Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales/Archive 2023

Archive 2020

Archive 2021

Archive 2022

Archive 2023

Tidying WP:Wales stub categories and quality assessments

As a Christmas/new year activity I have started tidying the stub article mismatches in WP:Wales. For example, where a mainspace article has a stub template but the WP assessment is Start, in most cases the stub template can be removed. (There are about 1800 articles that are candidates for this treatment). Similarly there are mismatches in Stub and Start classes as articles have been improved over time and not reassessed. Many Stub assessments are now clearly Start or C quality. Finally I have been assessing the Unknown importance and quality articles. (About 200 done, 200 remain). If this is causing any problems, please get in touch. welsh (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Welsh Dragon Article Rating

I think Welsh Dragon has probably moved beyond start class. Anyone care to propose a re-assessment? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I've just done it. – PeeJay 23:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that @PeeJay. Glad that co-operative editing on the article led to a big improvement, thanks @Sirfurboy for working with me. Titus Gold (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Slate industry in Wales

Slate industry in Wales could do with some expert eyes to ensure it keeps it's FA status. It's in a pretty good state, but could do with a few more citations, especially at the end of paragraphs. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. — Voice of Clam 21:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Citations seem ok at a glance. Removed one non-cited sentence and replaced it with a cited sentence. The paragraph could do with perhaps one or two more sentences on the effect of unemployment etc. Titus Gold (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Holt, Wrexham

Hi, I started a discussion a few months ago at Talk:Holt, Wrexham#Village vs Town over whether it is a town or village. Any participation is welcome. Probably should've raised it earlier but forgot. Thanks DankJae 13:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Welsh Dragon

Dear all, I am requesting editor assistance at Welsh Dragon, please see Talk:Welsh Dragon#Celtic and Roman Symbolism. I may be too close to this article, and so I am sure there is a middle ground that editors can find, but right now I am knee deep in marking, and with a perfect storm of staff absence and teaching that means I simply have no time to fight it further. If anyone with some understanding of historical sources and sourcing requirements can take a look, please, then maybe improvements to the article can be made. Many thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Would also welcome other editors' input. Out of interest, what is your teaching profession @Sirfurboy? Titus Gold (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

If there is any contention of the content, it seems to be copied in this edit to Flag of Wales. Just raising awareness, should the discussion lead anywhere. DankJae 22:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, any changes made to that particular paragraph can be carried over. Titus Gold (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently not so, because every time your edits are challenged, you just put them back, e.g.: Simply restored: [1], then restored with a different citation that you also hadn't read [2] and then a challenge of the whole section you are basing on a misreading of Llywelyn's Masters thesis in Creative Writing: [3]. And your response to having the material challenged is to then add it to another page where it is also not relevant. Please familiarise yourself with WP:BRD. Although the process is optional, it is a much more constructive way to find a consensus than to initiate an edit war. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

1 you removed this because you simply said that it doesn't fit the Roman origins theory and then we agreed that we should be including what the "sources say". There are other theories other than this one. Perhaps I should have discussed this further with you before re-including so this is fair criticism of a re-add. 2 (same sentence again) I added a corrected citation after you challenged the citation. Your revert was justified here because my citation was incorrect which I then corrected.

3 you simply reverted to a previous version of the page from 27th with a large amount of text including my other additions which you have not addressed and from other editors which you have not addressed either. You should make targeted and justified removals and bring them to talk page.

If you want to remove particular sentences and bring them to talk page, please go ahead for us to discuss. Titus Gold (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Agriculture in Wales

Agriculture in Wales has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Loudoun Square station move

This is probably not controversial but I just want to make sure. I have requested Loudoun Square railway station be moved to Butetown railway station, based on new information. See Talk:Loudoun Square railway station. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 20:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales

This is currently the, sole, Category for landscapes on the Cadw/ICOMOS Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales. Given that there are over 400 of them, and rising, would it make sense to have sub-categories by Principal areas, e.g. Registered Parks and Gardens in Monmouthshire, in Rhondda Cynon Taff, etc.? This would mirror how Listed buildings, [[Category:Listed buildings in Wales by county]] and Scheduled monuments, [[Category:Scheduled monuments in Wales]] are treated. It would also be similar to the list approach being followed in England, although there regions are being used, e.g. Listed parks and gardens in the East Midlands. However, it's not the approach currently being used for Categories, [[Category:Listed garden and park buildings by grade in the United Kingdom]]. It would, of course, be possible to further sub-divide the Welsh Categories by grade, e.g. I, II* etc., as we do for listed buildings, but that may be a step too far.

Wikipedia Categorisation is not my forté and I'm sure there are lots of other things to consider that I've not thought of. I'd be interested in others' views. KJP1 (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Some potential additions to the category

TSventon (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

TSventon - yep, there is certainly no shortage of pages to add. Cadw have been having a blitz, probably linked to the Register becoming statutory.Many/most of the Monmouthshire ones were added in 2022. Which is why I think we need to agree on an approach to Categorisation. As an aside, User:DavidCane and User:EdwardUK have done some great stuff with the Cadw/National Historic Assets of Wales templates, that allow you to do links to the specific Cadw pages for listed buildings, scheduled monuments, historic parks and gardens, protected wrecks etc. [4]. They need a little bit of tweaking dependent on what you’re describing, but they work great! KJP1 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

While I'm not too into categories, sub-categorising by county (principal area) seems the best and more common way to do it, therefore support it. Cannot think of other locators, some historic and preserved counties are same-named and/or overlap and regions are too ambiguous to use to categorise. Most English listed parks are categorised by grade then county, i.e. Category:Grade I listed parks and gardens in Cumbria (regions just for the list articles). Wales' set of articles, while increasing, is not overly long (~100 of the 400) as articles right now, so seems not needed to categorise by grade right now, and it can be done in the future, when a category becomes too long. Plus can it be decapped? i.e. Category:Registered parks and gardens in Monmouthshire, and btw its "Taf" in categories for RCT (just so no pointless cat is made). Thank you for creating any registered parks/gardens articles. DankJae 23:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

So, I've made a start with [[Category:Registered historic parks and gardens in Monmouthshire]]. Only one cock-up so far; I should have gone with DankJae's naming suggestion from the off. It seems to have worked out ok, and Sventon's step-by-step guide made it easier than I'd anticipated. I'll set up the Cats for the other Principal Areas, and populate them with the articles we have to date. Many thanks indeed for the support and suggestions. KJP1 (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

KJP1, Category:Registered historic parks and gardens in Monmouthshire looks like a good start, I have linked to it by adding a colon before the word category. I have added it to Category:Tourist attractions in Monmouthshire using WP:HOTCAT, which is a simple way to update categories. You can nominate any errors you create for deletion using WP:G7. TSventon (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

That name is fine too, historic is in the register title. Though wasn’t technically my suggestion, you suggested it above? But you are free to choose any name. Thanks for doing the sub-categorising :) DankJae 09:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much both - for the advice and for picking up my errors! I think we're done for now, although, as TSventon has noted, there are articles that should be in here that haven't been categorised so that they appear. And, at some point, we should really have by-Principal Area list articles, like Grade I buildings, or scheduled monuments. But that is for another day. I've much enjoyed the collaboration. KJP1 (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

p.s. I think the 22 principal areas are now covered. They just need populating! KJP1 (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! And yes they do need populating, so unless someone else does it before me, I'd probably create some local ones to me (Wrexham-Flintshire) at some point. DankJae 11:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you start in the north, I'm starting in Monmouthshire, and we can meet somewhere around Knighton. KJP1 (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Could someone create Category:Heritage registers in Wales per Category:Heritage registers in England and sister categories? I would create it myself but I don't know much about heritage registers. Also it would be useful to create a Wikidata property for Cadw/ICOMOS Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales ID number so that the ID numbers could be added to the Wikidata items for the individual parks and gardens. This has been done for Cadw Building IDs, so Raglan Castle (Q2630723) has property Cadw Building ID (P1459) 2101. TSventon (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

New templates

Hi, just raising awareness that @Titus Gold and later I have been making templates. Some have been disputed, even by me over duplication, so I raise it here whether these templates are worthy. Most are visible at User:AlexNewArtBot/WalesSearchResult and finding "Template:" + recently made-today {{Languages of Wales}} and {{Welsh language}}. Personally neutral on the templates, but later responded by creating some of my own and fine if any go to WP:TfD.

