Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:37, 23 July 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wales article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Wales has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 2, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed December 1, 2010 Good article nominee Listed November 22, 2011 Good article reassessment Kept April 29, 2020 Good article reassessment Kept Current status: Good article

The issue of whether Wales is a country or not has been repeatedly raised. The consensus of those discussions is that Wales is indeed a country. The discussion is summarised in this archive here. Further information on the countries within the UK can be found at Countries of the United Kingdom, and a table of reliable sources can be found at Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. UK geography Top‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Wales Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Celts Top‑importance Wales is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 92 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2015

Average rain fall.........53 inches

Average summer temperature..........48-63

Average winter temperature...........35-45

Capital city.................Cardiff

Largest denomination

Is the Church in Wales still the largest denomination? The figures here are from '08, and it seems to me the Catholics may have caught up?

"Pays de Galles" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pays de Galles and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26#Pays de Galles until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bonoahx (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

I feel the edits recently have not improved the article. In my opinion they have broken each section up into too many multiple sub sections (many are now just short single paragraphs - some which seem not overly relevant like funding), introduced information not appropriate for an overview article, added items too recent for a country with a long history, increased the length of an already bloated article and made the whole thing a lot less readable. I did some editing, but feel it may be best to revert back to this April version. Thought it better to seek outside opinions before removing all the work, done mostly by Titus Gold. Aircorn (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not make large reverts. If you wish to make some specific changes, please suggest them. I agree that certain sections need to be reduced. I have just amalgamated many sub-headings based on your feedback. Please let me know if you have any further feedback after reviewing the new changes. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

On a high level view a shift from a 80kb 37 section page to a 82kb 41 section page is movement in the wrong direction. Looking more specifically, the changes are hard to parse in some areas (especially History and Culture), but from what is easily comparable the edits appear to be written towards a certain slant regarding Welsh independence, from the removal of helpful links to UK articles to explicitly adding an undue mention of Welsh independence in the lead (and lots of links to new articles that have been created by copying over text from UK articles, which perhaps should be discussed elsewhere). Other lead prose changes also seem a bit undue or redundant. The image rearrangements throughout should certainly be reverted as they will cause (even more) WP:ACCESS issues, and ] has popped up in the body somehow. The removal of "Wales" from the history subheaders should be kept. The Government and Politics changes see, in addition to the tonal shifts mentioned, a removal of the text section altogether which gives the impression there is no overview to be had. International relations is a quirky subsection to add there, and is very undue. The only change to the Population History subsection was the removal of mention of Black British people, which seems odd although I note that part is terribly sourced as it is. The language changes positively remove a lot of undue information on the Welsh language better suited for the other articles, although perhaps some should still be left in as an introduction for the general reader before diving straight into bilingualism. The only change in Visual arts was to remove the mention of the first British landscapist and replacing it with an undue quote which doesn't say much. The changes to National Symbols were purely to remove mention of the word "British" and to similarly remove mention of God Save the Queen. CMD (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

- There were vast deficiencies in Wales specific articles and the Wales had a significant lack of links to articles specifically on Wales. These pages were linked in hat notes under the relevant headings. Some of the pages are new and are currently being worked on. I do think these additions are particularly useful for information on Wales.

- There is only one sentence in the lead about the independence movement, which was a necessary update (as was the sentence on Welsh football). If you would prefer any of the lead was more condensed, I am happy to help with that with specific suggestions.

- With regards to reducing the number of images: I will have a look at this shortly. Please suggest specific images to remove or change.

- I will shortly radically condense the international relations section based on your feedback. This sub-section was inspired by the Scotland page.

- I agree that the text on Black people in Wales was poorly referenced and I am happy to help replace that with well referenced text on ethnic diversity in Wales. This is definitely worth mentioning.

Thanks again for the feedback, much appreciated. Titus Gold (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok I see someone has noticed all the odd problems aswell....best restore to GA status version and look at what can be re-introduced. Would be an overwhelming amount of edits to fix curent problems.Moxy- 01:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not make this restore, this would undo a significant amount of work. I've just addressed virtually all of this feedback. Please have a look at the edits. Thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The April version you've suggested has far more sub-headings than the current version. The current version is far better, particularly following improvements based on your feedback and recommendations. Titus Gold (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This a WP:Good article written in a WP:Summary article style that conforms with our WP: accessibility as outlined at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countries. GA level articles are hard to edit especially for newer editors. So far we have 3 experienced editors looking at this with concerns. How many edits are we looking at ....200? Regardless of the national fluff and over details, we have basic accessibility problems as outlined MOS:IMAGESIZE MOS:IMAGELOC....let alone the amount.Moxy- 01:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with the images, however, I will address any points you have. They are all on the right-hand side now. I will make some slightly larger images smaller imminently. Thanks for mentioning it. Titus Gold (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I've reduced the number of images, tidied them up and reduced the size of a few larger ones. Are there other specific accessibility-related matters you want me to address? I'm happy to do so. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

