Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Snowdonia/Eryri National Park Authority

[edit]

I'm opening a general discussion about how we refer to the national park authority (NPA) for Snowdonia/Eryri. The current name of the article about the area is Snowdonia, but the NPA is referred to as both "Snowdonia NPA" and "Eryri NPA" depending on the page. The Snowdonia article uses "Snowdonia", for example, whereas National park authority uses "Eryri".

This is discussion is not a proxy for a requested move of Snowdonia. Rather, it's intended to explore whether using a consistent name for the NPA is necessary or desirable, and if so what name to use. There is no pressing need to find a consensus, as overall it isn't a major issue. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As at Talk:Recommended place-names in Snowdonia, I am still of the opinion that as the NPA is a distinct formal organisation, referencing it does not need to (automatically) follow the common name of the area they cover, instead its name is considered independently. As the NPA has no article proving a common name, there is no preference AFAIAA that one name is chosen over the other, so either name can be used by editors (compared to a preference for geographic features) depending on the context.
As the body now uses Eryri and has started using "Eryri National Park Authority" then it is at least an option, and per below appears to be the more-common/as-common name. However, if "National Park Authority" is decapitalised as "national park authority", it is a descriptive name (an NPA covering [area]), therefore under MOS:GEO, it should use the article title for the area. So "Eryri National Park Authority" but not "Eryri national park authority".
Looking at Google News, since Jan 2023 there's two pages with "Snowdonia", but four pages with "Eryri". As a very rough look at media usage in the absence of other aggregators, at minimum the common name of the NPA among recent sources is at least disputed.
But alternatively the legal name of the authority and the park uses "Snowdonia", which the NPA continues to use referencing their legal responsibilities, although we don't follow legal names only because they are. As well as the argument of consistency to use "Snowdonia" everywhere until an RM on the main article changes it. I assume any consensus here would revert edits like this.
It should however be only Snowdonia National Park as it is a geographic name and a main (overlapping) definition of Snowdonia, until the article is moved or split.
Soft preference for Eryri NPA, although admit the authority hasn't entirely switched (is it due to legal obligations/upcoming rebranding?). DankJae 15:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civil parishes

[edit]

I recently raised a question at Talk:Carmarthenshire#Civil_parishes about tables of (ecclesiastical) parishes which are being referred to (erroneously in my view) as civil parishes, which do not necessarily equate, even though the names may be the same. The tables are also incomplete, are lacking links and contain mistakes.

There haven't been any civil parishes in Wales since 1974, of course, but still the distinction should be made when adding to history sections. Many (ecclesiastical) parishes still exist as part of the Church in Wales.

For Pembrokeshire, I cut and pasted the table to List_of_hundreds_of_Wales#Pembrokeshire. I think it would be the right thing to do the same with Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion#Civil_parishes (where it appears under Geography), and even Denbighshire (historic), where there is another similar table. The editor (Mark J) who compiled the tables did not respond to requests for comment. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it here, Tony. I agree that ecclesiastical parishes would probably be a better name, although that was much the same thing as a civil parish at the time. However they are all historical, and I am not sure what they add to the articles. I would support their removal absent a clear rationale for inclusion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes. Looking in detail at Pembrokeshire, I found a list of civil parishes (1909) and there was some correlation with ecclesiastical parishes, but also some differences, so making the distinction is important. I'll give it a little more time before acting. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the three extant counties, and am working my way through the historic counties, putting the table of parishes in context. Feel free to amend if you wish. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done All done, I think. If any more are found, they can be treated similarly. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bit confused of the mixture of Welsh and English names now added on them? It clutters it quite a bit more. DankJae 17:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to wait until Mark J has finished with the tables and put right anything that is left, as he doesn't engage. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gruffydd ap Llylweyn family name discrepency

[edit]

I started a Talk:Gruffudd ap Llywelyn ap Iorwerth#Family naming inconsistency about a discrepancy I discovered to do with the spelling of the name Gruffudd in articles related to Gruffydd ap Llywelyn's family. Anyone care to give some advice as to how to deal with the situation? Cltjames (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, if you want a job done you have to do it yourself. Simple explanation; consistency is needed & Gruffudd was the original modern spelling before a newer Gruffydd, therefore when historians first referred to Gruffydd (Griffiths) they would have pronounced the name with the 'u'. Simple amend, done! Cltjames (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infant school featured article review