Although if a new Wales template be made for a subject, should the UK one (if it has one) be removed? TG has been removing UK templates supplanted with the Wales ones, for example at Snowdonia, Brecon Beacons and Languages of Wales. IMO, if a UK template has a link to the article, it should remain, but open to a discussion to establish any consensus. Thanks DankJae 01:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

TG since made {{Sites of Specific Scientific Interest in Wales}} [sic] which is a cut off of what I made at {{Protected areas of Wales}}. Are overlapping templates ok? Seems excessive, would prefer a larger template than many smaller, especially if Wales-wide. DankJae 01:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

That particular one is less important than others Titus Gold (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The basic principle of template inclusion is WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, templates are not supposed to supplant others, and any removals contrary to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL with no explanation/consensus should be reverted. CMD (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I do have concerns about the sudden multiplication of templates, particularly ones like Languages of Wales which is being used to replace Languages of the United Kingdom. I wonder when we will also have languages of Ceredigion and then languages of Aberaeron. The Languages of the United Kingdom is a clearly focussed template, linking to all the language pages of languages found in the UK, and providing added value as it shows the linguistic diversity of the British state. Languages of Wales is clearly a subset of this, but padding itself out with links to literature pages which stray from the topic focus. Replacing one with the other is reducing the value, and appears to have an agenda. Including both is more compliant with the guideline, but as these templates are multiplying we are seeing template clutter. Templates should have a purpose beyond asserting Wales as a unit of aggregation. No objections to templates per se, but would prefer to see some discussion on a per template basis rather than the fait accompli approach. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Happy to simplify Languages of Wales template to make it more focussed if you like. Titus Gold (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Probably to help, here are all the new Wales-wide templates both TG and I have made below:

List

{{Healthcare education in Wales}}, now redirected per a discussion {{Agriculture in Wales}} {{Breeds originating in Wales}}, discussion opened {{Transport in Wales}} (navboxes) {{Health in Wales}}, where HE was merged above. {{Tourism in Wales}}, discussion opened {{Protected areas of Wales}} {{Theatres in Wales}} {{Lighthouses in Wales}} {{Languages of Wales}} {{Welsh language}}, discussion opened {{Sites of Specific Scientific Interest in Wales}}, discussion, proposed for deletion. {{Economy of Wales}} {{Welsh devolution}} {{Biodiversity of Wales}} Some for Scotland were also made.

Open for any to be discussed, some IMO are helpful. Thanks DankJae 12:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not template expert, and I can understand concerns re. proliferation/duplication, but I personally find the Protected areas one to be helpful and have made a suggestion for possible inclusion on that template's Talkpage. KJP1 (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Since made three more draft templates, Draft:Template:Geography of Wales, Draft:Template:Architecture of Wales, and Draft:Template:Archaeology of Wales. The latter as a potential alternative for the proposals on at Template talk:Protected areas of Wales, if such similar templates and articles are purely from a IUCN categorical perspective, although it could be added there or another template? (Considered a "Historic preservation"/"Conservation" template) Not 100% sure of these three draft templates above, they could lack scope or purpose, hence why they're drafts. Are these templates ok? or unnecessary? Understanding if they are the latter per WP:TMP. DankJae 23:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Cadw heritage list templates

Parks and Gardens

Having been asked to create a set of templates for use in list articles based on the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales I have made {{Cadw park garden header}} and {{Cadw park garden row}}. The documentation has examples of the parameters and what the lists would look like. These are designed to look and function in a similar way to the equivalent templates for listed buildings, the main differences, and the reasons for them are:

1. the addition of a column for the designation grade - as unlike with most listed buildings lists, all the grades will be initially covered by a single list. However this is optional in case there is any list that does not need it.
2. rearranging the columns relating to location/mapping, so that they are grouped together - instead of being split either side of the date listed column.
3. making the function column optional - as most sites will be either park or garden a separate column is often unnecessary. For ease of editing if the function parameter is used then the column can be added/removed without losing any information - as the text will transferred from/to the notes column (no function column would be similar in appearance to Grade II* listed buildings in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough
4. the parameters num= and uid= replace hb=, these work the same way as the {{National Historic Assets of Wales}} so that the reference number will link to the Cadw site.

An example:

Name	Location Grid Ref. Geo-coordinates	Date Listed	Site type	Description / Notes	Grade	Reference Number	Image
Abergavenny Castle	Abergavenny SO 29856 14011 51°49′13″N 3°01′09″W	1 February 2022	Park	The grounds of the medieval castle ruins were landscaped c. 1800 with walks created within the curtain walls. In the later nineteenth century further landscaping took place, a formal garden was laid out, and the castle grounds became a public park.	II	PGW(Gt)9(MON)

It would be good to know if anyone has suggestions for changes that could be made or features that could be added, or if anyone with technical knowledge can find (and repair) any errors of templates. If anything in the documentation is unclear it would be helpful to know so that this can improved too. EdwardUK (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Listed buildings / Scheduled monuments

It seems preferable to aim for a consistent look with the lists of Cadw heritage sites. For listed buildings {{Cadw listed building header}} it would be possible to add in similar features to the park/garden template such as the optional column for grade. Currently the lists of scheduled monuments use wikitables rather than a template, so would it be preferable to create one which provides a similar layout to park/garden and listed buildings. The template I suggest making would change the order of the columns used - examples of the current wikitable list and possible template:

Image	Name	Site type	Community	Location	Details	Historic County	Period	SAM No & Refs
	Gelligaer Standing Stone	Standing stone	Bedlinog	51.7221°N 3.2994°W / 51.7221; -3.2994 (Gelligaer Common Standing Stone), SO103034	A 2 m (6.6 ft) high stone on open moorland. Probably Bronze Age and with the possible remains of a Bronze Age burial alongside. An inscription on the stone, now mostly illegible, is described as either post-Roman/Early Christian or Early Medieval.	Glamorganshire	1.1 Prehistoric Early Medieval	GM221

Name	Community Grid ref. Geo‑coordinates	Date Listed	Site type	Description / Notes	Period	Reference Number	Image
Gelligaer Standing Stone	Bedlinog SO103034 51.7221°N 3.2994°W / 51.7221; -3.2994 (Gelligaer Common Standing Stone)	19 February 1953	Standing stone	A 2 m (6.6 ft) high stone on open moorland. Probably Bronze Age and with the possible remains of a Bronze Age burial alongside. An inscription on the stone, now mostly illegible, is described as either post-Roman/Early Christian or Early Medieval.	1.1 Prehistoric Early Medieval	GM221

The main changes here are: moving the image to the right, grouping the location/mapping columns, adding the date listed and removing the historic county (seems irrelevant when lists are divided by region, but could be kept as an optional column). Are there any particular features that editors would find useful or suggestions for the templates for listed buildings or scheduled monuments. EdwardUK (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

First off, huge thanks to EdwardUK for setting these up. They look absolutely great, and will be invaluable for creating articles/lists on the historic parks and gardens in the same way we already have them for Listed buildings and Scheduled monuments. And thanks as well to DankJae and TSventon for their guidance and support on the way. We've made some good progress on the categorisation here, Category:Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales, although the northern Principal areas remain to be populated. It would be very good to have any feedback for improvements/additions, and then we can look to make a start on the gardens. Obviously, any changes to the buildings and monuments articles/lists would be a bigger job again, and we'd want to make sure they worked, for editors and readers, before embarking on that challenge. KJP1 (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This all looks good and I don't see any errors. I'd suggest only linking either the grid reference or the co-ordinates, as that allows auto-generation of a map with one marker for each site (it's not a problem to include both but set up the template to link only one). I also wonder whether "function" is the best term? "Site type" as used in the other templates sounds better to my ears. Warofdreams talk 19:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The duplicate map markers is a problem that also occurs with the listed building template so we could edit both templates at the same time to solve this issue. By far the easiest solution would be to de-link the grid ref (simply remove the "gbmappingsmall" from template) as it would require minimal changes to the templates and have no impact on the appearance, whereas for the co-ordinates the template also reformats the numbers, so having this display correctly without the linking function may be harder to code.