As my feedback has been brought up here, I would note that it has not been addressed. The accessibility and pov problems in particular remain mostly untouched. CMD (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. What in particular are you referring to? Can you quote or mention specific sub-headings or paragraphs you think might need improvement? Since the page is titled Wales, it's important to stay on topic. There are numerous references to, and links to UK and other relevant UK wide bodies for UK content. Do you wish me to include a few more links to UK wide pages? Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I specifically mentioned a couple of items above, which remain unaddressed. Given that, I am not inclined to look through 200 edits whose edit summaries do not state much more than "tweaked" or "tweaking". To be explicit, edits made simply to remove mention of the UK or links to UK articles are detrimental to readers and to the page. CMD (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Addressed based on your feedback

- I have addressed images size, number etc. (please let me known if you require further work on them)

- I have added ethnic diversity and black community detail

- Reduced the number of sub-headings and headings throughout the article

- Introduced politics intro

- Deleted section on foreign policy

- All the info I have ever added on this page is referenced, relevant and factual (please let me know if there's any content that needs improving)

Other improvements based on your feedback?

- I'm happy to reintroduce "god save the queen" although this isn't the Welsh anthem so not sure what the issue is there: seems like content for the UK page

- I just want to clarify that hat notes to a particular matter on a UK wide scale was simply replaced with a similar page specific to Wales e.g Early modern period in Wales, Industrial revolution in Wales, Climate of Wales, Flora of Wales. I think these are valuable links to the matters on Wales and allow easier accessibility to those topics related to Wales. There are still plenty of references to the UK and UK government etc. in the article of course.

Please let me know if there's anything I've missed or any other query. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Titus Gold might you suspend your editing of this article whilst consideration is given to whether it would be better to revert the large number of edits that you have made, some with inadequate edit summaries, which make it laborious to sort the wheat from the chaff? Looking forward to your further collaboration.SovalValtos (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I'll hold off until I am given more feedback. Titus Gold (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Titus you appear very keen and knowledgeable about this topic and I am sorry no one commented on this before you made so many edits. You are a new editor so I don't really want to dissuade you from continuing editing here. With broad topics, like all country articles, it is best to keep them in an overview state. This article should contain a summary of all the important information about Wales. The detail will go into another article which is easily linked from here. Therefore every section in this article will contain a {{main}} linking to these articles and those will contain further {{main}}s linking to even more detailed articles. That way someone can follow the article down the line to whatever details they want.

A lot of effort was put into getting this article up to a reasonable standard (it has been rated as good). As such it is an article that has already been well developed. That doesn't mean it can't be improved, it just means that care has to be taken. The best way to improve this article is not to add information, but to remove information. Or more specifically move the information to the sub articles if it is not already there. It barely survived a reassessment because it was getting too detailed so adding further information (especially stuff like the now removed COVID section) is actually moving it in the wrong direction.

I don't really want to comment on the nationalism issues raised by CMD, beyond saying that the are the best editor I have come across when it comes to country articles so their concerns carry weight. Moxy is also very experienced with articles here and is completely right about the images. You probably need to remove about half of them. When I am reviewing images I tend to focus on removing any that are not mentioned in text. The version I suggested reverting to is not perfect, in fact it could do with some dedicated work, and I feel given your willingness to listen to feedback you could improve it. Its just that your recent edits have tended to compound some of the issues. Aircorn (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the fair and constructive comments. It was fair to bring up the much needed recommendations and I feel that they have virtually been addressed now.

Currently, the article mentions UK 67 times, United Kingdom 28 times, Britain 44 times, British 11 times and Great Britain 11 times. The article always links to relevant UK bodies or organisation where relevant, so I don't think there is an issue at all in this regard. All content on Welsh devolution for example is factual and unbiased, and the Welsh independence movement is only given a mere 4 sentences, again all factual.

I agree that information needs to be reduced, and I'm committed to doing this as soon as you give me the thumbs up do to so. I have very good knowledge of Welsh history and Wales in general and so I'm happy to help cut sections down to summarise better.

If you actually look at the April version, it has more headings and images (particularly ones on the left side) than the current version, in part because I have addressed your valuable feedback.

Like I said, your initial comments were entirely valid, but I think only issue that really remains is to cut down on the volume of text a little.

Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Having worked on this, with Tony, at the last GAR, my conclusion is that we should revert to the April version. The key point is Aircorn’s - we’ve moved to a more verbose, fragmented, article, when we should be looking to summarise. But I am also concerned by Titus Gold’s perspective. Being blunt, I think there is a clear Welsh Nat view which impacts on the neutrality of their edits. This is hard to pin down, due to the multiplicity of their edits with very limited edit summaries, but it is certainly there. On balance, I’d favour a revert to the April version, and then we can discuss intended improvements here. KJP1 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fair that specific remaining issues sand quotations of text should be cited to warrant a huge revert would kindly ask you to quote any content.

