This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Matt Lewis (talk | contribs) at 18:39, 23 February 2014 (→Ticking all the non-boxes: I think there is a real danger in trying to pare things down all the time). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:39, 23 February 2014 by Matt Lewis (talk | contribs) (→Ticking all the non-boxes: I think there is a real danger in trying to pare things down all the time)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 | 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. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | ||||||||||||||||
| Skip to table of contents |
| 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. |
|
| 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  |
| The issue of whether Wales is a country or not has been repeatedly raised. The result of all these debates is that Wales is indeed a country. This has been confirmed in formal mediation. 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
 | 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Government and politics images
I removed the image of First Minister Carwyn Jones from the Government and politics section (since reverted) for two reasons. Firstly, per WP:RECENTISM. Jones has been First Minister of Wales since December 2009 – less than four years. If anyone should be pictured in the section, Rhodri Morgan would be my first choice - he was in office for the best part of ten years. However, while I accept that many articles show their country's current leader, MOS has no requirement to do so AFAIK, and not all country articles do e.g. Ireland and Northern Ireland. The second reason was that the image bled into the following (Local Government) section, making the article look amateurish. The section is too short to accommodate three images (and the image of the Senedd should remain). May I suggest an alternative resolution? Replace the image of the royal badge of Wales with the image of Carwyn Jones. Any objections? Daicaregos (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly none from me.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 11:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)- No problem. I think an image of the current political leader helps reinforce the message to readers that Wales is a current political entity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Done Royal Badge of Wales.
You people are aware that the Welsh government has a coat of arms right? Why isnt it featured next to the flag like all the over government coat of arms from various countries? http://en.wikipedia.org/Royal_Badge_of_Wales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.13.216.142 (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- The Welsh government doesn't have sovereignty over Wales, unlike other states. I'm bothered either way however. Rob (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please expand "bothered either way"! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't mind whether it's included or not, since I have little idea of the extent to which the Royal Badge symbolises Wales. I disagree with the OP's assertion that a symbol of a Government, is by essence, a national symbol. And it may incorrect in this case, since the Royal Badge doesn't represent the sovereign of Wales. Simply, a symbol represents a country, if it is used to represent the country. Rob (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- The Royal Badge is not the badge of the Welsh government. It's the badge of the Queen in Wales. "The device introduced in 2008 is accordingly a badge, rather than a coat of arms; Wales currently has no official coat of arms." Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, as ever, to Ghmyrtle for clarifying this! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 21:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think whether it's a coat of arms or not is conclusive, various national symbols are placed along side flags in countries' infoboxes, but I don't think the badge is a national symbol. Rob (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- The Royal Badge is not the badge of the Welsh government. It's the badge of the Queen in Wales. "The device introduced in 2008 is accordingly a badge, rather than a coat of arms; Wales currently has no official coat of arms." Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't mind whether it's included or not, since I have little idea of the extent to which the Royal Badge symbolises Wales. I disagree with the OP's assertion that a symbol of a Government, is by essence, a national symbol. And it may incorrect in this case, since the Royal Badge doesn't represent the sovereign of Wales. Simply, a symbol represents a country, if it is used to represent the country. Rob (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2014
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second par in the main article, this sentence should have a comma added after "century": "Welsh national identity emerged among the Celtic Britons after the Roman withdrawal from Britain in the 5th century and Wales is regarded as one of the modern Celtic nations."
Listserv (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Listserv
Done Commas
If a sentence looks like "(subject) (predicate), and (another subject) (another predicate)" or "(subject) (predicate), (another predicate), and (yet another predicate)", commas are correct. If it looks like "(subject) (predicate) and (another predicate)", commas should not be used. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. So shall we put them all back now? Ian Dalziel (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Okay, I've looked at all of the disputed commas. A few commas, such as the ones in "light and service industries, and tourism" and "governors, and the flower of its youth", are Oxford commas and can go either way. Most of Marimari2k1's removal were correct, and I've fixed the few that weren't. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Revision 593752527
Edits:
- Infobox tidy.