For park/garden and scheduled monuments "Site type" is the term used on the Cadw listings so it would make sense to do the same. I used "function" because it is what is already used by the listed buildings template (though there is no equivalent term for listed buildings on the Cadw website). Changing the name displayed for the column is no problem, but if the function= parameter is renamed for listed buildings it could mean having to edit every list that uses the template (unless there is a workaround for this that could be used), an alternative is to rename the column, keeping the parameter as it is, and add an explanation to the documentation. EdwardUK (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Is this about what should appear at Cadw/ICOMOS Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales? How many separate tables, is there a list of them? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment 1: Creating header, row, and footer templates this way is not needed, and frankly should not be done, IMHO. Definitely not if this is just one or a few list-articles, IMHO. Also not even if there are to be 10,000 tables. The coding is not really super-hard for a very few editors, but for practical purposes the coding is in fact hard to understand, and is inflexible. U.S. National Register of Historic Places list-articles and various U.K. list-articles do use templates. The U.S. NRHP row template system is broken, in that it requires/enforces bad information to be provided (bad links for documents going to URLs which NEVER worked, or which USED TO WORK BUT DO NO LONGER). It is effectively impossible even for small groups of long-term experienced editors to update or improve the templates. So, for 5 to 10 years literally there have been something like 40,000 bad links tricking readers and less-experienced editors. Proposals to update or improve the templates fail, because there is some complexity about data sources and about coding, and no administrator will ever make any change. (I hope i don't sound frustrated....) You all may be getting along now, but you all won't be here together at the same time, in the future when some changes are needed. It is simply harder for anyone to figure out what multiple templates do and how any change can be made, if unnecessary templates are used. And, there is a tendency of administrator editors to choose to lock templates supposedly to prevent vandalism, taking control away from local informed editors. There has never been a case in Wikipedia recorded history of anyone vandalizing a row template, but you cannot prevent people from locking the templates. And there is zero, NONE, Zilch value in trying to reduce file sizes, numbers of characters in articles.

So just don't create or use row templates, ever. [I do see that is exactly what is being done here, and you're not about to roll it back, y'all are committed and can't be stopped. However, in the future, remember you were warned (maybe too late, sorry, but you are hereby warned).] --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment 2: Do note that tables directly written out (without use of row templates) is how things were done in the past, and are simply fine. Note in U.S. there are numerous related list-articles such as List of Masonic buildings in the United States and others on navigation template Template:Lists of clubhouse buildings in the United States which do not use row templates. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment 3: All of this is no good if images are not included. User:KJP1/sandbox_5_Monmouthshire_gardens has a column of images. What is the point of creating a table about a list of beautiful places if no hint of the beauty is provided? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Doncram - not sure I understand the basis of your concern. If it’s around inflexibility, I sure future editors will be able to make changes, as we are proposing to do here. If’s it’s the format per se that you don’t like, it is how many, related, list-type articles are presented, e.g. listed buildings, scheduled monuments and indeed parks and gardens in England. And as to images, we absolutely agree. I think building/landscape articles without images are missing a key dimension.

I do think having an agreed format for parks and gardens in Wales is important. We do for the listed buildings and the sms and, as of 2022, the gardens have equal statutory importance. It took Cadw and others the best part of 30 years to get to this point and I think we should properly reflect that.

Perhaps what we will do is set up the Monmouthshire Parks and Gardens page - the one you’ve seen in the sandbox - as a list article. That might give other editors the clearest idea of what we’re trying to achieve. If it’s really problematic, we can always delete it subsequently. I appreciate your input, even if we’re not apparently in agreement. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The group of Cadw related templates could be used for around 100 articles. There are 43 articles for listed buildings as they are split into lists for Grade I and Grade II* (no Grade I for Blaenau Gwent). Then there may be additional uses such as mixed grade lists in articles covering specific topics, for example listed buildings by an architect or in a local area. For scheduled monuments there are currently more than 30 articles as some regions have been sub-divided by historic period. For parks/gardens we would add separate articles for each region, each with their own list, which would mean 22 in total. If the Cadw website changes so the links to it no longer work then changing the templates to remedy this would be prevent having to individually replace thousands of links. EdwardUK (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I have made changes to the park/garden template to de-link the "grid ref", and also rename "function" to "site_type" which was still possible to do easily as there are only a couple of example uses that needed adjusting. EdwardUK (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

By way of an update, we now have three list articles worked up; Registered historic parks and gardens in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough, Registered historic parks and gardens in Monmouthshire and Registered historic parks and gardens in Rhondda Cynon Taf. We hope that editors find them useful. Over time, the other (19!) principal areas need covering, and we can think about whether updates to the linked listed buildings/scheduled monuments pages may be useful. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Now four, through Ed's efforts; Registered historic parks and gardens in Bridgend County Borough. KJP1 (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Rhiwlas Hall, Gwynedd

Does anyone know this place, "Rhiwlas Hall, Bala (28709)". Coflein. RCAHMW.? The Victorian pile was demolished, although replaced with a 1950s effort by Clough Williams-Ellis. It has a pile of listed buildings and a registered garden. The question is where to locate it. Coflein says Bala while Cadw says Llandderfel. To me, it looks a lot closer to Bala, but I think Llandderfel is the Community. It needs some distinguisher as there are a number of Rhiwlas's. Any advice appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely in Llandderfel Community - the boundary with Bala Community (to the south) and with Llanycil Community (to the west) follows Afon Tryweryn. We do have a redirect at Rhiwlas, Llandderfel which you could use. But it's not very helpful; Bala is the nearest sizeable settlement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Redrose, that's helpful. But I think you're right, there's not a sensible place to land it. I'll just have to do a new article over the redirect. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

List of restuarants in Wales

I have many concerns about List of restaurants in Wales. I can't identify where notability is supposed to lie in this list. Most of the content is not notable. It is an extremely partial list. For example, it lists two restaurants on Anglesey while, at the same time, there are more than 20 in Menai Bridge alone. Many of the entries that are included are way out of date. I cannot see how an article like this can be of any value unless it is restricted to notable restaurants. My preference would be to see the article gone, but I would welcome views on how it could be made to be useful and notable.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Per WP:NOTGUIDE, Wikipedia is not a guide, and a list of restaurants is specifically mentioned under that heading of nots. I will nominate for deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

And nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in Wales Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Penal Laws against Wales 1402

Would appreciate a look at Penal Laws against Wales 1402 as I think the quality of text and sources is currently sufficient to remove the neutrality banner. Titus Gold (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Asking again for a third editor to bring input on this, since there are no specific suggestions for improvement in order to remove the neutrality banner. Titus Gold (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Tommy Farr (and use of 'Bach')

At the talk page I've tried to prevent the Tonypandy Terror from being also nicknamed "Tommy Bach". I won't make this an edit war but would welcome the views of other editors. I'll gladly accept a Welsh consensus, either way. Diolch. Bjenks (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