The article is about Wales. I have not removed any cited relevant content about Wales or added any any biased content. All content is all factual and is specifially about Wales, obviously as it should be. The aspect of Welsh dolution for example has been the dominant aspect of Welsh politics for at least 23 years and was a major change and aspect of Welsh history in the 20th century. Like I said, if you would like to re-introduce god save the queen (as this seems to be the only quoted issue), I am happy to put it back, but again this is a UK anthem, whereas this page is specifically about Wales. Rather than revert a mountain of good work, I would suggest specifing any specific issues in the article that remain in the newest version.

(There are actually more subheadings in the April versions, which would make the April versions more fragmented than current.)

Thanks again for your time and feedback. Titus Gold (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

P.S I have today made the article as far away from "fragmented" as I can, with further amalgamations and sub-heading removals based on your valuable feedback.I have also for the first time trimmed away excess details form multiple headings to address your point about excess text which now has less bytes than the April verison. Please have a look at the current version. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I have mentioned specific issues and linked to a couple of diffs already (although Moxy has dealt with one in a much better solution). The images still remain less well distributed than in the 20 April version (not that the 20 April version is by any means a good standard, improving on it should be a goal). What hasn't been given here so far is an explanation of what changes were made, and why. That would be helpful, especially as the overall diff is very hard to parse, and there are myriad individual edits. CMD (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Just had a detailed look through the difference between the current and April. The current version contains far less sub-headings and contains fewer images, and less overall bytes and text so no issues there. I can continue to reduce no. of images and bulk of text if you would like. Please quote any hint of bias in the article and I will immediately address. Perhaps there was unintended bias towards UK wide information rather than Wales specific information prior to April. I would suggest that a biased view is hard to pin down because there is no evident bias, only inclusion of factual, well-referenced information, specifically about Wales, relating well to the actual title of the article.

Explanation for three edits that use the word "British" include:

1. God save the queen: This anthem is not currently used in Wales in any major sporting tournament or ceremonies as far as I am aware. E.g, Six nations or Welsh football matches: "Land of my fathers" is played only. When Geraint Thomas won the Tour de France, god save the queen was played in Paris because he was part of team "SKY", but "The land of my fathers" was played when he returned to Wales. Team GB uses god save the queen obviously, but again this is a UK wide anthem. There may be an argument to reintroduce God save the queen if you would like me to do this.

2. Landscape artist quote: "Richard Wilson (1714–1782) described in the Welsh Academy Encyclopedia of Wales as the "most distinguished painter Wales has ever produced and the first to appreciate the aesthetic possibilities of his country". Although more notable for his Italian scenes, he painted several Welsh scenes on visits from London. By the late 18th century, the popularity of landscape art grew and clients were found in the larger Welsh towns, allowing more Welsh artists to stay in their homeland. Artists from outside Wales were also drawn to paint Welsh scenery, at first because of the Celtic Revival." I think this is a far better account of his work and describes what exactly he did for/in Wales, relating to the title of the article.

3. "British pound" replaced with "Pound sterling" which is the official title of the currency. No issue there.

Thanks again for the valuable feedback. Let me know if you want me to address anything else. Titus Gold (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Conversation will not go far if you pre-empt a conclusion as part of the argument. Given no explanation of what the changes were and why they were made, I am inclined to roll back per the consensus of others here. CMD (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I've literally outlined the changes and explanations previously in the comments above. Please have a read. The main significant change was the inclusion of links to Wales specific pages for better access to information on Wales (again I mentioned this earlier). I've explained everything you've asked me to explain. Please let me know specifically what else you want me to explain, if anything. Thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You're saying the main significant change of all this was the inclusion of links to Wales specific pages? CMD (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The revisions comparison here is of the 20th of April and the 25th of May. The article has been significantly tidied and improved since the 25th of May, partly due to your valuable feedback. Have a look at the current version of the article, it's far better. If you want me to explain edits between 20th of April and today, 4th of June, I can do that for you? Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The revision comparison given is the one that started this discussion, and one which clearly does not have consensus. You are of course welcome to explain any edits, be they before or after the 25th of May. CMD (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'm glad you've brought this up, but it's not particularly relevant now since the article is much improved since the 25th of May, thanks to the valuable feedback. If there are any specific issues with the current version of the article I'm happy to address them. Titus Gold (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Titus Gold, what you were asked for in this thread is an explanation of your edits since 20 April. Instead you made further changes to the article supposedly in response to feedback. Effectively you now say it’s not relevant to answer the original question because of all the “improvements” you’ve subsequently made. The only answer you’ve given is that you’ve added links to Wales-soecific pages. Your replies in thus thread appear to be disingenuous and obfuscation. That makes others difficult to AGF what you have done. You need to give an explanation of hiw the article differs as it was on 20 April and today. Forget the intermediate steps. DeCausa (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that's no problem.

Old edits explanation:

Line 64 subheading

Population estimate updated here.

Line 94 subheading

Clarifying all surrounding seas for geographical accuracy.

Later explained the change in devolution since the turn of the millennium and a brief explanation of independence movement which has evolved more recently.