- Removed translations out of piped links per WP:OVERLINK.
- Added native phrase template to motto.
- Removed links next to names of ministers regarding their membership to legislatures, as they're pointless with the (HMG)
- UK > HMG, Actual abbreviation for British Government.
- US$ > USD, USD is more correct. ($ is also applicable)
- Removed (UK) next to +44, calling codes cover a variety of regions, and are not necessarily specific to sovereign states.
- Removed dividing line, a section of the infobox lacking a heading is inconsistent formatting. Also, the (HMG) clarifies which ministers are part of the British Government.
- Added soundtrack for anthem.
- Other minor formatting edits'
- Introduction edits.
- Irish Sea is part of the Atlantic.
- Expanded location description.
- 'bordered by England' > 'shares a border with England' Better wording?
- 'part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain' > 'part of the United Kingdom. Predominantly located on Great Britain' More correct.
- Other minor wording.
Issues?
Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 20:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- A few (thanks for discussing this):
- I have never heard Wales' motto noted in English. It is a translation only and, as such, should be in 'small'
- The national anthem is known as Land of my fathers in English, which should be noted.
- The sound file is not of sufficient quality to appear in the infobox (this has been discussed here)
- The dividing line was created deliberately in order to differentiate between the Welsh Government and the UK Government (this has been discussed)
- The UK Government should be noted as the UK Government.
- Gruffydd ap Llywelyn's name should be noted in full
- No need to note 'UK' after +44
- Dewi Sant should be part of the Wikilink
- The opening paragraph, and especially the opening sentence, has the been subject of extensive discussion. It must not be changed without achieving concensus on the talk page. I would personally prefer some of the changes made (although none of those made to the opening sentence), but they should still be agreed first on talk. Daicaregos (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't explain some things clearly, I'll go though:
- The englishmotto section is for translations, and displays the translation in the same way it was previously (this hasn't actually changed anything).
- National anthem in English - Okay
- Sound file not appropriate - Okay
- Dividing line - I'll look further into this
- UK Government should be noted as the UK Government - I poorly explained this. Currently, next to 'Prime Minister' it states '(UK)', I changed this to '(HMG)', the abbreviation for the British Government, rather then the UK. Ie, it would state 'Prime Minister (HMG)' rather then 'Prime Minister (UK)'. This is because the First Minister is a British (UK) minister, they're just not a British Government (HMG) minister.
- Gruffydd ap Llywelyn's name in full - Okay
- No need to note 'UK' after +44 - I'm guessing this means you agree.
- Including 'Dewi Sant' within the Wikilink is over-linking (WP:OVERLINK). Since it's clearly a translation of the linked text, linking it also doesn't serve any purpose. Although these are part of the same link, it is still essentially linking the same term twice, right next to each-other.
- Introduction agreed first - Okay
- Rob (talk | contribs) 23:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't explain some things clearly, I'll go though:
Changes to Demography section
I've reverted these changes for several reasons. Firstly, they are poorly written: "According to the 2011 census the population of Wales is...." - no, it was, almost three years ago. "Populace"....."reside"....."Historiclly", etc. Verbosity and poor spelling should be discouraged in articles. More importantly, in Matt's version there was an over-emphasis on, and over-detailed interpretation of, the census statistics on national identity, which seem to be written up in a WP:POINTy manner. Some referenced information seems to have been removed. The previous text was better balanced, and better written, so I have reverted to it - and subsequently tweaked it a little for better flow. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- NO REFERENCES WERE REMOVED BY ME. I removed the POINTY-ness! That's what my edit was about. You could have changed spelling error and the odd word. But you just full-revert. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you didn't remove references, I apologise. Sometimes the "compare" function makes it very difficult to see what changes have actually been made. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Dealing with Original Research in the demographics section (the section was also very jumbled)
I don't have much time right now... but made an edit this morning which took me a lot of time last night and this morning too. It improves the oft-jumbled text of the Demographics section, and CLEARS UP ONE VITALLY IMPORTANT AREA OF ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND MISINFORMATION.
