User talk:DankJae

Welcome to my talk page. Please note I place status banners on my main user page.

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wales & Borders franchise, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amey. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Transport for Wales Rail Services logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Transport for Wales Rail Services logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fflecsi has been accepted

Fflecsi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hitro talk 10:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gwent.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

City of Culture 2025

Hi! Thanks for your work on UK City of Culture, your edits have been great! As per your edit summary, I'm getting ready to split the page into UK City of Culture 2025 (figured it could be moved to [Place Name] UK City of Culture 2025 when the winner is announced. Let me know if you've got any questions or comments, Gazamp (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem @Gazamp:, just saw how many had submitted and wanted to update the article, there is still a few more I need to add, and fully support a split, although it can be done before its announced titled simply "UK City of Culture 2025" as there are many bids this time round, and it is taking a chunk of the article, meaning I'll likely have to expand the other sections too and additionally add the criteria and information possibly on some of the guidelines and benefits not stated in each holder article or generalised with the entire programme. May the best city win :) - Dank · Jay (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I've split the article out, so you can find it at UK City of Culture 2025 now. I'll be cutting out most of the bid list from the original article, so probably best to add any more bids to the new page if you can. Thanks again for your edits! Happy editing, Gazamp (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Noted, thanks - Dank · Jay (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Clwydian Range and Dee Valley has been accepted

Clwydian Range and Dee Valley, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

We'll Keep a Welcome

Shwmae Dank · Jay, you recently marked an article I wrote - "We'll Keep a Welcome" - start class. No problem but I'm wondering what I could do to improve it. It's not long, but it cites as many good sources I could find and I see no issues with grammar or spelling. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Humbledaisy:; Hi, Humbledaisy, the main criteria that the article does not meet for C-class is its structure. Dividing the article into sections such as those on other patriotic songs like Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau or Men of Harlech as you have categorised, would help. This includes explaining the song's cultural impact in more detail as well as its other versions. An expanded infobox, and a hatnote or redirection template leading readers to the album of the same name would also help. The article's inclusion of media, and sources are appreciated. If you strongly disagree with the rating; you may wait for the Wikiproject:Songs rating or request for a reassessment. Many thanks - Dank · Jay (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Humbledaisy:; Also please refer to the Reliable sources list as some sources you have used (such as Discogs) are deemed not reliable. - Dank · Jay (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Broughton Shopping Park

Thanks for sorting that. I was not sure. Original version had it the other way. As you can see, I took some criticism for making it Bretton. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra:; No problem, the editor was rightfully banned anyway, and I additionally find it amusing of the name they gave me :D. Although, despite the language they do raise a point, wished they brought(on) it to the talk page though. — Dank · Jay (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The shopping park's location is ambiguous as the park is situated right in between both settlements. As Broughton is the larger settlement near by, it takes its name, but the park is closer to the centre of Bretton than the centre of Broughton but the park is more connected to Broughton.

I opted to use the park's official website address which lists it as Bretton, although colloquially it is mostly regarded to be in Broughton due to the name, it's not called Bretton Shopping Park. Some stores in the park and the park itself sometimes styles themselves to be in Chester amusingly. Furthermore, British Land lists it as Broughton, Chester (City across the border). I'm debating whether to add a note or changing it to be "in between Bretton and Broughton" though as in the end there is no clear answer. Would "near Broughton and Bretton" for the infobox and "in between Bretton and Broughton" for the lead help? — Dank · Jay (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a good one. Here we have postal addresses that say a place is in a different city than the one it's in. I guess it's whatever entity's corporate limits it's in. Probably as you suggest, if it would not break the infobox. When a place is between towns here, I've left it at "Pinellas County". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of BritBox, with tagline.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of BritBox, with tagline.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Welsh Independence

I thank you for your edits on Welsh Independence but felt that some of the deletions lost some valuable context. I agree that summarizing is important but maintaining context is also important, in this case, the context of the laws in medieval Wales and devolution etc. which paved the way for increased support for independence in 2015-2022 period. Please feel free to make further imporvements but seperate edits so that not all your work is undone if some edits are not agreed with. Thanks!Titus Gold (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Titus Gold:; thank you for your contributions to the article thus far, however I do believe the history section was too detailed on the history of Wales. Details such as the last battles I deemed unnecessary. Nonetheless, I've seen you have summarised the content to a level I would accept. I agree that medieval laws and devolution are important to the overall understanding of the article, but detail should be for their own articles. More details should be for the independence movement, the story of pro-independence parties, and recent developments. I would also suggest you read Wikipedia:Hatnote (and my comment on your talk page) as this article has hatnote errors, which my corrections were reverted (unstandably due to a large edit). Having Welsh Independence alike to the Scottish independence article would be ideal, that has history but focuses on the movements. I will partially restore my edits, aside the my large edits to the history section. Many Thanks – Dank · Jay (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your reviews and guidance over the last few weeks/months. Titus Gold (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Titus Gold no problem, I understand many of your edits have been the source of discussion. Many of your contributions I believe are in good faith and are accurately referenced. However, many are of political, controversial and divisive subjects, therefore other editors will be more likely to point out the Neutral Point of View policy.

I would like to add, to my previous comment on the Welsh Independence article, that the history is actually somewhat necessary to avoid WP:RECENT (when an article is more focused on recent events rather than an overview) but the section should be more about the history of the movement and a overview of the political independence of medieval Wales (in my opinion), rather than how exactly Wales was conquered to the minor details (but ofc since then you have reduced it to a satisfactory extent).

Tbh, I've only been committed to Wikipedia over the last year or two so am considered a "newbie" too in many regards. Even every now and then I learn of a Wiki Policy I was unaware of and quickly implement it. But I usually go for simpler and localised (Clwyd) articles that are not really controversial. I do advise to take great care with politically divisive or very highly-viewed articles. In regards to the Wales article, it is a Good article, and you have to make sure your (major) edits also comply with the Good article criteria.

I see you edited my draft here, and it remains there for now as I aim for a neutral and at least impartial article. Many Thanks – DankJae 00:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a large proportion of the articles I've edited or created are national topics and as you said include some political aspects. I will be more careful in future to ensure every edit is as balanced as possible on good articles.

I have been considering cutting down on some of the history on such articles as Welsh devolution and moving some of the content to history-focused articles.

Yes, I agree that the draft article should be neutral. I am happy to continue helping you with this and I will follow your lead on it. I have created all the Wales-related articles that I felt were lacking, so your draft would be a good project for me to join if that's ok. Titus Gold (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you have definitely created very notable Wales-related articles, especially Welsh devolution (I even planned to make it myself on my to-do list but you have defintely done better than I would have) and I appreciate that. In terms of history, I agree details should be in their own articles, with a summary in related articles (i.e. devolution). If you are going to change some long-standing articles (or high quality articles) relating to (moving) details on history, maybe start a discussion on their talk pages to avoid another editor disagreeing and reverting it. Although you can WP:Be bold but be prepared to defend your edits if other disagree, even sometimes by me. Happy editing :) – DankJae 00:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Cadw and Coflein templates

Hi, you might find the Cadw and Coflein citation templates helpful when writing about historic Welsh sites. I’ve used them at Brynkinalt so you can see how they work. Nice article, by the way. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@KJP1, will do, thanks :) Dank · Jay (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 Oldham Council elections

Hi. Will you be updating the results? 82.1.46.59 (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello there. I have added the results from the council website. Other editors may add more detail in the future. :). Many Thanks – Dank · Jay (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@82.1.46.59 Thank you! :) 82.1.46.59 (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cities in Wrexham County Borough

A tag has been placed on Category:Cities in Wrexham County Borough indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not contest it, I was too quick following the announcement (not a city yet), fully agree it should be deleted. Made deliberately blank when I realised my error. Thanks - DankJae (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

A very belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, DankJae! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Writing an article
• Five pillars of Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Help pages
• The Teahouse (newcomer help)
• Main help desk

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (<span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span>) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 00:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have been here for years haha. However, thank you nonetheless, those links will be of great help, and I hope you continue distributing cookies :) To be honest, if those cookies are still edible let alone warm since I joined, then they're magical... or hard as a rock. :D – DankJae (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, DankJae

Thank you for creating Wrexham County Borough Museum.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@SunDawn: thanks, happy editing to you too :) DankJae 02:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

List of Welsh people who have declined a British honour

Perhaps you would consider taking further part in the discussion following additional comments? ThanksTitus Gold (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Titus Gold, thanks for the prompt, unfortunately (from your position), I won't be changing my position (as of now). Those Welsh people listed do not have distinguishable reasons than the other peoples in the United Kingdom who have declined awards from the same honours system, in my opinion. Therefore having one main list is simpler. You could help improve the articles St David Awards (a informal Welsh award system) or (apparently honours of) Gorsedd Cymru (which has an annual honours list such as in 2019). Note you have been suspected of canvassing, if you are to notify other editors do it from a Neutral Point of View and notify a wide variety of editors who may support, be neutral, or oppose the article. You could add a section at relevant WikiProjects Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals (best to do all three) or similar articles talk pages, if you want more editors in the discussion. I've noticed you have since reworded you original comment. Many Thanks – DankJae 22:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your reply. I'm still learning the odd thing on Wikipedia and how to go about things, so appreciate your guidance. Titus Gold (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I am still learning too tbh, I have only recently started to participate in discussions. I too made mistakes at the beginning. Just make sure you're open to consensus and okay with not always getting your way. Happy editing :) – DankJae 00:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Potential breakup of the United Kingdom

Just to let you know that I've gone ahead and published this page. I've ensured categories are listed, linked to from another page and added relevant templates at the bottom. Let me know if you think any improvements need to be made. ThanksTitus Gold (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Titus Gold, I personally didn't think it was ready, but accept it at least was satisfactory, and for two editors a lot of work. So I'll accept the move on the hopes other editors improve the article too. I do believe that the reasons for and against the break-up must be balanced though, i.e. more reasons against and equal detail to those for secession. Please do not add any navigation sidebars, i.e. the Template:Politics of the United Kingdom etc, not sure if they can fit into them as it is a hypothetical scenario. Many Thanks DankJae 11:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I agree it's not the finished article but I thought it merited publishing as I think it will get more attention and contributions from other users. Yes I agree, I will bear this in mind. Titus Gold (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Clarification request

At Pound sterling, you attached a {{citation needed}} to these two sentences: "Sterling" is the name of the currency as a whole while "pound sterling" and "penny sterling" are the units of account. This is analogous to the distinction between "renminbi" and "yuan" when discussing the official currency of the People's Republic of China. Could you clarify what exactly you think needs to be cited?