Just some subtle rewording, used "UK" instead of "Great Britain" for similarities that was discussed in both a cultural AND political context.

Added mention of national football side.

Line 160 subheading

Clarified the circumstance of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd death and also his brother Dafydd who was technically the last independent Prince of Wales of that period. Circumstances and nature of the deaths was not clear or mentioned previously.

Early modern period and industrialisation

This is not new content or paragraph. Think this is just highlighted because of spacing/paragraphing.

History of the Welsh language

Just changed the multiple sub-headings here to one single subheading for readability, accessibility and better flow.

Politics

I grouped into Senedd politics and Westminster politics because they are separate systems, to avoid confusion. Since this version I have subsequently added an introduction which summaries and clarifies Welsh politics as a whole and refers to both systems.

I added a paragraph on international relations after looking at the Scotland article as a comparison, which has subheading for this and far more content. However, based on your feedback I then removed this.

Law

Grouped into historical and current to avoid confusion. However following your recommendations to reduce the number of sub-headings this has been reverted to previous.

Police and military

Added a brief mention to Military activity in Wales as this was not previously mentioned. Later grouped Police and Military together because they were small paragraphs.

Climate and environment

Changed heading from "Climate" to "Climate and environment" because there is content on the environment below also.

Wildlife

Heading simplified, made more understandable for lay persons and the content only refers to wildlife, not agricultural animal for example. I can change this back to "Flora and fauna' if you like.

Paragraph on Snowdonia

This is just a separation into two paragraphs. Nothing added or removed.

Lampeter campus

Again, just pressed return for a new paragraph. Nothing added or removed.

Black Welsh people

This sentence had a dead link and so sentence removed. This has subsequently been replaced with content on Black people in Wales, the Tiger Bay community and is also well referenced.

Language

This paragraph about the history of the Welsh language was moved to the history section because it was more suited to that section. The language section here is now more aptly focused on demographics etc.

Welsh painter Richard Wilson

Replaced previous vague sentence with a sentence that clarified his impact and how he is held in high regard as well as his role in the appreciation of landscape in Wales.

GSTQ

Removed sentence on GSTQ because the citation refers to the history of Land of my Fathers and does not mention any current use of GTSQ. Here is the citation that was used:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/music/sites/anthem/pages/anthem-background.shtml

Currency

Corrected from British pound to pound sterling, which is the official term.

Sport

Moved sport separately from culture as it is in some country articles. However I moved this back after your feedback about too many headings.

Subheading of Music: Traditional festivals and music

This subheading seemed to nicely group together the traditional aspects of Welsh music and dance , e,g Eisteddfod, traditional music, traditional dance, traditional step-dance. However, following your feedback I also removed this sub-heading.

Latter content of article

Some headings switched around for better grouping of related headings and better flow.

General: Paragraphing, paragraph spacing. Added/edited multiple hat-notes to articles specifically on Wales. Easy of accessibility to Wales related topics is now vastly improved.

Hope this is ok for you. Let me know if you require anything else. Thanks for your time in reviewing the article, I actually think your feedback has helped improve it even further. Titus Gold (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request the part that supports that Wales Is a country whilst is a region/state of the UK is being changes cause is a misleading information as you can also see in The United Nations (UN) that support Wales is not a country 176.58.193.103 (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

What's your source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Wales is a country.

Look at the International Standards Organisation; Wales is classed as a country.

This topic has already been resolved, see below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Wales/Archive_country_poll Titus Gold (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The population of Wales is approximately 3,063,450 in 2022 Babapp (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Source? Titus Gold (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DankJae (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Restore article?

Not sure what we should do here. Should we restore the article? Do a GA review? Wondering if its worth my time to fix all the images? @Aircorn: - @Chipmunkdavis: - @KJP1: - @DeCausa: - @Ghmyrtle: - @Deb: Moxy- 14:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not interested in an edit war with someone not willing to read our guidelines. Not sure worth all the work over simple revert and a few fixes. Not sure why something simple like MOS:IMAGESIZE can't be followed. Accessibility should be the primary concern. Moxy- 23:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

What's the issue with the images? Do you want them all below 220px width is that it? I'm happy to address that? Titus Gold (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

For the 5th time pls review MOS:IMAGELOC and MOS:IMAGESIZE.....PLS DON'T USE ANY PIXEL SIZE..just read the links. A GA level article is not the place to learn the basics. Voting for full revert....so less time wasted Moxy- 00:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I have previously read both links, yes, and I am now reviewing them again. I have just checked the article on a mobile device also for accessibility and made three image location corrections. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I can't see any other issues. Anything else required? Titus Gold (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