History-related discussions

There are Welsh history-related discussions at English rule in Wales, Penal Laws against Wales 1402, Welsh Revolt and Owain Glyndŵr over specific use of language, sourcing, scope of the articles and/or title discussions. Education of Welsh History and Proposed return of artefacts to Wales have also been under discussion. Some may have become partly dormant, but a third or more opinions as suggested in a section on this page above may be beneficial. Any participants in this WikiProject and particularly those with a interest in history are welcomed to any discussion. There's also a discussion at Welsh independence concerning POV. Diolch! DankJae 02:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this DankJae. Could I specifically draw attention to a discussion I have started here: Talk:Wales in the Middle Ages#Duplication. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested Move at Proposed return of artefacts to Wales

I have had a requested move open here for 10 days: Talk:Proposed return of artefacts to Wales. Any consensus there is fragile, so grateful if any other interested editor could express a view before I request closure. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Aberdyfi has an RFC

Aberdyfi has an RFC for possible consensus over the usage of alternate spellings for the name of the community on the English language Wikipedia. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.Tk420 (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Feeder (band)

Feeder (band) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

New Water-related articles

There are discussions over Water-related articles at Talk:Reservoirs of Wales, Talk:List of reservoirs in the United Kingdom, and Talk:Water supply and sanitation in England and Wales (plus Talk:List of ports in England and Wales) over whether they should be redefined or split for Wales-only articles (therefore removing "England and Wales"). There have been disputes over the managing of these discussions, so any other editors willing to calm the situation down would be of great benefit. (Basically articles are being created, while there are active discussions). Diolch! DankJae 03:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Wales vs UK in concert articles

There is a discussion regarding the use of England, Scotland, etc. versus UK in lists of concert locations. Please add any comments at WT:WikiProject Concerts#England, Scotland, etc. vs UK. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Notification of a draft which has since been published Foreign relations of Wales

I am forming a page on the foreign relations of Wales, see Draft:Foreign relations of Wales and have also added a similar notification on the Foreign relations of the United Kingdom talk page. This seems like a more appropriate option than adding a heading here for Wales for example. Because of further attention given to the topic in popular media as well as availability of sources, now seems like an appropriate time to form the page. Titus Gold (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Foreign relations? (though technically "paradiplomacy"?) Wales does not have the powers of foreign relations, nor is it part of any (governmental) international body? AFAIAA, although happy to be proven otherwise. Autonomous regions usually do not have these types of articles? Minor diplomatic meetings usually with more local or sector leaders, is not really the pinnacle of foreign relations. General promotional meetings happen in all tiers of government, so it is not unusual, doubt there should be a Foreign relations of London article. Not sure what you mean by "popular media" most of the sources currently listed are primary, from or related to the Welsh Government, or the World Cup?? But it is still being made so being open-minded for now (WP:DEMOLISH), and some other sources if found could justify it, so just gonna wait and see, but seems to be a mash-up of various internationally related topics or strategies. (There is list of diplomatic missions in Wales) While there is no precedent it could be converted into something else, idk.

Plus could you change the heading as just saying draft is very vague. Many thanks! DankJae 18:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This is no longer a draft, as TG has moved it to main space, less than 24 hours after asking for comments. Where is the secondary source coverage of this topic that indicates it’s a suitable subject for an article, rather than yet more, poorly written, POV/OR? KJP1 (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Because of further attention given to the topic in popular media. What attention? Per Scotland, suggest WP:BLAR to Office of the First Minister. The page says up front that this is not a devolved matter so neither is it an encyclopaedic subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems to suffer from Recentism - Rather than a list of receptions held and places visited by the first minister it could probably benefit from a section on historical context discussing events/themes such as the Pennal Letter and the Welsh League of Nations Union. EdwardUK (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm only surprised TG hasn't shoe-horned Owain Glyndwr inviting foreign dignatories to the Machynlleth Parliament. But on a serious note, there is some merit for the subject. Wales has had its own government for several decades which has actively promoted the country overseas. I seem to recall Wales had an office in New York (or somewhere across the Pond). Sionk (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies. My apologies that I hadn't noticed them until now. I agree that the article is more recently focused which may be due to a more recent push by the Welsh government for international relations in recent years.

The article is a little too heavy perhaps on primary government sources at the moment and could do with use of more secondary sources. The Scotland equivalent did not seem to be discussed at all but just redirected in 2012 due to lack of article edits (only had 3 non-cited sentences).

I have made it clear in the lead that foreign relations is not devolved although this is an interesting topic. There is some amiguity in both Scotland and Wales as to where the lines actually lies when it comes to international relations."Welsh Ministers are responsible for observing and implementing the international obligations of the United Kingdom which relate to its functions."[5] When it comes to devolution, certain powers for law making, formal international agreement and military deployment are clearly centrally held and the Glasgow Climate Pact for example seemed to exclude Nicola Sturgeon.[6] (Worth noting different legislation for Wales and Scotland when it comes to devolution.)

Welsh government officials are frequently communicating and visiting politicians abroad which is a form of international diplomacy. Both the Welsh and Scottish governments have publicly available international strategies and have international offices across the world (21 offices in 12 countries for the Welsh government). The Welsh government has also made memoranda of understanding or agreements with the government of Japan, the regional governments of the Basque country and Quebec etc. There have also been funding schemes operating between Wales and other overseas countries and regions and even a year of diplomacy in a particular country (2021:"Wales in Germany", 2022:"Wales in Canada", 2023: "Wales in France").

Now that you mention foreign representatives at the Glyndŵr Senedd, perhaps it would be worth a mention as an early example of foreign relations @Sionk! Joking aside, I'm happy to add an older history section and I'm happy to move the article to a different title or back to draft temporarily if a majority of editors see fit to do any of these.

If you look at the article so far, there's plenty of content from reliable sources that quite clearly justify a page. Titus Gold (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Titus Gold - As you are fully aware, Wales doesn’t conduct foreign or international relations as we define them; these are undertaken the UK level, foreign policy being a reserved power. What it does do is conduct its external affairs, mainly in relation to economic development/trade/culture etc. So, I would certainly support a title change. Then, in relation to the article itself:

• can you look for appropriate secondary R/S that cover the topic - at present over half of your sources are Welsh Government press releases/statements, and most of the remainder are press reports of meetings/conferences etc. You don’t have a single book/journal/academic publication that covers the article topic;
• can you try and improve the prose - it’s currently pretty poor;
• when putting a draft up for discussion, can you give it longer than 24 hours before unilaterally moving it to main space - otherwise, it looks like you didn’t seriously intend to have a discussion. KJP1 (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Per KJP1 Wales does not conduct foreign or international relations, and this is another ill-conceived page for that reason. I foresee a slew of rushed title changes, but suggest slowing down on that until we know what this page is about. Per EdwardUK it could be about historical foreign relations, but I am not convinced of the benefit of separating that subject out of the history pages that already discuss the Pennal letter, both in its own article and in various articles that talk about Glyndŵr. There are enough of those with the same text copy and pasted from one to another. So this is about the modern issue (and it definitely should not contain another copy and paste from those other articles). This is also not about foreign relations, but external affairs, international affairs and major events. Aren't these already covered in articles about Welsh Government? They should be. That is where they belong.

What is the evidence that these are an encyclopaedic subject in their own right? Titus Gold I asked: "Because of further attention given to the topic in popular media." What attention? This question relates to KJP1's point: where are the reliable secondary sources that suggest this is even a topic? Sionk I agree that there is some subject of external affairs etc., but this page title is wrongheaded and POVy. Wales does not conduct foreign relations, because that term has a specific meaning and refers to a reserved power. Titus Gold, you say: There is some amiguity in both Scotland and Wales as to where the lines actually lies when it comes to international relations."Welsh Ministers are responsible for observing and implementing the international obligations of the United Kingdom which relate to its functions." This is not an ambiguity, it is a definition of the roles and responsibilities of Welsh Government. It does not conduct foreign relations but it does implement treaties and agreements (e.g. in ports and airports). Note that the police also implement international obligations, but we would not then talk about Foreign relations of the Metropolitan Police. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

There's a topic to be found here, under some form of title. Non-state actors conduct relations, and those are covered by reliable sources. There are some papers, eg. Wales engaging with the EU during Brexit, Welsh language-leveraged engagement in various regional and international forums. I wouldn't mix historical relations with devolved government relations though, that's heading into wild SYNTH territory. (There's probably a topic for the Met too, international activities of the Met or something.) CMD (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

So, I’d suggest we agree on what the article’s subject is; then whether it warrants a stand-alone or is better incorporated into existing articles; then, if it’s to be standalone, what the most suitable title is, taking into account how it’s done elsewhere. Scotland covers it under Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, as part of the Scottish Government series. Not saying that’s best, just how it’s done. As a start, could TG move it back to draft, as per their offer above, and then we can have the discussion. KJP1 (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

p.s. I’d agree that attempting to weave in historic coverage would be problematic. The Scottish page doesn’t try to cover the Auld Alliance. But then, I read User:Sionk’s suggestion as tongue in cheek! KJP1 (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally I don't think there's a need for change to the heading; Wales clearly plays a significant role in it's own foreign relations, but what is important is to acknowledge is the limitations by centrally held powers on what the Welsh government can do. I have already acknowledged this in the lead. I agree that the article needs improvement including more secondary sources including scholarly ones (of which there are available) and better prose. These are only the early stages. Titus Gold (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

While you may not, there is a clear consensus of editors who do think the title needs discussion/revision. You said above, “I’m happy to move the article to a different title or back to draft”. Is that no longer your position? KJP1 (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would suggest it's probably far more important to acknowledge that phrasing like "limitations by centrally held powers on what the Welsh government can do" is wildly misconstrued, similarly to how much of the current article is. CMD (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the state of this article, it will be the start of a new precedent, which I'd assumed was limited to sovereign states and territories. There is a request for a Scotland one citing this one. As mentioned above this too could apply to London or the Met. A lot of this article is on international visits and non-binding agreements so that can apply to many locales. DankJae 13:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, depends how much context there is, and what the best way to present the information is. Hard to place it under a ministerial post as currently done for Scotland, given there hasn't been an International Relations Minister for a few years. CMD (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's the current lead (I welcome constructive edits and to the page) "Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom (UK), with international relations remaining a UK government matter, not devolved to Wales. The Welsh government however, works to promote Welsh interest abroad with 21 international offices worldwide. The First minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford currently responsible for international relations since taking on the role from Eluned Morgan in 2020. The Welsh government has signed agreements or memoranda of understanding with other countries and regions including Japan and the Basque Country and for the last three years organised a year of diplomatic relations with a specific country; "Wales in Germany" in 2021; "Wales in Canada" in 2022; "Wales in France" in 2023."" Yes I'm happy to move to draft if there is a majority of editors agreeing with that; I've only seen one editor suggest this. Yes I brought some recently new articles for Wales to the attention of WikiProject Scotland suggesting that they may be of interest and offering my collaboration if wanted. There are already similar articles for non-sovereign entities so this isn't really a new precedent except for a devolved constituent country of the UK perhaps. I point to examples such as Foreign relations of the Faroe Islands, Foreign relations of Greenland, Foreign relations of Hong Kong (matter not devolved), Foreign relations of Macau (matter not devolved), Foreign relations of Curaçao (matter not devolved). Some of these entities seem to be in a similar position to Wales and Scotland when it comes to international relations. Mark Drakeford acts in the interest of international relations (in his official portfolio of responsibilities), taking over the role from Eluned Morgan in 2020 who was named as a minister for "international relations" up until then. Titus Gold (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Wales does not have an MoU with Japan, it has an MoU with Ōita. None of those other entities are similar to Wales. CMD (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree it should be draftified while discussing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate it may be seized upon, but, re. precedent, there is a Foreign relations of the Mayor of London article, albeit I wouldn’t personally agree with that title either. As to the Scottish example, that is just another instance of TG looking to seed their preference elsewhere, which they will then cite in any subsequent discussion. KJP1 (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The same issues arise there as here, which is why OTHERSTUFF doesn't provide precedent. That article is long forgotten by the looks of things. Also the equivalent here would be the First Minister or Welsh Government, not Wales. But again, no precedents so draftify, THEN decide what the subject is, THEN decide if it warrants a standalone article and THEN decide on a title, as you said earlier. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Draftify sounds a good idea as there are several parts of the article that need improvement. More links to relevant subjects about the Welsh economy, history and diaspora would be helpful. The section on trade seems the same as (although a more up to date version of) the corresponding section of Economy of Wales, so a link to this article would be preferable. Compared to more concise articles like Hong Kong and the Faroe Islands much of the content could be seen as trivial. It is unclear to what extent the NATO summit relates to foreign relations in Wales as other than just being the venue it did not directly involve Welsh politics, so may be more related to foreign relations of the UK. Also the establishment of a national football museum is a boost for Welsh culture, but is there anything to indicate that it is being built to improve foreign relations. EdwardUK (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Some of the entities have similar positions to Wales when it comes to foreign relations (I did not say they were "similar to Wales"). Yes *Oita, Japan I stand corrected. Scotland topic is simply an attempt to draw attention of other editors to build more significant articles on Scotland. Of course, I want to see successful and expansive WikiProjects for both Wales and Scotland. 3 editors of 7 in this discussion have now suggested "draftify" which is not a majority at the moment so it is best to be patient and wait. Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations states "Foreign relations - This describes the policies that a particular country has vis-à-vis with other countries, or on particular issues (e.g.: Foreign relations of Qatar. Additionally this also includes the category which details the network of foreign missions a country has abroad (e.g.: Qatari diplomatic missions), and diplomatic missions located in that country (e.g.: List of diplomatic missions in Russia)."

Since Wales is indeed a country as previous discussions have concluded, this is technically not a new precedent and fits into the article format. The categories do not use the term "sovereign state" and neither do the article titles such as in e.g List of sovereign states. I encourage any additional info on the precedent of the article type as I could not find any more info than this. Please suggest any page improvements on Talk:Foreign relations of Wales rather than here, but ideally constructive edits of Foreign relations of Wales would be greatly appreciated. Titus Gold (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Of every editor who has expressed a direct view, there is a clear majority to put this back to draft. You said that you would do this. You are now stalling, and trying to encourage discussion on the article Talkpage, and about the article, rather than its title, by which you hope to gain de facto acceptance of the title as it stands. Please do what you said you would do, and put it back to draft. We can then discuss in the staged approach referenced above. KJP1 (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I will move "back to draft temporarily if a majority of editors see fit to do any of these". 3/7 currently propose draftify, which as we know is not a majority. I will of course keep to my word if a majority wants to draftify. There have been no proposals for alternate article titles that I am ware of. As I have already stated, I don't think there is need for change in this regard but happy to discuss. Titus Gold (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

You do make it very hard to AGF. You are, I would suggest deliberately, misunderstanding a distinction between countries and sovereign states. There is no article entitled Foreign relations of England. That is because England’s foreign policy is conducted by the UK government. This is equally true of Wales, and indeed Scotland. I would suggest External relations, the term used in Scotland. But all of this can be discussed/agreed on the draft you previously promised. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand what a sovereign state is and I understand that Wales is a country and not a sovereign state. England is a completely different political situation to Wales and Scotland as we all know, with some saying that the prime minister essentially doubles up as the English first minister. I recommend you read about the West Lothian question. There is no doubt that the Welsh and Scottish governments both conduct international diplomacy, but they are obviously heavily limited by the devolution settlement. The UK government only is able to agree international treaties, deploy the military etc. Of course Wales and Scotland don't conduct international diplomacy to the same level as some sovereign states but they still have international relations and they are countries. There are also examples of non-governmental international relations between Wales and international partners. Again, you're misconstruing what I said, I promised to draftify if a majority of editors suggested so and I will keep to my word. Titus Gold (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Why don’t we let others decide whether your aim here, and elsewhere, is to build an encyclopaedia, or to push your POV. KJP1 (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand what a sovereign state is But you do not seem to understand what equivocation is in an argument. There is no doubt that the Welsh and Scottish governments both conduct international diplomacy. So where is the Welsh embassy in the USA? Or anywhere? Wales has no diplomatic mission because, as discussed, foreign policy is a reserved power. But yes, we can equivocate on this (as well as on the term 'country') because we can talk about sport diplomacy and cultural diplomacy and such like, as Welsh Government do here, [7], but that is not foreign relations. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes of course, letting everyone weigh in.

The definition of foreign relations can be broad and the article fits the WikiProject description. Wales has 21 international offices but no embassies as we know. That report uses the title "International Relations through Public Diplomacy and Soft Power".

From now on it's best to make specific requests in discussion or comments rather than have an endless comments that may not lead anywhere. I'm always happy to engage. Titus Gold (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if I haven't read every word of the discussion so far. In my view, there is clear evidence of Wales developing international relations (there was briefly an International relations minister) and as we have all been reminded, there are 21 international offices run by Wales. But I think at the moment Foreign relations of Wales is doing the job of a category, rather than a coherent article, gathering together some quite disparate events and initiatives that have promoted Wales overseas. And as far as I can see, all "Foreign relations of FOOland" articles take diplomacy and formal foreign policy as their subject. In the case of Wales, international links and initiatives seem to be designed to promote investment, business and tourism. I think "Foreign relations of Wales" is the wrong title, because it is not dealing with the same type of subject as Foreign relations of the United Kingdom and other "Foreign relations of FOOland" articles. Maybe (because Wales has had an International relations minister) the article should be renamed International relations of Wales. But more realistically, it would seem most of the subjects gathered in this article should be covered elsewhere, in Economy of Wales etc. or articles about the Wales Government. Sionk (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I've moved this back to draft since it wasn't ever submitted for review. Please work on it there. Deb (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Deb, many thanks. It really is much better to have the discussions on title/coverage/content etc. on a draft, rather than a live article. We can now pick up this up at the draft. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussions are now being held over this draft at Draft talk:International relations of Wales (draft since moved). Any of those commenting above in this discussion are encouraged to raise their views there. Many thanks! DankJae 01:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Rail transport in Wales draft

Rail transport in Wales has been created (now draftified from the mainspace), editors involved in this Wikiproject may be of interest of this draft, and any assistance is welcomed. Although I do wonder if Railways in Wales is more suited to the scope. It was created wholly focusing on criticism of the UK Government though, since trying to make it more neutral, so any help is welcome. DankJae 19:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Added this here as I really am busy right now, but it was published as very focused on criticism of the UK Government, so not NPOV, so bring it here. DankJae 19:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@DankJae It was certainly not focused on UK Government criticism. Do not misrepresent the entire article (in it's infancy) based on two sources; HS2 and Northern Powerhouse rail. They are very prominent topics in the news in Wales. Very unfair and undue misrepresentation. Titus Gold (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Please come and assist with the page if you have time to do so. It would be much appreciated, thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You published it way too early and started on the criticism. Yes they are prominent in news, but this main topic here is the actual network itself. DankJae 19:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This is the diff when Dankjae moved this to draft: [8]. This indeed looks very POVy. It is already looking a bit better, but is a long way from being an encyclopaedic article about rail transport in Wales. No strong opinion as to whether Railways in Wales is better as a title. I don't have time nor expertise to write about Welsh railways, sorry. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

So you want to exclude a mention of HS2 then? Titus Gold (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Those things can be mentioned with due weight, in the whole context of the network, they're merely political controversies, therefore should not be main focus of the article. They can be under a smaller section of a bigger article, but when published it was 80% of the article. Details should be at the main article pages themselves. I am not suppressing these concerns, I added the Wales section at HS2 and NPR on the controversy, I very much care about this topic, but it should not be given undue weight in an overview article on Wales' rail network. DankJae 19:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

And surely if the page subject is Rail transport in Wales, HS2 is, in fact, off topic. Barnett consequentials are not hypothecated, so the point being made is merely about Welsh Government funding. HS2 is a project in England, and if Wales is to have its own article, it is out of scope. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Well the controversy is that the UK Government classes it as "England and Wales", so technically they say it is on topic. DankJae 20:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

What I wrote about HS2 was a single sentence. I wrote a short paragraph mostly from Labour MS, Lee Waters' perspective but also had reply from UK gov. I was trying to add a bit of everything to the page. The page was still in it's infancy and being developed. Anyway, let's just move on. Titus Gold (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course funding, or lack of funding, can be part of an article about rail transport. But it's disingenuous to add an article request then almost immediately create a POV stub, then demand someone else "come and assist with the page". The point of an article request is to wait for a subject expert to come along and create it, surely. In the meantime, there's a quite serviceable section in Transport in Wales about rail transport in Wales, which can be a target for the subject. Sionk (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I simply changed my mind about waiting for someone else to make it. I haven't demanded anything. No need to make assumptions. I think an overview page of rail in Wales would be most useful. Titus Gold (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Butetown railway station - welsh name

Quick question. Can someone add the welsh name for Butetown in the new station article? Thanks. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 16:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

done Titus Gold (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

WiciBrosiect Cymru

If you are fluent in Welsh (or can contribute relevant wikimedia), please join WiciBrosiect Cymru Thanks. Diolch. Titus Gold (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Llancaiach Fawr#Requested move 28 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Llancaiach Fawr#Requested move 28 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Need an infobox for a Grade II Listed Building

Anyone good at doing those? We've just started the draft at Draft:Plas Dinas. Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Softlavender: added one, be free to expand or amend it further if needed. DankJae 10:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much, DankJae! Excellent work. I think the draft is just about ready for prime time now. Softlavender (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

DankJae, would you like to be included in the DYK nomination for your contributions to the article, so you will get a DYK credit for that? Softlavender (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Softlavender, thank you for the consideration, but I only added an infobox, you did all the research so I am happy for you to have it, thank you for the article! And to be honest I have no idea how DYKs (noms) work so I just leave them alone, so may be another time when I take them more seriously. Diolch! DankJae 22:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

Hi WikiProject Wales, this project and archived discussion here is the subject of a discussion at the Administrator's Noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Titus Gold - Civil POV Pushing and Disruptive Editing. Possible Sock Puppetry. Thank you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Would appreciate comments, thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Multiple articles featuring Capel Celyn

The history of Capel Celyn and the building of the Llyn Celyn dam has rightfully stirred much emotion and controversy over the years. Perhaps as a consequence, the same text , or very similar text is now found in four different articles. I believe that there are opportunities to make clear-water between each of the articles to avoid much of the repetition and enable each independent article to make its own clear arguments. Beside the two linked above, other articles with similar content include Cofiwch Dryweryn and Afon Tryweryn although in the latter case the duplicated content is only a sentence in the lede. The two main content themes appear to be political (the seriously flawed decision making process and subsequent uproar together with the continuing resentment fuelling a desire for independence) and socio -geographic (the need for water in the industrialised North of England following the previous developments by Telford and others in creating the Bala sluices and providing a canal to export water). This is acknowledged to be a difficult area to strike the right balance but Wikipedia should be independent of POV and should only repeat content where it is necessary  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