1. "Sterling" is the name of the currency as a whole
2. "pound sterling" and "penny sterling" are the units of account
3. This is analogous to the distinction
4. "renminbi" and "yuan" [...] the official currency of the People's Republic of China

Thanks. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually revert it for now, didn't know there was an active and recent discussion over the name, just noticed "pound sterling" was reduced to just "sterling". I guess this is new to me that the currency name was wrong for a long time. Sorry, Many Thanks. DankJae 23:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Cat for discussion - proposal to merge Cat:Parishes in MK into Cat:Parishes in Bucks

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 26.

It makes sense to me but you may have a different perspective? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @John Maynard Friedman, the merge does make sense to me, as from my perspective in Wales, it does make it easier to list them under Buckinghamshire as it is more likely that (non-local) readers (and a Welshy like me) can identify the ceremonial county, rather than the district which can undergo constant boundary changes. DankJae 22:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC) ("It is not a city, until letters patent") (6 days to go)

Thanks. I thought you must have some connection to mk because of your edits? Or was it just because we were another city in waiting? Apparently the only place left that makes vellum for the ceremonies scroll is in Newport Pagnell so there is a long order book. Not long now though. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman, Well I am local to another city in waiting (~6 days to go, I think), so decided to watch all the others too, just to check for any (then) incorrect city edits. So when another editor added a source for the letters patent at MK, noticed it and just edited while I was there. Stanley too back in June. Although I don't mind being involved in discussions from elsewhere but will be limited in response depending on subject. Also interesting of Newport Pagnell, thanks :) DankJae 01:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Leger Holidays has been accepted

Leger Holidays, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Potential breakup of the United Kingdom

The article Potential breakup of the United Kingdom has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is based on highly speculative future occurrences with multiple possible outcomes thus is WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. There are two lengthy discussions on the talk page that describe the article as a magnet for nationalist conjecture. The article creator himself states clearly that the article should be deleted for the reasons listed above, see talk page.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. FeralOink (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, supportive of that, per its talk. If PROD removed by someone else would support any AfD. It was descending too much into hypotheses' and was much more complex than I had initially hoped. DankJae 13:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Noinclude tags and categories

Hi DankJae. I noticed in a recent edit of yours[1] you categorized a template (thanks for that:) but you placed the categories outside of the noinclude tags.

This caused all the articles that the template is used, to appear in the template's categorization. See WP:NOINCLUDE. The categories must be between the noinclude tags to prevent the template's categories from being transcluded.

I have fixed the problem mentioned above[2], just letting you know for future reference and/or if you've done similar on another template. If so, could you please make the correction(s). Thanks. All the best! --DB1729^talk 17:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh I accidentally did it again didn’t I, noticed it on another template I did and corrected it. Seems I forgot again. Will do. Many Thanks. DankJae 20:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Evan Lewis (priest)

Bizarrely we were both editing the short description of this article in the same minute; I've got no objection to your version, which wasn't visible as I was editing. It was so simultaneous that both our edits have registered as overwriting the Wikidata description and {{Short description}} appeared twice on the page! Ham II (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ham II, Oh haha, what are the chances of that. :D I don't mind either version, though having dates is probably more helpful in search, but not necessary. So be free to choose, as in the end I only recently started adding SDs in bulk, and what a rare coincidence! DankJae 22:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

My version had "Anglican" in it because I was checking for possible links to add to Cymanfa Ganu, and the practice was started by a Reverend Evan Lewis in Aberdare who was probably not the Dean of Bangor! So I've now gone for the best of both worlds. Ham II (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Great compromise , fully support, and happily meets WP:SDLENGTH. Thanks :) DankJae 22:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Added a SD to Cymanfa Ganu, hope you don't mind :) Well, if you're developing the article, be free to change it, should a new one suit it better. DankJae 22:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Kinmel Hall

There's something a bit odd about this one. Our article says its in Conwy County Borough, and the Cadw listing uses the CONway coding, PGW(Gd)54(CON). But the record for the garden/park says Denbighshire, while the Cadw record for the hall says Conwy, [3]. Which do we use as we've RS saying both? KJP1 (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The hall is definitely in Conwy so the article titled on the hall should remain Conwy, the park however is in both, so Cadw probably had a technical difficulty describing that or could be an error. The map on Cadw’s website does show the boundaries of Kinmel Park is on the border of Conwy and Denbighshire. But most of it is in Conwy, including the hall itself (hence the article stating such), but the park labelled as Denbighshire is indeed confusing. My guess is it is a sort of compromise for cross-border listed parks, so both authorities are mentioned somewhat. Confused why they didn’t duplicate it like they do for listed buildings.

My preference would be to tag it as both Denbighshire and Conwy categorically as that is what it is on the surface and map wise, but if we have to follow the records word by word, then well only Denbighshire it is, categorically for the park. But Conwy tags referring to the hall should remain if any. As the article is mainly on the hall, small sections on the park can have a simple mention that the park extends into Denbighshire. DankJae 09:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@KJP1, tagged you, in case this page is not watched. It would be simpler and be my preferred to list both, although if being strict with sourcing then only Denbighshire, but does not really make sense as it is more in Conwy CB. DankJae 20:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

help

hey man u removed some of my john mcentee stuff, is tiktok not the best source if im referencing the video he made? i accept the comment thing but tbh i didnt know what better to reference. also i was reffering to lifetime likes on his page when i cahnged from 7 million to 9, anything i can do to improve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montbur (talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Montbur, the sentence on views (later change to likes) refers to and uses as reference, the Youtube video, not Tiktok and the YT video did not have 9m likes. Tiktok (and tbh Youtube) is WP:USERGENERATED so not suitable as a source, the unfortunate alternative is not adding this information, if no reliable secondary sources can be found. Are there any secondary sources? i.e. news articles about it? If not, then including it seems a bit WP:OR and not noteworthy if no one else aside TikTok users are discussing it. But of course, if you can find secondary sources, it would be suitable to include it. As the TikTok is the account for The Right Stuff even if it is managed by McEntee, then reference to it may be best at that article, although the only thing that can be realistically be used that does not have any original research is the figures (follower count etc) and nothing more really. Many thanks, and appreciate your efforts! And Welcome! DankJae 15:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

oh ok thanks a lot! i didnt realise as i thought it was reliable but i get your point, and keeping Wiki Accuarte is always most important! thanks lol Montbur (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Rail transport in Wales

I've added Rail transport in Wales as a page request on the WikiProject Wales page since it seems to be an area lacking. I am aware of Transport for Wales related article but I think an overview page is needed. I though this might be of interest to you in particular. Titus Gold (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Titus Gold, considered it although operationally-wise Wales does not differ too much from GB, and will mainly discuss TfW which ofc has an article. So if we’re only discussing railways, it may be Railways in Wales instead but be free to bring it up to the Wales or UKRAIL projects, I believe there should be some rail-related article on Wales. It will be a bit of patchwork though cutting out the borders network. DankJae 15:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I've decided to start with the article as Rail transport in Wales. I've set out a structure skeleton which can be filled in more. I see it as an overview page that doesn't need to go into massive detail for now. Titus Gold (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Titus Gold, with all due respect I suggest you draftify that article as it is really not in a great state as of now and unfortunately is very much POV driven right now. Focus on the railways itself (first) not the politics of it. Furthermore do not confuse “Wales” with “Wales and Borders”. DankJae 18:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Titus Gold, I do not aim to discourage you, I support this article in principle, but I do suggest writing about the rail infrastructure first, lines, stations, how Network Rail fits into this, may be then on history of it too (Beeching cuts etc; I do miss the chance of a Ruabon–Barmouth line) and then after all that, a smaller section on proposals and politics can be added, try and be balanced including the UK gov's response even if it may be a bit bonkers IMO. For things by TfW, best done at its article (that sorely needs expanding), things on passenger services would be best at TfWR or W&B, but summaries can of course be in this overview.

No matter how personal I agree that Wales' railway network has been neglected, the article has to be NPOV, and I am sorry to say, starting the published article focusing on what is wrong with the UK Government was quite concerning (you made it most of the lead too), and as it was published open to readers, we have to be much more critical.

By early May, if I have more time, I would be happy to help, and it may compel me to make more railway maps which I've stopped for a bit. Thank you for your good faith and passion, but remember to be as neutral as you can (not just in wording, but what you choose to mention and decide not to add, most critcisim has a response, and that response is best added too) and find many points of view even if it is uncomfortable. DankJae 20:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't agree with everything you mention but appreciate your attempt to communicate. Let's move on and work together when you're available to do so. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Articles

Thanks for your work on the Wrexham hotel, feel free to put up your articles at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your good work on Rail transport in Wales and for beginning the draft of Draft:Bus transport in Wales, much appreciated. Thanks again for your contributions, particularly graphics for Protected areas of Wales and related pages. Titus Gold (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks , thank you for your work there too. DankJae 17:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

I think you will have seen the notices elsewhere, but discussion from you is referenced in a discussion at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Titus Gold - Civil POV Pushing and Disruptive Editing. Possible Sock Puppetry, so this is just a heads up. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for going around and applying some consistency to the Welsh county infoboxes (among other things). It's boring work but you've made the place look a lot neater! A.D.Hope (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks DankJae 19:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Brecon Beacons

Hi Jae!

I have been a bit bold in merging the Brecon Beacons and National Park articles, but it seemed preferable to a discussion in this case. Neither article was in particularly good shape, and there was a lot of overlap between them — a lot more effort seems to have gone into the name issue than actually improving the text. All in all the split seemed to have caused more problems than it solved, so rather than wait I just made the edit. Overall I think it's an improvement, but I'm sure we'll soon find out as other editors notice.

