Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales/Archive 2009

Wales map
Just thought I'd let everybody know about Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place. Thanks, --Jza84 | Talk  12:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for doing this - it improves the layout of the infoboxes no end! Snowy 1973 (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, a great improvement. RIP the giant UK map with a vague red spot! Diolch yn fawr. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Superb improvement. Many thanks. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding Welsh Assembly Region to town infoboxes?
I notice that on infoboxes for Welsh towns, there are fields for Euro Election constituency, UK Parliament constituency and the Assembly constituency - more often than not, the Assembly field is blank, and I've been filling these in now and again. I think it would be useful to also add the [|Assembly Region]. Do others agree, and if so, can anyone help me with amending an infobox template?--Rhyswynne (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this will overload the template even more. And the information can be gained by following the link to the assembly article. Agathoclea (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed too. However, the electoral region issue also exists in Scotland, but that is dealt with by adding a second consistuency field. Have a look at Neilston which lists its constituency and region in its infobox. That should help.


 * On a slightly different note, I hope the new Welsh map in the infobox stimulates a bit of work on Wales's settlements - I believe their isn't a single GA or FA town or village for the country. WP:UKCITIES should help too! --Jza84 | Talk  14:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Penmon, Anglesey still has GA status. BencherliteTalk 10:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum
A museum that was controversially closed in 1997 for the site to be redeveloped. Article is sorely needed. Mjroots (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Manrbier & King's Quoit
Hi all

I have just added to the Manorbier page in an attempt to make it more than just an almost empty stub, but wondered if anyone knows whether there was ever a King's Quoit page and if there was why it might have been deleted

Thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Llywelyn the Great FAR
nominated Llywelyn the Great for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Lampman (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This review follows my suggestion of nominating it for the main page for 1 March, St. David's Day. If the problems can be fixed before then, there may still be hope that it can be featured on that date. —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 22:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Project Banner
I have quickly copied the documentation from the German banner to ours. I am sure I overlooked some of the differences between the templates. Maybe someone could double check WikiProject Wales/Project banner. Thanks Agathoclea (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no "transport" parameter, so I removed that from the documentation; will have another look next week if time permits. Thanks for doing this. BencherliteTalk 22:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I was down as the coordinator for the project. Now would be a good time to see if someone else would be prepared to do that. Any volunteers? Agathoclea (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:50, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
 * Trying this at WikiProject Wales/Article alerts. Agathoclea (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder that you should give a link when using the display=none setting. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are subscribed to the Alerts but neither display the alerts nor give a link to them. Giving a link on your main page (WikiProject Wales/Article alerts) or removed the display=none parameter from the subscription banner would be a good idea.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cardiff
Members of WP:Wales might also be interested in joining WikiProject Cardiff that I have just created. Its main aim to improve Cardiff-related articles, but you can see its other goals on the project's homepage. If you are interested in joining, please add your name to the project page and User Cardiff project to your user page. There are already requested tasks to be done but also feel free to add your own to-do points to it. Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer review request for Anglesey Central Railway
This is an article to which I have contributed significantly over the past year and a half, and am considering nominating for Featured Article status. Before I take that leap, I'm looking for a peer review of things as they stand. I would particularly welcome the opinions of a non-enthusiast on the use of railway terminology in the article.

Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Taliesin moved
The article on Taliesin has been moved without discussion to Taliesin (poet) by a certain Mr manilow and 'Taliesin' turned into the disambiguation page. Does anyone else feel as strongly as I do that this move is totally unjustified as the poet Taliesin is clearly the primary meaning? This is like moving Homer to "Homer (poet)" in case someone mistakes him for Homer Simpson! I can't revert the move as a page needs deleting first by an administrator. Support would be appreciated (I've left a message on Mr manilow's talk page). Enaidmawr (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you. Taliesin is Taliesin, man, legend and poet.James Frankcom (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Severn Barrage
I hope you feel this is appropriate at the project? I've nominated Severn Barrage at Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive largely because an important proposed development like this needs a better article & to reduce the mass of cleanup tags. If you feel it is appropriate you could support the proposal, which, if successful, should bring the article to the attention of a wider collection of editors.&mdash; Rod talk 16:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Anwyl of Tywyn Family
Would someone else have a look at this and Kingdom of Gwynedd‎ and House of Aberffraw. We seem to have an editor intent on proving that said Anwyl is the legitimate King of Wales. I removed some claims and also some links on other articles, but I claim no great expertise here. --Snowded (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Anwyl of Tywyn Family ARE direct male line descendants of Owain Gwynedd. As far as anyone knows there are no others who can claim direct male line descent from any of the Welsh princely families established by Rhodri Mawr such as the Houses of Aberffraw, Dinefwr and Mathrafal. The points which were being made are these;


 * Under the general conventions regarding deposed royalty utilised in former kingdoms such as France, Georgia, Sicily and many others the senior member (head) of the former ruling house would be the king (etc) if that dynasty had not been deposed. This is not a controversial point in France or Georgia or Sicily or Wurttemburg or Bavaria etc etc so it could conceivably be applied in this case as well.


 * Wales had its own particular rules governing inheritance. Land was divided by gavelkind between the sons. The titular position of tywysog was determined by a hybrid form of tanistry and agnatic primogeniture. The Anwyl of Tywyn Family are direct male line descendants and as such meet these requirements and Evan Anwyl is quite clearly the head of the family.


 * Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, the last ruling Tywysog of Gwynedd (he styled himself in various ways), explicitly stated in the Garth Celyn letters that his right in Gwynedd was not a gift of the English Crown. It was held in his own right on the basis of his own independent royal inheritance.


 * Owain Lawgoch proclaimed himself Tywysog based on this principle in the 1370's some 90 years or so after Llywelyn (as aforementioned) had been deposed and his native titles and offices 'abolished' by the English government. Lawgoch's claim to this title was widely supported in Wales and seen by Welsh society as quite legitimate even though he did not actually "rule" any part of Wales.


 * Also - this is not original research. This families royal position has been noted before in several publications over the years - all of which are referenced in the wiki (unless it has been subsequently re-edited by persons not familiar with this topic). To name a few; David Hughes (The British Chronicles) is the most recent author to note this families position, prior to that it was also referred to in several Victorian publications such as Merionethshire Families and prior to that by Philip Yorke in his Royal Tribes of Wales in 1799. I note that some of the work of David Hughes is quite dubious but I have independently checked what he has said about the Anwyl Family using the best resources (Burkes Peerage and Heraldic Visitations of Wales) and can verify that claim.


 * Up until Victorian times there were still other families who had proven ancestry in the male line back to Rhodri Mawr but alas all of these, with the one exception of the Anwyl Family, are now extinct. On that basis, and in the absence of any other potential claimants (and academics agree that it is very unlikely any others exist and less likely they can prove it), I made that comment in the wiki and I think it is reasonable that any subsequent changes are reversed. James Frankcom (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am happy with appropriate citations for the descent to be placed on the Anwyl page, and if established for Evan to be head of the family. No issue there.  However the citations have to be placed including those relating to succession.  However I don't think that this means that young (or old) Evan can claim to be King of Wales or be referenced as such on other articles even as a curiosity.  (i)  The Kingdom of Gwynedd does not necessarily grant rights to Wales as a whole (while it did for periods, but it was never easy, remember many welsh lords fought for Edward); (ii) that Kingdom is over it has no current day form so insertion on that article is inappropriate; (iii) there is no relevance to the Wales article; (iv) the chance of that line surviving over the period to the modern day is non-existent (see the history of England and Scotland).   --Snowded (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I would like to reply by saying that nowhere in the wiki did I use the form of words "King of Wales". I did say that the welsh forms of the titles "Lord of Snowdon", "Prince of Gwynedd" and "Prince of Aberffraw" could conceivably be used by this family on the basis of the general conventions employed elsewhere in Europe for former ruling dynasties of countries which may or may not exist as sovereign polities to this day. The examples of the Grand Duke of Baden or the King of Prussia, for example, which have no constitutional position whatsoever in the Federal Republic of Germany nor exist even as administrative areas anymore, unlike Gwynedd which does. I think we ought to have consistency on this. I will now answer your points individually;


 * i) Yes you are right, the kingdom of gwynedd does not grant rights to Wales as a whole. It ought to be noted however that the House of Aberffraw had titular position in Wales (as established by Rhodri Mawr) and traditionaly received tribute (in the form of honey and other products) from the over lords of Wales as such. This situation was reaffirmed by Llywelyn ab Iorwerth via the Council of Aberdyfi and again by Llywelyn ap Gruffudd in thr 1260's. That all to one side I did not suggest that any title in Gwynedd applied to the whole of Wales but I did say that the Anwyl would have a claim to title in Gwynedd. I cited in defence of this point the assertions made by Llywelyn ap Gruffudd in 1282 regarding his "unquestionable right" to "these cantrefs" of Gwynedd above and below the Conwy.


 * ii) Your statement "that Kingdom is over it has no current day form". I refer to my previous comments about the Grand Duke of Baden / King of Prussia. I do not think this point is really relevant. Unlike somewhere like Baden or Prussia, Gwynedd DOES have a present day form both as an extant administrative unit within the UK and as a "preserved county" not to mention popular usage in the counties of North Wales prior to 1974.


 * iii) I personally think surviving royalty does have relevance to the Wales article but am prepared to concede this.


 * iv) On what basis do you make the statement "the chance of that line surviving over the period to the modern day is non-existent". You have said yourself you are no expert on this. I can prove to you that they have survived to the modern day and the wiki on this makes that explicitly clear.


 * I think we ought to agree a form of words to make these points. I think the form of words I used in the original unadulterated Anwyl of Tywyn Family were fair and balanced. I said;


 * "'The ancestors of the Anwyl of Tywyn Family are the medieval House of Aberffraw which had ruled Gwynedd for some 800 years and had been the most senior native British royal house. Their pedigree is particularly significant because they represent probably the only unbroken male-line line descent from a Welsh monarch, in this case Owain Gwynedd. This is crucial because Welsh monarchies used a version of agnatic succession as their own particular rules of inheritance which meant that almost always the crown could not pass to a woman nor pass through the female line. Land was divided between sons, following the custom of Gavelkind but preference was given to the oldest one, who would often be the designated primary heir, or Edling. Any person pertaining to a native Welsh title would have to meet the native Welsh legal requirements for accession. These descendants of Owain Gwynedd probably represent the surviving remnant of Welsh Royalty. Under the general conventions governing former royal families the head of the Aberffraw house could theoretically use the titles 'Tywysog Aberffraw', 'Arglwydd Eryri' or even 'Tywysog o Gwynedd' . These titles are all held by the House of Aberffraw in their own right alone and not by gift of the English Crown. This position was asserted by Llywelyn ap Gruffudd in the Garth Celyn Letters when he declared that the cantrefs of Gwynedd formed part of his 'unquestionable inheritance' and as such not something the English Crown could give or take away. Owain Lawgoch later claimed native royal title purely on the basis he was head of the House of Aberffraw - an assertion that was supported by many in Welsh society at the time.'"


 * I think this is reasonable but lets discuss ways we can change that to make it acceptable to all of us while maintaining the key points? James Frankcom (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, so we are agreed that its OK to say that Anwyl is descended from the princes of Gwynedd (subject to citation, your proposed phrasing has none). It does not follow from that that he has any claim to a position which ceased to exist in the 13th, or at the best the 15th C.   given that I don't see it as comparable to the various German Kingdoms but happy to discuss that.  In respect of (iv) it requires no great expertise in history to know that had the house of Gwynedd continued in any capacity other than as an obscure offshoot (remember Edward went out of his way to reduce the number of claimants) then there would have been various murders, judicial and otherwise, quite possibly the line would be died out and being replaced by an obscure cousin from Madoc's settlement in Florida (OK I know he may not have made it there, but if so it would be the welsh equivalent of the House of WIndsor).   Its meaningless other than as an obscure curio to reference a modern day descendent.   Your quote above (if supported by citation) seems fine for that page, its the intrusion onto others than I am objecting to.  --Snowded (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Right then, so you're happy (and I hope others are also) for the quote as above [subject to citation] starting "The ancestors of the Anwyl Family of Tywyn are the medieval House of Aberffraw..." to be restored to the page Anwyl of Tywyn Family. I think on the page House of Aberffraw it is fair and reasonable to say that living members of the House of Aberffraw do survive and then direct to the Anwyl Family of Tywyn page - do you concur? Otherwise, on other pages, I acquiesce there should be no reference to this family. I hope we are agreed on these points, please let me know.


 * Regarding the point you make that if the House of Gwynedd/Aberffraw had continued in another capacity "other than an obscure offshoot" there would have been various murders etc as they struggled to be the title holder. I am not sure this would be the case. Also, it should be noted that the House of Windsor are an extremely obscure off-shoot when you consider the number of persons who should have become king who were excluded following the settlements of 1688. An example of a Welsh royal dynasty who were not an obscure offshoot continuing after Edward I can be found in the de la Pole dynasty of Upper Powys (Powys Wenwynwyn). In this case, following 1283, they continued their dynasty (the House of Mathrafal) as barons of England until 1353 (I think) without the killings you say were inevitable. The same can be said for the Glyndyfrdwy Family (Powys Fadog) who survived until 1399 in relative harmony keeping a low profile as lawyers etc and not making any provocative statements until Owen Glyndwr went and upset the apple-cart in 1400 and started a full blown war. Royal pretension is most clear when you look at Heraldry. The use of Heraldry is very interesting when considering royal claim because heraldry is a form of historical shorthand and says more about someones claims to royalty as actually writing something in words. The arms used by several families (the Anwyl, Wynns, Hughes and Prices to name a few) were all royal arms in Wales and as such were a declaration of royalty that people would have recognised - just like the Duke of Windsor using the English royal arms (the three lions) on his car while in exile in France. Generally these sort of dynastic statements were tolerated so long as no one tried to act on them. The examples of Glyndwr and Gruffudd Vychan (both prospective kings) are good examples of when people crossed the line and suffered as a result of it. Regarding former realms and the relative legitimacy of long since deposed royal dynasties I do think similarities can be drawn between the Welsh example of the Anwyl Family and the various princes around the world whose realms may have disappeared hundreds of years ago but maintain their family heritage and claims to royal title despite being long since bereft of power. Obviously, the longer ago your family reigned the less relevant you are to the modern world. Finally, I personally do not believe for a moment that Madoc ab Owain Gwynedd ever made it to North America AND BACK AGAIN to pick up some friends...and the stories of Welsh speaking Indians are probably total invention made by delerious missionaries convinced there were Christian souls needing to be saved amidst the north American tribes! I suspect Madoc ended up somewhere much closer to home; like Ireland! James Frankcom (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Subject to citation yes happy with that on Anwyl of Tywyn Family and a "curiosity" reference, they survive are linked (again if cited) on House of Aberffraw.   I am happy to grant that some welsh and English families survived over the centuries, sometimes surprisingly (eg the Percys) but they are in the minority.  I doubt the Tydwrs would have tolerated much by way of competition.   My point is that it is meaningless to talk about someone inheriting a postiion eight centuries after it last existed.  Put if you make no proposal in that respect then its not an issue.   I think you are probably right on Madoc, but you shouldn't be! --Snowded (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Local chapter for the Wikimedia Foundation
AndrewRT(Talk) 22:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Naming of County Boroughs
There's currently a discussion you may like to participate in at Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?
Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wales as a constituent country of the UK
Some background: The page List of living supercentenarians lists the oldest people in the world and includes their place of birth and residence. Previously we had used place of residence, but also place of birth if they had emigrated. We'd also used 2 letter abbreviations for US states and three letter abbreviations for constituent countries of the UK. There is a Welsh lady on the list, who was born at, and still lives in Blaenavon, Wales. Recent edits have introduced a new column for the place of birth and countries are listed how they were at the time of birth (for example, one lady was born in a part of Austria-Hungary that is now Italy). The user is claiming that Wales was part of England until 1955 and has listed her as born in England because of this. A question/answer website was cited (which I'm not sure would count as a reliable source). What was the status of Wales in the UK in 1898? I was under the impression that Wales was a principality of England, but also a constituent country of the UK since its formation. Comments appreciated. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Blaenavon is in Monmouthshire and in 1898 that was considered a part of England (although it is now clearly in Wales) -- Snowded  TALK 18:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously a Welsh-speaking part of England. In the middle 1890s over 60% of the population in the western valleys, including Blaenavon, spoke Welsh.   ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 19:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was right, but it was the case ... -- Snowded  TALK 19:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Monmouthshire is, and always has been, part of Wales. I understand that Monmouthshire has been referred to differently from the rest of Wales (as in 'Wales and Monmouthshire') because it was part of the Oxford judicial circuit for purely administrative purposes. This and, more thoroughly, this explains much better than I have, why people have been confused about Monmouthshire. And if you're not convinced after that, SiameseTurtle, have a look at the names of Monmouthshire's towns and villages and compare them to placenames in England. Daicaregos (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Its status was ambiguous until 1974. Yes those of us who were Wales always took the position that it was Welsh, but if the Wikipedia had been around at the time it would have been a rather difficult argument.  I remember the odd resident of Monmouth who were adamant they were in England (and used the statue of the Black Prince as evidence).  -- Snowded  TALK 19:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It may well have been considered ambiguous. Some people are mistaken in many respects. I've just been reading this where an editor (presumably in all seriousness) asserts that not 'To include Belfast, Cardiff, and Edinburgh [on the article List of national capitals ] is very much not NPOV. The Home Nations are sub-national entities by any objective measure ...'. As for statues - there are numerous statues of English monarchs in Wales. It only signifies English dominance, not that the place in which they are erected is English. Be that as it may, I tend to believe John Davies. Daicaregos (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Whats it got to do with national capitals Dai? Its simply happens to be the case.  I think its stupid. was glad it was sorted out in 1974 but it wasn't sorted out until that date/


 * Monmouthshire has always been in Wales. Just because the English decided to tack it on to the Oxford judicial circuit, as Dai explains, does not make it "part of England" from 1536 to 1974. That's completely unacceptable. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, let's not reopen this again. The best summary of the position at WP is at Monmouthshire (historic), and the best summary I have seen anywhere is "In Search of Monmouthshire 1536-1972", by Tony Hopkins, in the journal Gwent Local History, issues 70-71, 1991-92.  I shall quote from it at length if absolutely necessary, but I really don't want to have to.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

e/c My point was that people believe what they want to be true. Or, sometimes they assert what they want to be true, and sometimes, other people believe it. John Davies could not have made it any clearer: "The courts were the Great Sessions of Wales, which provided the Welsh with a cheap and efficient system of justice until their abolition in 1830. Monmouthshire was made directly answerable to the courts of Westminster, and as a result the notion arose that the county had been annexed by England. Monmouthshire was no less Welsh in language and sentiment than any of the other eastern counties and it would generally be treated as a part of Wales in the rare examples of specifically Welsh legislation passed between 1536 and 1830. With the abolition of the Great Sessions, almost all the differences which had existed between Wales and Monmouthshire came to an end; thereafter, it was increasingly assumed to be part of Wales, although the imprecision of its status did not disappear until 1974, when it was reborn as the county of Gwent." ref: Davies, John revised edition (2007), A History of Wales. London: Penguin. ISBN 9780-14-028475-1. p. 230. Daicaregos (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All of which is true, though I'd love to see more details of the "rare examples of specifically Welsh legislation passed between 1536 and 1830". Unlike WP editors, he didn't provide any refs for that!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, can we get back to the original question? Was Blaenavon in England or Wales in the 1890s? The problem with Monmouthshire is that ever since the industrial revolution it has been a divided county. There are still some people in the eastern part of the county who consider themselves English, while those in the western valleys have always considered themselves to be Welsh. Unfortunately those in authority were on the English side of the border, hence the anomaly. But I suspect that the vast majority of indigenous people in Blaenavon at the time would have said that they lived in Wales.   ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 21:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - "those in authority" would have said it was in England, and "the vast majority of indigenous people" would have said it was in Wales. There's your answer.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: Is Tibet part of China? Yes, legalistically speaking, in that it was nicked by the People's Republic of China (of course, Tibet is still a country, whether Beijing likes it or not). Next question: Are the Tibetans Chinese? I know what the Tibetans answer would be! Even if the argument for Tibet being Chinese since the late 1950s is "true", which it is not, does that mean that if and when Tibet regains its independence any Tibetan born in Tibet between the 1950s and 2*** should be noted as "Chinese" on English wikipedia? In the case of Sir Fynwy it was not even "annexed" as such just lumped in with England for local government legislation. In any case, we've gone over this and similar arguments numerous times, so why open an old can of worms? (As for "a principality of England"?!). Enaidmawr (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who at FAR
nominated Doctor Who for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Windmills
I've been working on Lists of windmills for the UK. List of windmills in Wales and its sub-list List of windmills in Anglesey are now live. Both could do with expansion and would probably be worth translating to the Welsh Wikipedia. Assessment needed too. Mjroots (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Military History of Wales
As some of you may have seen, the page Military history of Britain has been split into three seperate pages. These pages are:


 * Military history of England
 * Military history of Scotland
 * Military history of the United Kingdom

As you can see there is no Military history of Wales page. The Military history of England page is supposed to display a list of military events that happened in England and Wales before the United Kingdom was formed (even though the Welsh kingdoms were not officially claimed by England until 1284, and not annexed by England until 1535-1542). There is very little information about Welsh military history on the page however. In my opinion there should be a seperate page on Wales's military history, from the Roman wars against the Silures up to Owain Glyndwr's rebellion. Having a long list of Welsh military conflicts with red links should provide a good springboard for the creation of more pages on Welsh history.

If the current Military history of England page is expanded to include all these Welsh conflicts (many of them Welsh civil wars), then the page would probably be a bit too long. A split is the answer! Although If a split did happen, any Welsh conflicts that involved English land can still be kept on the England page.--Tlle1 (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured articles, List of ... Jesus College, Oxford
I am finding it hard to understand why various FAs such as List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford are in the Wales Project. Any suggestions please???....Seth Whales (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My history is a bit shakey on this one, but I'm sure remembering on a trip to Oxford, that Jesus College was set up by Queen Elizabeth, expressly as a college for Welsh scholars, and in it's early days, if you were Welsh and went to Oxford, chances are you ended up at Jesus College. ...though I'm happy to be shot down by more educated people. FruitMonkey (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then again the list itself wouldn't really qualify. FruitMonkey (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are quite right about the history of the college, FruitMonkey. I myself applied to Jesus College when I was doing my university application. Seems quite appropriate for the list to be covered by our project. – PeeJay 14:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you could always ask the person who assessed them for the project(!) I marked the various Jesus College lists (which I got to FL status, not FA, incidentally) as being within the scope of the project (of which I am a member) on account of the extensive Welsh connections of the college from its foundation onwards. Distinguished Welshmen with no connection to Oxford or Jesus College are still elected to Honorary Fellowships, the most recent example being Bryn Terfel, with historical examples including David Lloyd George (read the introduction to the list to see his reaction as a proud Welshman to the honour). See also the many, many Welsh clergymen at List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Clergy.  But, frankly, if people don't think they belong within the scope of the project, feel free to remove them - it's no skin off my nose.  The Project would still have two Featured Lists about present and former county courts in Wales (which I wrote as well...) BencherliteTalk 18:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move of Mary Jones (Bible)
There is a debate at talk:Mary Jones (Bible) about a proposed rename of the article. Any input from interested users would be appreciated. —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 10:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Reassessment of Ffestiniog Railway
Ffestiniog Railway has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wales articles missing geographical coordinates
Category:Wales articles missing geocoordinate data articles about geographically locatable subjects in Wales are missing geographical coordinates. Finding the latitude and longitude of locations, and entering coordinates into articles is straightforwards, and explained at How to add geocodes to articles. Having coordinates on articles using the coord template provides a link to the article's subject on a wide range of maps, and that links to the articles are provided in GoogleMaps, MultiMap and other such places which use wikipedia data. A breakdown of articles needing coordinates by region and in some cases local authority area is found at Category talk:Wales articles missing geocoordinate data. All help in geo-coording them is welcome/urged/implored. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Welsh kingdoms
There is a proposal to rename to Brythonic petty kingdoms of Wales. See the Template talk:Welsh kingdoms page for current discussion. Please comment. ~ Geaugagrrl talk 03:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