OK not sure I can make this more clear.... keeping in mind ww are talking about just images. many more aspects to a GA level article than that need to be addressed now. Do not use pixel size as in .]] not . Pls use upright parameter as explained at MOS:IMAGESIZE. Again one of many concerns that no longer meet GA requirements in the article. Moxy- 00:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I apologise about the upright parameter. I will do my best to address this for you. Titus Gold (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Just finished addressing the images. Used upright parameter on all of them. Thanks for pointing that out. Any other improvements you want me to make on the page? Titus Gold (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't keep up with all these changes. Is it time for a halt, and a peer review? Just wondering. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I had hoped there would be a halt after seeing this edit from Titus Gold but I have been disappointed. I could do a simple undo to the start of the problem edits in late April 2022 but would prefer to leave the next step to a more competent editor than myself.SovalValtos (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I responded and agreed to a request to pause edits by saying "No problem. I'll hold off until I am given more feedback." Since then editors have kindly provided more valuable feedback. In response to that additional feedback, I made their desired improvements and other editors have also made good edits to the article. I'm more than happy to halt once again. All feedback has been addressed as far as I am aware. Thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we restore the April version, and ask TG to discuss any major intended changes/additions here. KJP1 (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Titus Gold's obviously enthusiastic endeavours on this and many other Wales-related articles has made it virtually impossible for any other editors to keep pace with, and review, the changes they have made - some of which are very good, and others perhaps less so. Restoring to an earlier version here, and reviewing methodically on a section-by-section basis in order to achieve consensus, seems like the best approach. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer a review of the current article if this is doable because I think the current version is better than the suggested restore. Otherwise, if the article is restored, many small improvements I have made will just be undone, and i'll have to re-so them again (minus the one or two not so good edits I made of course). Try to make your mind up soon as this is going on a bit! Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S You may be relieved to hear that I have addressed the vast majority of deficiencies that I wanted to tackle in Wales related pages. As a result, the speed of work will likely be far lower from now on. Titus Gold (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

One change in the past month has been this sentence added to the end of the second paragraph: " A stronger movement for Welsh independence emerged around 2017 and pro-independence groups have gained popularity in the 21st century, although independence is not currently supported by a majority in Wales." I dont think thats appropriate or accurate at all for the introduction. Where is the evidence to back up 2017 as a turning point so noteworthy it gets mentioned in the intro of the country article? This sounds more like its just promoting a new campaign group established then with very limited support. And the way its worded that its "not currently supported".... gives the impression that position will change in time. Its also a bit short termism. if a single poll said a majority supported separation would we have to change the introduction? Not even the Scotland article mentions support for separation relative to polls in the introduction, it only rightly mentions the referendum.

I think that sentence should be removed from the end of paragraph two, its unnecessary, one sided, speculative and not clearly defined. The paragraph is already quite large even without it, i think that paragraph was better worded before all the recent changes over the past month. Also previously that paragraph made clear the Welsh Parliament was previously known as an Assembly, an important clarification and fact that may avoid confusion. it is technically incorrect to say (as the introduction currently does) that the Welsh parliament was formed in 1999. It wasnt. An Assembly was formed in 1999 that later became the Welsh parliament. Considering this is currently listed as a good article, im not sure if it would have passed that rating if these and possibly some of the other issues existed at the time. RWB2020 (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct. It was called the Assembly at that time but is currently known as the Parliament. The emergence of the independence movement is hard to define but 2017 is based on the Welsh independence page and calls for a discussion following the Scottish referendum. I agree that adding a citation here and clarification of the name change would be justified. I'm happy to make these clarifications? Titus Gold (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The above suggestions would, in fact, do nothing to address User:RWB2020’s central point. But they, and the contended sentence in the lead, are typical of the Welsh Nat POV that drives TG’s edits. The claim is not even supported in the body of the article, which shows a drop in support for independence 20221-2022. This is a clear illustration of why I continue to favour a restoration of the earlier version of the article. KJP1 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, Titus Gold, when you say “2017 is based on the Welsh independence page” what exactly are you claiming? Because there’s nothing, at least cited to an RS, in that article that supports that except someone has created a WP:SYNTH heading “Welsh independence movement gains momentum” which is not justified by what’s in the section. Oh look it was you! DeCausa (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it would be wise to base a large restoration on one single sentence and "Welsh parliament". Rather than wasting time criticising this single sentence which could be improved immediately by any of us, I would suggest that other editors assisted me in continuing to review and improve the article, rather than leaving an article to become stale and out of date, which it was before my edits began.

If you read Welsh independence, "The modern independence movement emerged following the announcement in 2017 of plans to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence, Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood said there needed to be a national debate on Welsh independence." The only reason I didn't cite this was because virtually nothing else was cited in the intro.

https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/15152790.wales-needs-to-debate-independence-says-plaid-cymru-leader-leanne-wood-after-scotland-referendum-call/

You do raise an entirely valid point and perhaps 2013-2020 would be more accurate descriptor of the increase in support based on the polls on the Welsh independence page. perhaps it would be better to just mention the current level of support for independence or the peak of support.

https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2021-03-04/poll-reveals-highest-support-for-welsh-independence-ever-recorded

I'm more than happy for others to cite or change this sentence if unhappy. A healthy debate is a good thing, but not a pile on. It seems this single sentence is the only remaining need for clarification. Thanks for your time all. Titus Gold (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