As a side note, I thought the (Welsh) in infoboxes was just an indicator of which language the name belonged to? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

While quite bold, I understand it and have no strong opinions, although we'll see if others do.

On the last point, I'd argue if the native name is used a sufficiently in English, it becomes more of an English alternative name than exclusively the name used in another language. I believe the tag refers to or more likely gives the reader the impression, that the Welsh name is only used in Welsh, so I'd prefer it just listed as an alternative name. DankJae 17:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense, and I think listing all three names in the infoboxes of Snowdonia and the Brecon Beacons is a good way of conveying that information.

I'm sure you must be annoyed by my tinkering by now, but do you have any thoughts on the lead sentences as they currently stand? My thinking is that "Snowdonia or Eryri is a mountainous region and national park in northwestern Wales" conveys that the area has two names and is both a range and national park without getting too caught up in definitions or trying to cover all the bases. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The wording is not to different from what was before, so no clear issues to me. As Eryri is the Welsh name for the region too, I expect it technically also mean the area to a lesser degree. Ofc, if you still have concerns be free to start a discussion at its talk rather than here.

I don't claim ownership of the article, so I am not here to enforce the status quo on your good faith and largely only minor rewording edits, you are free to be bold! and no strong opinions so not annoyed by it. Although if you do majorly change the context (more than just re-wording) then that may benefit from a discussion, but the lead was just a sentence not a long time ago so any expansion of the lead based on the body is welcomed! (Expanding the article overall is even better!) But it doesn't seem to be any different than what it was before, so it's fine. Happy editing! DankJae 14:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello again! I do appreciate you 'tidying up' after me — I can be more focussed on the text than things like categories, so it's helpful. I will try to be more thorough to save you the bother, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem, I have various geographic articles in Wales, North West England and West Midlands on my watchlist, being somewhat local, so notice them sometimes. Although if you move further into England, that is where my expertise stops :D DankJae 18:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

England

I'm not sure why you want to promote the Englishness of Cornish places and people so much, with no explanation in your edit summaries. "UK" is also "fine", so I'm not sure why the need to change. As a Cornish person, I find this kind of Anglicisation of Cornwall pretty obnoxious, and completely unnecessary. There is no guideline or policy anywhere which requires this kind of change, so I wonder why you are doing it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Dydh da @Bretonbanquet; Per Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Lead, the constituent country is only used. While I have sympathy to Cornish people wishing to assert themselves separate from England, I had noticed IPs removing "England" from multiple articles or describing Cornwall as not part of England, therefore decided to apply the preferred guidance as "United Kingdom" is rarely used on other (settlement) articles in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Ofc, an exception could be discussed for Cornwall, but so far I do not see agreement for it?

While you may perceive this to be an "Anglicisation", unfortunately as of now Cornwall is part of England (so the most anglicisation unfortunately :/). IP edits should not try to hide it. But ofc, if consensus for an exception is made where England (and I guess United Kingdom to an extent) can be removed from Cornish articles then I would welcome such an exception. Meur ras DankJae 17:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There was a consensus at one stage to show both England and the UK in Cornish articles, but hell knows where it is now. Making something appear more English is the very definition of Anglicisation, but that said, I would not advocate removal of England from such articles. I do find the replacement of "UK" with "England" unnecessarily pointy, particularly as "UK" is entirely accurate. But most editors seem to find "UK" redundant: of course they do, because their nationality is not being questioned.

On a slightly different note, I'm sure you're aware that Cornish people do have minority status, and are, in law, as separate from the English as are the Welsh [4], so it's important not to describe people who might have considered themselves Cornish (such as those born in Cornwall) as English, without a reliable source. All Cornish people are British, but not all Cornish people are English, so "British" is almost always accurate, whereas "English" may not be. Gorhemynadow a'n gwella, Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet, I'll try and find that discussion, but I am not disputing including both England and United Kingdom, I am fine with that, happy to re-add United Kingdom on specifically non-settlement articles (as UKGEO directly applies to settlement ones). I specifically targeted those which omitted England entirely, when I noticed an IP edit replacing England for United Kingdom, and as the UKGEO prefers England, so applied that, although again fine with also adding United Kingdom. Understand if it comes a bit pointy, and yes saw UK as a bit redundant and out-of-place compared to all other articles. However, Cornwall political-geographically is part of England (although sympathetic to those wishing otherwise), but ofc when it comes to nationality agree that is it not as clear cut and one can be Cornish and British but not English.

I'll accept my edits to individuals are a bit more messy, I restored the original nationality to revert edits that I assume ignored MOS:ETHNICITY and WP:UKCHANGE by changing it without discussion. But of course if there are individuals where there are sources giving preference for Cornish (or British) over English (or British) and that the original nationality on the article is proven to be incorrect, I fully support putting the correct nationality. I guess I'd agree that when it is unknown if one is Cornish or English (if not both), then British should be applied as the default. Same was kinda agreed on various Welsh biographies where some editors mass changed "British" to "Welsh" without discussion nor reviewed sources. DankJae 18:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That sounds fair. IPs will always drive by and swap between the two on thousands of articles; it's what they do. It's why enforcing uniformity is ultimately impossible. I always found the argument that "UK" is redundant to be an odd one; it's a sovereign nation, yet apparently the only one in the world which could be considered redundant and replaced with a non-independent country. For people who identify as British, it's frustrating to have the name of your country deleted as "redundant". No wonder Americans are perennially confused by it all.

With individuals who clearly identify as a particular nationality, it's straightforward enough to follow the reliable sources. Some editors squirm at "Cornish", but "British" is a fair substitute. "English" is not, for those people. I guess I'd say we should worry less about the original nationality on an article, and more about stating a correct one. Technically, if there's no source for "English" or "Scottish" or whatever, then it should say "British". That's what the passport says, and cannot be incorrect. But enforcing that will earn you enemies. It's a tricky subject. Some editors firmly believe that birthplace dictates which constituent country one identifies with, but there are thousands of examples to the contrary. Mass changes are rarely helpful. It's a shame there aren't more clear-cut guidelines on nationality, as they would really help. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet, tbh I would prefer adding United Kingdom to the home nations, however "Wrexham, Wales, United Kingdom", "London, England, United Kingdom" and "Loch Ness, Scotland, United Kingdom" quickly becomes quite long, which is why I assumed chopping off UK gained support, and matching common speech in some way, the UK nations have their individual pride. And in the end, preferred consistency per consensus than my personal opinion when it comes to locations. Similar applies to US states, "United States" is sometimes cut off in locations.

Agree with stating the correct nationality, I just assumed the article creator hopefully knew most about the article, and with no apparent discussion, and some cases the change being done by an IP, boldly restored the original. But I don't aim to delve too much into nationalities, just followed the edits of an IP, who had been writing Cornwall as not part of England and became concerned and assumed agenda-based editing. I have to check many Welsh biographies but aim for a indepth discussion for each, which is time-consuming. Agree there is no easy solution to nationalities, hence why WP:UKNATIONALS exists, and some may not like British applying to many. I've seen the birth-place argument raised, and amused that it was raised on English/British people born in Wales, but just happen to be "forgot" on Welsh people born in England, and I value the sources argument over "being born in". In the end, nationality indeed cannot be consistent, I do not aim to make it as such. If an individual is sourced/self-describes as Cornish, Welsh, English, Londoner, British, whatever then if sources support that then they should be described as such (ideally following a discussion) IMO.

The biographies where I changed the nationality were reverts of the same IP, at Selina Cooper, John Lobb, Hugh Goldie, and Sir Johnathan Trelawny. I do not aim to mass change all Cornish biographies to English/British or vice versa.

Also is the guideline, in the section below, the consensus for Cornwall? Nos da DankJae 22:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's the guideline, or consensus. You're probably right regarding the reason for "UK" being unpopular in these situations, as it seems long-winded to some. "US" is the usual format for American placenames, and it should be included, but they have similar issues with IPs trawling around removing it or adding it.

Often the original creator will know most about the subject, but sometimes articles are just thrown together simply to get them started, without too much concern for accuracy. I agree that discussions for each are the ideal way to solve problems, but yes, they're very time-consuming. I usually stick to those I feel strongly about. Haha, yes, I've seen many occasions where the birthplace argument is used to claim that the subject is English, but it's amazing how often it's ignored when it doesn't suit people. That's infuriating. Certainly, following the sources can rarely be wrong, particularly if there's an interview or quote from the subject which clarifies it. But sometimes even that isn't sufficient for some people; I recall the case of Idris Elba, who, even though he has clearly stated that he considers himself English, was considered British by some simply because "black people can't be English". Unfortunately Wikipedia attracts such people. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Cornwall

You might want to read Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Guideline. DuncanHill (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Meur ras! @DuncanHill, while an apparent weak consensus, I assume WP:CornwallGuideline (Cornwall, England, United Kingdom/UK) is the consensus? I assume articles such as Truro, St Ives and Cornwall have since fallen foul of this guideline, so should those articles and all the ones I've altered change to the guideline's recommendations?

Just wondering why WP:UKTOWNS makes no mention of it? DankJae 18:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Brecon, Radnor and Cwm tawe (UK Parliament constituency)

Kindly request deletion your redirect as it became a typo. Final recommendations were already published. Type db-g7 inside {{}} then save. Santiago Claudio (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, that constituency was mistyped twice :D, and I created the correct one.

I'll request it as author and see if it is SD'd. Regards DankJae 18:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Santiago Claudio, now deleted :), also tip, you can use to {{Template link}} to display {{db-g7}} as you need it to. DankJae 18:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Penarth Fawr

Hello hello! I just wanted to mention that I moved Penarth Fawr as the first step of a major re-write of the article which I've now largely completed, similar to the ones I've recently done at Dolwyddelan Castle and Criccieth Castle. You couldn't have known I was in the middle of that edit, obviously, but I don't want to get a reputation for carelessness! A.D.Hope (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope. Oh! Apologies, haha no worries, yes I was not aware and it had been hours after the edit, although how long were you doing a re-write? :D (I personally use my sandbox for hours long, after many times I lost my work or later had edit conflicts). Maybe use {{under construction}} or {{In use}} (especially for more known articles, if you want or just in case), but I'll give you more time incase you are doing a major edits now. Appreciate your efforts!