a small request
I've revised a number of articles that were unreferenced and had material that might have been copied from sources such as EBK (without attribution). They are now based on reliable sources. I wonder if someone might do a quick-and-cursory check especially regarding my Welsh, and of course note any problems/questions/etc, but the correctness of language/usage is my biggest uncertainty. If not of interest, that's okay, too. Hywel ap Rhodri Molwynog &mdash; Cynan Dindaethwy ap Rhodri &mdash; Merfyn Frych &mdash; Caradog ap Meirion &mdash; Rhodri Molwynog ap Idwal &mdash; Idwal Iwrch.

A major question &mdash; should Cynan and Hywel be given as brothers? You'll get the gist of the issue from the articles. Looks like Idwal Iwrch would be a good candidate for AfD, but let's see what you think. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Top work Notuncurious. They're all a great improvement. On the issue re Hywel and Cynan, I think that's a matter that may be resolved by checking on more recent sources and seeing what they make of it. If we're lucky, more recent works may elucidate the incompatible disagreements in the primary material and tease out the nuances of the dynastic relations in the excruciating detail we all love. Regarding Idwal, I don't think any article on someone who was, was likely to have been, or was later regarded as a king of Gwynedd should be deleted, regardless of whether we can only say a few sentences about them (if I'm wrong, I've been wasting a lot of time on kings of Alt Clut). In the very least, the material could be merged into a List of Kings of Gwynedd.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words, Cuchullain, and I've noticed some of your good updates and article creations re Alt Clut and elsewhere. The articles named above still need a look-over for translation accuracy, and for absurdities that happen in "writes about Wales but doesn't know what everyone in Wales knows". They need updating, too, but that will happen in time (not having a mention of a reign in the record does not mean that nothing was happening or that the reign was not notable).


 * The cited reference shows that Idwal was the ancestor of a king, not that he was a king. We know independently that his son was a king from the Annales. A mention in the middle of an old genealogy isn't sufficient for someone to be called notable, I think. But perhaps there is some record that I missed?


 * (beware, rant follows) A "more recent source" is not preferred unless it uses cited and verifiable sources. Have the facts of the historical record changed? If there is a better translation, or an error to be made known, or a discussion of the versions of a record, then fine. The last thing we need is a speculation or conjecture or synthesis that does not cite its sources, or only cites someone else's speculation or conjecture of synthesis. That's storytelling, and whether it deserves to be called "history" is debatable. Not that he's the best, but at least with Lloyd you know when he is citing from the record or speculating, because he actually has citations. Authors use computers to generate useful indices, so why omit citations of the historical record, except by intent? (end of rant) Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I only meant that much has been done is this area since 1911 when Lloyd wrote. There are now academic editions of the chronicles, the genealogies, and the triads which would not have been available then, not to mention all the scholarly papers and other literature that have been published during the 20th century. Some of that might offer some more material and analysis on some of these figures. It is acceptable for us to cite someone's speculation, if it published in a reliable source and if we attributed it properly.
 * On Idwal, I've tracked down another reference to him in the Red Book poem The Dialogue of Myrddyn and Gwenddydd (or some variation), which explicitly calls him king and says he succeeded his father Cadwaladr. (An excerpt of the poem can be found in this book; the full thing can be found here (in Welsh) and here (in English).) I'll try to track down a good secondary source for the early rulers of Gwynedd, I think that would help us escape the EBK-type romanticism.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course (but hey! I clearly labeled it as a "rant"). I agree with all you are saying; my knee-jerk reaction was due to all the popular "history" that is extant. (and *sigh*) I wish Davies' very good History had used citations. Thanks for the references!! Looks like the articles are due for some evolutionary improvement already. (and they still need a look-over regarding Welsh usage). Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've checked Idwal, Caradog and Merfyn and made a few minor amendments. No time to do the rest now. This is a great improvement, Notuncurious! Enaidmawr (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for taking the time to make these corrections. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Welsh Marches
There is a discussion at Talk:Welsh Marches over whether the list of Marcher lordships should be retained in that article, or hived off into a separate article. Interested editors may wish to contribute. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Cynllibiwg
Cynllibiwg has been nominated for deletion. Input from Welsh-reading editors would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