[edit]

The article infant school is currently going through a featured article review. Any comments would be appreciated. Llewee (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wrexham § a city or the former town/city centre of the City of the County Borough of Wrexham?. Do we interprete the Letters Patent literally, and regard the City to be Wrexham County Borough and not Wrexham, which in turn is something, anything but "city". DankJae 16:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Aneurin Bevan

[edit]

Aneurin Bevan 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Informal discussion

[edit]

An informal discussion of article issues, a "Before opening a reassessment", has been initiated at Talk:Dylan Thomas#Article issues and classification -- Otr500 (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heneb: the Trust for Welsh Archaeology

[edit]

We should probably have an article on Heneb, the successor body to the four Welsh Archaeological Trusts, which was established this year, [1]. Is there any preference as to title: Heneb or Heneb: the Trust for Welsh Archaeology? The former is simpler, the latter gives the reader a clearer idea as to what Heneb is. KJP1 (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined, initially at least, to simply make a redirect from Heneb to Welsh Archaeological Trusts until we see how Heneb is run and develops. It tends to be the individual archaeological trusts that are cited in articles, I think. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's certainly true at present. Even Heneb’s own website comprises a single webpage, with links to the four trusts, in effect a re-direct itself. I'll do that for now and we can see how it develops. KJP1 (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1, @Tony Holkham, when I updated the pages a while ago on the merger, I did plan to make a Heneb page but couldn’t find enough sources then. Prefer Heneb over the name with a description like how Cadw doesn’t have theirs. DankJae 09:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine - I've done the redirect as Heneb, although I originally spelt it wrong! As and when there's more info., we can overwrite the redirect. At present, I can't even see such basics as CEO, board, charity registration, so my suggestion for an article was premature. That said, it certainly exists now. How it can, without any of the basics of corporate governance, is beyond me. KJP1 (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I did not know that "heneb" is Welsh for "ancient monument". I wonder if they are going to set up their own database of historic sites, with their own set of identifiers. I've never really understood why, beyond the historical, Cadw and RCAHMW/Coflein have their own listing systems for what are, in many cases, the same places. KJP1 (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up news articles and found two that refer to Heneb here and here, but nothing that refers to the establishment of the trust. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few refs that might support an article on Heneb

Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be to rename/move the Welsh Archaeological Trusts article to Heneb leaving the original name as a redirect. The article on the WATs is an overview of the four organisations rather than on a separate entity, and contains nothing that would not be included as part of one of those articles or as part of the history for Heneb. The article can be reworked to include a history section and an updated overview rather than creating a separate article.

A note on citations - Heneb had always been the website for the Gwynedd Archaeological Trust, so the merger might not cause too many problems with citations from their website, but it may still be worth going through any articles that have citations from here and the other trusts websites and adding archive copies where possible in case these sites stop working after the new-look Heneb site has finished being "under construction". EdwardUK (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EdwardUK, isn’t Heneb based on the Dyfed AT?
Neutral on converting Welsh Archaeological Trusts, as it links the old AT articles together but the article isn’t extensive. Wondered if we should re-approach the (old) trusts themselves, convert them to Heneb regions? Delete them? Merge into Heneb? Or keep historical as now? DankJae 15:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right it was Dyfed AT that changed name – but the website address Gwynedd had always used is heneb.co.uk, though checking again I see I made the mistake of thinking that this was the same as the new Heneb site (heneb.org.uk). EdwardUK (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:England–Wales border § Recently added maps. Concerning the graphics, potential OR/SYNTH of maps added in good-faith! DankJae 15:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Martha Hughes Cannon

[edit]

Martha Hughes Cannon 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. Z1720 (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Duncan Barber - AfC

[edit]

Hello everyone. I have created the draft Duncan Barber (businessman). Barber is a welsh engineer and latterly a businessman specialising in aeronautics. He lives in Penarth, and is also a car enthusiast. If any AfC reviewers have the time or inclination to review the draft, I would be most grateful. Thanks - Mac Edmunds (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now reviewed - perhaps someone might be interested in assessing Barber’s Welsh importance? Mac Edmunds (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Anglesey Central Railway

[edit]

Anglesey Central Railway 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. Z1720 (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Postnominal letters and infoboxes

[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#MOS:POSTNOM for discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]