Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales

New county images guideline

Recently UKGEO decided a guideline on the amount of infobox images on English ceremonial counties (#Ceremonial county infobox images), with discussions later raised on it applying to other areas (boroughs etc).

The guideline at UKCOUNTIES#English ceremonial county infobox images states: Infoboxes may contain image collages, but they should consist of no more than four images in no more than three rows. These limits may be exceeded only if there is a compelling reason to do so, subject to local consensus.

Current status quo: Most modern counties have had one image recently added, excluding many in the South Wales Valleys which have none. While GA Carmarthenshire has had one image for years replacing a previous montage. The combined city and county articles, Swansea, Cardiff and Newport follow WP:UKCITIES guidelines with a max of 6-8 images. Most historic counties (ex. Montgomeryshire) do not have an infobox image, nor do the standalone preserved counties.

DankJae 22:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Question

Should there be a guideline on the number of county infobox images on WikiProject Wales-scope articles?
Possible answer formats; you are not required to follow such:

• No guideline - All county articles work on a individual consensus basis.
• Add guideline; Add specifics, such as (these are examples; but recommend maintaining the first bold text)
  • UKGEO All counties - Follow UKGEO on all counties including historic and preserved.
  • UKGEO Modern/Some counties only - Follow UKGEO on some counties or county types. (specify which)
  • New - add proposal here
    • e.g. Modern (1 image), Historic (0), Preserved (0), City & County (6-7/not applicable).....
    • or All counties including city & county (Max. 6 images).....
    • or Support a general maximum of four, use three on modern, one on preserved, none on historic, not applied to City & County.....
    • or I prefer 1 or 3 on modern, one on preserved, none on historic and 6 on City & County......

Ranges i.e. 1-3 can be used. Also probably standard, but should infobox image changes be discussion first?

So far the UKGEO discussion specifies (c.) counties, there may be discussion on settlements (towns and cities etc) and other geographic features too, but best done separately as they have their own pre-existing guidelines per WP:UKCITIES.

I believe I covered what I need to ask. The original UKGEO discussion was very specific on one type of county, but as "counties" is vague I want to raise all the specific county types. First time of a long discussion proposal, sorry if it is messy. Diolch DankJae 22:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Answers below please. Anyone in Wales, UK or anywhere else can answer below. DankJae 22:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you User:DankJae for the alert to this discussion. Consistency, simplicity and the avoidance of confusion have much to recommend. So, reserving the right to change my mind should a compelling case be put forward to not follow the UKGEO guideline, I'm going to plump for UKGEO All counties. Rupples (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
• Good work on opening the discussion, DankJae. The UK county articles should be standardised as far as possible, so UKGEO All counties is my preference. However, the UKGEO guidelines should be adapted for Wales rather than being copied over indiscriminately, for example by including guidance on the use of the Welsh language. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure what you mean by use of Welsh language? If referring to captions then usually they don't have it as they're supposed to be short, unless a Welsh language term is directly relevant to the image.

  @A.D.Hope, @Rupples, also probably should've clarified, as Cardiff, Swansea and Newport articles also technically cover the counties, should this apply to those or should they follow WP:UKCITIES (max 6-7) as being mainly on the settlements. Unless those articles are viewed as primarily settlement articles. May be best to be clearer.

  Also as UKGEO sets a maximum, but three images are common on the English ones, is this to be interpreted as using three images in most cases or any other number within the max of four. DankJae 20:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Note the Welsh counties use Infobox settlement whereas the English counties have a dedicated English Counties infobox, though don't see this as a factor. The articles you've highlighted are primarily settlement articles so guess UKCITIES should be followed. The objective in formulating the new guideline was to curtail the enthusiasm of certain editors adding multiple poor quality, hard to discern images. I counted 13 at one time on Merseyside — hey, got you to thank, DankJae for reverting that! Rupples (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Further, the guideline states a montage may be used, there doesn't have to be one. Just a map or a single photograph or two images or perhaps four could be suitable depending on the county. I wouldn't want to restrict further what has been agreed in the guideline. Certainly don't see three images as mandatory. Rupples (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  • I mean that the Welsh guideline should be adapted to Wales rather than being a simple copy of the English ceremonial county guideline. For example, while the English guideline doesn't need to specify which language to use in captions, the Welsh one might state that captions should follow the language used in the relevant article title, so Afon Lledr but River Conwy.

  Cardiff, Swansea, and Newport are treated as settlement articles and so the UKCITIES guidelines should be applied rather than the UKCOUNTIES guidelines. These exceptions should be mentioned in the Welsh counties guidelines for clarity. The UKGEO guideline should be interpreted as any number within the maximum of four. The English counties largely follow a 2/1 format, but the guideline allows for 1/2/1, 2/1/1, 2/2, etc. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  @A.D.Hope, MOS:GEO A place should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of its article applies to the first bit, and is general MOS.

  While I agree @Rupples and @A.D.Hope, that the guideline sets a maximum and a collage is optional it would heavily encourage editors to follow it and insert one with the common three images if there are enthusiastic editors adding collages. So if a different number than three images are preferred best set a standard as well to avoid the hassle later. Don't mind having three over one on modern counties not sure on counties no longer extensively used however. So my vote may be more UKGEO Modern counties (for now), but understand expanding it to all (standalone) counties for simplicity. DankJae 21:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's better to duplicate the MOS than rely on editors knowing it, I'd say. The fewer pages people need to search to find the information they're after, the better.

  The English guideline is designed to allow editors who want to create collages some flexibility while not allowing so much variation that similar articles have jarringly inconsistent leads. If you'd prefer a more rigid guideline for Wales that's fine, but I think the English guideline is a reasonable compromise. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Pinging the following editors who seem to be active at least one principle area article per the page's statistics, although they may be incorrect or misleading, so apologies for including or excluding you. You are not required to participate, but felt one more chance of more comments before any attempt to construct a guideline for the number, criteria or application of county infobox images. @Michael Drew, Stortford, Keith Edkins, Velella, Owain, Seth Whales, Ghmyrtle, Tony Holkham, Cltjames, and Ehrenkater: Be free to disregard this ping if you wish, as it you may consider it as a minor issue. If the current consensus is passed, you may expect discussions at each county over their images, so just a heads up, if you consider this important. Diolch! DankJae 22:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Looking at the article Insole Court in this case, some articles would like to represent 6 images. From my experience, more than average multiple images can only be determind for the correctly shown article, aka, if needs be, more than the guideline is acceptable depending on the site. As in, if an article has multiple locations which are different and would like to show these differences then in the case of Insole, 6 is accepted. Cltjames (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Cltjames, apologies if this is unclear but this is about counties (§ New county images guideline), so would apply to Anglesey for example, whether the existing one image there should be replaced with 3 or more. Diolch. DankJae 08:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, in that case it seems to be the norm now and multiple images looks more professional than the previous single a image. Therefore, I would agree in wanting to chance the infobox to include multiple images, e.g. like Insole Court which I previously used as an example. Cltjames (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Restricting my comments to the specific question of images in the infobox in the Anglesey article,

  • The current version looks about right,
  • Putting the images in the infobox rather than elsewhere in the article has the advantage that they are constrained within a narrow right-hand column and thus interfere only minimally with the text.