Diolch! DankJae 18:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, to be frank I didn't think the re-write would take as long as it did (medieval roofs are surprisingly complex), which is why I went for an 'active' re-write over a sandbox one. The page seems to get about six views on a good day and the last human edit was May 2022, so I honestly wasn't expecting anyone else to stroll by. If I'm in a similar situation again I'll just do the move at the end and save any confusion, but please step in to correct my edits if necessary, it'll teach me a lesson if nothing else! :D A.D.Hope (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't suppose you know why an identical reference used in both an efn and in the body displays as two references rather than one in a reference list? I'm having a bit of a battle with the Pevsner reference (ref 5 and 7) at Penarth Fawr and you seem to know what you're doing when it comes to these things. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope, Seems KJP1 has altered it so unsure what needs to be done now. Tbh don't know too much on references (but getting there), especially sfns, but I believe sfns are preferred if the source cited is large and uses multiple individual pages (without the need to specifiy the page inline). DankJae 09:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, we're back to sfns and it's staying that way. As you can see I'm still very much working out the more wikitext-heavy forms of referencing myself, but thanks for replying! A.D.Hope (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Cheers for sorting the Dolwyddelan infobox — I could have sworn I did exactly what you've done, but clearly not! Wikitext defeats me yet again.

What do you think of combining the infoboxes? I don't think Tomen Castell is necessarily significant enough for its own article and its history is closely tied to Dolwyddelan, so it seems like a sensible arrangement. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope, I would prefer if there was a sort of clearer divider in the infobox tbh but don’t think there is one, but will check. If Tomen Castell is given its own section in the article would prefer the infobox is moved there, but it can remain as it is if splitting Tomen Castell into its own section is impractical. DankJae 15:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, a clearer division would be good. At the moment I don't plan to give Tomen Castell its own section within Dolwyddelan Castle, as it's only really mentioned as context and to address the legend about Llywelyn the Great's birthplace. What we could do, though, is give Tomen a section in Dolwyddelan village and put the infobox there. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello DankJae!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 10:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Dolwyddean Population

Hey Jae!

I know community populations haven't been formally published by the ONS yet, but they have published the population by Output Area. You can find the OAs here, and see that by and large they follow community boundaries, albeit subdivided. Since Dolwyddelan is exactly covered by two OAs I didn't see any harm in pulling up that OA data and doing some simple adding to get the 2021 population.

This isn't something I'd necessarily do everywhere, but it was easy enough in this case. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope, thanks, and I see you've since edited the reference to explain it more clearly, that's great! Couldn't connect the dots when it was just unlinked "2021 census" and another ref as a link to a downloadable document with only codes. Ofc, it should be replaced once the ONS finally releases their data in a citable format. (They're taking so long :/) DankJae 10:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I fully admit it's a bit of a janky reference even in its updated form, but I do think the average reader could follow it. It'll certainly be a lot easier when the ONS release the data properly! A.D.Hope (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Well ofc the easiest reference to follow would be one that states "Dolwyddelan's population is", if the source is not clear, explaining it clearer should help both readers and editors verify it easily. I am generally suspicious of any references on places smaller than counties that reference the 2021 census as they've not released data for smaller sub-divisions than counties. Saw some cite citypopulation.de but that seems suspiciously self-published somewhat and the ONS is preferred. DankJae 10:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

As I understand it the data is out there, it's just not been compiled into community/civil parish datasets yet and so is still in the somewhat awkward output area form. When the ONS do compile the data they'll basically just agglomerate the various levels of output area, as explained here and in more detail here (pp. 16–18). I don't think citypopulation is an entirely reliable source myself, but the output area date should be fine as it comes directly from the ONS. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense, as long as how the end result was calculated is explained somewhat in the citation or text, although not be overused as it is technically a bit synth. And yeah, using citypopulation.de is basically using that one person's (or their bot's) definition. DankJae 14:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Dolwyddelan Castle

"Oh no, it's A.D.Hope again"

Just a quick one — I'm in the middle of a GA nomination for Dolwyddelan Castle and the only editor actively working on the article, so if you could find any time to give it a bit of a look over I'd really appreciate it. You don't need to know anything about the history of the place, it's more the style and formatting which need scrubbing up. You seem to have an eye for both and you're interested in Wales, which is why you sprang to mind! No pressure though, A.D.Hope (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope, Oh no, it's A.D.Hope again, no no no, don't feel pressured to not ask, I am fine with it , it is much better than doing something you're not sure of doing, so I am happy to answer any questions or direct you in the right direction. Wikipedia takes a bit of time, and so far you've been very helpful and constructive which is appreciative.

I'll check the style and formatting at some point, and I'll also check the review if needed, to see if I can help with anything. Yeah, I'm more into the style and formatting stuff as I usually am not too into history, but I should probably personally really consider the GA article criteria myself (I find it quite daunting), and see if a few long articles I have made can be reformed into them tbh. So if this GA passes it would be an amazing achievement for yourself! DankJae 21:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, I was just being tongue-in-cheek as I've popped up here a fair bit of late! It has been quite fun to throw myself into the GA process, if nothing else it's helped me identify my editing strengths and weaknesses (markup). The criteria aren't that daunting once you get into it, they're mostly things a competent editor will already be doing, but the scale does makes it more difficult as you're pulling a whole article into shape rather than a snippet.

Anyway, thanks for agreeing to help, and if you want any help at all with GA nominations just ping me and I'll be happy to return the favour! A.D.Hope (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope, yeah, the scale is bit of the issue for me, I usually associate GAs with larger topics, and going through everything is tiring but fully understandable as to why. Plus some WP:MOS guideline can also catch me off guard. I'll consider your offer in time, or at least watch how the GA review goes, to pick anything from them. DankJae 19:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I don't think there's a set size limit for a GA but they naturally tend to be longer as a side effect of meeting the criteria. Between you and me I don't think much about the MOS, it's mostly common sense and anything blatantly wrong tends to get picked up sooner or later. For now though yeah, feel free to just watch how this GA review unfolds. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If I can give you a specific issue, is there a way to format the Coflein element of citation 23 so that it displays the NPRN number as well as 'RCAHMW'? A.D.Hope (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no Coflein in that citation? Unless your recent edits had changed the number. DankJae 19:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean 25 now, not sure what you need, the NPRN (95299) and RCAHMW are there? DankJae 19:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that's me not explaining myself well. In what's now footnote 25 the NPRN appears as a second author — 'RCAHMW & 95299'. So far as I know {{sfnmp}} doesn't support num=, but is there some way of formatting the citation so that the ampersand is removed? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope, hmn, tried something but that seemed to cut the connection between the two. I don't know too much of sfnmp, sorry. But per Template:Coflein documentation, the ampersand seems to be intentional. If a short citation is required (not to be confused with |short=) and one of the {{harv}} templates or {{sfn}} is used then {{harv|RCAHMW|NPRN}} will link the short reference to the long one. For example, {{harv|RCAHMW|24145}} produces (RCAHMW & 24145) that links to the 'Pontypridd Old Bridge, Pontypridd' example above. DankJae 20:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, if that's how it's meant to be that's how we'll have to leave it! Visually it's a tad annoying, but I'm sure I'll cope. Thanks for looking into it for me, appreciated as always. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, User:DankJae! The article's been promoted, so I'm really pleased, and having you about to discuss things with was a big help. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

British Baseball

Just to note, in case you missed it, the page mover preserved the disambiguation you made as British baseball (disambiguation). You might want to update the first couple of entries, but presumably there is no reason to delete this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

updated it, was wondering if it could've been preserved under a specific dab page tbh prior to the move. DankJae 14:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

map template

Ah, didn't really notice the list, was only looking at the map, and found the footnote seemed wrong! Perhaps don't specify, just state that they're given when different and leave the reader to recognise which they are? PamD 21:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@PamD, That's fine, changed it to "alongside". It did make it long. DankJae 21:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Although if you have different wording on your mind, be free to change it. DankJae 21:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Pippa Britton

Thanks. Yes, I'm afraid I have no other source for the DOB than the fact that I recently went to her 60th birthday party. I'll keep looking. Deb (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Deb, ah right. One profile source did say she’s 60 but didn’t provide clear dmy so I could just calculate a year from that? As long as that source is up to date? DankJae 08:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

You could maybe put the year. You could, for example, put 1962/3 and cite the article. Deb (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Caernarfon

Hi Jae,

I will respond to Caernarfon fully, but I'm a bit worn out on the discussion front at the moment so it might have to wait a day (or a couple). Sorry to leave you hanging, don't be shy to ping I've not responded by... Friday? A.D.Hope (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope, of course, take your time, although if it is a few days later I could forget, so be free to ping, if you wish to. Be free to respond at any time you wish, or not at all, you're not required to. In the end, I applied WP:BRD, and consensus does take time, I've opened many stagnant discussions which were only discussed months later. You've done a lot of discussion work, which is great committment but understandable it can give a bit of fatigue. I too am also frustrated and fatigued by some discussions, so fully understand any break. Happy editing

May still discuss the Merseyside image though, hopefully that can be less frustrating, as it doesn't go into legal names, but images. However, we don't need to rush to close such discussion, unless clear support. DankJae 09:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Ta Jae. I'm not frustrated with the Caernarfon discussion, to be clear, I've just accidentally taken too much on. If I don't slow down a bit I'll just get fatigued and grumpy, and what use is that to anyone? I've already been curt to Chocolateediter over at Merseyside, which isn't great as I always think things sound harsher online. You are right though, image discussions are generally quite relaxed.