No, this is just an example which brings into question your whole editing approach. To go back to the example. The sentence in Welsh independence that you quote, The modern independence movement emerged following the announcement in 2017 of plans to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence, Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood… is not supported by the citation to the South Wales Argus. That’s just reporting Plaid Cymru claims and announcements. There’;s nothing that could justify “The modern independence movement emerged following the announcement in 2017 of…” So, this claim of yours that 2017 was some sort of turning point for the independence movement has no basis either in this article or in that one. Did you add the text cited to the Argus to the independence article? You say I don't think it would be wise to base a large restoration on one single sentence and "Welsh parliament". No, a large restoration would be based on a lack of confidence in either the adequacy of your understanding of WP policy or your NPOV, as illustrated by these examples. What the other editors in this thread have been saying is they don’t know what else has similar problems that’s been added in the last 2 months. DeCausa (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I wrote that original sentence on the Welsh independence page or not. Usually, I add my references but because there is nothing else referenced in the intro I didn't include it, perhaps I should have and I have improved in following procedure on this page since this edit. I was simply trying to define the emergence of the modern movement which is perhaps difficult to define in one year. I think this was the first time that Plaid Cymru was genuinely pursuing a debate on Welsh independence in Welsh politics so it could indeed be seen as a turning point, but it does need further clarification in terms of support, you're right. Again, there's no need to fully restore an article based on one contended sentence. Have a read of the edits explanation I made above, which summarises all the other changes. Thanks for your time. Titus Gold (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Permission to apply your constructive criticism to the article? It seems there have been some recent edits by other users. Titus Gold (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I am now restoring the article to 20 April 2022 as I do not want to delay further. I see disquiet at TG's edits since then which have had little support and some consider have degraded a GA.SovalValtos (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Article changes after major revert June 2022

I have just introduced some Wales specific hatnotes. Please review, thanks.Titus Gold (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

National rugby and football teams Welsh identity. Please review, thanks.Titus Gold (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Celtic sea to the south west in intro. Please review, thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Amalgamated and tidied historical sub-headings. Please review, thanks.Titus Gold (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Pre and roman era history: Removed one image and moved three other images from left to right. Please review, thanks.Titus Gold (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Political: Summary intro improved. Sub heading of political responsibilities re-named "Westminster" and "Senedd" and text arranged accordingly. Hat notes moved to appropriate sub-headings. Please review, thanks.Titus Gold (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Removed "God save the Queen" sentence because the citation does not mention use of God Save the Queen. The citation is about the history of "Land of my Fathers" only. Please review, thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for asking for a review of your edits. Perhaps you could wait a week or two for other editors to respond before making further edits? I for one will not have time this week to look at the 20+ edits you made yesterday to see if I consider them beneficial. There is no rush. Meanwhile you could form and share your view of how this GA could be developed towards FA to see if there is consensus for your approach?SovalValtos (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

"Police and military" sub-heading formed. Titus Gold (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I will halt until the 22nd of June. Titus Gold (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Images tidied and formatted as was previously requested. Some added and some deleted. May still require some further improvements.Titus Gold (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

A few clarifications of superficial aspects of the introduction. Titus Gold (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Given the above discussions where similar topics were raised, do you really think these changes are "superficial"? CMD (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

What I mean is that some important aspects of the intro were superficial and missed key details. I've added some details and clarification without bulking up the intro. Titus Gold (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Key details like “killing by English soldiers”/“due to English cultural oppression”. I’ve tried to AGF, but your bias is very obvious. KJP1 (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

1. The killing of Llywelyn's description is factually accurate. Not mentioning Llywelyn's cause of death is misleading.

2. You mention a fair point here because there may have been other factors influencing Welsh language decline. I've made an edit outlining specific reasons rather than the vague statement that I previously included. You're welcome to make further suggestions about this point. Cheers! Titus Gold (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Tidied and rearranged "Welsh language" under the history section, "Languages" under the demographics section and clarified reasons for demographic change in language in the intro section. Titus Gold (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Halting for 7 days (until 29th). Please review the edits. Titus Gold (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The lead changes remain POV, and some unexplained. No matter what the content of your other edits, continuing to push a POV despite the previous discussion is liable to see your edits all reverted again. Adding a military subheader is also quite undue. CMD (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If you don't think the changes in the lead are accurate and factual, feel free to revert them. (Please avoid reverting anything else in the process). Titus Gold (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not willing to take it on faith that the edits to the rest of the article are good, given the problems around the edits to the very start of the article, and previous issues with the body in the last glut of edits. CMD (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thinking topic ban.....or limit to a few edits a week on welsh topics. We should really take the time and review other additions to other pages. How much more anti British POV has been added to other articles? Moxy- 02:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