  Gobeithio y bydd hon yn ddefnyddiol. Ehrenkater (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  If you were unaware with the disputes on infoboxes in England I am referring to specifically the normal geographic image. Flags and COAs are unaffected and would be present subject to local consensus, for example at Kent. So for Anglesey it is currently this image, plus a possible two more? There was an attempt at Gwynedd for 7 images (+ COA) (now reverted to one) hence this discussion.

  @Cltjames, so is there a recommended number you would prefer? UKGEO reached 3-4 images max for their English counties, as editors above argued for the same on all Welsh counties.

  @Ehrenkater, Is there a specific number you prefer or would like to keep one infobox image (not flag or COA) for (all) Welsh counties? Including Anglesey for example.

  Diolch! DankJae 10:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  I looked at Kent and quite like the style of 3 because it also created a larger image in desktop view. Maybe an odd number would be better to have a mini panoramic view of the image as well as relevant images. But again, multiple images are the best idea for a county article, simply because the resources for images are available, so why not use them correctly. Cltjames (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  From the readers' perspective, having consistency across Wales and Ebgland has a great deal of merit. Adopting a standard template also gives Welsh editors a chance to have input into future debate about ceremonial county specific topics. So I vote! with consistency across England and Wales.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  So supporting WP:UKCOUNTIES#English ceremonial county infobox images to apply to Wales? @Velella? If so, @A.D.Hope (who made the England guideline) proposes another version be made for Wales, even if the same number of images to settle any Wales-specific issues. The English one was on ceremonial counties only (so far), but for Wales its modern counties are the most known, so would you want it applied to only ceremonial-preserved, just modern ones or all counties. Recent disputes relate to modern counties. Regards. DankJae 19:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Cltjames, UKGEO argues 3-4 images, usually 3 but exceptions for 4. Or would you recommend a larger odd number? DankJae 19:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Again, I tend so say tailor made, as in if it's a big city if county then more is a good idea to show the different locations, but if it's a smaller town or lesser county then there are less good photos to show. But like the conseus tends to be, go with an industry standard being recommended for England. Cltjames (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Cltjames, in the end the guideline is to set a maximum, not a minimum. Ideally the selection of images would be discussed at the article's talk. So far, as Cardiff, Swansea, and Newport are mainly on the settlements rather than counties then WP:UKCITIES#Lead image max of 6-8 would apply there. unless editors argue otherwise. I assume your vote for the 3-4 on par with UKGEO for England. DankJae 20:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  The only English county which currently has four images in its infobox is, to my knowledge, North Yorkshire. Although there wasn't technically a need to justify four because the guideline allows it, the large size of the county added weight to the decision. I imagine similar reasoning will be used for the Welsh principal areas. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft guideline

Below is a proposed guideline based on the discussion above, please state whether you support this addition.

To be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Guidelines

Original draft, better one below

Image collages may be added to the infoboxes of the "counties" of Wales (including all principal areas), based on the guidelines at WP:UKCOUNTIES#Infobox images. Any divergence from UKCOUNTIES would have to be decided prior and subject to consensus. Additional Wales-specific considerations include: Follow MOS:GEO and WP:NCGN guidance for captions concerning places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title. May apply to all counties of Wales, rather than a specific type of county (as currently used for England). Combined articles, such as the city and county (/-boroughs) articles may use this guideline or a specific guideline like WP:UKCITIES, depending on the article's main subject or local consensus. Article exceptions may be granted per local consensus. UKCOUNTIES#Infobox images Version as of November 2023 Please update this section, if the original is altered following consensus. Example collage Infoboxes may contain image collages, but they should consist of no more than four images in no more than three rows. These limits may be exceeded only if there is a compelling reason to do so, subject to local consensus. The images should be captioned beneath the collage. The images selected for the collage should represent the county thematically, for example by including prominent cultural, historic, or natural landmarks. It is desirable for at least one major settlement to be represented. Images should be carefully selected to ensure they are legible at small size, and where possible they should form a coherent whole. The example is taken from Devon. It shows two natural features, a landmark in a major city, and a distinctive breed of pony, therefore giving an overview of the county. The images are arranged so that they can be seen clearly and their colours complement each other.

Diolch DankJae 22:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft guideline discussion

Do you support adding this guideline in its current form? Please state any changes. This would be added to a new page Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Guidelines, because of the few differences regarding Wales, specifically this would be all counties than just ceremonial (preserved) counties. A sentence may be added to WP:UKCOUNTIES stating it is to also apply to Wales.​​​​​ Apologies for any delay, I was busy, partly forgot this, and was hoping some others pinged would join in. Diolch DankJae 22:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the work on this. I agree with the content of the guidelines, but I've had a look at the wording to see if it can be streamlined at all:

• Image collages may be added to the infoboxes of any of the counties of Wales (former and current), based on the guidelines at WP:ENGCOUNTYCOLLAGE. Any divergence from UKCOUNTIES should be decided by consensus.
• Editors are free to follow another guideline when compiling the infobox, such as WP:UKCITIES, if it is more appropriate for the article. Consensus should be gained before changing which guideline is followed.
• When writing captions, pay particular attention to MOS:GEO and WP:NCGN (e.g. use the same name as the article tile).

We can stick with your version if you like, I just thought it would be helpful to have an alternative to bounce ideas off.

I've set up the English guideline so that it can be transcluded, although I'm hopeless with collapsing so you may need to figure that out by yourself!

Extended content

Example collage Infoboxes may contain image collages, but they should consist of no more than four images in no more than three rows. These limits may be exceeded only if there is a compelling reason to do so, subject to local consensus. The images should be captioned beneath the collage. The images selected for the collage should represent the county thematically, for example by including prominent cultural, historic, or natural landmarks. It is desirable for at least one major settlement to be represented. Images should be carefully selected to ensure they are legible at small size, and where possible they should form a coherent whole. The example is taken from Devon. It shows two natural features, a landmark in a major city, and a distinctive breed of pony, therefore giving an overview of the county. The images are arranged so that they can be seen clearly and their colours complement each other.

A.D.Hope (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem with the summarising. DankJae 14:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

(some reason the reply function failed); @A.D.Hope, thanks for summarising and working out the transclusion, was wondering what was missing for that to work. I added "including all principal areas" because the DAB link does not include the modern county boroughs (which aren't technically counties). But I can assume most editors would regard them colloquially as counties too. Rest is fine, I tried many ways to summarise (apparently failing), I assume the shortcut, WP:WLSCOUNTYCOLLAGE can still be added? DankJae 14:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes these things just need a second pair of eyes! I know I can only edit a page for so long before I can't see the wood for the trees. I see what you mean about the county boroughs. You could just tweak the wording to '...any of the counties (former and current) and county boroughs of Wales...', that would cover all the bases.

I don't see why the shortcut wouldn't work, best to just try and see what happens I think. ENGCOUNTYCOLLAGE isn't the most succinct thing, but I couldn't think of a shorter alternative. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment - I'll wait till 20 November (just over 7 days later from opening), and if no opposition is raised, I would add the guideline in its current form, plus a shortcut. Want to finally close this, although that may then lead to collage discussions, there kinda are ones already ongoing at Talk:Cardiff and Talk:Flintshire so I and any others (please join!) may look at those first. DankJae 00:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Guideline added at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Guidelines. DankJae 13:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Mass implementation of Welsh place-names on other Wikipedias

While the inner workings of other Wikipedias are not impactful on this Wikipedia, as each one operates separately. Just want to raise that after noticing excessive changes at Wikidata, such as removing "Bala Lake" for Llyn Tegid [1], seems one editor is mass-replacing derivatives of the currently used English names with the ("official", in a few cases) Welsh ones at various other (up to 32 ish) Wikipedias. Which depending on the Wikipedia may go against rules they may have in place, similar to what we have as WP:COMMONNAME here. Once again, while we shouldn't try and influence the consensus at other Wikipedias, considering the editor has had issues here, I could not overlook it and seems unlikely an active contributor in most of these 32 other language Wikis aside in place-names.

Nonetheless, just raising this should any discussions be started on English Wikipedia and an argument along the lines of

but other Wikipedias use the Welsh name

is used, which is obviously not enough alone regardless, but providing more context should it be used.

While sympathetic to using Welsh names, including that of Llyn Tegid (I have a personal project on it), one editor changing to Welsh place-names in 32 languages seems questionably good faith, let alone fluent or with local consensus. If any of you have connections to other (aside cy) Wikipedias to either take action, start discussions there, or recognise these edits are acceptable, then please do.

Apologies if this isn't the correct place, but have no idea where. DankJae 18:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Good to see TG honouring the spirit of their T-ban, and keeping their rampant POV in check. KJP1 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I expect it has something to do with the recent decision by the local national park to only use the Welsh language names of lakes in their juristiction. I don't have any knowledge of the rules that govern articles in other language Wikipedias - but unlike the English language Wikipedia, I doubt they need to have a preference for English language titles for their articles. Sionk (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

​So far, quickly checking es and fr, they seem to have something like commonname. de is a bit more complex stating "in the national language" from translation, but then goes to basically commonname if not the case. it states "official" names can be used if only there is no pre-existing italian version or italian use of the English one. Nonetheless, not saying every change is wrong, but doing it suddenly in 32 languages seems that such policies were not considered and was agenda-based. Some of them at fr, seem to be reverted, and was even banned from one wiki. Just raising it nonetheless.

Plus these changes are also impacting Wikidata, so corrections need to be there. Seem also not to be limited to lakes, with

Snowdonia → Eryri,

St Asaph → Llanelwy,[2] (so far not moved the articles yet)

Bull Bay → Porth Llechog,

Red Wharf Bay → Traeth Coch,[3]

Tanygrisiau Reservoir → Llyn Tanygrisiau, also spotted, with all the (former) names in English removed entirely, not even an alias[4], meaning such data items cannot even be found with the old name under search. May raise it at Wikidata? no idea tho. DankJae 22:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

As KJP1 suggested, it doesn't bode well for any chance of having a Wikipedia topic ban reviewed, especially with the questionable name changes in Wikipedia article-space. Wikidata problems will have to be raised on Wikidata. Sionk (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Already raised at Wikidata. DankJae 11:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes used Welsh names except for "British English" where I left as is. I agree official "British English" should be left as is on wikidata. Would prefer coming to me directly if I've made any mistakes so that I can immediately correct. Apologies Titus Gold (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Removing all the "English names" under "English" and all other languages seemed very intentional, leaving a newly added sole "British English" for the actual Common name. I explained my reasoning there on both the issue and why I chose the location of the discussion. DankJae 01:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Titus Gold - Your call for a direct dialogue would have more credibility, if you had attempted to discuss this major change before implementing it. But that would run counter to your modus operandi of seeking to get Facts on the ground in support of your view. What was the reason you didn't discuss this, here or on the other wikis, before implementing it? And do you think it is compliant with the spirit of your Welsh-topics T-Ban on en:Wiki? And what is the purpose of the change? KJP1 (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

That's fair enough. It was intended to apply a consistent label pattern used for all non-"British English" labels as there didn't seem to be consistency or guidance for these labels. I also hadn't considered that common name policy might actually apply for non-British English or Welsh labels. In hindsight, I agree I should've discussed before implementing this on some pages. I will do this from now on wikidata in the same way that I've been doing in past few months in particular for Wikipedia. Hope that explains it. Titus Gold (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t explain it at all. What you mean is: “Having got my own way, I’m content to promise collaboration in future”. But you’ve made, and broken, that promise many times. What would have some credibility, would be if you self-reverted your changes, and then came back here to discuss what you planned to do and why. Are you prepared to do that? KJP1 (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

They're back at it again for Devil's Appendix on other Wikis, see Wikidata. DankJae 20:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Quelle surprise. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Titus Gold - Personally, I think this needs to go back to ANI. The terms of the topic ban are:

"There is a near-unanimous consensus here to topic-ban Titus Gold from articles relating to Wales, broadly construed. A six-month wait before any appeal is recommended. There isn't a consensus for any additional topic bans or other restrictions at this time, but the community's patience is clearly wearing thin, and Titus Gold should be aware that problematic behavior in other areas will likely lead to further sanctions. (As written, the topic ban applies only in mainspace, but, again, disruption elsewhere will probably result in a swift expansion of the restriction" (my bold).

To me, this is a second clear breach of the spirit, if not the letter, of the ban. It's also a clear breach of their commitment given above: "I should've discussed before implementing this on some pages. I will do this from now on wikidata". In short they simply cannot be trusted not to continue to push their POV. I'll flag it shortly, unless anyone else wants to pick it up (please!). I've pinged TG so they are aware, although they watch this page. KJP1 (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Topic bans are specific to English Wikipedia. Wasn't this a change to Wikidata only? If so, there is no breach of the topic ban and TG is perfectly entitled to make those edits. Having said that, the nature of the edits would be material in any appeal to the topic ban. It is exactly the type of POV editing that raised the concerns before. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely take the point, and I think your reading of the ban scope is entirely right. What I was wondering was whether the "problematic behaviour in other areas" clause would cover it. But quite happy to be told I'm wrong on that point. What is so frustrating, aside from the continued POV editing, is TG's bad faith. On 26/11/23 (above), they promised to discuss before implementing any more such changes. So where was the discussion before this latest change? KJP1 (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not sure what the process is for taking this up at Wikidata. Wouldn't it have to be raised with admins there? But I get the frustrations. TG has always been civil, but again and again the same things recur. There may be reasons for that. I know nothing about TG the person, and I am aware that there are reasons why past commitments can be forgotten without it necessarily demonstrating bad faith; but whatever the reasons, the effect is disruptive. TG needs to be aware that the community is repeatedly asking for more discussion, and if this is not forthcoming then referrals to whichever admin board is appropriate will follow. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This is technically not about Wikidata itself. Whenever you move a page on any Wiki including this one you also edit Wikidata. The edits at Wikidata are a result of their page moves on Norwegian Nynorsk and Cebuano Wikipedia. Which I don’t think they’re fluent in, nor considered what that language actually uses, and are only there to POV push Welsh names.

Not calling for anything specifically, nor do I think I can, just raising the issue again, as it seems that this issue isn’t solved, so expect them to do more, and appears that nothing has changed in their editing since the T-ban both on this Wiki (moved to other Celtic countries) and slowing spreading to other Wikipedias. DankJae 11:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, in the interests of starting the discussion suggested above; Titus Gold - could you:

• Briefly outline the place name changes you have been making on foreign-language Wikis and your intended rationale;
• Briefly outline the steps you've taken to understand the policy/guidance prevailing on those foreign-language wikis on place naming, e.g. their equivalent of Wikipedia:COMMONNAME;
• Briefly outline the steps you've taken, with diffs, to obtain consensus on the foreign-language wikis for the changes you've made;
• To help get a sense of scale, give details of:

(a) the number/names of the foreign-language wikis where you have made changes;

(b) the number of place name changes you have made on each foreign-language wiki.

• Undertake not to make further changes until this discussion is concluded.

Thank you. KJP1 (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

As other users have stated, I was sure not to edit anything within the scope of the ban. As far as I can see, since the 20th November, Nant Clogwyn y Geifr is the only one I changed in other languages. (Also just created a handful of pages on the Welsh language Wici on small places that mostly didn't exist in other languages.) Some of reasons behind the two page moves was that there is no automatic preference for any English place names in Wales in any other language; the national park has announced it is moving to official names in the original Welsh only for waterfalls; common name doesn't seem to apply because I couldn't find any info on Nant Clogwyn y Geifr in those languages.

I thought bold moves were permitted on other language Wikis? So I'm now meant to start discussions before page moves? (Obviously I would know this is more often needed on English Wiki because there might Welgh lang/English lang contenders for any name changes)

What must I now do to have the topic ban lifted? Could I have very clear and defined criteria please (I think ambiguity on this may have been one of the contributors to the ban in the first place.)?

Thanks for your time. I'm happy to conform to any recommendations for now and future. Titus Gold (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Titus Gold - can you give details of all changes, including those before 20/11/2023. KJP1 (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

After double-checking it's only those two moves for a place name (in a language other than Welsh) since November 2023.

(Since 2016, May 2020 I've counted (roughly 10 pages with roughly an average of 5 different language moves for the same page) so total of 50 page moved over that period.

Some of the reasoning I used in the past was:

• Other languages tend to always use whatever the English Wikipedia uses as a page name without even considering the Welsh name simply because it was what English wiki uses (and perhaps being completely unware of there being two names for some places in Wales)
• Welsh Wici is virtually never used for the template for name of places in other languages and I was concerned that this tendency of only using English placenames for Wales across all other language Wikis regardless of any other factors.
• Common name does not seem to apply to the virtually all of these names since there seems to be virtually no reference to these place names in other languages (exception mentioned below).
• Officially and legally in Wales, the Welsh name comes first, followed by the English name if there is one; so my thinking was that if a page was not in English, then perhaps it would be appropriate to default to Welsh more often if there was no common name factor.
• For some there was added reason that the Welsh name only was official, e.g some lakes in Eryri/Snowdonia.
• One name that I had perhaps had not considered properly for common name was Mont Snowdon in French. Consequently, this were reversed anyway and remain the reversed name (some were other reverts as well I think). Obviously France is geographically closer to Wales and and after some digging I found one or two articles using "Mont Snowdon"; so in hindsight, I had overlooked common name for that.

Titus Gold (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Page vandalised: Andrew RT Davies

Someone needs to correct this vandalisation "Blanket" in the lead please.

It's even in national news: https://nation.cymru/news/andrew-rt-davies-wiki-page-is-edited-with-blanket-middle-name/

Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Cadwaladr and the Welsh Dragon

Note this video stating that the claims the Welsh Dragon being linked to Cadwaladr were a mistake. It minimally mentions such link being present on Wikipedia, although critiques the sources’ sources instead. There may be edits based on this video on articles relating to the dragon, national flag, Cadwaladr, the Tudors and others. Just a heads up should edits based on this already be done or if an editor wishes to accept the video’s argument or actively reject it. DankJae 22:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The Cadwaladr article was already fine. Information that contradicted Cadwaladr was added to Flag of Wales and Welsh Dragon sourced to an MA in Creative Writing that I had already taken issue with before. No prizes as to who added it, and perhaps why (do I detect some POV in the sidelining of Henry VII?) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the video is mostly fair but seems to make some wrong assumptions about what a source was pointing to. Even the video creator admits to the wrong use of Cadwaldr and the dragon and having done months of research to reach that conclusion. I'm glad it's been assessed. Multiple reliable sources acknowledged the connection between Henry VII and the Red Dragon of Cadwaladr, but no citing of the original source it seems. The MA source I think was just acknowledging the association that Henry VII made rather than Cadwaladr actually using it.

For such ancient history, I think it's wise to avoid any news articles! Thanks for addressing this. Titus Gold (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I recently realised the lack of evidence whilst editing the Welsh language equivalent. "Gwarchan Maelderw" (poem) seems to be one of the earlier mentions of a red dragon. Titus Gold (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a reliable source to me. Deb (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

County page images and collages

If anyone is interested in chipping in, following the discussion above for WP:WLSCOUNTYCOLLAGE, I'm adding collages to the Principal areas of Wales, already discussed Anglesey and Flintshire (stale), currently discussing Powys and Denbighshire, while boldly doing Caerphilly and Merthyr Tydfil. So if you have any alternative images or fine with my selection, then please raise them. The discussion at Cardiff probably needs revival.

Also if you haven't noticed, I split Local government in Wales, into additionally Subdivisions of Wales and Principal areas of Wales, with both hopefully expanded a bit more. Did such concerning whether historic sub-divisions and statistical regions are "local government", while the PAs probably deserved their own article. DankJae 20:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It's the usual problem with Wikipedia, that it becomes a guide about the current status quo. Historic sub-divisions were generally areas of local government too, so should be covered in any article about local government.

I'd question whether we need a lengthy section on the "Draft Local Government (Wales) Bill", considering it's sourced almost entirely to primary legislation rather than any secondary sources/media interest. Sionk (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sionk, did consider splitting off that into Reform of local government in Wales but I’ve already massacred the article so may be in the future should I expand it further, and that section become undue. DankJae 13:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Llywelyn ap Iorwerth's castles

I just wanted to note that, now Criccieth Castle has passed its good article assessment, the four major castles associated with Llywelyn ab Iorwerth – Criccieth, Dolbadarn, Dolwydellan, and Castell y Bere – have all reached good article standard. I think we can be quite pleased with that! A.D.Hope (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Missing Welsh Government cabinet posts

Just a notice that I am slowly going through creating the missing Welsh Government cabinet posts. Just published five:

• Chief Whip (Wales)
• Minister for the Constitution (Wales)
• Minister for Rural Affairs (Wales)
• Minister for North Wales (used to be tagged onto "Minister for the Economy", so felt it should be separate from R.A.)
• Deputy Minister for Climate Change (merged "Minister for Transport" into this as multiple sources refer to the position as such and doubt a split off is needed).

I assume they're notable as their holders are presumed such per WP:NPOLITICIAN, and well wanted to accompany Minister for the Economy (Wales), Minister for Finance (Wales) and Minister for Local Government (Wales). If not notable, open to a list of Welsh Ministers article or something.

Just raising this because I do not know the history of these positions enough and there are a few gaps in the continuity of these posts as I struggled to find sources for exact dates of previous office-holders, so there are a few gaps on the older positions. Plus as not fully knowledgeable of government, I may have made a little mistake here and there, so any corrections would be welcomed.

Yes I am aware, the upcoming new first minister may reshuffle it all again, but I started this before the announcement was made. :/

Blwyddyn Newydd Dda. DankJae 17:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Done all of them, if I missed anything please check! DankJae 02:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Royal corgis#Requested move 4 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Royal corgis#Requested move 4 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

English-language pronunciations

Hi, just noticing that an @2A00:23C7:7C9B:AB01:859:8379:EBEB:EF99 anon is removing the IPA for English pronunciations? They argue there are potential American English pronounciations? I doubt Americans are even aware of many Welsh places, but if it is commonly used surely can be added or put into a note? Many articles have multiple pronunciations. They state because Welsh only has one pronunciation that, that, is the only one is needed as the rest of derivatives? So far they've done it to Gwynedd, Penrhyndeudraeth and Porthmadog. Although are there sources for any of these? These seem to be based on personal original research? ​ DankJae 23:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I suspect the motivation may be more to promote a particular viewpoint rather than to build the encyclopaedia without bias. It may be helpful for this wikiproject to have a recent changes watchlist as is used by WP:YORK to make it easier for users to monitor articles for potentially disruptive edits. EdwardUK (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I wish that IP would use talk pages. However, I think they have some knowledge of linguistics and have a point. They did it first at Ceredigion and were repeatedly reverted in a slow burn edit war until I opened a talk section and we reached a consensus that they can go. See Talk:Ceredigion#Pronunciation, but the tl;dr is that these pages are about the place, and what a reader of a page about Gwynedd, Ceredigion, Porthmadog, etc. wants to know about is the place. Where the words are Welsh, naturally any reader might be interested in how to pronounce the word, but they are not interested, and certainly not in the very first sentence, to know how the word is mispronounced elsewhere.

And to get longwinded again (you can ignore this paragraph) IPA can very accurately represent a pronunciation, but pronunciations are coloured by dialect. Take /pɔːrθˈmædɒɡ/ for example, which is given as the English IPA of /pɔrθˈmadɔɡ/. Almost the same, and the differences come in the length of the o and a slight closed shift of the a from fully open. Except the English IPA guide does not offer the fully open a, except in the notes, where it suggests that, per the OED, the /a/ more closely reflects RP. So /a/ is not used because the writer of the IPA English page decided not to follow RP but another variant of English. American English perhaps? And then, what of that r? It is meant as an approximant in the IPA English guide, yet the guide admits this means it is really IPA /ɹ/. What is rendered is the IPA symbol for an alveolar trill, /r/, which is heard in a few English varieties but is definitely unusual in English. So that English rendering is, in any case, problematic. It doesn't belong there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll just add a caveat to my comments. In some places an alternative pronunciation is so common that it may not be enough to list just the standard Welsh pronunciation. Aberystwyth is a case in point (but currently only has one pronunciation listed). These would need to be considered case by case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@FutureFlowsLoveYou, just did the first reversion of such at Powys, citing MOS:DUALPRON. So what to do about the others removed? DankJae 13:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is an established alternative English pronunciation for Gwynedd and Penrhyndeudraeth. I personally would leave those alone. Porthmadog has an English alternative, not used much anymore, of Portmadoc. This is in the article, and could, presumably, be rendered in IPA too (although I don't really see the benefit to the reader of doing so). I would agree with the reversion on Powys, as there are two pronunciations there (although now it lists 3. We could pare back one). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@EdwardUK, That would be great although how do you set one up, looking at Yorkshire's I assume it is a manual watchlist of every related article and then funnelled through the related changes system? DankJae 14:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@DankJae: That is basically how it works. The lists are put together from all the pages tagged with the wikiproject template. Although, it would need updating occasionally to add any new articles to the list. I made one for Rugby league about a month ago based on their article assessment page and it seems to be working, once I had worked out a method it only took an hour or two to create it. I am usually busy over weekends but I should be able to put together one for Wales next week. EdwardUK (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

That would be great if you could! DankJae 16:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a disappointing assumption, for my reasoning has been clear. I'm not sure what 'particular viewpoint' you think I have in mind. Also, some other assumption made about my edits I have disproven below, such as the matter of the breve when transcribing dipthongs (which is backed up by the already-existing article on dipthongs.

Some of the contributions in this topic section display bad faith, I'm afraid. I feel that some of those who have contributed subscribe to the unfortunate assumption that to edit in a way that gives the Welsh langauge prominence in situations where it is merely logical is a 'Nationalist'.

Anyway, I do accept, with thanks, that the vast majority are doing what they feel is right, but the tone here suggests that I am probably wasting my time. You shall all feel very relieved then when I tell you that I am done. 2A00:23C7:7C81:9001:79E4:CC96:47BF:D694 (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I have questioned the IP on their Talk page but have had no response. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Still as an IP, their address may constantly change, in the period of this discussion it already has (but clearly the same person), so possibly they would edit under another ip address and not see the question? This does make monitoring their changes a bit more difficult unless someone has every county and place on their watchlist. DankJae 14:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Just being optimistic! It geolocates to BT in London, likely static. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The address is an IPv6 one. In an IPv6 address the bottom 64 bits are not static as they are used for autoconfiguration. If the user has just a single /64 (the smallest range available in IPv6), then they are all addresses under 2A00:23C7:7C9B:AB01::/64. That is, that part of the number doesn't change, but the other part will - perhaps every time they switch off their device. That gives them a range of about 1.8x10^19 different addresses. If the user took one stride in the same direction for each of those addresses, they would run out of numbers when they reach the M25... not the one in London... the one in Sagittarius. Here are all their contributions to date: Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:7C9B:AB01::/64 Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah right, so we can expect to see Welsh IPA changes for place names in Sagittarius before long! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh it's being going on for a while, but based on some of their edit summaries seems their argument is just "Welsh pronunciation is the only correct one". Anyone into IPAs willing to look into them? What is the IPA policy anyway, seems a bit OR. DankJae 16:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I have been watching the user's edits. I have neither strong motivation either to assist or to revert. I would be reverting if they were blatantly wrong. There is a bit of disagreement over whether IPAs need references. IPA is phonetic spelling, and when there is a single unequivocal pronunciation of a Welsh word, spelling that word in IPA should not need a reference. Edits at Penparcau demonstrate a problem though. Very often there is not a single pronunciation. I reverted one of the IP's edits but left their reformulation. There is a message on my talk page about it too. The IPA there now is correct standard Welsh, and does not, in my opinion, need a citation. However Penparcau is in mid Wales, and there is a mid Wales pronunciation of the word that differs in the end vowel. The inhabitants of Penparcau, meanwhile, pronounce it with yet another end sound that is not properly Welsh. I suppose we could cite the variations and then spell them. It is another example of MOS:DUALPRON. But my reason for not going in and making a bunch of changes is that - MOS or not - pages are meant to give knowledge to readers, and long discussions of various pronunciations do not belong in the first sentence of a lead of an article that is about a town. The article is not about dialect continua. Fingers crossed the IP doesn't do this all the way to Sagittarius (I am pretty sure the dialect beyond this star system is fairly unrecognisable - although I don't have a source for that). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I must admit I have had exactly the same reaction. But the big question - shouldn't en.wiki have English IPA guides, at least more prominently than Welsh IPA guides (which really belong at cy.wiki)? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Sagittarius Love Languages: An Expert-Backed Guide - all you need to know!

The guideline for appropriate use is for inclusion when it would not be obvious from the spelling, in which case a source to verify the non-obvious could be reasonably expected, and if it is unambiguous then the pronunciation is not necessary. Should this apply equally whether the pronunciation is in Welsh or English then based on the edit summaries it could have been the Welsh that they removed. If in Gwynedd 65% of residents speak Welsh then a third do not, and the majority of these probably use English as would the national/local authorities and media when communicating with these non-Welsh speaking residents. This seems a reasonable proportion of the population for the articles to include an English IPA where appropriate. Those used for the administration within the area could be considered as the standard English and Welsh pronunciations, and if these are the same in both languages then why not mention this too. I am not convinced by the edit summary that a British-English pronunciation should be excluded because people on the other side of the Atlantic, few of whom may have ever heard of the place in question, may use an dialect that causes it to sound different, but if the IP has sources for multiple other English-language variations (or maybe even Patagonian Welsh alternatives?) then rather than removing content these could be added and placed in a footnote as in the examples in MOS:PRONPLACEMENT. EdwardUK (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The guideline for appropriate use is for inclusion when it would not be obvious from the spelling, in which case a source to verify the non-obvious could be reasonably expected. This is the case for non obvious pronunciations of English language placenames, certainly. Worcester, England for instance. I note that even there, editors have not felt it necessary to cite the IPA. But for Welsh placenames the situation is different. Welsh has phonetic spelling, so anyone understanding the rules of the Welsh spelling system can read (almost) any Welsh word correctly first time. Nevertheless the rules of the phonetic spelling system are not widely known by readers who speak English but not Welsh. Moreover it is very common that readers of Welsh place names do want to know how the place is pronounced. Thus it is good information in an article to provide the reader with the pronunciation, either by giving them the Welsh rules of pronunciation (which you see a lot in books), or, as Wikipedia and dictionaries do it, using IPA. If using IPA, this falls squarely into WP:BLUESKY. The IPA template itself links to the pronunciation guide, so that is not required, and the only other reference that would make any sense would be something like "Teach yourself Welsh" and that is unecessary. We don't reference spellings. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to say I tend to agree that there is only one correct pronunciation for most Welsh names. Deb (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems they've tried to remove Anglesey's IPA entirely. Still not convinced by their edits. If the argument is that Welsh is already phonetic, tbh that actually means there is less reason for the Welsh IPA if those more familiar with the language, do not even need it. But I'd say verified English IPAs should stay, rather than based on personal use as in the end, I don't think there is a IPA exception to WP:V? (unless there is?). DankJae 20:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

They were rightly reverted on Anglesey. I think the way Wikipedia presents IPA may be leading to a misunderstanding. Apologies if I am wrong on that I am about to state the obvious. But for the avoidance of doubt, there is no Welsh IPA that is different from English IPA. There is simply IPA. It is a phonetic alphabet, and given a particular pronunciation of a word, there should only be one way to correctly describe it in IPA.

The Welsh pronunciation guide that links from Welsh IPA spellings merely points to the specific IPA sounds that are found in Welsh. The English pronunciation guide, however, is misleading because there is a greater dialect continuum and the guide can mislead the reader as to what sound is represented by a letter (/r/ being a case in point). Ideally you would simply link to an IPA guide (such as: International Phonetic Alphabet#/media/File:IPA chart 2020.svg ). But we don't want to bog down readers with all that information, so these pronunciation guides have developed to simplify things. The English guide simplifies at the expense of accuracy. But again, there is a single IPA. Given a word with a single standard Welsh pronunciation, and no English alternative (e.g. Aberdyfi, which has an English spelling but the same pronunciation) then we should put the IPA in to tell a reader how to pronounce it. One IPA, for the one correct pronunciation. And I say that knowing full well that the Aberdyfi article doesn't do that. For some reason we have an unsourced and very subtly incorrect "English" IPA, partly because the English pronunciation guide favours a particular flavour of English that is not RP and partly because someone has mistaken an open mid back vowel for the schwa, or else, for that syllable, has favoured RP over other flavours of English![5] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Still uncomfortable with the idea "one correct pronunciation", what if locals have a local pronunciation that diverges from Welsh phonology. I know Rhos and Clwyd (Welsh-derived words) are pronounced differently depending where in Wales you are, so still concerned with this "Welsh alphabet" first standard, although, overall, yes few have sources either. Still don't like the idea how local pronunciations in English and Welsh may be mass-removed for the "only correct way". Like yes you mention a "single standard Welsh pronunciation" but if that existed then why are these edits happening suddenly and widely? Surely the standard should've already been there, but there was another one added by someone else.

Once again, the editor in question isn't using the argument "no English alternative", but "it is not needed". I am not really questioning their edits to the Welsh IPA tbh, but the removal of others and with no citations to confirm the new or the old was correct.

Finally there is the assumption English-speakers in Wales pronounce the Welsh names correctly, and while they likely do, the uncited and wide-ranging edits do not make me trust it. May be if possible instead of changing the existing IPA, but a theoretically standard one (in line with the Welsh alphabet) is added before it? DankJae 22:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed there are many varieties of Welsh English, such as Cardiff English, etc., where standard English or standard Welsh pronunciations do not apply. But I guess there might be many non-English speakers who come here to see how to pronounce Welsh place names in English? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Plus I keep seeing the IP add "u̯" which isn't even in Help:IPA/Welsh, so there goes accuracy. DankJae 14:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, the purpose of the mark such as that in "au̯" is to show that the vowels are not sounded separately (as two syllables) but rather form a single unit (a diphthong, which is also a single syllable). Really, the Welsh IPA page should note this. Look at the IPA guide pages for other languages which also have similar dipthongs, sucH as Finnish, and you will see the same mark. 2A00:23C7:7C81:9001:59DC:F6CC:E84C:1008 (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Best discuss there whether to add it there, before adding contradictory IPAs, in the end this is about Welsh not Finnish.​​​ DankJae 01:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that Welsh follows the IPA for Finnish or indeed any other language, but rather that this is the convention when transcribing dipthongs (including for Welsh). I will look for sourceable material to show this in any case, as I understand that to those not acquainted with IPA, it might look like I am following my own instinct (which I assure that I am not). Best wishes 2A00:23C7:7C81:9001:59DC:F6CC:E84C:1008 (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Just saying best raise a discussion at Help talk:IPA/Welsh to add that symbol before putting it into articles. Readers now see that symbol but aren't explained what it means on the IPA page, so confusing. DankJae 13:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I shall do that.

You will also see that in the article on dipthongs the following sentence:

"The non-syllabic diacritic, the inverted breve below ⟨◌̯⟩, is placed under the less prominent part of a diphthong to show that it is part of a diphthong rather than a vowel in a separate syllable: [aɪ̯ aʊ̯]".

I hope that you will now see that I am indeed following a recognised convention for IPA transcription. 2A00:23C7:7C81:9001:79E4:CC96:47BF:D694 (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello 2A00:23C7:7C81:9001:59DC:F6CC:E84C:1008. Are you in any way related to 2A00:23C7:7C9B:AB01::/64? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, while their edits are not appearing under that IP range, both as under the same partial block, and both involved with Penparcau. DankJae 14:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Quelle surprise. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing I can click and see there sorry, so I can't tell you. 2A00:23C7:7C81:9001:79E4:CC96:47BF:D694 (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Try 2A00:23C7:7C9B:AB01:181B:4B17:AC6F:6D12, for example? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

What you're talking about, I think, is dialect. For example, round this area, it's common for names with "oes" at the end of them, e.g. "Treoes", "Tan-y-Groes", to be pronounced as if they were English, with a long "o", but I'm not sure that being mispronounced by Welsh people makes it okay. Deb (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Holywell Town F.C.

Template:Holywell Town F.C. has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. EdwardUK (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Guto Puw

Guto Puw has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 07:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Watchlist

Links to the "recent changes" watchlist for articles related to the wikiproject have been added to the sidebar and the Open tasks section of the project page. EdwardUK (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Diolch! DankJae 20:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@EdwardUK, hi, just made Deputy Minister for Mental Health and Wellbeing, where do I add it? DankJae 20:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I divided the watchlist between four project subpages: Article List, Article Talk List, Other List and Other Talk List ("Other" covers things like categories and templates). The aim is to do full updates from time to time to deal with any changes, though new articles (or those newly tagged by the wikiproject) and their talk pages can be added to the relevant section of these lists. EdwardUK (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I assume you mean the Wales versions of those, will do. DankJae 20:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes - must have cut/pasted the wrong links - have corrected them now EdwardUK (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board

What is the purpose of this? Just asking, but best if some of the stuff there were merged or linked to from here? Not calling for mass redirecting, as links to the archives need to be maintained somehow. May be it merged/reconfigured with a WikiProject sub-page?

P.S. I may start some new local guideline (mainly geo-naming policy) discussions soon, I'll go slow, in case I overwhelm anyone. DankJae 01:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ve honestly no idea. I don’t think I knew it existed. I’d agree that it seems to duplicate the aim/objectives of this page. I see User:Deb was a contributor and they may have a better understanding than I as to its history/purpose. KJP1 (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

No objection. I think it may have existed before the WikiProject was created but I'm not going to spend hours checking. Deb (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think if it could remain accessible through a link, for historical purposes if nothing else, then it would be best merged. Though I see we've still not got an article on Plas Glyn y Weddw, which definitely warrants one. KJP1 (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The noticeboard could be tagged as superseded (WP: HISPAGES) and the wikiproject marked as its successor. There is probably not much to merge as most of the content has not been updated for several years. The section on web-based resources may be a good addition to the wikiproject page (there is also something similar on the Awaken the Dragon page), but the links would need to be checked and updated. EdwardUK (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Will try, slowly merge stuff, may move the out-dated stuff which wouldn't be helpful to merge, to an archival sub-page or something? DankJae 23:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Devolution related pages need an update

Proposed further Welsh devolution and Proposed Welsh justice system require an update following recent events and debate which has been covered in the news.

Welsh independence also needs an update following recent news (the neutrality banner has been there for months and I'm not sure why either). Unionism in Wales could perhaps be updated in the same manner.

I've added some pointers to the talk pages of those first three pages.

Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Rhondda

Rhondda has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

A proposal to reverse an undiscussed split at Talk:List of Nuttall mountains in England and Wales#Merge proposal. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Welsh named pages

A discussion last year was about the renaming of Talk:Lôn Goed. Today I searched for Arthur's table, but realised it was actually listed as Bwrdd Arthur. Perhaps more Welsh named articles should be redirected into English? Starting with the Iron Age Arthur settlement on Anglesey, should we change Bwrdd to Table for the search engine? Cltjames (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cltjames, if you believe it meets WP:RPURPOSE be free to make it, however IMO probably not, at least as a redirect (maybe a DAB). Although IMO, translations are a bit tougher to justify, especially in vaguer cases like making Big beach for Traeth Mawr. If Arthur's table is used by sources as an alternative name for Bwrdd Arthur then yes a redirect could be made, but if it isn't (incl. as just a translation) then it indicates the subject is more commonly referred to by its Welsh name. Plus there can be multiple translations, or the translation be very generic or vague possibly referring to other articles too, so in this case other tables? I believe such one could be confused for King Arthur's Round Table. If Bwrdd Arthur is commonly described as just "Arthur's table" in multiple sources and no other article is referred to that either, then it possibly be more justified, but this case probably not as a redirect, at least that's my initial opinion. DankJae 03:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Bwrdd Arthur seems like a good option for the article name as the alternatives each have minor variations: A Topographical Dictionary of Wales describes it as 'The fortress of Din Sylwy, otherwise called Bwrdd Arthur, or "Arthur's round table"', the RCAHMW list of historic place names records it a 'Bwrdd Arthur or Dinas Sylwy' and Smith, G., 2008 , Iron Age Settlements in Wales has 'Din Silwy has an alternative name of Bwrdd Arthur – (King) Arthur's Table'. EdwardUK (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@EdwardUK? @Cltjames, is arguing whether Arthur's table should be made a redirect, the article is already called Bwrdd Arthur? DankJae 04:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Edit: "redirected" gave me the wrong impression. DankJae 04:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

On second thought, @Cltjames, by "redirected" do you mean "moving"? If so then no, per WP:USEENGLISH, Bwrdd Arthur is likely used more. DankJae 04:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, Din Silwy could work. Only I'm approaching the issue of Welsh placenames on the English Wikipedia here. Cltjames (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Newport: City vs County Borough

Hi, there currently is a discussion and a dispute over whether District of Newport should be converted into about the Newport county borough (principal area) with Newport, Wales reduced to only the city. This discussion can be found at Talk:Newport, Wales#District of Newport. Thanks! DankJae 11:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@DankJae: It might be worth looking at if Swansea and Cardiff should also be split but unlike Newport both Swansea and Cardiff had boundary changes in 1996, see User:Crouch, Swale/Welsh districts, District of Swansea was merged with parts of Lliw Valley and District of Cardiff was merged with Pentyrch from Taff-Ely while Newport like Merthyr Tydfil had no changes[6] so should be dealt with in 1 article. In terms of Swansea the Welsh Wikipedia article is ta cy:Abertawe (sir) and the German one is at de:City and County of Swansea and with Cardiff the German Wikipedia article is at de:City and County of Cardiff. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Nonetheless any splits of the long standing status quo have to be formally proposed, as any such change could vastly overhaul any such articles. Overall I am on the fence over such splits, I have found it odd, especially for Swansea where Gower is basically grouped as part of the city, however it may be hard to detangle the two, and they are styled as "City and County" together with their city status making the two more blurred, compared to Merthyr Tydfil where there is clearly still a "County Borough" represented, but can see an argument for a merge of Merthyr Tydfil and its county borough, but reluctantly.

But I do believe there is a stronger argument to actually merge those former district articles where there were minimal boundary changes with the main articles discussing the modern principal areas. But this ofc applies more to Newport and Cardiff, than Swansea. Pointing to a user page doesn't really say much, I did add the changes to Principal areas of Wales.

In terms of names it will be complicated "City and County of Swansea/Cardiff" can still give the impression it is also on the city, so the only contender may have to be "Swansea (county)" and "Cardiff (county)". Nonetheless any proposal should be discussed first as it will be a massive change, and not exactly convinced the worth of it, especially as England constantly shifts left and right when separate articles should or shouldn't exist, and plus more reasoning is needed than "because England" as referred to at Newport.

But once again, if it is formally and clearly proposed as a full split, a consensus for/against can appear. DankJae 17:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

FA review: Edward I

I have nominated Edward I of England for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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 "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jim Killock (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)