Are you frustrated by any discussions at the moment, or is all well on the DankJae front? A.D.Hope (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope, writing online can sound harsh yes, even after multiple re-writes. No specific discussion frustrates me, although there were more frustrating times in the past, and I guess not entirely recovered. I did ping you three times in three discussions, so understand having multiple ones can cause fatigue, sorry, but hopefully this will pass. But being bold, especially for more controversial edits, does increase the chance of critique. If I don't find it important, I just move on. DankJae 10:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Well exactly, it's not like I don't know what I'm getting into by being bold. I hope you can recover fully from those past discussions, I know it can take a while before you're ready to re-engage with certain things again and that's entirely understandable. Personally I always find you a very level head and a welcome addition to any debate, regardless of whether we agree or not! A.D.Hope (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Images

I haven't read all the blurb but I was aware of large collages being added so I shortened them to three. I've restored the one I did on Denbighshire, I didn't realise you were planning a discussion. Esemgee (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Esemgee, it is all quite recent and a mess tbh so don't blame you. The relevant discussions are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Ceremonial county infobox images (for now), although it is immediately being questioned to be expanded. The multiple-image collages in Wales (aside the cities) are recent, hence the discussion at Flintshire (would discuss Gwynedd and Denbigh too but getting tired). Personally, I got used to one image, the lazy option, but concerned when like 6? were added. Want stability by the end of the day and discussion over what represents these counties, that I live(d)/visit in. DankJae 19:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, DankJae. Thank you for your work on Waterworld, Wrexham. User:Tails Wx, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good work on the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Tails Wx}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Tails Wx 22:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Linking WikiProject Wales & WiciBrosiect Cymru

Own talk collapsing; I do not wish to associate with Wicipedia

Hi @DankJae, I've been aiming to link Wales themed articles on Welsh language Wicipedia with English language Wikipedia and vice versa. You're welcome to make any additions to the project cy:WiciBrosiect Cymru and its articles and create any English language articles matching articles uniquely in Welsh. I'm happy to review any text in Welsh as I understand that you're still learning. I think I recall some of your Wikidata/Wikimedia uploads being useful on both English Wikipedia and Wicipedia Cymraeg; any more uploads available for Wicipedia Cymraeg would be very much welcomed and put to use. Hope you are well, Titus Gold (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC) @Titus Gold, hope you're well to, happy to see you again. I have noticed some of the links between the two (I have those notifications on). Just a note, I suggest to only link articles that are directly comparable IMO. Just noticed you reverted my edits at Wikidata here, I performed them as I do not find Logo of the Welsh Rugby Union and Mudiad i newid logo Undeb Rygbi Cymru comparable as one is specifically on the logo and the other is specifically a political movement. I'll see what small edits I can do at Wici every now and then, and I am looking at what is at Wici needed here, (the multiple National Eisteddfodau is a start), but I mainly would contribute through Commons and Wikidata for imagery or assisting automated scripts. Happy to help otherwise. Regards. DankJae 22:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, DankJae. Thank you for your work on 2021 Welsh Labour–Plaid Cymru agreement. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 17:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Wrexham Police Station (1973–2020)

Nice one! Would love to see your articles up on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge, we don't get many Welsh entries! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld, do I just add my new ones or all of mine (or at least those created recentish?) DankJae 14:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Any done since it started in 2016! Though I wouldn't expect you to spend the time going back so far of course! We'll have to scale the challenge soon as we're not far off 10,000! It's a lot of fun seeing such a diversity of articles coming in from around the country. Keep up the good work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld, I only started making articles since 2021 lol, and just under 100 for now, so not too many to find as I keep a list on my userpage. I do focus on detailed articles (focusing on Wrexham rn) as I am only extended confirmed, so can't risk too many stubs. I'll consider the list when making any more, we are quite close anyway! DankJae 14:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I couldn't remember your name from the time I did the Wikipedia:Awaken the Dragon contest! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Irish Language at BGCS

There is no source as it is just the irish translation of the station. RooneyDonal21 (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@RooneyDonal21, still isn't that a bit WP:OR? If it isn't signposted or used, then probably best not included. I tried searching the term online and nothing has come up. Plus there doesn't seem to be an Ulster-Scots name either. DankJae 17:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Its the native language of Northern Ireland though after English.Irish language in Northern Ireland - Wikipedia . Ulster Scots is a dialect of Irish Scottish and English. It doesn't appear on government buildings in Northern Ireland where Irish and English do. RooneyDonal21 (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@RooneyDonal21, But this translation does not appear either, and government buildings and railway stations aren't exactly the same. But, won't escalate the issue further, although another could disagree. Irish names are usually absent on NI stations (for now), their station signs only have English on it. Change in legal status only applies if Translink/NI Railways use it to introduce Irish names, if they do, then Wikipedia should follow, not promote/generate names before. DankJae 18:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Next election infoboxes

Hi @DankJae. I saw the template guide which says you place the leaders in order of position in the election but there doesn't seem to be guidance for "Next" elections so I have previously used the latest reliable opinion polls to determine the position. Just thought I'd explain. I will leave the order of leaders using the previous election result if you think the same guidance suggests using previous results for "Next" pages. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Titus Gold, opinion polls can be very variable and not entirely reliable, one can have Sinn Fein ahead, another one could have the DUP, so basing it on the existing MPs (as stated in the infobox)/vote share, from the last election seems the most stable and reliable, otherwise Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland would be switching around every week, and Next United Kingdom general election has the Tories first despite the "current unpopularity". Ofc, if (as highly expected) Sinn Fein win the most NI votes on the next election day, then they can be moved to first then. Diolch DankJae 21:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on this logic! Diolch Titus Gold (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks for creating Menter Môn! Take a nice rest! Timothytyy (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! DankJae 14:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Eryri National Park Lakes

Own talk collapsing

I assume that you've seen news articles such as these; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67431789, although I haven't seen a published list of standard lake names. It seems that waterfalls and mountains are to be standardised in Eryri also. Perhaps it would be sensible to gather some evidence in relation to this in preparation for establishing page names in the near future, as I have gratefully seen you do for other place names. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC) @Titus Gold, yes I've seen the articles and @Ham II also alerted me, currently in the process on possibly making the normal standardised place name lists (first). If they publish the lake name list then may make a list of that too. Although such a list would only be considered one source, and official names, just because, is not the argument to use. But it would be easier to keep an eye on them, should common use change and then either minimally the leads should change (bolding Welsh name), then possibly the article title, when common usage changes evidently. Diolch DankJae 00:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Agree with all you say here. Thanks for making a list. After having a look, I've seen some discussions and edits are continuing one year on from Eryri National Park/Parc Cenedlaethol Eryri & Yr Wyddfa being brought in. I haven't looked at how widely used the Wyddfa is, but Eryri now seems to be the most commonly used word for the national park. Is now an appropriate time to consider a RM perhaps just for Eryri? Titus Gold (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC) @Titus Gold, because the Snowdonia article covers both the region and the national park, it would require a bit more analysis as it must also consider general use (referencing the region) as the article isn't just the national park (anymore). Let alone the general opposition to such a proposal, so have to make sure any proposal is clear as possible in hope of passing. Additionally, as I found out at WLS, sources ideally have to omit "Snowdonia" entirely and consistently. Some publications I read, like Daily Post (North Wales) (which discusses the area most regularly) switch the name they use in every article, while others still use "also known as Snowdonia", so personally not sure if it is the time yet. In terms on using Eryri/Yr Wyddfa in articles, if it refers to those articles directly, that technically goes against MOS:GEO and WP:NCGN and has to be reverted, but if it refers to Eryri National Park Authority for example, as that does not have an article nor a geographic name "Eryri" can be used as it refers to an entity formally. I'll nonetheless look if there is a case (at some point, it will be a lot of work), but even three sources routinely using "Snowdonia" can easily stall a proposal. DankJae 01:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC) @Titus Gold, I would also like to note that the source you provided, also uses Snowdonia. DankJae 01:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Ok, thanks for your thoughts. I don't think e.g Snowdonia, Snowdon, Brecon Beacons, Bala Lake need to be completely excluded in media sources, otherwise that argument would work both ways. If there is a majority of published sources prioritising e.g Eryri, Bannau Brycheiniog in some way then that I think is sufficient. Eryri is probably the one with the best evidence for change at the moment. Titus Gold (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Welsh settlement populations

Ey up! I don't suppose you know where the ONS are hiding the Welsh community populations from the 2021 census? I just can't find them, and all I'm trying to do is cite Holyhead's population. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope, you could probably decipher the population of all persons under this dataset however, no idea how to cite it. It gave 12,103 for Holyhead (parish). DankJae 13:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The lack of a simple, citeable list of parish/community/whatever populations is really frustrating. I'll have a look, thanks. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you do me quick favour and see if, when you open this link, it shows the Anglesey community populations? Ta, A.D.Hope (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope, nope doesn’t work, I think I had tried that too DankJae 16:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspected it wouldn't work, thanks. There must be a knack to it. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Epic Barnstar
		Awarded for you work on List of rulers in Wales. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Croesnewydd

Hi, wondering if there's a grammar typo in the second paragraph of the hall's description; generally offices, or general offices? Cltjames (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cltjames, I’ll look at the wording, one source stated it was made into offices while another said it became a centre. Tried to balance both, but probably can do with better wording. DankJae 08:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Boldface outside the lead

I can see you're on a bit of a de-bolding spree! I noticed that you de-bolded "Dolydelen" at Dolwyddelan because it wasn't in the lead, so I just wanted to flag up that, according to MOS:BOLD, if a term redirects to an article subsection then the first mention of it in that subsection can also use boldface. It doesn't really apply to Dolwyddelan, but you might find an example on your travels. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that, if the subsection especially if it is named under the redirect then bold can remain. Dolydelen was clearly an alternative spelling. I left one or two because of that. DankJae 22:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh I'm not at all fussed about Dolydelen, I doubt anyone searches for the village by that name. I just didn't want your efforts to be in vain elsewhere :) A.D.Hope (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Left them at Local board of health for example. Dolydelen wasn't at the beginning and the section was on the name generally rather than that specific spelling. Don't mind if some are re-bolded at a later date should a redirect be recreated and it be a common alt in lead, or acts in a dedicated section. Just generally popping around leads doing multiple corrections, from language tagging, to singularising. DankJae 22:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

No, you're doing a good job – it's not the most exciting editing, so thank you for doing it. I do trust you know what you're doing (more than me, certainly), the edit summary just gave me pause. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I do it spontanously anyway, ranging from MOS:GEO, capitalisation, order, short description etc. Once you've got a system going harder to stop. Yeah the summary was probably too generalised in that instance, probably when I first used it it was clearly not in the lead, but then just re-used the edit summary because it was close enough. DankJae 23:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Plus while thanks for the trust, I can still make mistakes, so if I do be free to comment. DankJae 23:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It's easy to fall into the trap of using 'close enough' edit summaries, I do it more than I should. Sounds like you've got a good system going, I can't claim to be as organised. The trust is well-earned, but if I happen to see a mistake I'll give you a shout (and vice-versa, of course). A.D.Hope (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I notice that in your edit of the article on Lake District you quote MOS:BOLDALTNAMES but you leave the name Cumbrian Mountains in bold. However you have decided to rename them 'Cumbrian mountains. Nowhere did that MOS say that names should be written in lowercase. Unless you can show differently, I must revert your edit. If you can show why I shouldn't do this then I must rename such mountains as Moel hebog, Glyder fawr etc. OrewaTel (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@OrewaTel, apologies, initially removed it as only Cumbrian mountains appeared as a redirect, but yes apparently it does exist as a redirect so capitalised so can be justified, and already self-reverted it. (Must’ve been blind at “what links here”) If any other names wished to be boldened in the lead but do not currently redirect, if a redirect with a disambiguator is justifiably made then be free to re-bold. But if it doesn’t redirect, and therefore signify not a commonly used alt name, then they shouldn’t be bold when interpreting MOS:BOLD.

Moel Hebog is clearly capitalised in the title so clearly used, but the main topic of Cumbrian Mountains is of a different name. DankJae 10:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. And now you've given me a heads-up, I'll look out for random bold words and names when I'm editing pages. I hadn't considered them to be wrong - just annoying. OrewaTel (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@OrewaTel, Be fine to, the specific thing is at MOS:BOLD#OTHER. I do find some leads have too much bolding (opting for italicising or parenthesis as alternatives over full removal), but ofc every now and then a redirect can be created instead to justify the bolding, so if you feel such be free to make them. In the end, leads change all the time. Be bold! but not too much of the other bold! DankJae 23:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!

Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too! DankJae 01:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your reverts on my edits to the Water supply and sanitation in England and Wales page. I'm very sorry for such big removal. I was just trying to tidy up the page and update it a bit and remove a little bit of POV. I honestly think the page would best if it was split with page respected pages for England and Wales, as England and Wales both have seperate water supply systems and policy now.

I hope you don't mind, I added the image back I added and a source.

Have a lovely Xmas. 86.183.219.17 (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Merry Xmas! too, I did view your edits as good faith but were too large to ignore. I do believe the article needs cleaning up, although became concerned with the large removals, although can understand the concerns and efforts. The article was disputed about half a year ago, when the failed split was raised, and the article was overhauled probably to a POV. Understand the argument for a split, however it was rejected at the talk.

But I do urge you to use the edit summary to make it clearer what you're doing, "added source" but then removing a lot of content, seemed very contentious. Will look at the concerns you raised, such as POV, and may try and rework the article, it does need improving so thanks for your efforts! DankJae 19:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I will take this on board, 100%. I am new to this site so learning the ropes.

Cheers! 86.183.219.17 (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Sionk (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Sionk (talk) 08:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Diolch, sent one too! DankJae 09:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello DankJae: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld, thank you! and to you too! DankJae 13:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Merseyrail

I wouldn't bother with the City Line subsection any more, clearly User:Wisdom-inc is back with an IP...! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mattdaviesfsic, Oh is it? But thanks for the heads up. There should be some clearer consensus, it is tiring this keeps coming up, some solution is needed. DankJae 19:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

All the same issues, and all that one person ever wants to discuss *is* the City Line. Not a CU by any means, but I'm certain it probably is. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Still, some new way forward is needed at Merseyrail, seems the occasional IP isn't happy, even if they may possibly be the same person. But I am aware, many locals could believe the City Line is as part Merseyrail because it is branded as such, but don't recognise that the article is also about the train company. But best discussions on that is at that talk. I hope there isn't another edit war though. DankJae 19:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Two new Wales related templates

Hi @DankJae, just to let you know that I've created these two new topic navigational boxes:

[[Template:Art of Wales]] and [[Template:Michelin stars in Wales]] if you're interested in adding them to the appropriate articles.

Thank you very much, Titus Gold (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You can use {{tl}} for them btw, so {{Welsh art}} and {{Michelin stars in Wales}}. Will link the former, may be the latter. DankJae 15:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Titus Gold, added the Michelin one to all those linked, been reserved adding Welsh art, added it to all of them linked aside ones like Celtic art and some of the galleries which seem to be mainly museums or arts centres rather than art galleries. May reconsider again, although if the article is mainly on the building or it being more of a museum than an art gallery, not exactly sure if a specifically art template is needed. DankJae 21:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Any more help on sidebars @ me

Hi @DankJae If you have any reccomendations for sidebars, feel free to disscuss it on my page! Trainrobber66 (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Trainrobber66, will consider, although I have no (rest of) UK recommendations I can think of right now (having a slow Wales spree of templates rn), although please try to avoid duplication, if a sidebar version of an existing template is needed I am happy to try and make it convertible. Thanks for {{National Trails}} (the first one I noticed because it has "Wales"), although raised a Scottish question at its talk. Thanks! DankJae 22:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

👍ok! [[User:Trainrobber66|trainrobber]] (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you wanted to merge the sidebar of the UK national parks and navbox together? If so, feel free to go right ahead! trainrobber 20:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Trainrobber66, ok, thanks for the thumbs up! The two were practically the same, and I think a merge is possible.

I may raise others for merges if it is do-able and they're identical (link-wise). So just a heads up! if I stumble on another one (not sure how many you've made).

Nonetheless, I do like sidebars, although not sure of the wider consensus for them, if they stay and there seems to be no issues, then thanks for your work! Although I think sidebars have to be smaller (link-wise), so possibly missing a lot of links if it were a navbox, so some may be justified to keep separate. DankJae 20:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok trainrobber 20:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Wales

Hi there DankJae, I've been fixing around some articles and just came up with the template Motorways and Trunk Roads in Wales that was causing some errors in some of them but I just fixed it so don't worry Yolandasantiagoo (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yolandasantiagoo, what errors? Plus consider WP:NAVIMAGES do not add images. Further more Category:Wales transport navigational boxes are under Category:Wales transport templates and Category:Wales navigational boxes so adding those are redundant. DankJae 15:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

When reading the articles that template is in, it showed the whole code and not the format but thanks to you and an edition of mine they are all perfect now! Yolandasantiagoo (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yolandasantiagoo, I did notice a stray <noinclude> in the wrong place in the template, so that may have been the issue?

Removing state=collapsed won't do anything unless it is the only navbox on the article (in which it would uncollapse it), as it automatically collapses if there are two navboxes, but if there are two navboxes the code is a bit redundant for collapsing. DankJae 15:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

yeah, could have perfectly been that, and also, there are some articles I am reviewing now that sometimes it's okay the format sometimes isn't, and also 90% of them the format the template was written was the state=collapsed so that collapsed + the other collapsed on the template article may have caused the problem Yolandasantiagoo (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yolandasantiagoo Possibly, but happy its solved now! Your endless self-reverts on the template became confusing. DankJae 15:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

yeah, also to me when i was looking which one was okay and which one wasn't hahaha. Thx for helping Yolandasantiagoo (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrol?

Hey! Nice articles. Have you considered asking for the Wikipedia:Autopatrolled right? I've only skimmed some of your newer pages but you seem to create a lot of articles and redirects that follow policy and are done well. It doesn't change much about editing; your pages would just show up in search engines sooner and they wouldn't need to be reviewed manually. Just a thought! originalmess^talk 09:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Originalmess, yes I am aware of Autopatrol, just never felt confident that I'd pass it, still learning the odd thing or two, especially on new types of articles, but if you believe I'd meet it and/or if there is a NPP backlog then it may encourage me to submit a request to reduce the load. We'll see. DankJae 12:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, DankJae. Thank you for your work on Grosvenor Lodge, Wrexham. TheLongTone, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

A very thorough description of this building, well done

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|TheLongTone}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