A good place to start would be David Lloyd George, and its Talkpage, where there’s an ongoing issue with TG wanting to insert mention of LlG’s being Welsh into every other sentence. KJP1 (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree but this talk page is becoming too much about the behaviour of one editor - that's really ANI territory. But to ignore my own advice for one moment...I'm astonished, after all that's been said previously, by TG's inclusion and defence of the “killing by English soldiers”/“due to English cultural oppression” points raised above. If TG cannot see that both fail encyclopedic tone so badly that they adversely impact NPOV (regardless of "truth") there's no hope for him. As it is, they are also inaccurate. The conquest of Wales was not completed with Llywelyn's death. The war went on for 6 more months under his brother Dafydd. During this time significant military actions took place including the invasion and conquest of Gwynedd and the capture of Dolwyddelan Castle. It seems to me the phrase "killing by English soldiers" was deliberately and inaccurately shoe-horned in to the lead to associate the end of Welsh independence with a "heroic" last stand with a subliminal martyrdom hint. I've removed the reference to the conquest being "completed" with Llywelyn's death. As for "English cultural oppression", I don't think that needs any further comment. DeCausa (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I only make edits that are factual. I cited the language decline with a BBC article, a British organisation. Titus Gold (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies to some of the other editors about reverts. Moxy made massive reverts rather than undoing specific edits that he/she did not like. I'm happy to help to re-include with some of these recent edits and respond to any feedback of my own edits. Cheers Titus Gold (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Titus Gold, that string of reverts was unacceptable, and I've rolled them back. Your changes were challenged, and as such it was okay to revert them. You need to bring your case to the talkpage now, and explain the changes you want to make, and see if you can get a consensus for them, and not edit war back in without doing that. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Was the best solution to the apparent problem of Moxy making "massive reverts rather than undoing specific edits" really to make a massive revert rather than undoing specific edits? CMD (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The system would not allow it, unfortunately. I made upwards of 40 edits and I believe other editors also made edits during this period, so was a massive unnecessary revert. I couldn't sort it any other way I'm afraid. Titus Gold (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

If you can work a way for all our edits to remain, please free to implement that. Moxy has caused much hassle here. Titus Gold (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Titus Gold: you really need to back off from this article. It's now impossible to follow what's going on. You've mixed reverts with new changes. I think you need to stop editing this article for a few days and let others sort it out. DeCausa (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I still think Misplaced Pages:Peer review is a good idea, especially now the discussion is being split up (see below). Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

He has now ripped up an article on British Baseball and turned it into article just about Welsh Baseball, whilst creating a new page for English baseball. Sorry but it is impossible to assume good faith with this editor. So many of their edits reek of an anti British political agenda and clear bias. It is not just this article hes making a mess of. RWB2020 (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

RWB2020, that's irrelevant to this talk page, and I have already talked with another editor about the Welsh baseball page who was happy about it. I carefully separated that article into Welsh baseball and English baseball which have separate origins. The article was part of the Welsh culture series and thus should be based on Wales only. Common sense - look at

I'm taking a break from the Wales page and am looking forward to seeing other editors make improvements and reviews to the Wales article, and hopefully at a reasonable pace. Cheers Titus Gold (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

!!! Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Charles, Prince of Wales.

Here in Misplaced Pages, we always add even ceremonial leaders, who may hold the highest office, de jure or de facto, in an area. Since Prince Charles is the Prince of Wales, should we add Prince Charles in the leaders' section in the infobox under the title of "Prince"?

I personally feel like you should, but what do you all say? GucciNuzayer (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

If you can find a source that says he's the "ceremonial leader" of Wales then that can be discussed. I don't think you'll find one though. It's a title with no specific role in Wales, ceremonial or otherwise. Just like the Spanish heir to the throne, Leonor, Princess of Asturias, isn't mentioned on the Asturias page. DeCausa (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

He's not a ceremonial leader of Wales at all. It's just a title used by the "heir apparent of the British monarchy". Titus Gold (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Wales was granted the status of country by the International Standards Agency after lobbying from Plaid Cymru.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/international-body-grants-wales-country-1813629.amp ChefBear01 (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Wales: recent edits

I don't think it was necessary or appropriate to revert masses of edits some of which I don't think were mine. Moxy clearly did not read through them all. I apologise I had to revert some of your edits in the process. Moxy needs to undo specific edits not masses of them. I am happy to to address specific edits in the talk page. I am also happy to help implement any of your proposed edits. Thanks.Titus Gold (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Moxy's "string of edits' was massive in comparison to mine by the way. Please have a look at what he/she reverted. Masses of good work. Titus Gold (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Then you should have concentrated on just those, and not everyone else's. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You reverted the edits of several editors, including three of mine, which I think was unnecessary. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I did attempt to revert Moxy's massive revert only but the system would not allow so I had no choice but to revert other edits that followed Moxy's massive revert. Titus Gold (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Break away

I read over this article & tbh, I can't figure out when Wales broke away from England. I know they're two separate entities within the United Kingdom, but when exactly did this happen. Is there an exact date, is what I'm asking. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "when Wales broke away from England". Do you mean: "The Welsh Language Act 1967 repealed a section of the Wales and Berwick Act and thus "Wales" was no longer part of the legal definition of England"; or, do you mean "The National Assembly for Wales (Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru) was set up in 1999..."? There is no "exact date" - there are many dates. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I reckon 1967, would be the date. GoodDay (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