And a fifth one: Tryweryn flooding. Definitely support reducing cross-copying. The Tryweryn flooding article appears to me to be the primary topic for the controversial flooding. Llyn Celyn would summarise and have a main link to that. Capel Celyn and Afon Tryweryn are geographical articles that should have see alsos too. Cofiwch Dryweryn, on the face of it, seems a bit POVforky of Tryweryn flooding, but it also describes a very well known landmark near Llanrhystud. It seems to me that this is a geographical article that necessarily needs a good summary of Tryweryn flooding and a main or see also link to that article. Does that help at all? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Sirfurboy for the additional article identification and your comments. I was wondering whether the {{excerpt}} template might help whereby we can simply re-quote the lede of one article into another so that it remains in step even after editing in the donor article?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

In my view, the Llyn Celyn article should concentrate on the construction of the reservoir, Tryweryn flooding should concentrate on the political fall out and the boost to nationalism, the newly created Capel Celyn article could benefit with some of the detailed info about what the village included and what was drowned (currently in the much older Tryweryn flooding article). Cofiwch Dryweryn is a popular and much repeated nationalist symbol, not just a wall near Llanrhystud, you can't avoid giving an overview of the history. I don't see any major forks or anything overly problematic. Sionk (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Sionk's guide on each of those articles, and yes Cofiwch Dryweryn has become more of a political phrase in wider nationalist movements than just a wall. P.S. would prefer if Tryweryn flooding had a different image from Cofiwch Dryweryn. DankJae 16:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for peer review of Victorian era

I've been working on the article about the Victorian era a great deal this year and have recently got it to good article status. I'm hopping to get it to featured article status over the next few months which would be my first featured article. What kind of changes do you think would be needed to get their?

Link to peer review page: Wikipedia:Peer review/Victorian era/archive1 Llewee (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Dolwyddelan Castle

Hello! I've just given Dolwydellan Castle a major re-write, so if anyone would like to give it a look over that would be appreciated. Thanks! A.D.Hope (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Made a couple of suggestions on the Talkpage. KJP1 (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thinking long-term, it would great if we could bring the major Welsh castles in North Wales up to good article standard, to match the good Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd topic. Castell y Bere and Dolbadarn are currently good articles (although last assessed over ten years ago), but Dolwyddelan, Criccieth, Ewloe, Deganwy, Castell Dinas Brân, etc. could all be brought up to standard. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Notification of Llywelyn the Great move discussion

Hello! I have opened a discussion at Llywelyn the Great about moving the article to 'Llywelyn ab Iorwerth'. If you would like to participate please do so, particularly if you are familiar with Welsh history. Thank you, A.D.Hope (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Notification of 'Welsh Revolt' move discussion

Helô! I have opened a discussion at Welsh Revolt about moving the article to 'Glyndŵr Rebellion'. If you would like to participate please do so, particularly if you are familiar with Welsh history. Diolch, A.D.Hope (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Buses

If any of you (also) know a lot about buses in Wales (excluding Cardiff as it has its own article), I've made a Draft:Bus transport in Wales per a request, be free to add your local bus operator if not there, older history, tweaks, or anything else. Still a draft, open to sections being moved around, cut or in another article. Diolch! DankJae 02:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks okay, but you might want to replace all the primrary sources (links to bus company websites and timetables) with reliable secondary sources. We wouldn't want this to become a directory for bus companies. Sionk (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Did only recently add smaller ones as the ones with articles felt limited, will see if there are secondary or would remove them again. DankJae 12:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Llandudno and Colwyn Bay Electric Railway, station articles?

After reading through some sites, I found a few notable stops and buildings along this route. Are some seperate railway/tram station articles worth pursing for this article as non exist already? DragonofBatley (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley, standard WP:GNG would apply, as stations aren't inherently notable per WP:NTRAINSTATION. The article itself is quite short so that too would need some work. If you deem a station meets GNG then it probably can survive separately, if not then it can be at the main article. DankJae 15:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@DankJae thanks for your reply, I'll have a look and see which ones are notable and if they stand a seperate article or are best placed in this article. DragonofBatley (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Protected wrecks of Wales

I'm thinking about a list of Welsh Protected Wrecks, which would supplement the lists of Listed Buildings, Listed Gardens and Scheduled Monuments that we currently have. It's not a big piece of work, as there are only six. However, I'm struck by the fact that the details we do have, here, [[Category:Protected Wrecks of Wales]] don't appear to match the details Cadw publishes here, [9]. Does anyone have any idea where, other than Cadw, a definitive list can be found? Alternatively, does anyone know where the additional wrecks in our Category, SS Beemsterdijk, SS Castilian (1919), and HMS H5 have come from? Any help appreciated. I've also posted on the Shipwrecks project and on the Category Talkpage. KJP1 (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Celtic nations category

Just dropping a line to notify that Category:Celtic nations has been nominated for deletion, which seems to me to be a bit odd. Comments welcome on the CfD page --Tóraí (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ren (British musician)#Requested move 21 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ren (British musician)#Requested move 21 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Welsh royalty discussions

There are discussions concerning potential OR, RS and SCOPE issues on Talk:House of Aberffraw (article) and Talk:King of Wales (article), but could apply to other related articles. Editors of this project may be interested in these discussions, specifically those with an interest/expertise in Welsh history. Any contributions to the discussions would be welcomed. Thanks/Diolch DankJae 23:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon

Hello WikiProject Wales:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Senedd reform

I am getting a bit confused where this should be. Not sure if it is notable alone (it could be), but it is currently repeated at Next Senedd election, Elections in Wales and Senedd. Should there be one main location for it? If there is a formal name for the proposed bill, so far Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill or Senedd Reform Bill then I'm happy to converge it there as a notable (possible) bill. I recently expanded the section at Elections in Wales unaware that it was also present elsewhere. I believe it is too detailed at NSe and EiW and best in one place. DankJae 23:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Would expect the bill has enough interest to warrant a separate more detailed Wikipedia article - which would solve the problem of having too much detail repeated in too many places. Sionk (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, would make it at some point. (unless someone does it first) Made it as a redirect for now. DankJae 19:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I've created a separate Senedd Reform Bill article where the majority of the background, detail and progress can be described. Sionk (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah diolch! @Sionk. Sorely needed. Still find the section at Next Senedd election quite too detailed if there’s now a main article but it could be fine for now. Thanks! DankJae 11:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Welsh Language Society#Requested move 29 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Welsh Language Society#Requested move 29 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. DankJae 09:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

B-checklist in project template

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Economy of Wales

The figures in the infobox need to be updated with 2021 figures as has already been done on the Welsh language equivalent cy:Economi Cymru and can simply be copied over.

Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

List of rulers in Wales

There's been quite a bit of editing on this list after the recent release of a critical video. Project members may want to engage and/or improve the article's sourcing. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Recently the article has undergone another overhaul, so extra eyes would be appreciated. DankJae 18:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Having read the talk page, there was a request for references regarding the whole article. I added over 120 references using Bartrum 1993 dictionary of Wales until 1000AD, and added Dictionary of Welsh Biography for the rest. Now 95% of entries are accounted for (removed citation banner & added tags for unreferenced Kings). Then I removed duplicate entries by adding a new section, ==Wales, representing the Kings who ruled multiple Kingdoms that weren't defined, but are a part of the modern country today, and updated the intro. The article is now clearer without duplicate entries and correctly referenced (overdue!). But still missing the petty Kingdoms e.g. Ergyng, Ewyas etc.. Any thoughts, please talk..? Cltjames (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Just alerting other editors here, in case they oppose any part of the changes, considering the article has undergone criticism and multiple overhauls. I am not into history so cannot offer too much. DankJae 00:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, so for those who want to see the article's 120+ references completed by not altering anything else; this link will show the bare article as I found it, simply with the addition of Bartrum and DWB citations. Then the current article is my re-drafting up to almost 140 references. To explain, I carefully read all the references to better understand the topic, this has taken me some 15 hours on and off of editing since yesterday. I believe the article needed that extra additional reorganising and removal of duplicate entries. Also, I've added the realms of Powys Wenwynwyn and Fadog, and am looking into the petty Kingdoms which are missing from the list. Please work with me on this project, I nominated myself the the task force suggested: Talk:List of rulers in Wales#Way forward - Task force?. My opinion is to keep the latest edition, as a revert would be unnecessary because the work is all correctly cited, remembering the only changes I made were to add 2 dynasties in Powys and a simple paragraph better explaining Wales' realms with a book reference, the rest of my edits are dictionary citations (bot) and the removal of duplicate entries by rearranging the text with subheadings (common sense). Only there could be the need for some more draft work and additions, that's all. Please talk about any potential issues, as I'm willing to improve the work as a team; any opinions? Cltjames (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cltjames, I'm not advocating a revert, nor prefer one, just raising attention so if there are any mistakes at all they can be found, rather than hopefully not have another Youtube video about it. Just that, multiple editors changed the article a few days ago and it slowed down, so assumed there is less attention on it now. Best the discussion be at its talk. Thanks for the work! and it's better than the critiqued version! DankJae 12:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Legendary Kings of Wales

I was interested in bringing a conversation to light after recently discovering the List of legendary rulers of Cornwall list and the use of the Governor of Cambria (Cambria- Wales) title (rough list c. 1000 BC - 300 AD). After acquiring the Book of Baglan and reading the relevant pages associated with the List of legendary Kings of Britain (also King of the Britons article) I attempted in good faith to edit the King of Wales article culminating on a finished version on 12 September edit. I tried to add a historically vital list to explain the history of Wales' position in the Iron Age, specifically the Silures tribe of South Wales connected to the medieval petty Kingdom of Ewyas. There was backlash unfortunately and it caused quite a debate on talk Talk:King of Wales. To conclude, I am interested in discovering if a relevant article can be published similar to the Cornish article linked and also fellow Celtic King lists from Ireland and Scotland, a new article could be on the lines of List of legendary rulers of Wales. The references would be Baglan (1607, 1910) and Brut Y Tywysogion, and several new sources which were added but deleted in the King of Wales article. Please see Talk:King of Wales#Missing King of Wales claimants for the medieval list of Kings of Wales to try and help the situation and find a solution to please all parties. Cltjames (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

My own view is that the more profitable discussion would be around a Welsh-subjects topic ban for Cltjames. They are creating significant disruption on a range of Welsh history pages, as well as seeding those pages with misinformation. Despite editing for over ten years, they have not grasped some of the fundamentals of Wikipedia - including the proper use of Reliable sources, No original research and Synthesis. They have been repeatedly advised by a range of experienced editors regarding the dangers of conducting their own research using old and unreliable sources, but are unable/unwilling to take this advice. Underlying all of this is a strong POV that makes their editing highly unreliable. I would be interested to know if other editors have similar concerns. KJP1 (talk) 07:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@KJP1: that reads as an over-aggressive reply to a reasonable question. This is not the place to discuss other editors' deficiencies; if you think a topic ban is appropriate then please discuss it on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, per WP:CBAN. I have not been involved in the discussions on these topics, but Wikipedia should cover mythology, folklore and traditional history as well academically-accepted history. We should make clear what is what, but it is reasonable for articles such as King of Wales to bring together all of these. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

As Verbcatcher points out, the right place for this discussion is the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I strongly encourage KJP1 to take the issue there. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:AN (I) would be a better location. An account creation date does not mean they started editing significantly immediately. Not involved too much in history either, although finding sources on history may need more thorough reviews, in which new editors may not be able to perfectly conduct, as nor would I. DankJae 18:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Back onto the topic of a potential List of legendary rulers of Wales or List of legendary kings of Wales (prefer the generalised "rulers" than "kings", considering there aren't many actual kings either), I had also suggested it as an alternative than adding possible legends into list of rulers in Wales considering the recent criticism. But as I am not too into history and it may fit into an existing article, would encourage those closer to the subject express their opinion on such an article. Diolch! DankJae 18:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The platform of Wikipedia deserves an honest discussion about these subjects. I understand my integrity and experience as an editor are being brought into question (I have been a member for over 10 years, but only really started editing in 2019, and have learned a lot about WP:RS, WP:OR, therefore sorry if I caused distractions). Therefore, I have decided on a more professional approach to the topic of the Welsh King list. Please see my latest discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty#Celtic Princes of Wales and weigh in on the conversation. Cltjames (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

List of legendary rulers of Cornwall strikes me (particvularly the lede intro) as very essay-like and reeking of synthesis/opinion/WP:OR. I'd question how somone becomes "legendary". Either the entires were rules, or they weren't. We already have List of rulers in Wales, so a "legendary" list would simply be repetition. Sionk (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your reply. Your right about the quality of the article regarding Cornwall. I believe Ireland and Scotland articles are much better in explaining the lists in full. However, the Welsh list doesn't have as many books covering the subject as Scotland. Then, the Irish article has actual full multiple lists, whilst Wales' is partial. The Irish work is well presented to explain the potential synthetic problem of the work, better than the Cornish article and similar to the Scottish work. Whilst Wales and Cornwall only have 2 original sources, the Book of Baglan & Richard Carew (antiquary)'s Survey or Cornwall for the Iron Age. Therefore a comparison style article like Ireland and Scotland would not be possible, and would be very difficult to reference the potential flaws of the list by Baglan. Then the work I presented (September 12 last edit) was partially using separate lists to reinforce the descent: Book of Llandaf, Where Troy Once Stood, Historia Regum Britanniae,Mabinogion, Welsh Triads, Annals of Ulster and Annales Cambriae spanning 1,000 BC until 800 AD. But then the Welsh list @Titus Gold: produced can extend the list to 1100s with Brut y Tywysogion, then more new sources until 1378 AD or 1415 with Glyndwr. Therefore everything is in place to create a full list of Welsh rulers. So please, take a look at the link to the original work posted in the King of Wales (Talk:King of Wales) article; personally I don't see anymore reasons to withhold the article, because that is not the industry standard, the other Celtic nations King lists would too have to be reworked or removed if that was the case. To conclude, a list for pre Kingdoms, Iron Age through Roman era would be better after criticism of linking 'legendary' and medieval rulers in King of Wales article. And reintroduce the medieval King list of Brut to King article.Cltjames (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I hope you aren't trying to suggest that we put imaginative myths back into an article that deals with real people. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

All I've done is made a comparison with the other Celtic King lists. Perhaps, depending on sources there is a gap in the market for a seperate article creation listing the legendary rulers of Wales. Fiction or fact, there is a list spanning the Iron Age until sub-Roman Britain. Cltjames (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sionk, @Richard Keatinge, Considering other edits at Talk:List of rulers in Wales wanted to consider adding legendary rulers, and the possibility of errors relating to that under one list (hopefully not in another YT video), is a reason why I also suggested making a separate list for entirely "legendary" (those disputed to exist), which can separate those with confirmed histories and those where is it less certain. The Cornish list should not be used as a basis if there are wording issues with it, but shows however, similar article scopes exist. However, history is not my specialty. DankJae 23:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

New county images guideline

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

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

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

DankJae 22:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Question

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft guideline

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

To be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Guidelines

Original draft, better one below

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

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

Draft guideline discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page vandalised: Andrew RT Davies

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

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

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

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

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

County page images and collages

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

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

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

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

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

Llywelyn ap Iorwerth's castles

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