TheLongTone (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi DankJae, I hope you're keeping well. Just a thought on this page. I'm spending a LOT of time at the moment wading through a CCI case. Won't bore you with the backstory, but it's made me sensitive to possible CV. One of the areas where the editor involved got into difficulty was in an over-reliance on building descriptions from British Listed Buildings, Historic England and Cadw. It can be challenging because their descriptions tend to be packed with architectural terms which are very hard/close to impossible to paraphrase. Looking at this article, I'm seeing some quite close paraphrasing, particularly to the Cadw entry. One to watch. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1, Hi yes fully understand, is the remedy to remove most of it? In the end, for many listed buildings this is the only source? DankJae 22:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1, Greatly cut it back, yes very difficult to paraphase, felt uncomfortable sticking too close, and tbh why doesn't Earwig work for Cadw? (gives a false sense of confidence) although if it still an issue I may have to consider deleting a few articles? Unfortunately. I would love to write more on actual historic buildings but many do not have many sources, leaving only the most WP:RECENTISM or viral ones feasible. DankJae 22:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep - It's hard. What I do with the CCI is to cut'n paste the Cadw/HE/BLBO entry and slap it directly below the article text. The similarities then leap out at you. Try this with Cadw and Grosvenor Lodge, as I did. But you're quite right, the sources are very limited, often with Pevsner as the only supplementary, and how can you paraphrase "Italianate/ashlar/dressings/quoins/modillion cornice/porch/segmental arch/piers/pilasters/fluting/Corinthian/cornice/balustrade/parapet/architrave/scalloped/tympana/balconet/bracket/lintel/string course/bay window/moulded brackets" etc.? I think there are a few approaches. First I tend to strip out all of the adjectives/qualifiers, "deep/fine/squared" etc. which HE/CADW tend to use. Then I try a re-ordering, so that the article content doesn't follow the order of the source content too closely. Then I try to simplify the architectural terminology; e.g. tympanum ain't simple, even with a blue link, for any but a specialist audience, so perhaps replace it with "a decorative panel above the door". Lastly, yes, I do tend to include less than the Cadw/HE entry will have. They're writing as a journal of record, really for a specialist audience, and tend to go into quite a lot more detail than our generalist audience needs. Hope this is helpful. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1, when writing it I really did not understand their terms, which is why I had no choice but to stick close to it (preventing WP:SYNTH) as I have no other source justifying my rewording. So decided the remove around 40%-80% of Cadw sourced stuff instead to be safe and added a link to Cadw directly. Plus the very technical wording seemed very complex for audiences. Will try to re-order it a bit, wish Earwig works for it. DankJae 22:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1, tbh before finding out about WP:GEOFEAT, which I believe presumes notability for listed buildings, I had focused on fleshing out articles as much as possible to avoid tags or AfDs (as not autopatrolled), but tbh writing the architectural stuff is the hardest and most annoying part, so tbh happy to see this process go. DankJae 22:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't be hard on yourself! You've done a superb job of increasing the coverage of Welsh buildings, and I agree, if they're listed, they're notable. It's true, they are not the easiest to write, as the sourcing's so limited, and the terminology can be a bit technical. But all the more reason for those that can, as you can, to try to give them the coverage they deserve. Take care. KJP1 (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Its fine, it has always been an issue at the back of my mind, but as I now know they're presumed notable, I feel that I can now correct it. DankJae 23:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"The house is built in red brick and is of two storeys. The windows, arranged in a 1-3-1 pattern, are embellished with ashlar dressings. They are square-headed on the ground floor, with bay windows and with balconettes above, and rounded-headed on the first, topped with decorative niches in a scallop- shell design. The roof is of slate and its cornice is supported by modillion brackets. Gummow described the style as "Anglo-Italian",<ref name="Cadw GL" /><ref name="Coflein" /> a popular style in England and Wales in the mid-19th century, having been made fashionable by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert at Osborne House.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/osborne/history-and-stories/osborne-style/|title=The 'Osborne Style': From Naples to Melbourne|publisher=[[English Heritage]]|access-date=25 January 2024}}</ref>

The main frontage faces Regent Street while the entrance is on Grosvenor Street, through a segmental archway set in a large porch, with double doors and a ballustraded parapet above. There is a service wing to the side and a later three-storey tower."<ref name="Cadw GL" /><ref name="Coflein" />

Had a go myself and it's not easy! If there's anything of use, splice it in. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Great try! be free to add it, I am not knowledgeable in architecture, so I wouldn't like try re-phrasing it myself as essentially guesswork, especially with few sources. But you seem much more knowledgeable in it, so great attempt! DankJae 12:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Aren't the CADW descriptions under Crown Copyright and available to use under Open Government Licence? See [5] and [6]. Sample licence terms:[7] Rupples (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rupples, I hoped that too,[8] but the descriptions aren't exactly on cadw.gov.wales but another website/server (cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net), so technically not the same website. Which lacks the mention of OGL so assumed not. But open to a wider discussion or someone contact Cadw themselves. DankJae 20:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

On the CADW map, the Terms & Conditions one ticks before using the site state the descriptions of the historic assets are on OGL with attribution; this would apply to the individual listings notwithstanding that they're stored on a separate website. It then gives a recommended attribution format to use for direct copying/reproduction. I think you've done the right thing removing some of the detailed architectural terms. The trouble is, it can be difficult to know what are a building's significant features from the descriptions alone. Hope it doesn't put you off creating articles on listed and other buildings; I enjoy reading them. I've made some grammatical changes to wording on for example the Wrexham Police Station (1973–2020) and Wynnstay Arms Hotel, Ruabon. Trust it doesn't come across I'm nitpicking your writing style — you've done the hard work creating the article — I just try and provide some finishing touches. Rupples (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rupples, you referring to the following statement?

The descriptive information displayed on Cof Cymru - National Historic Assets of Wales is available for use under an Open Government License (OGL). When using the above data under the Open Government License, you must include the following attribution statement: -

Designated Historic Asset Descriptive Information, The Welsh Historic Environment Service (Cadw), DATE [the date that you received the data from Cadw], licensed under the Open Government Licence http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

- cadwpublic-ui.azurewebsites.net ​
If that's the case then I guess it's under OGL, still uses very technical language the average reader would not understand. DankJae 10:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rupples, It's not putting me off lol, the Cadw bit is the most demanding bit, because it is in such technical language. Be free to re-write some bits of any article, as most of these articles I wrote at probably midnight. The police station isn't listed btw, that's why it was demolished and surprisingly mentioned in multiple sources, hence decided to make it. The Lidl that replaced it is fine. DankJae 10:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that it. Rupples (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

First off, sincere apologies if I have misunderstood the copyright status of the Cadw listings and thanks to User:Rupples for flagging it. I have to say that I've never actually investigated it and simply assumed that they were not copiable in their entirety. That said, I think we're in agreement that lifting them in toto wouldn't be best practice. I think they're just too technical for our audience, even if we litter them with bluelinks, which doesn't make for a great reader experience. As a general rule, I find the language needs simplifying and the content needs raising to a higher level of detail. Where I'm also in agreement with User:Rupples is in wanting to see more Dank building articles. KJP1 (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1, @Rupples, well I made Pant-yr-Ochain, so not stopping (making articles) lol DankJae 00:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Architectural details

Just to say I understand your reasoning re Cefn Viaduct and Wynnstay Arms Hotel, Ruabon now, but I think it's a shame to delete cited material. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dave.Dunford, did it reluctantly, but with limited sources and personal knowledge (in architecture) there is little room for paraphrasing. I do hope, as I create articles in the area, that I stumble on a new source that also discusses those two structures' architecture in their own words (and better more general wording), in which I can mix with Cadw, with more distinctly paraphrased wording. But in the absence of that, removed as a precaution and added a link to Cadw directly, should readers be interested.

Unless someone who can read architectural jargon manages to re-add it! DankJae 20:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

One new template

Hi @DankJae, I've made one new navigational template, "Template:Traditional and bank holidays of Wales" that you may want to add to the relevant pages. Thanks! Titus Gold (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, DankJae. Thank you for your work on Grade II listed buildings in Wrexham County Borough. Ingratis, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi, DankJae. Thanks for creating this substantial article. I have reviewed / accepted it. Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Ingratis:, Long day? Noticed the typo Thanks for the NPP reviews and comment! DankJae 23:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Wrexham urban area

I hope contacting you using this feature is fine with you anyway I felt like giving my reason for the urban population being different from the 2021 census "built up area" I felt it was inconsistent so I used this site https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/cities/walesua/ that has it all the same stats except there is no longer a drastic population drop off since 2011 also I could not find stats for St Asaph or St David's. thoughts? Editor account 2222 (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"All population figures and depicted boundaries are based on output areas officially assigned to the 2022 built-up areas and combined like the 2011 built-up areas. Output areas often include some unbuilt parts. However, tabulated area figures refer to (typically smaller) actual built-up areas in order to present a more realistic population density. Some of the 2001 figures are approximate values." extract from the site Editor account 2222 (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Editor account 2222, Citypopulation.de is a WP:SELFPUB with dubious reliability so prefer not to use it. The ONS reduced Wrexham’s BUA and as the main source for these “urban areas” their use probably matters. And as local to Wrexham, the areas included in 2011 didn’t make sense, and 40,000 more correct. I raised a discussion at Talk:Wrexham on the issue. DankJae 13:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

makes sense now that I remember 2001 census put it closer to 40,000 but I was just doubtful at first since the major cities in south wales sprawl up into the valleys. anyway thanks Editor account 2222 (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Editor account 2222, my only issue with adding the urban areas is that I don’t think most consider Cwmbran part of Newport for example. Best trim to the Newport BUA subdivision. DankJae 13:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Brecon Beacons split

Just a quick heads up. You pinged two users to that discussion apparently based on their previous support of a split. The discussion is informal and it's not a big deal here, but you might want to be careful of WP:CANVAS. I may have misread the situation too, so to be clear, I don't see any harm this time - more just a heads up to avoid the appearance of something. E.g by posting at Wikiproject Wales instead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy, yes yes I am aware, it's just the previous two opposers didn't seem active anymore so felt no worth of pinging them. Happy to post to the project. DankJae 11:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Relief map of Wrexham

Hi DankJae - close study of your very nice labelled relief map of Wrexham County Borough has allowed me to do the same for Monmouthshire. Many thanks. One question. When I hover over it, I get a pop-up label that says "Monmouthshire is located in Monmouthshire". That's not very informative! Any idea how I change it/get rid of it? KJP1 (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1, use the alt parameter to replace the autogenerated label. Just did for Wrexham, and I think it works. DankJae 12:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah - much better. Muchas gracias. KJP1 (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Lee Waters

why have you deleted TRUE FACTS regarding Lee Waters resignation? Please reinstate asap 2A00:23C6:8A0F:3501:B540:957C:C871:722 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Most of its still there, just reduced the focus on quotes, which isn't necessarily facts. DankJae 23:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding Welsh Wikipedia

Hello there,

I notice that your profile includes a box stating that you no longer contribute to 'Welsh nationalist Wikipedia', which links to the Welsh-language Wicipedia, and includes its logo.

I think that it is problematic to declare that all contributors to the Welsh-language Wikipedia are 'nationalists', as you are saying essentially that they are all of a certain political belief, and the impression given is that it is one you disagree with. This sort of generalisation is unkind at best, and prejudicial at worst.

Many contributors to the Welsh-language Wikipedia contribute to the English-language Wikipedia also. I wonder whether they are aware that, according to you, they would automatically be 'nationalists'? You are very engaged in Welsh and Wales-related topics here, and so this assumption on your part does call in question your biases. You and others have previously called out others for their preceived 'agendas': where does this leave you, then?

I'm not looking to call you out or claim some sort of moral high-ground. I am asking rather whether you would reconsider your position, in the interest of consistency and fairness? Also, I hopefully don't need to explain to you that Welsh-speakers are not a homogenous group, and have many different political beliefs - as much as anybody else. Drewgii (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - Obviously, DankJae will respond in their own way in their own time, but noting they are away and have limited availability for Wikipedia just now, I thought I'd make an observation or two. I've seen a lot of DankJae's work as I also edit extensively on Welsh topics. I have always found their editing to be scrupulously neutral. My guess, and it is only that, is they encountered editors with a strong Welsh-nationalist POV on the Welsh Wikipedia, and that led to their no longer participating there. Certainly they, and I, and many others, have experienced Welsh-nationalist POV editing here on the English Wikipedia, and it can be very problematic, and exhausting, to deal with. One other thought - you registered your account today, and this is the first, and only, edit you have ever made. Isn't that a little...odd? KJP1 (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure there are countless instances of people pursuing POV edits on Wikipedia, whether they be 'Welsh nationalists' or any other kind of nationalist. The same couild be said of 'British nationalists', being the other side of the coin. If somebody were to incude a box in their user page saying that all English-language contributors in the UK were 'British nationalists', then I'm sure they'd be deemed unreliable and biased. I'm not sure why calling Welsh-language Wikipedia 'Welsh nationalists Wikipedia' is different. It is a disparaging generalisation, and unfair.

Do you not agree that DankJae's assertion is problematic? It certainly does not assume good faith, and is quite contrary to being "scrupulously neutral", as you say. If that is the case, I'm sure they would recognise this, and maybe reconsider their accusations. Also, what relevance does the fact I've made an account today have? I too have in interest in Wales-related topics, and that's how I came across DankJae's page, as they are very active in this regard. Drewgii (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I added it in frustration after having a small dispute there and being labelled “anti-Welsh” and threatened with a ban because an admin disliked my edits here, and then having many of my edits there reverted all at once. But I accept, it may be too generalising and appreciate the good articles and editors there when there is some. Although I still believe parts are still POV, nonetheless will keep it to myself.

You connected to Wicipedia? Nonetheless I don’t wish to associate with it, likely to the pleasure of some of them there. Regards DankJae 14:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not connected to Wicipedia, no, but I do know of work done by staff at such organisations as the National Library of Wales, and various other projects that pull together specialists from other fields and organisations. I am not comfortable with the not-very-subtle suggestion that they would all be deemed, by default, 'nationalists' for having edited on Wicipedia. There is good work done, and it is a shame to see it thrown into question so off-handedly because of a bad experience you've had with presumably a handful of individuals.

Should such staff, for example, edit on English Wikipedia, they would presumably not be granted good faith by yourself, based on your user page. I don't think that this is constructive, and if Welsh-langauge Wikipedia is to be treated as such, we could easily end up with a sort of segragation, which would be a great loss, as there are many, many specialists in Wales and Welsh matters who speak Welsh and who would not welcome the accusation levelled at them. Drewgii (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I know which specific editors must be watched but there indeed are many I do also appreciate and view them as good faith and leave be. If the userbox, added in frustration gave that impression, I apologise. Yes I may have come in contact with the more aggressive bunch because I edit and critique sensitive topics here, pushing for neutrality or policy as much as I can. There is in-evidently a divide as “staff” cannot edit on English Wikipedia. DankJae 17:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

And tbh, the whole reason I added that is because I was exactly labelled as basically a "British nationalist" aka "anti-Welsh" at Wicipedia and users there call this Wikipedia "English nationalist" or "Unionist", so they have been throwing generalisations way longer and earlier.

But I wish this discussion put to bed, I shouldn't have acted in the same disparaging way as some there do. DankJae 19:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, DankJae. Thank you for your work on Cabinet Secretary for Housing. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving a comment! DankJae 18:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Heads-up

There's a sockmaster, whose previous accounts have been blocked, active at Camp Nou right now. You reverted and improved some of their disruption, but I found it easier to go back to a version (again) from before they were blocked. I wasn't reverting you, but the page history shows it that way because I just took the article all the way back. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Fred Zepelin, ok. If its related to Catalonia too, then noticed it. DankJae 16:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, definitely same guy. Thanks for the catch. I'll recommend that for PP too. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Fred Zepelin, back to Camp Nou, do I re-instate my edits? "under-renovation stadium" sounds off, and unusual emphasis, but fine to leave it for a bit. And the Spotify addition was cited, however, fully understand WP:BE in this case on the sockmaster, and tbh only found that article after seeing the sock's work and investigation at Catalonia. DankJae 17:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh wait, you started the SPI's, thanks! DankJae 17:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to get the page protected first, and then go to work on improving the lead. You're right, "under-renovation stadium" is a little clunky, and those aren't my words (I don't think), but it can definitely be improved. As for the Spotify bit, the sourcing was to fcbarcelona.com and most secondary sources are still using just "Camp Nou". As the sponsorship is temporary (4 years), I feel relegation to the body of the article for the naming rights deal is appropriate. It's down there, with some secondary sources. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok, happy to wait. If a stadium is sponsored there is usually "known as [name] for sponsorship reasons", but if it is still the early days and only used by few sources then I guess it isn't needed for now. DankJae 17:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Your wording on the intro paragraph was better, I re-incorporated it now that the page is protected. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Prince of Wales, King of England.

I understand there is no source for my including regarding the Prince of Wales. But I feel there should be a better inclusion about the continuation of the title Prince of Wales and the use as title for the heir apparent of the King of England. So, I don't have sources, any ideas as to how to fully elaborate the text ? Cltjames (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cltjames Is it really needed there? As the article doesn’t really mention it. I reduced it to have “English and British monarchs” there were also Queens of England. Doesn’t make sense to say “today” and “King of England” and I had no idea why you mentioned the empire and Commonwealth? DankJae 00:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, well... Today, we learn there is a continuation. And this brings me back to what I've mentioned before, the list ends as 1500. But there is a technicality to say Wales has rulers today in the shape of a first minister. But, this is an issue for another day, TTYL. Cltjames (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

As stated then, those are leaders not “rulers” the current list should limit to medieval rulers as they’re more suitable for the term. If really needed, open to a short paragraph in a “post-medieval”/modern section but that information should already be present in a bigger article that readers can be directed to? DankJae 07:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

While writing that last comment to the IP...

I saw this: [9]. I expect the same is true in other languages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy? What are you referring to? That was done months ago if referring to TG, I raised a discussion at WP:WALES on it? The IP is demoting Eryri not promoting it? DankJae 13:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I knew it was months ago. Didn't realise that was one you had noticed. I was just letting you know. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy, I think I counted 32 Wikipedias. DankJae 13:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Certainly does not bode well for any appeal to his topic ban. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Also I suggest you self revert your last revert of the IP. You are over 3RR. If you self revert, it should be fine. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy, its not the same edit? They removed Eryri. DankJae 13:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

No more than 3 reverts on one page regardless of what. The rule is stupid, but still suggest you self revert. Don't want you copping a short collateral ban when the IP gets reported. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah right. DankJae 13:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy, self-reverted the last one. I do struggle understanding 3RR process, and had no choice but to let vandals win many times. DankJae 13:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I know. Bright line rules are fraught with dangers. But now I have reverted out the IPs change and left them very clear warnings. If they revert again, we can safely report at the edit warring noticeboard. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Soccer/Football in Aberdare article.

Hi DankJae,

Apologies the discussion was in my edit notes rather than the talk page, the change was made because the whole sports section discusses three separate football codes of which "soccer" or "association football" is one. Within many of the sources in this section (especially historic newspaper articles) terms like "football match" and "football rules" often refer to Rugby League and (more rarely) Rugby Union.

In terms of "British English" I'm sorry but that's not right, Soccer is a British English term and is defined as such on Wiktionary. As for popular understanding, all British English speakers understand the term Soccer refers to Association football while "Football" has the ambiguities I have outlined. Cymrogogoch (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cymrogogoch, in common usage "football" is to mean Association football in British English, and most other articles including Football in Wales, Sport in Cardiff#Football, Newport, Wales, Wrexham, Chester, Football in London, etc. "Football" is clearly referring to Association Football, but if needed then just add "association"? I don't see a reason why Aberdare is special from the rest of Wales?

If there is confusion between sources, then the article should specify which type of football, for example add "(Rugby) football" in text, but not introduce terms more commonly found in American English to an article written in British English. Yes "Soccer" is from Britain, but not commonly used in Britain. Most people from Aberdare won't say "soccer". DankJae 22:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this.

"I don't see a reason why Aberdare is special from the rest of Wales?"

The nomenclature is unique to the town, as shown in the continued use of Aberdare RUFC (instead of Aberdare RFC) more than a century after Aberdare RLFC folded (I believe this is unique for a Welsh rugby). All three football codes discuss in the sports section have been prevalent at one time or another in the town, and having top-flight professional Rugby League and Association Football clubs (as well as being the first home ground to Wales Rugby League) compounded the terminology issues in the formative years of both sports.

"Yes "Soccer" is from Britain, but not commonly used in Britain."

I think we've now moved from an argument for British English to common usage. Obviously, UK sporting discourse is dominated by Association Football, and there is real linguistic currency in simply calling the favoured code "football" but I think using a word which also refers to two other prominent codes when we have a perfectly good unique term is just silly. People seem to get upset about this, think it's an Americanism or some form of slight when it's really just about clarity of text.

I would argue your point that "Most people from Aberdare won't say "soccer", I think areas which are not wholly dominated by one code do tend to use "soccer" more than the UK as a whole. I am from Aberdare and must admit that I tend to switch between "soccer" and "football" interchangeably. That said, I do not think colloquial speech is relevant to an argument for "common British-English usage".

I'd be happy with Association Football or Soccer, just needs something to distinguish it as a singular code of football. Cymrogogoch (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cymrogogoch, fully understand the argument why "football" may lack clarity in historical contexts. But if we need to specify then "Association football" is much more recognisable to the audience interested in Aberdare. May that be used over "soccer"? DankJae 21:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)