What’s the purpose of the question? What are you trying to add into the article? Various specific things happened in the relationship between England and Wales. Anything could be argued from none of them constituting “breaking away” (except in relation to particular matters) to Wales was always a separate “entity” anyway. For example, "1967" was quite a technical "narrow" change to do specifically with statutory interpretation which may, in retrospect, be seen as a milestone (more symbolic than anything) in a journey, but wasn't a structural constitutional change. It’s not a relevant question as a general concept without context and I don’t think you’ll find sources using it in that sort of unexplained way. I don’t see how it woukd lead to anything being added or changed in the article. DeCausa (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Ghmrytle's help. There's nothing to add or delete from the page, concerning the topic. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent insertions

Two new insertions have been repeatedly put back into the article, one on the Epynt clearance and one on the "Military of Wales". I am not involved in the Epynt one, but the current text doesn't explain much due weight. As for the second one, it is on a topic that doesn't exist, and similarly doesn't seem to hold much due weight. CMD (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I tend to agree, certainly on WP:DUE. I'm not sure about "doesn't exist" when we have an article on it: Military of Wales even if that article was created by Titus Gold. Trouble is, looking at their articles created and page moves, they've been busily creating "Welsh" WP:POVFORKs around WP, and then embedding them in this and other "proper" articles. He also created Epynt clearance. Other gems include Kings and Princes of Wales (our existing Prince of Wales article didn't suit his purposes), English rule in Wales (apparently Norman marcher lordships and 19th/20th UK legislation is all part of "English rule" aka List of Welsh nationalist grievances against the English), Campaign for a Wales cricket team (which seems to be based on speech by a Plaid Cymru spokesman). Then, funniest of all, moving "British Baseball" to "Baseball in Wales" swiftly followed by some ethic cleansing of the English to their new Gulag at English baseball which he created for the purpose, and then, for good measure, changed the name again to separate from the anglo-saxon U.S. game. There are plaenty of other examples - many of which have ended up as TG pipe-linking them here. This all seems to be getting out of hand. DeCausa (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no Military of Wales, and looking at the linked article, it's quite OR/SYNTH. I'm not tracking all those edits to other pages, which probably belong in another forum, but given the linked page is so poor, that reinforces the lack of due weight here. I've reverted the additions. CMD (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reversion - I personally think it’s already out of hand. User:Titus Gold, with his customary energy, is now creating a slew of forked Welsh articles. They are generally quite poor quality, with weak prose, and are often on topics that have little secondary sourcing and are consequently weakly-cited. TG is then referencing those articles to shoehorn “facts”, but as often slants and opinions, back into the main Wales article. To me, it is clear we are dealing with an editor who is here to right a great wrong, rather than build a neutral encyclopaedia. What to do about it, I’m less sure. I actually think a ban on their engagement with Welsh-related topics is the likely only way forward. KJP1 (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that major reverts was necessary, and they were very varied. One was about a relatively well known historical evacuation, one about being a constitutional monarchy and one citing Welsh military regiments as part of British army. Not sure there was anything wrong there, but there we go.

Addressing your other comment, I've simply worked to make Wales specific pages when many pages were British or UK wide and did not give Wales specific info. I feel that Misplaced Pages is now actually more neutral since I have made more Wales specific pages because the vast majority were entirely previously UK or British focused. I have just made additional edits based on your feedback here on some of those articles, so i appreciate your feedback there.

I would also note that e.g Military history of Scotland is a military page specific to Scotland. I've renamed the page Armed forces in Wales to make it clearer that Welsh regiments are obviously part of the British armed forces. I fully agree that some pages require additional work, but the vast majority are good pages e.g Welsh devolution which would not exist otherwise.

I would also point out English rule in Kerala, British rule in Ireland, British rule in Burma...the list goes on.

The Kings and Princes of Wales includes the initial three which were known as King of all the Welsh" etc. as far as I know Prince Charles is not described as King of all the Welsh.

Campaign for a Wales cricket team is based on multiple media articles in addition to mentions by two Plaid politicians (I'm not advocating for Plaid by any means!).

Welsh baseball is well cited and has different origins to the sport in Merseyside, Liverpool if you just googled it. Welsh baseball even has a twitter page!

If you want to suggest any improvements or changes to any page, please make a comment on talk pages and I welcome any supporting edits. I don't fancy an unnecessary "ban" and I'm here to co-operate and listen if you want to make any suggestions. I don't think there are any more pages that need creating anyway and my "customary energy" has been used up! Titus Gold (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Geography and places good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class UK geography articles
• Top-importance UK geography articles
• GA-Class Wales articles
• Top-importance Wales articles
• WikiProject Wales articles
• GA-Class United Kingdom articles
• Top-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• GA-Class Celts articles
• Top-importance Celts articles
• WikiProject Celts articles
• GA-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles