreds of years, in the middle ages... yet continued to use the title king. the use of the title prince reflects more osolating use of titles in relation to power and authority and statehood. Prince by defination is a ruler and used in a generic sence to describe a multitude of rulers, from kings to strong dukes and grand dukes. In Wales it simply was the use of Prince that evolved. According to historian Dr. John Davies it was Owain Gwynedd (1100-1170) of the Aberffraw line who was the first Welsh ruler to use the title princeps Wallensium (prince of the Welsh), "a title of substance given his victory on the Berwyn Mountains". A title Owain's grandson Llywelyn the Great would aspire to in 1216 when he received the fealty of the other Welsh lords.Drachenfyre (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Prince of Wales and Welsh
Does the Prince of Wales speak Welsh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.134.203 (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.88.83 (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not very well, but he was the first to learn any at all EamonnPKeane (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The first what? Surely not the first Prince of Wales to speak it: wouldn't Llywelyn ab Iorwerth have spoken it? &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Coat of Arms or Royal Badge in the infobox?
The infobox shows the roayl badge now (23/I/08). Given that the article on Wales' coat of arms contains the four lions under the heading 'coat of arms' and the royal badge under that heading, is it not better to have some coherence? Similarly, i seem to recall Lord Elis-Tomos calling last April(ish) for the Assembly to have a coat of Arms. If this does happen, should it be included as the 'official' coat of amrs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.16.28 (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the second point... if the Assembly adopts a Coat of Arms it would be for the Assembly and Assembly government... not necessarily for Wales unless the language in the patent states that. I would hope the nation of Wales would adopt the historic coat of arms of Llywelyn the Great personally, but that is neither here nor there. Drachenfyre (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I also would like to see the nation of Wales adopt the historic coat of arms or Llywelyn the Great. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Gallery changes
I made a few changes to the gallery, to give a wider spread of themes and locations. Hope it meets with approval.

&mdash; Alan✉ 08:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I laugh aloud!
"Wales is closely, but far from completely"

As a non-Welsh nor British person, I find that line funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.193.228 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Scotland straw poll
A straw poll has opened at this section of the Scotland talk page regarding the use of the term "nation" to describe Scotland in the introduction of that article. To capture a representative result as possible, you are invited to pass your opinion there. If joining the poll, please keep a cool head, and remain civil. -MichiganCharms (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a seperate country
Ok, for who ever put that quote on the Wales page, Wales in NOT part of England. It is a seperate country, which is land locked with England. Vitual aelita (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Something amiss in Scotland
A conversation about the current maps used to represent the constituent countries has been started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography. This discussion is hopefully to resolve issues that have been raised and to try to set a standard within the UK. For all those that wish to comment on this, your input is requested. Thank-you :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdoms, ect ect
Removed the ...of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as uncessary (and not disrespectfully). Short-hand United Kingdom is appropriate to denote the political state that Wales is in. I was also looking at the word count in this regard.Drachenfyre (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with this.Pondle (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Musicial Scenes and sporting venues
Reverted this back as we already used the verb distintive (distintive lititure) and traditions (old and new traditions in Eisteddfod festivals) so the use of these words are boring and inappropriate when used again in the same paragraph.Drachenfyre (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

'Vibrant' is a POV term describing musical scenes and sporting venues. It's also a strange adjective to apply to a venue, which is essentially just a place - some days it could be vibrant, other times it might be subdued! Shouldn't the actual sport be the important issue, rather than the venue? After all the link in the text is to Sport in Wales, not sporting venues in Wales. Pondle (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your points. The origional text was 'vibrant musical scense and dynamic sporting venues'. I was looking for a descriptive catch-all for all sports in Wales. Do you have another suggestion for rephrasing this?Drachenfyre (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to find any decent synonyms for "distinctive" that aren't POV or peacock words, or that don't sound boring. I suppose we could say characteristic/unique/separate/individual/specific sporting heritage/culture/customs. Just suggestions.Pondle (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Give me a bit to play with some options. Ill post here alternatives for this sentence for you to tell me what you think. If you play around with it also and come up with something post it here so I can see too. Drachenfyre (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I didnt mean to take so long with this, but was distracted with editing elsewhere. What about:

... vibrant music scene and engaging sporting events?

of

... vibrant music scene and energetic sporting events

Drachenfyre (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

'Cosmopolitian Cardiff'
Readded important media information. It is important as a significant employer in Cardiff, something distinctive for Wales as a whole. Edinburgh is noted on the Scotland page as a significant financial center. The use of the desciptive verb 'Cosmopolitian' is appropriate to distinguise the multi-cultural atmosphere of the city, where Welsh and English speakers and a whole varity of other language speakers and religous followers call home.Drachenfyre (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If we're writing an introduction for Wales, is the size of the media sector in Cardiff a 'first order' issue? Personally I don't think so, but that's just my two cents. Worthy of note, but I'd think it would make more sense further down the running order. I dislike the word 'cosmopolitan' because it's subjective and possibly tendentious. Besides, Cardiff is over 90% white - yes, more diverse than Newport or Swansea, but much more homogenous than most of the English Core Cities. Pondle (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your position. I used the 'media center' of Cardiff as something immediatly distinctive about the city and a large employer.... in much the same way as Edinburgh is noted as a financial capital on the Scotland page. The word cosmopolitian is used in the context of multi-cultural within Wales... which it is. I feel it should stay as a discriptive term for the city.Drachenfyre (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Playing a significant role...
Why was Playing a significant role in the industrial revolution... removed for something bland? Did not Wales play a significant role in the industrial revolution? My impression that it was.Drachenfyre (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I originally changed this so it was less potentially controversial (some economic historians dispute the concept of an 'industrial revolution', stressing continuity with industrial activity before the 18th c. - e.g. mining, quarrying, woolens etc.) I should also say that some people stress the importance of consumer goods produced in factories as an essential characteristic of the Industrial Revolution - and Wales didn't play much role in this, it exported raw materials and bulk metals. However, on balance I think you're right to use the term 'significant', because Wales captured a major share of the British and world markets for coal, iron, copper etc in the 19th c. Pondle (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Info box map
Discussions afoot on the Scotland page about updating country maps... for myself I feel that we should have a map that displays Wales within northwest Europe... so that we see the country. lol. Its so small on the current map in my opinion. I think a map of NW Europe ... prehaps from the north coast of France to Scotland, from England to Ireland would be appropriate to give geographical context. Any comments?Drachenfyre (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there any comments on the use of the current map? For the map... I wished to use the standard style as common with outher maps... if this makes sense. And have it of the British Isles and the extream north of France. I think this is important for context.


 * On the map, I was hoping to have various contries in the British Isles and France (and Britany) listed... I dont mind the shading of the UK, with Wales highlighted... but think for consistancy we should have the same style of map as found on other nation pages. Also, the map of NW Europe (British Isles and N. France) should also have a small map in the lower right-side showing the British Isles within Europe as a whole. Can you help me find this kind of map?Drachenfyre (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that new map by UKPhoenix, it's been adopted by England and Northern Ireland (but currently being rejected by Scotland). -- GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in the prior post.. I do like the map larger, as it is, but it should be rendered as close 'style' as the rest of the European countries are, even to the point of showing a smaller box of where in Europe the British Isles are. It simply looks more professional. Is this a map by Phoneix an origional creation? If it is so, and he can further modify the map to look as close as the other maps are, (and place Fance in there) then it would look more professionalDrachenfyre (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is all good - but could it go back to red? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 07:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No edit war on map please!
Please lets not get into edit wars on the map. Lets build concensus. Phoenix, can you alter your map to make it look more 'professional' as the other European maps? And post them here so that we can view them?Drachenfyre (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should show Wales in its context of North Western Europe, not the British Islands --Snowded (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry i didn't notice your message on my talk page. No I actually didn't create the version you original saw this page but I have actually created the one you see now Image:Uk map wales.png. I hope you all don't mind that I was WP:BOLD and added it myself. I really don't want to create any edit wars I just want to see what others think and hopefully bring this to a nice consensus on what to use. I hate the idea that other countries seam to be more organized then us with these things, so I hope you think the new one looks professional... I'm actually kinda pleased :-) Please voice your opinion over at Talk:Scotland I know I'd personally love to hear your opinions! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally do not mind the green shading. However for consistancy can we see a map using the same color scheme as the rest of the European contries? That is, camel for all nation rather then grey? And if you look at the other maps, they hint at rivers as well. and "deep waters" (with a darker blue), can we add the Severn, and other major rivers? Lastly, can we bring out the prespective some to include the coast of the Netherlands? You can crop the northern portion of the map off... the Shetlands... to fit the lowlands coast in. I think this may give a better prespective.Drachenfyre (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reverted like you and the other asked but you should know that most European countries actually have different colours than you suggest (see Image:Deutschland Lage von Bayern.svg Image:Italy Regions Sicily Map.png). I am happy with either one but I am more partial to the green.
 * I guess I have wowed you. I don't have the image necessary to create what you are asking for. I probably could do something with the Shetlands, as for everything else I would have to find another map that was significantly large enough to have enough detail that I could crop out what you are looking for... but I know of none currently. Don't forget that this is a map of how this territory fits in with the rest of the nation. Everything else would be too much detail for an info box image. You want to get as close as possible so you can show everything without loosing context of the nation, thats really all. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduction?
What does the introduction say about Wales? It mentions the seldom-used term "Principality", the Bristol Channel and the river Dee!! None of this really says anything and it's all in the first parag! I'll have a go at some point - I just needed to say that so I didn't have to shout at some bewildered passer by.

My god - it then has a history lesson in the next miin-parag! Christian monastic asceticism?--Matt Lewis (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you might want to discuss changes here first - the introduction has not been without controversy in the past. Some of the stuff (Bristol Channel and the Dee) is fairly conventional Wiki stuff.  History is important, but it may need a different emphasis and some moving around.  But as I say, I would discuss it here first --Snowded (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Definetly discuss beforehand. Historical context is important, as all nation pages make note of that. Striking the perfect balance is important too. 'Christian monastic asceticism' was very important to the developement of the Welsh nation, according to Dr. John Davies. The sentence is precise without going into too much other information. In point of fact, this is one of the most concise and complete introductions among the nation pages in my opinion. Additionally, the intro here has been too verbose historically. There are a few sentences that could be tightened up more, and we should be sure not make the introduction too verbose again, but by and large the introduction convays a very good summery of the history and context of the Welsh nation. Drachenfyre (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking of tightening the intro, I removed extra non-use words, the sentences 'the remaining of the country remains rural' (as the preceeding sentence makes it clear where the concentrated settlement is), and the statement that Cardiff and the Vale make up 50% of the GDP... probably does but that needs sourcing.Drachenfyre (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

10 ideas on how to warm up this article
Bear in mind that sub-articles are far less read than the main articles - because people rightly assume the main stuff is at least covered in the main article. Also Wikipedia is meant ot be written for the "general reader" - and can cover all subjects in full (notability accepted). Sober stats and historical facts are not more important than cultural details, for example. I don't think this article has a good enough balance of content yet.


 * Make the introduction cover what is important about Wales - more like a general tourism guide with some facts and figures included.
 * Move the sections around to get a friendlier more inviting article. The England article is structured like this one certainly - but not all are. Geography can be above History, for example. And Wales is known for it's geography above its history.
 * Make sections headings friendlier - I prefer 'Origin and history of the name' to 'Etymology' (like for France). Single word headings like Politics, Transport, Demography and subdivisions are very bland.
 * Create a friendly introduction for History - it leads straight into the section heading 'Colonisation'.
 * Use more sub-headings! We have 5 sizes to chose from. Should 'Law' be a top-level heading? Surely not. And 'Subdivisions' too?
 * Create a friendly introduction for Culture - it begins with a Sport heading. Having only a "see also..." under 'Culture' is criminal (and is against WP guidelines too).
 * Welsh People - this is only a "See also.." too. It needs a good couple of nicely-stuffed parags in here.
 * I think emotive headings like "Nationalist revival" are usually best (and quite easily) avoided.
 * Am I alone in wanting to see the 'area names' of my country on the main page? Why is information on the Queen and the "Preserved counties of Wales" on the main page - and our new counties on the sub page? The 5 cities needn't be a line-by-line list - the list should surely be our counties.
 * The pics at the bottom are generally OK (though nothing particularly special on the whole) - I'd rather lose them and just see a couple more amongst the text, if it means having some section-introducing text. But I'd rather page size not be an issue at all - we have plenty of sub pages so nobody will get their wrists slapped if this goes over 100k - as so many important articles do. This is currently only 76K anyway - not exactly huge for a country! (England is 101K by the way).

I'm decent enough at WP-friendly prose and will be giving some (if not most...) of this a go. I just wanted to get it all up front. What does anyone think?

woops - Mr unsigned (is mr beforehand) --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Who are you Mr Unsigned? Hehe. Generally I agree. Lets get to it! I do not like 'bland' section headers either. Shall I write up an outline or shall you? Currently today I am spending time on Gwynedd and the PoW pagesDrachenfyre (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit note I like 'Etymology' rather then the other more verbose title in this regard. But am open to suggestions. I do not think 'Nationalist revival' is too emotive of a section heading, especially now that Plaid is in government, but am open for suggestions. Drachenfyre (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest an outline here firstand get agreement before we get into edit wars and revisit some recent debates. --Snowded (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed Snowded. Before complete section revisions we should start with an outline. Prehaps 'section captains' that can direct the specific topics?Drachenfyre (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don'd mind putting prose through here first. I'll try some of the other stuff straight on the main page though. I'll might be inclined to let go of 'Nationalist revival' if the page looks warmer - lets see how it looks. Before doing any intros I'm going to tinker with a few headings. If we get them right we could then look at sections. (I want to do the one with the counties in first - I'm dying to get them back in there. I'll put it up in here first). --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets work on the intro here to avoid edit wars. Look forward to it!Drachenfyre (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all the prose, but I've just given the headings a go - please bear in mind what we can do when we go over the prose. It's a bit different to what you usually see - but what you usually see on WP is deathly boring imo. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand the desire to liven things up, but we have to keep it with reason and within a consistance style too.Drachenfyre (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But what consistent style? See Germany, Spain, Ireland etc. These country biogs don't have to be like England and the USA: there is no rule that says that at all. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

3 more!

 * Natural history of Wales - indiginous animals, flora, fauna etc (needs section) (I'd put it under History)
 * Visual Arts - (needs section and sub-article too)
 * beers in Food and drink. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than having a 'Natural history of Wales' section - maybe flora and fauna (with parag) and Animals of Wales (with parag) subsections can be under Landscape of Wales? So much is done on this stuff lately, especially on TV. 'Natural History of Wales' could then eventually be a sub-article. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please write an outline! Fauna is the animal life, so a section called Animals of Wales would be unnecessary. It would be included in Flora and fauna'.Drachenfyre (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * of course - flora and fauna (I haven't put it in).--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone out there?
Does anyone like this restructure of the article? Please read my reasons for it, and comment if you think it makes sense. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Outline
I am concerned with the outline formatting. I feel we should adhear to the traditional outline followed by most countries nations page. In all that I visit, Etymology and History come first, rather then Geographic and travel features. For consistancy. I do not feel that we should be 'different' here just for the sake of 'differentness'. Would you please write an outline Matt before proceeding so that we all may view this?Drachenfyre (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But what do you think of the consistent way? Germany and France don't have Etymology (Germany at all as a section). This seems to be a direct copy of the English article (which is almost a copy of the USA one) - other coutries change it to various degrees. We need one that suits Wales. Be bold!--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Be consistant! This is important for a professional page. The outline trend is etymology, history, government/administration/law, geography, flura/fauna, culture. We want to work together here.Drachenfyre (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Spain doesn't have Etymology like Germany (it may be on the sub articles). Ireland doesn't use it either. I'm going to do a bit of research this - I'm sure it's only a few articles we are used to seeing that are as dull as the England one. Lots of people (if not most people I would wager) are against consistancy within actual section-making (I certianly am).


 * I'm noticing Science pop up and military occasionally too: there are always some varients like architecture, Music and dance (which we could use). --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to your not posting an outline that we all may see and comment on.Drachenfyre (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to post prose for approval but I felt the re-aligned sections needed to be seen in situe (at least by me). I don't mind if you revert (it is a big restructure) - but I wouldn't mind hearing a few peoples opinions. We can always do that from a linked diff though, if you really object to the change. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I had written at least 5 times between here and your personal page asking that you post an outline before changes, and another poster here also asked that you post proposed changes here before changing the main page. If this is an example of your working with others I am uncertin that you can be trusted to work in good faith Drachenfyre (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "5 times"!!! That is clear deceit. How many of those "5 times" were after I made my single telegraphed edit?? You just kept going on! And you talk about trust!!!! Ask yourself how I can trust you after you said that??? For heavens sake. I said from the outset MANY TIMES that I am happy to put all my prose through this Talk - but the headings i'll do directly. Let me give you a clear warning: DO NOT BULLY ME. All you had to do was revert my edit, and instead you've got right on my back. Why? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at the time stamps of the postings, they are consecutive to each of your postings, and all ignored. I am sorry that you feel that I or other editors are bullying you.


 * My only concern is for a professionally written and designed page, with a layout that is consistant with the standard norm. Of corse minor variations can be tailored to the specific country page. And I am open to out-of-the-box thinking. But what we are asking for is an outline so that we may see what you are thinking so that we may offer imput based on the above considerations.


 * I do not want to blunt your interest in assisting with the page, but change through concensus is best and will prevent edit wars. If you wish to copy/past the artical into your sandbox, play with it, link your results here for us to view, that would be a very good way to proceed. I continue to hope we can work together. David Llewellyn. Drachenfyre (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You CANNOT make arbitary chages without proper discussion I have reverted it pending discussion  --Snowded (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the meaning of the 'CANNOT'? All you had to do was revert my single telegraphed edit! I've even said I don't mind!! You do realise you have no right to tell people what to do don't you? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You completely ignored the discussion on the page about changes in the face of opposition from regular editors I think that justifies "shouting"  I think its bad behaviour and, as Drachenfyre says it creates uncertainty about you being a trustworthy editor.  As to cannot, not I can't but I can happily reverse if you don't engage in conversation first  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 16:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you telling me that opposition here is default?? That I am not allowed to make any edit without outlining it first and it being accepted by you and drachenfyre? There was no opposition to the actual content of what I did before I did it: you are just afronted that I walked past you and did it! If I feel this article has been bullied to a halt by a couple of stonewallers I'm duty-bound to go straight to Wikipedia about it - be warned. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not the issue at all. Rather, concern that a precepitous change will occur that may be objectionable. You propose a complete revision of the page, a page currently constructed along established precedent. Others would like to see your proposed changes beforehand to comment, so that we do not get into a spiral of edit wars.Drachenfyre (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a structural change to half the headings: how else can you show how that will look like other than in an edit? If you are worried changes may be objectionable - that's life!!! It's called Wikipedia! You can't control "possible" disharmony to an article by forcing outlines to be made before all editing! It utterly contravenes Assume Good Faith just for a start!--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't know why you are being so aggressive here. It is normal in Wikipedia for major or controversial changes to be discussed before they are paid.  Good faith also requires good behaviour. I realise (having looked at your talk page) that this sort of thing is normal behaviour for you, so I for one can live with it, if we now move to a discussion.  I have set up another secton below for this - I suggest we move onto that.  (Oh and please remember that some of us work on different time zones so leave some time for a considered response or two).  --Snowded (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is your outline, I have written it out for you for others to see. This is all you had to do to show a proposed outline:
 * Were you born this rude? I have already linked the diff I created. But as you have missed out half of it and put it in my name I'm obliged to copy over what you have done (don't speak for me again)...


 * I thought Drachenfyre did you a favour by creating the list and demonstrating an approach. No need to be so aggressive in your response.  Pleased to see that you have expanded it so we can see your intent here.  --Snowded (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

* 1 Landscape of Wales o 1.1 Climate * 2 Travelling in Wales o 2.1 Welsh counties * 3 History o 3.1 Origins and history of the name o 3.2 Roman colonisation o 3.3 Medieval Wales o 3.4 Modern Wales * 4 Wildlife o 4.1 Flora o 4.2 Fauna * 5 Architecture * 6 Governance o 6.1 Law o 6.2 Economy o 6.3 Public health o 6.4 Military o 6.5 Demography + 6.5.1 Language + 6.5.2 Religion * 7 Culture o 7.1 Media in Wales o 7.2 Music and dance o 7.3 Literature o 7.4 Visual Arts o 7.5 Science o 7.6 Sports o 7.7 Food and drink * 8 Famous Welsh people * 9 Symbols of Wales * 10 Images of Wales * 11 See also * 12 References * 13 External links


 * I simply copied from the contents in the diff, and have added 'Flora and fauna' as I suggested in here afterwards. I also extended 'Music' to 'Music and dance' per Ireland. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree Flora and fauna plus Music and dance. --Snowded (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Changed 'Flaura and fauna' to sub-headings under 'Wildlife' (per Ireland)--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Included Architecture, Science (which is often under Culture), Military (more involved for Wales than might first appear) and Health. Been looking around.
 * Agree these and you are right about Military its a neglected part of the current article and there is a theme there (common it Ireland and Scotland) about the way Welsh regiments have been treated - until very recently with English officers.  --Snowded (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ive been in in touch with a Welsh politican on this topic actually, and have been following some debates on Welsh military personal. Of particular interest is how the UK Government will train a division of Gurkas in their native language, but will not train or even allow Welsh to be spoken in the UK military.Drachenfyre (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Landscape of Wales should be Geography, Travel in Wales should be Tourism, Wildlife in Wales should be Flora and Fauna (Wildlife refers only to fauna). Archetecture should be part of the Culture, not necessarily its own feautre.Drachenfyre (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is my proposal for an outlineDrachenfyre (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

* I Introduction * II Etymology * III History o A Romano-British o B Medieval Wales o C Modern Wales * IV Government, administration, and military o A Assembly and Assembly government o B UK government o C European Union o E Law o F Economy o G Education o H Finance o H Fire services o I Health care services o J Housing o K Law enforcement o L Politics o M Pricipal areas (local government) o N Demography (cenus info) oo Imigration oo Emigration o O Military oo Concise history (it needs its own artical actually) oo Army History (Welsh Guards, South Wales Borderers, The Royal Welch Fusiliers             oo The Royal Welsh (From 2006)            oo RAF St Athan    * V Culture (in alphabetical order, but doesnt have to be)          o A Archetecture           o B Cusine (rather then food and drink)          o C Language          o D Literature          o E Media in Wales          o F Music and dance ( or preforming arts)          o G Transport          o H Language          o I Religion          o J Visual Arts          o K Science          o L Sports and recreation    * VI Geography and Climate          o A Geography          o B Climate    * VII Flora and Fauna          o A Flora          o B Fauna    * VIII Tourism    * IX Images of Wales    * X See also    * XI References    * XII External links

Once we decide on an outline, we shall post that at the top of the discussion page and work from there. Drachenfyre (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: With Section IV Government, administration, and military, we can divide the section between devolved authorities and UK authorities.Drachenfyre (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on sequencing
Given that the purpose of this article is to introduce people to Wales. I think that requires something of the history, in particular the definition of Wales v England which requires History to come come first. After than I am not sure I have too many strong opinions. --Snowded (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wales v England? I don't see any reason why that should come before the natural history of Wales - which is what this land is most known for. There is too much of England and Britain highlighted throughout the article imo. (Principality, England, the Queen - this is what asides and sub-articles are made for.) This article could be the best and most inviting one on Wales on the web, if we wanted it too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * given the common confusion overseas which equates England with Britain, and given the history of conquest and continued colonisation then there needs to be something up front that makes it clear that Wales is a distinct country with its own culture.

Checking out most European sites it looks like we conform - is there any strong argument to be different? --Snowded (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've stated my opinion of conforming - the current formula is only conforming to articles that share it! Plenty of country articles out there layout differently - and is is perfectly OK to do so!! My argument is geography over history (above) and that Wales is a truly unique country that deserves an article that isn't a direct copy of the rigid English one! --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

--Snowded (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is far from only England, when I checked most European countries used the structure that Drachenfyre proposed. I play France, Italy and all four Scandinavian countries to your three. Starting with geography, or worst still travel in Wales conforms the country to a 19th Century stereotype of Wales as a tourist site - come and see the pretty mountains and the quaint local people with their strange customs. I think we should be portraying Wales as a country within Europe, able to stand up there with the best of them. So my vote is for Drachenfyre strucutre. --Snowded (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the first five topics should be:

I. Introduction

II Etymology III History

IV Government (administration, law, subdivisions)

V Culture (demography, language, sports, religion, ect ect)

After this I have no real preference. Maybe economy, then Flora and Fauna, symbols, images. Drachenfyre (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely countries like Ireland, Germany and Spain have lost Etymology as a section because they can see how it makes the article over-academic before it properly begins? --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am open to changing the title but not the sequencing. Having said that many other countries are happy with the title and I think the word itself is better than the alternatives. I doubt if it prevents people reading it.--Snowded (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the all other alternatives are too verbose. Etymology is precise and is not too academic. It is encylopedic. We are not writting a travel guide here, but an encylopedia entry. However, having said that I am not averse to an alternative one or two word title, if it means precisely the same. Full stop. 12.160.89.130 (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Opps! Wasnt signed in!Drachenfyre (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Updated outline per above. Drachenfyre (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Info box
One thing that would make the Wales page distinctive would be if we made the info box a very light shade of red, in a simular manner as the Ireland page is light green. Would this be agreeable?Drachenfyre (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving sections a few days old?
Drachenfyre - why are you archiving sections that are only a few days old? The archive you created is small and Talk page was not large - so it was not needed. I notice there was no discussion about it either! Given your approval-fist attitude to all new article edits, I can't believe you took it upon yourself to do this! No single (or pair) of editors owns an article on Wales! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I had thought that the older conversations (imo) seemed to have ran their corse, and given that we (all of us) were about to embark on a page rewrite, I felt that we needed a clean page to discuss upcoming changes. No disrespect intended here, was just clearing up space. Shall I repost the information? I do not mind doing that, was attempting to be proactive with our upcoming discussions was all.Drachenfyre (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think putting it back is best, as some were only days old (so we can't be certain) and the page isn't particulaly long yet. I had a hunch you were doing what you say - but surely you see the irony for me though? I did see your lengthened outline - but havent had time to study it yet.


 * I can bend on 'Etymology' (though I don't see why it's so important that it comes first, when many other articles don't have it first - or even at all in section form, or have it within a sub-article) but I'd like us to remove what I see as a slight but firm 'union-bias' out of the article (the weight towards highlighting words like Principality). For me it's all about Wales as a living country first and foremost. Wales is a living and developing country - not a note in history. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your points very well. Im still not absolutely 'firm' on Etymology, if a professional alternative can be found. Do you truely wish to restore archived information at this point? We are moving forward with a new page.


 * As far as 'principality' being 'unionist', form my prespetive, as the Principality of Wales was founded by a Welsh prince (Llywelyn I in 1216), specifically to nurture Welsh law and culture (according to Dr. John Davies and G.A. Williams), it's origions are anything but unionist. Founding member of Plaid Cymru Saunders Lewis, and other Welsh nationalists, described himself a strong monarchist, but not necessarily a UK monarchist. But this is neither here nor there, we can minimize the 'principality'.Drachenfyre (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro edits
I wrote this to editor Cardiff a few moments ago, explaining why I removed information of Cardiff in the intro section:

Hello Cardiff! Thank you for contributing to the Wales page. However, I did remove your recent edits to the intro paragraph as it became too verbose for an intro. Your edits, if sourced, are very important, but I ask thank you add them to a Cardiff section further down the page. If you had to pick just one feature of Cardiff to highlight, what would that be? It is this kind of economy of words that we are looking for.

Also, I removed the second sentence from the second paragraph in an effort to move the narration along from historic Wales to modern Wales, per Matt's observations. Any comments? And, after reading it I think it does both convey the history and moves on to the present more tightly. The sentence was:

The Welsh language, a highly evolved secular legal system (Cyfraith Hywel), Christian monastic asceticism, and a distinctive literary tradition are hallmarks of early Welsh culture

Drachenfyre (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wales page outline: Need imput
Hello everyone! I was wishing for comments/suggestions and or preferences on which out-line to follow for the Wales page. Deciding on an outline is the first step in making a more professional looking and compleat page. Here are two possible options, the first proposed by Matt, the second by myself. Please comment so that we may move forward with thisDrachenfyre (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I support yours Drachenfyre for the reasons outlined earlier --Snowded (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am awaiting broader concensus, hehe. If we get no more comments by next week then I will assume that there are no objections and move forward then. In the mean time, sections of the page could still be improved on outside of the outline proposed. Off and on I shall get to that, currently I am working on Gwynedd. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 10:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That suggests you have already written your new sections - why don't you put them in? I support "being bold", as you know. I would put up the new stuff, now it's mentioned in here - and see if people like it or not. Just to say though - if you do wait a week (of your own time) - it does not equate to any kind of consensus! That can only happen (or fail to happen) after the edits have actually been made. I don't see what's funny about this place being so bereft of article-editors, by the way - it bothers me a little why that is. I have no problems with your proposal - it doesn't preclude any further edits or proposals - and it clearly looks like a step forward to me.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt's proposal:

* 1 Landscape of Wales o 1.1 Climate * 2 Travelling in Wales o 2.1 Welsh counties * 3 History o 3.1 Origins and history of the name o 3.2 Roman colonisation o 3.3 Medieval Wales o 3.4 Modern Wales * 4 Wildlife o 4.1 Flora o 4.2 Fauna * 5 Architecture * 6 Governance o 6.1 Law o 6.2 Economy o 6.3 Public health o 6.4 Military o 6.5 Demography + 6.5.1 Language + 6.5.2 Religion * 7 Culture o 7.1 Media in Wales o 7.2 Music and dance o 7.3 Literature o 7.4 Visual Arts o 7.5 Science o 7.6 Sports o 7.7 Food and drink * 8 Famous Welsh people * 9 Symbols of Wales * 10 Images of Wales * 11 See also * 12 References * 13 External links

This is my proposal for an outlineDrachenfyre (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

* I Introduction * II Etymology * III History o A Romano-British o B Medieval Wales o C Modern Wales * IV Government, administration, and military o A Assembly and Assembly government o B UK government o C European Union o E Law o F Economy o G Education o H Finance o H Fire services o I Health care services o J Housing o K Law enforcement o L Politics o M Principal areas (local government) o N Demography (cenus info) oo Imigration oo Emigration o O Military oo Concise history (it needs its own artical actually) oo Army History (Welsh Guards, South Wales Borderers, The Royal Welch Fusiliers             oo The Royal Welsh (From 2006)            oo RAF St Athan    * V Culture (in alphabetical order, but doesnt have to be)          o A Archetecture           o B Cusine (rather then food and drink)          o C Language          o D Literature          o E Media in Wales          o F Music and dance ( or preforming arts)          o G Transport          o H Religion          o I Visual Arts          o J Science          o K Sports and recreation    * VI Geography and Climate          o A Geography          o B Climate    * VII Flora and Fauna          o A Flora          o B Fauna    * VIII Tourism    * IX Images of Wales    * X See also    * XI References    * XII External links

Just a note, and I'm not saying this is what we should go for (particularly as they seem outdated), but there are project guidlines about this at WikiProject_Countries. At very least they might have an idea in there. --Jza84 | Talk  12:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jza84! I do think this outline is outdated, but there is something mentioned there that should be also mentioned here, and that is on economy of language.

Economy of Language is expressed with this sentence "The rest of the article should consist of a few short paragraphs. These paragraphs should give an outline of the history/politics/etc. of the country and link to a full article on them". What this means is we should not create verbose paragraphs. The main points should be highlighted... and the reader referred to a main artical elsewhere. Currently, I feel the Wales artical, as most articals on nations do, have some fat that can be trimed. This will tighten up the artical. Not everything needs mentioning in the paragraphs, but the most important items.

This was seen with our debate on the Intro section... where sometimes too much info is added... it clouds the artical making it almost unreadable. Drachenfyre (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox-Two map option
Update and Info

Hello everyone! I have been participating in a conversation on Scotland's talk page regarding a new map display in our infobox. On Scotland's page there is debate on weather to display the nation of Scotland within on the European context or weather to display Scotland only within a UK context. The results were edit wars and reverts. Both positions have very good arguments either way. I proposed a solution of displaying two maps in the info box, with Scotland within Europe displayed at the top, with UKPhoenix's unique map of Scotland within the UK below that. Someone in the Afrakaans wiki appearently also had a simular idea, linky http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallis, and it offers an illustration. I am proposing that we on the Wales page adopt this two-map option as well, with Wales in Europe on the top and Wales within the UK (the map currently displayed) below it. Please follow the link I provided above to the Scotland page to offer any comments or suggestions. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 10:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Added two maps to the info box, will leave up for a day or so to gather any consensus. For myself, I think the older map would work best for context. Wales within the UK within Europe. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 18:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Contributers to Wales page, this is an example of what I wish for the two-map solution, the top map shows a close up of Wales within the context of the UK and the geographic location within the British Isles, and the bottom map shows Wales within the context of the EU and geographic Europe. This example is of corse from Scotland's talk page. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 15:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Either map will do & I'd suggest a Wales soley map for the 'history section'. Having two maps in the topinfobox, is too crowded (makes the article topheavy). GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I fear the same disagreements over the two map solution we had on the Scotland talk page may also occur here, neverthless, I wish everyone on the Wales article a speedy resolution!--Jack forbes (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The 'double map' here is acceptable. In my near desperation for any compromise, I think I've accepted at least 3-options. But, I'll never accet X only map alone in the Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming country in map_caption
08-April-2008: I see that Template:Map_caption was auto-naming the country as "Wales" in the Scotland infobox, so I have reset the name using parameter "country=Scotland" such as:
 * { {map_caption|country=Scotland|location_color=orange|region=the United Kingdom|region_color=camel}}

I assume that { {map_caption}} will be used in many articles, so I advise always putting "country=xxx" in whichever article uses that template: auto-defaulting parameters to PAGENAME can be quite confusing during examples, and Scotland was labeled for days as being "Wales" because we didn't know how map_caption was defaulting to Wales as extracted from the page named Talk:Wales. Automatic-anything can be a nuisance, as pet owners have learned when the pet knocks a car auto-doorlock button with the keys inside. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Info box color
I wish to know if we in Wales page wish to have a red border around the nation's info box. Please leave comments. Personally I very much like the idea of a color surrounding the info box. We can discuss different colors and hues as well. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 16:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Other reddish border colors
05-April-2008: I like the idea of a colored border around the Wales Infobox, but have no preference for the particular hue chosen. Below are several other colors to try, depending on the level of the R/G/B (red/green/blue) components in the color setting: #CE9999 is lighter than #CE2222.

The higher the last 4 hex characters, the more of a washout gray will occur in diluting the effect of the red. The final 2 hex digits, controlling blue, will make the color shift towards purple, with higher values at the end: intense purple could be coded as #BB00FF.

The first 2 hex characters control the red intensity (with the prefix "#88" as dim red, "#FF" as brightest red). Adding green will turn the coloring towards yellow, which becomes tan or brown when red & green are both low numbers. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wikid77! We may also like to see variations of green, for that too is a colour of Wales. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 18:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I went WikiBold as Matt suggested and added the very nice border that Wikid77 developed specifically for us! This is customized!! Thank you very much Wikid77!!! Great Work! ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 00:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The infobox with the green and the red is far to garish and is just a superfluous addition. -- Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  20:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

New template for styling
06-April-2008: I have created a new Template:Infobox_Country_styled to develop special styles for a nation's infobox: once determined, the style parameters will be added back into the major template "Infobox_Country" for general use. Currently, as shown in the infobox above, I have set the top title area to a shade of green, using new parameter "titlestyle". The other new parameters are: boxstyle, mapstyle, and labelstyle. For more details see: Template:Infobox_Country_styled. To keep the infobox narrow, I used parameter "area_km2" which triggers box width adjustment. By altering the color of the box background, title, maps, and labels, there are many ways to customize the appearance of the infobox. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutly amazing! I very much like it. If no one has any objections, then by this Thursday/Friday I shall begin to make the changes to the outline and include this very engaging info box! On a side note, can you add this infobox colours to the Kingdom of Gwynedd page? I am currently working on that page. Hummm... for there we may wish a different colour scheme... I was thinking the box in Green... the header as Yellow? Dont know, but would like your imput there too Wikid77! This is truely amazing! ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikid77, might you do the same treatment with Kingdom of Gwynedd former country info box? I tried to copy/paste your work here for there, but no go for some reason (i think because its a different infobox template) ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 00:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox_Country_styled can put narrow color border
08-April-2008: In trying many different style options, I have found that the new Template:Infobox_Country_styled can define a thinner border, setting border properties by parameter boxstyle:
 * boxstyle = border-width:7px; border-color:darkorange;

As I had feared, some people dislike the border and title coloring, but perhaps a more narrow color border would be more acceptable. I cannot stress enough about people who dislike detailed maps, or even images, but seem to prefer the old days when Wikipedia had just words as a Wordipedia. It has been a real struggle to keep large images in articles, when some people insist on thumbnailing all images to postage-stamp size, but those same people never consider "thumbnailing text" to default to the tiniest font possible, so as to "not cluttter" the images. However, it's not just the word-ipedians: there are others who try to reduce articles to short phrases surrounded by dozens of math formulas y=x2+b, in the mindset of a math-ipedian. All in all, it's quite amusing to see these ways that people really act. The Romans kept re-conquering Germanic peoples to force the Roman Latin alphabet to replace their runes "ØЖ‡ΣΨ" which returned every few decades! -Wikid77 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Do not lose heart Wikid77, I am sure more prefer the current boder of the info box. The editor taking issue is not writting his objections here in the talk page, I have asked him to. But there is nothing in Wikipedia that prevents us from having the border, which is both styalistic and professional. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 16:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Happy to support you in the red border, but I think it could be a bit narrower --Snowded (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I wade in here and say that I too think that adding some oolour, based on national colours, would be a welcome edition so long as its application was consistant. Perhaps there could be a pattern developed for extant sovereign states, for former states, and for autonomous subjects of sovereign states? James Frankcom (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox_Country width glitch
06-April-2008: Apparently, there is also a minor bug in Template:Infobox_Country that causes the box to drift wider when some parameters are omitted, such as population. I have re-added population into the Infobox-examples above, to narrow those infoboxes back to the minimum needed to fit the map widths. I will try to hunt down that width-drifting bug so that parameters can be omitted during examples, without unpredictable width being the result. Other templates have had width-drifting bugs caused by mismatch of the "colspan=3" coding inside the MediaWiki template pages. It is a minor problem, but very annoying during partial examples. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Another proposed guideline for "the British Isles"
I have numerous concerns about the current proposal for a guideline for the use of the term British Isles and have written another proposal. My main concerns were that the proposal as it is written here did not walk the line of WP:NPOV, did not have an adequate grounding in current consensus and practice, and did not offer any concrete guidelines per se that an editor could follow or easily understand (in the broadest sense of the term).

My proposed guidelines are here. --sony-youth pléigh 20:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is canvasing Sony, and I'm removing this. It leads to your own political opinion in your own sandbox, and contains biased - especially in making the "dispute" sound like a popular and important Wikipedia debate - and more than something that has simply been carried on by a handful of dedicated and often fervent people! I do not like the way you exaggerate the issue, and exaggerate the evidence that surrounds it - you always have done from what I've seen, and find it a bit back-handed. Keep it to the containing pages, use Talk, maybe projects - but don't post it in here - it doesn't warrant it, and I for one don't welcome it. (WP:canvas).--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not canvassing, Matt. This is issuing a friendly notice to the community. Please familiarise yourself with WP:CANVAS and particuarly the section about friendly notices. Another editor proposed a guideline for use of the term "British Isles" on Wikipedia as this is something that concerns the community that edit here, it's only a matter of politeness to invite their comment. If you don't welcome that invitation then that's your business, but please refrain from deleting other editors posts to talk pages just because they don't interest you. ps. thank your for assuming good faith. --sony-youth pléigh 21:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have to AGF after significant experience - not when the comment is related to that experience. This is simply a new Talk page - and this is clearly canvasing. I working on this page offline at the moment and don’t want to see this "debate" seep onto this Wales discussion page. Surely you understand that having read so many of the unpleasant comments surrounding this subject? PS. thanks for being WP:overbearingly polite, when you know I've read this stuff before. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Refer to these sections: CANVAS and Canvas and Canvas(like here). It doesn't matter when (or how) the "vote" is - you are clearly partisan and the link leads to your sandbox. And (on the subject) you need an audience! Where is it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nay! There's nothing wrong with letting others know of one's sandbox proposals. It ain't gonna harm anybody. Thumbs up for Sony, for trying to find a solution. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Matt, take it to AN/I if you have an issue. Otherwise, it sounds as if you are making personal attacks under the guise of concern for the project with this talk of some supposed "significant experience" of bad faith edits on my part. Basically, put up or shut up. --sony-youth pléigh 22:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm entitled to comment against your approach (and yes - I don't like it, though it's rude to call my criticism a "personal attack" imo - I have made a very fair point - it subjective and I'm entitled to my say). I'm not going to remove this again and I've made my point - lets leave it before it gets too uncivil. How am I supposed to say how you are partisan without explaining here? This is why linking is a bad idea - this is not the place - and look where it has got us?


 * I cannot see how the following explains your post here at all:


 * Friendly notices


 * Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices" if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion (for example if a Wikipedian is known for being an expert in a certain field and has shown interest in participating in related discussions). This is more acceptable if they have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed, but unacceptable if they have asked you to stop. Examples of friendly notices include:


 * Notifying a related WikiProject on a WikiProject talk page
 * Notifying all editors who substantively edited or discussed the article or project, while keeping in mind #Excessive cross-posting below.


 * Always keep the message neutral, and leave a note on the discussion itself that you sent out friendly notices. Editors who like to be informed about Wikipedia discussions can add the "Friendly notice" userbox to their user page.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "I'm entitled to comment against your approach ..." That's cool, Matt, but saying that you have "extensive experience" of bad faith edits on my part is not. You are more than entitled to your views, but any argument ad hominem is unwelcome and is, I believe, in fact the reason why this issue has blown out it's genuine proportions (as you correctly point). "How am I supposed to say how you are partisan without explaining here?" You aren't supposed to. Argue against what I say not me. If I really am a problem editor then take it to AN/I or open an RfC on me.


 * I see a dedicated "passive bias" in the consistent way you comment on the British Isles (and I've felt consistently politely ignored by you in the past - and repetition time is an issue to me). As for taking "AN/I or RfC" on you - I don't know what they stand for, but I'll look at them. But if I'm going to do something like that I don't need your prompting - and you surely would be put right about this (even on Sandbox rules - I'm certain you can't link-to them like this). I don't want to see this in here. Why should I be made to argue on the Wales page? This isn't the place for discussion on this! But why should I have to let it pass? I can't let something pass if I disagree with it. We have both seen how the "British Isles debate" has been performed - the same people play all kind of "under the skin" psychological games - sometimes no matter where the particular conversation pops up. I don't want to see that here, and we're lucky it hasn't happened.


 * As for the cross-posting, I posted to every jurisdiction in the British Isles (ENG/SCO/WAL/NI/RoI/IoM/CIs). A policy/guideline proposal was made my an another editor, what appears in my sandbox is a reply to that. I think that it would be of note to those who edit here. If you don't think that that proposed policy/guideline will affect you then just ignore it. --sony-youth pléigh 06:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should I ignore it? This is an important principle here. Wikipedia has to have tight guidelines on 'spamming' to stop things getting out of control - and I'm always careful with it myself - even at times when it would help me a great deal not to be so. At very least you should have not linked to your sandbox (in which you have stated "facts" I don't agree are fair and correct)! It's been speculative of you, and someone here doesn't like it (i.e. me) - how can you argue?


 * A simple, humble and politely-apologising "note" mentioning the guideline proposal only (which has your link in its Talk anyway) - stressing that the debate is not for in here - you might just have got away with! The line is subjective enough, and I doubt anyone would have complained (in here anyway). It's the way you did it Sony - I don't like it, and I fully believe you are campaiging on the underlying "British Isles" issue (which you want centralised in a more moderate way). You didn't contact the popular UK article, or UK Portal talks I notice, or WikiProject UK geography, or the UK Wikipedians' notice board (which is actually made for this). Next to Britain, they are the broadest targets regarding the "British Isles" surely? I wonder if for them you would use the same approach?--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Matt, I was going to just ignore this but the fact is that amid all those 'I-don't-like-it-or-you' statements, you're making a fair point. I just batted out a copy-and-paste notice and like you point I forgot to notify even the most obvious sources of comment. It was sloppy. The problem is how may times you say 'I-don't-like-it-or-you'. It's misplaced and totally uncalled for. Ultimately it loses the argument for you. --sony-youth pléigh 21:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How was I to know you were being sloppy? I thought you were going for it - that's why I reverted it. Why don't you delete this now over-long section and replace it with a new notice? (I would personally do this to all of them). Having posted on all the others pages, you need to post to the UK ones I suggested out of fairness I feel. If you do it sweetly I don't think anyone will complain - though they are more likely to 'pull you up' at UK than anywhere else, I would guess. I don't think I lost the argument, by the way (ahem). (PS. I always have a point).--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "How was I to know you were being sloppy?" You weren't expected to know that. You were expected to be civil and assume good faith. "Why don't you delete this now over-long section and replace it with a new notice?" Because I would prefer people to see your over reaction than to rewrite history to suit you. "If you do it sweetly I don't think anyone will complain ..." You were the only person who complained. --sony-youth pléigh 06:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (If you want to get it off the 'main page' then I've no problem with you archiving it by way of compromise.) --sony-youth pléigh 06:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Complaints may have come from the UK-related pages if you had posted the above notice there. Unlike many, I've seen what has passed for debate. Are you planning to involve the UK pages, by the way? As for me "over-reacting" and "re-writing history": the words "re-writing history" is just a little bit of an "over-reaction" to my request for you to simply replace this over-long chat with a better notice! I could use the words "over-reaction" to describe the supposed 'tide of change' in the use of the term British Isles, and the words "re-writing history" regarding those who wish to push that weakest of tides. I'm fine with people reading this - but they can do it from the archive, because tomorrow I'm going to follow your suggested compromise and archive this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Poll:Image
Poll: Most significant image of Wales

Wales page community, what do you consider the greatest geographic feature of Wales? I was thinking Yr Wyddfa (Snowdon) but wanted to take a poll to determine what image we should have for our intro. For now, I shall place Yr Wyddfa, the tallest mountain in Britain south of Ben Nevis. We can change the intro image as well, rotate it. Share an image from the various regions found through-out Wales. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 02:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)




 * I would agree with all of that, especially the idea of a rotating image appropriate to the season. Maybe a monthly switch.  The photos used could be stored at the bottom of the article.  Given that today for the first time in several centuries we finally have the right to create Welsh Law the first image might be the Welsh Assembly then move onto Yr Wyddfa.  --Snowded (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * An image and an infobox is against the Manual of style, strictly, as it warps text and leads to item conflict in several browsers (including mine):


 * In general, it is considered poor layout practice to place images at the same height on both the left and right side of the screen. Not only does this unnecessarily squeeze text, but this might also cause images to overlap text due to interferences. It is usually not a good idea to place an image intended to illustrate a given section above the header for that section. Placing an image to the left of a header, a list, or the Table of Contents is also frowned upon.


 * When placing images, be careful not to stack too many of them within the lead, or within a single section to avoid bunching up several section edit links in some browsers. Generally, if there are so many images in a section that they strip down into the next section at 1024x768 screen resolution, that probably means either that the section is too short, or that there are too many images.


 * The image needs to be moved asap please. See also WP:PIC. --Jza84 | Talk  21:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Map (again)
The red border around the infobox, should be deleted. Also, we should use the same kind of map that's being used currently at England, Scotland & Northern Ireland. --- GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No GoodDay, we do not have to follow what the others are using, and we can have the info box border. There is no rule against this. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 20:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As a consistancy buff, I naturally disagree. Wales isn't special, it's a part of the UK (just like England, Scotland & Northern Ireland). GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, for us Editors who are spending our time on Wales, it is special. And nothing in our text, maps, or other graphics says that it is not part of the UK. Any reader can easily digest the consitutional status of Wales by the text and maps. Thank you for your concerns. But so far the editors who regularly contribute to the Wales page here like the changes that are adopted here, as you can see by scrolling up, there has been support for this for thepast week or more. If editors were concerned, there was ample oppurtunity for them to make note of that on the talk page. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 20:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cross-article consistency doesn't bother me with this kind of presentation (it rarely does in any capacity to be honest - I see the 'consistency argument' curtail articles and cause problems - just as much as it can improve an article through 'standardising'). I'm for Wales looking a little different - having its own flavour. All the UK countries are different to each other - can I call them special? I find England and Scotland very conservative articles compared to many country articles. I haven't got time to read up on the maps debate - looking at the article I would say the red is a bit strong though. As a graphic designer I used to often vary the red with Wales - often lightening it, and even sometimes using 'salmon' etc: red is a powerful colour and can be intrusive in design. Black, white, green and a variants of yellow are Welsh/Celtic colours too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someday, the United Kingdom will devolve (become 4 independant countries). PS- I've just about given up on these 4 constituent country articles - IMHO, there's too much Devolutionism. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not from me there isn't, as you probably know: for me the union is a strong link of highly individual countries.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC) (excepting Northern Ireland, I should add) --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For most of us on this page, creating a unique Wales page is not about devolution, but about highlighting Wales. We desire a professional page, personally I wish for something that may get highlighted by Wikipedia as a good artical for Wales. As a nation, Wales has been forgotten in the Wider world. LOL. When I told a friend of mine when I was younger that I wanted to learn the language of Wales, we continued for about 20 minites in conversation before she realized I wasnt speaking about Whales! lol. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 20:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt: We can change out and rotate the color of the infobox borders... above is a list Wikid77 gave for alternate shades of red, and here is a list of colors for hex that we can use. Wikid77 is also looking to tighten the info box borders as well too. He had created the code specific for us here in Wales for the info box border color. There is no reason why we can not rotate out the info box colors in the same way as we rotate out the intro greeting picture. Personally I like the red, it is akin to the Wales rugby team. But we can rotate it. Look at how nice the green looks on the principality of Wales page, or purple looks on the Gwynedd page. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 20:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yikes!!! I have to say to whoever implimented this (Drachenfyre? I'm not sure), the coloured infobox isn't working for me at all. I have to be brutally honest, it looks terrible and unprofessional (sorry). I don't think this is inline with anything I've seen on Wikipdia and I think the MOS lot wouldn't be happy either. I'd urge strongly that we have a revert, or at least a rethink. --Jza84 | Talk  21:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion Jza84. So now the Scottish editors shall come to Wales? lol. Editors who rarely, if ever, contribute to the Wales page? I see how this will turn out, edit wars and revisions. Prehaps we should ask for mediation now? ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 21:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * -- (edit conflict) Scottish editors? Wikipedia is an international project, and isn't restricted by political boundaries or nationality; any editor can edit any page. Simillarly, that an editor hasn't editted an article before does not restrict them from passing comment.


 * I was notified about some change on Wales (an article I have editted before) and felt strong enough to pass comment yes. Actually, if you must know, I'm working with the WikiProject Wales to create a series of local county maps for UK infobox place. Does that make me eligable to comment? I jest of course.


 * Seriously, I think it's a bad presentation style. By all means go for mediation if you feel strongly enough about it, but I think their should be a stronger case made for its inclusion here. :) --Jza84 | Talk  21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The coloured infobox I can live with (just about) but the image in the lead needs to go. -- Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  21:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that that's quite enough edit-warring on the article? No more adding / removing the photo or changing the infobox back and forwards; just continue the discussions here please, or I'll up the protection level to full for a while. (WP:WALES member, but staying out of the discussion deliberately just in case page protection is needed). BencherliteTalk 21:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My consistancy hopes are dashed; To dream, the impossible dream. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, do with it as you will. I shall remove myself from this artical as quite clearly acromonious editors, those that almost never ever contribute to or visit the Wales page, are now migrating here to enforce their own 'agenda'. So acromonious that they have to search from afield to get mediation. I do not come here for these kind of discussions. Its all yours! ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 21:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was gonna say the same thing to you, Drachenfyre. I'm suffering from discussin battle-fatigue. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is that I feel very stupid for involving myself elsewhere, as clearly it has brought others who rarely if ever come to Wales now come here. Had I left the debate where it was, it would not now have spilled over to here ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 22:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion to resolve issue on frame and map
OK guys lets all calm down and discuss this. Thanks to Bencherlite for putting a halt to the edit wars for the moment. It would also be good to have contributions here from the regular editors to the Wales page

It seems that we have the following issues:

- The question of consistency between Scotland, Wales, Ireland etc. My view here is that radical difference is undesirable, but that the current level of difference is fine. Using national colours is fine (Scotland can use blue). Whatever the Wales page is not a place for the Scots to have a proxy conflict. I suggest an agreement here on consistent but not conform-ant policy here. I also like the two maps, it shows Wales in a European as well as a British context.

- Aesthetic issues This relates to the colour, the size of the frame etc. I like the colour but think the frame is too big.

- The picture I think it is a neat idea to have a picture of the month - it might be better if it came after the introduction however as it currently makes the first page too crowded. --Snowded (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think having two maps is good, finding the best colours is good, and I support a landscape shot as a picture (I'm not sure of any other shot though). I probably wouldn't fight tooth and claw if someone insisted against the pic. I image the picture would be changed from time to time just by editors working normally - and probably will be an issue from time to time too (but is that a reason to drop it before it is?). --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For the welcome intro picture, I had also found this absolutely amazing picture of the National Gardens of Wales, it was amazing to me! I was hoping one day that the picture could rotate to it. I will see if I can find it. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 22:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I now have it as the background of my pc, lol. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note that Scottish, Welsh, English, American, Black, Gay, White, Jewish, Asian, whatever... any editor of any background is entitled to comment on a talk page. Talk:Wales isn't just for Welsh editors, it's for the wider community.


 * The use of vivid colours, unevenly, without discussion is bound to bring editors here, let's be realistic. That's not necessarily a bad thing however. Simillarly, the sandwiching of the lead between a horizontally extended infobox and a huge, pre-set sized image is also going to start alarm bells ringing.


 * I'm entitled to my opinion, just as others are. I really think we should go back to the crisp, clean, MOS endorssed lead and infobox and worry more so on the prose. --Jza84 | Talk  22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * All opinions are valid of course - but it would be nice if more of themain editors on the page engaged.  That said - I suggested moving the picture of the month down from the start.  If we did that and moved the frame size back a bit would you be happy with the other changes?  --Snowded (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, talk pages are for discussions, and as you can see by scrolling up, we have been in discussion for a week so far on changes. Editors by nature gravitate to those pages that interest them, and contribute to them. Is it fair to the editors that have been in discussions already to suddenly have to stop everything to accomodate a rarely seen editor, who even less often contributes to the page in question? Whatever else is going-on on other pages. Additionally, there is no guideline that says we have to follow the MOS, it is a guideline. I feel the need for consistancy in the quality of work on an artical, and in some ways the manner in which it is presented. But an info-box color and greeting picture does not waver so significantly from this. If we are talking about choice of color then this is another issue. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 22:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I for one freely admit that this page is rarely visited by me (although I have editted it a few times). I was notified about "some" changes by User:GoodDay. However, Drachenfyre, where have I said we have to "drop everything" and I must be accomodated? That's a rhetorical question, of course, as I haven't; I merely stated my opinion about how I felt about the change. That I "rarely contribute" to this page (and perhaps a million and a half others) doesn't nullify my opinion however. The content isn't something I can help with or verify easily, but the presentation is something universally admired/understood. Discussion is a fundamental editorial process at Wikipedia, and my comments merely have/had the article's best interests at heart. Where's the harm in that? --Jza84 | Talk  22:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The border is WAY too big, and there is not enough room for both the picture and the infobox. Aside from the space issue, which is really major, there is at no time any single picture which is so descriptive of Wales that it should become the introduction. The only pictures which can serve this role are the flag and the map(s), in the infobox. I like the two maps btw, but they could perhaps be tweaked to remove some of the redundancy, so we could have a fairly close up map of Wales which shows its features clearly. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The frame is certainly too-thick, and unsymmetrical on my browser. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Matt:By scrolling up you will see Wikid77 is working on the border, which has a default in it. He is working to make it yet thinner and more even.
 * @zzuuzz: Agreed, no one picture could do, so per the conversation we agreed that it would routinely rotate. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, what I said was that at no time is there any single photo which is suitable as an introduction. But this is a really minor point compared to the spacing problems. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @Jza84: I thought that is what GoodDay did, and confirms my earlier points. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarify please, what am I guilty of (besides paranoia)? GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Stacking the deck with your choice of editors, to further your own point of view. No worries, once your choice of editors come over, have their say and revet the page, they will again remove themselves from Wales, and never or rarely visit Wales again. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I contacted 2 editors; that's stacking the deck? GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Drachenfyre, I hope you noted that I have not reverted your changes. Simillarly, if you'd like me to stick around, perhaps for a peer review, I'd be more than willing to do so, just make the request :) --Jza84 | Talk  22:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Im thinking its a mute point now. I am sickened by the turn of events here to the point that I feel the need to remove myself from Wales, if not stop all futher contrabutions. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 23:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your editors will contact others, and they yet others. Its how these things work. And when I say 'rarely visit', what I mean is those editors will only visit to ensure that their point of view remains in force, and return here to revert any edits that deviate from it. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 23:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit: For a small nation like Wales, already with limited editorial interest, Yes, 2 editors is significant. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 23:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)