North-South divide (Wales)
I've raised a question about that article at Talk:North-South divide (Wales), and I'd be interested in other editors' views. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Vale of Glamorgan and Wales
Dunno if you know but do you know about this site? It has a massive number of images for villages, areas of Cardiff without photos and roads and just about anywhere in the UK. I've already used to to provide images to many villages in the Vale and by the time I've finished I hope to provide photographs for every village in Wales. If you could upload some this would be great. Just have a search for local areas on geograph and you may be surprised. All the images can be used under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license.Perry Rimmer (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles missing geocoordinates
There seems to be a big backlog of Welsh articles about places that are current missing geographic coordinates. You can see a breakdown of these at Category:Wales articles missing geocoordinate data. In particular, articles about places in the Glamorgan area seems to have a particularly high number of articles missing coordinates. There's a guide to how to add coordinates at WP:COORD. Would anyone be interested in helping geolocate these places? -- The Anome (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Universities COTM Nomination
Hello WikiProject Wales. I just wanted to let you all know that a university handled by your WikiProject, Aberystwyth University, has been nominated for next month's Universities Collaboration of the Month. If you'd like to take advantage of this opportunity, be sure to vote for the university. While you're there, consider helping improve one of our current Collaborations of the Month.

Happy editing! -Mabeenot (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism to the Richard Burton article
Does nobody in this WikiProject monitor high-profile Welsh biography articles? You missed this lovely, constructive edit: Please note especially the category vandalism at the foot of the diff. Do you really want all your biog cats emptied? No, I thought not. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Burton&diff=prev&oldid=327501925


 * Thanks for pointing this out. I've undone those changes, and I'm sure others will join me in adding Burton to watchlists.  I'm leaving a message for the editor in question,, and others may want to keep an eye on the discussion in case I miss something (I'm less active at weekends, usually). BencherliteTalk 11:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. I've changed his edits to Michael Sheen.  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 11:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
As far as I'm aware there is no Barnstar for anyone contributing to Welsh articles. It's not a massive need, but I think it would be a nice addition to help promote the WikiProject. Is anyone out there graphically inclined and can knock up a nice dragon within a barnstar? Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Great idea. I've often thought the same thing. Not had the right inspiration so far, but I'll think on it again.  Of course you mean a Red Welsh Dragon. ~ Geaugagrrl talk 07:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a start... ~ Geaugagrrl talk 07:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea. There is a page for suggesting new barnstars at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards, and it may be that someone there would help design one.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello :) I saw your request here. How about this one? You could also add the dragon to the star (like I did with File:Sri Lanka Barnstar.png and File:Uganda Barnstar.png) but that would make it smaller, of course. This one is based on your original idea, since I thought that's the kind of thing you'd be expecting. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

These are great designs, do you think we should start a vote so the community can adopt one? FruitMonkey (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we should vote. Anyone else agree? ~ Geaugagrrl talk 17:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the first one, its different! -- Snowded TALK  04:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the first one is more aesthetically pleasing, I’m not sure if we are expected to have a star somewhere within a Barnstar, but if not I would vote for Geaugagrrl's badge. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with FruitMonkey. Perhaps a small star could replace the green cross? Enaidmawr (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Going against the flow here I know, but personally I prefer the second one, partly because it is more consistent with others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, this has gone quiet now, but as effort has been made lets go for it. It adds to the strength of the project. I think that Chamal's barnstar is the one to go for as it holds a barnstar. Shall we adopt it? If no one agrees soon, I'll start dishing them out to re-ignite discussion. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with FruitMonkey. I prefer the more modern look, and that it actually has a barnstar on. Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to receive either one, should I deserve it. Agree, let's go forward!  ~ Geaugagrrl talk 22:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)