The text gave someone's own personal reading of a Census data sheet: I've simply shown the data as percentages: not interpreted and judged on it. The incorrect and 'OR' reading is/was said "34.1 per cent had no Welsh identity. 16.9 per cent considered themselves wholly British and another 9.4 per cent considered themselves as partly British. 73.7 per cent had no British identity." (my underline)
80 percent of people in Wales ticked only one box - mostly ticked Welsh, as they asked to after 2001. That does not mean they are not British. There nationality (the census question) is chosen here as Welsh. That's how it works in the UK. People can choose to say one or the other in the UK (that was the whole point of people wanting it in - I did myself after 2001, not becaise I'm not British!), it doesn not mean they are not the other - ie British nor Welsh! Many (I think most) people in England and Wales think that Welsh, Engilsh etc just IS British by default: that's the legal idea too. The qestion asked "How would you describe your nationality". Everyone knows most people just say their 'sub-nat', not their 'super-nat'. It's just the way it is. Britishness can even be seen as beyond-national anyway. It can also be seen as a simple legal default people accept. The do not have to be mutually exclusive.
We just cannot make these sweeping interpretations. As a side, we actually know that the whole census was actually regarded as confusing by over 50% of people. We also cannot say that 34.1 percent are NOT Welsh. It's pure Original Research. The Welsh gov summaries allude to what people put, not what they ARE. I added information the following 'ethnic group?' question on the census as it expanded (and shed light on) on the very same theme.
All we need offer people is the information. We don't have to tell them what to think.
I put this alternative in instead (which adds relevant missing information, like the first line, and various data.)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wales&diff=next&oldid=596754513#Demographics)
- The census of 2001 was criticised by many in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe their national identity. Partly to address this concern the 2011 census offered a list of choices. It asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?" and underneath was a direction to "tick all that apply". 80% of the participants in Wales ticked one box, with 57.5 percent ticking 'Welsh' (65.9 percent in some combination), 11.2 percent ticking 'English' (13.8 percent in some combination), 0.5 percent ticking 'Scottish' (0.6 percent in some combination), 0.13 percent ticking 'Northern Irish' (0.15 percent in some combination), and 16.9 percent ticking 'British' (26 percent in some combination). 3.4 percent filled out 'Other', which included 0.4 instances that are the same as those above. The largest 'Other' was 'Irish', with 0.3 ticking 'Irish' (0.4 percent in some combination).
- Identity was also the theme of the following question, which asked "What is your ethnic group?" The most-chosen option was 'White: Welsh/English/Scottish/Northern Irish/British' at 93.2 percent, a fall from 96 percent for the equivalent option of 'British' in 2001. The next most-chosen option was 'Asian or Asian British' at 2.3 percent, followed by 'Mixed race' at 1 percent, 'Black or Black British' at 0.6 percent, and 'Irish' and 'Other' 0.5 percent each. The figure given for 'Total Black and minority ethnic' people was 4.4 percent, a significant rise from 2.1 percent in 2001.
I Have to quickly go out quickly now, I do apologise. But Please read my work (it's always considered). Thanks. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- We really shouldn't be interpreting the raw census results ourselves at all - we should be relying on secondary sources. This is one such source - maybe not the best, but it covers the point. And we certainly should not be overstating the case made on one side or the other. I'd support removing the entire existing paragraph on national identity, and replacing it, thus:
- Existing paragraph:
The 2011 census showed that 57.5% of Wales' population considered their national identity as wholly Welsh and another 8.3% considered themselves to be partly Welsh (Welsh and British were the most common combination). 34.1% had no Welsh identity. 16.9% considered themselves wholly British and another 9.4% considered themselves as partly British. 73.7% had no British identity. 11.2% considered themselves wholly English and another 2.6% considered themselves partly English.
- My suggestion:
The 2011 census showed that 65.9% of Wales' population described their national identity as Welsh; 26.3% described it as British; 13.8% described it as English; and 4.3 described it as "other". The percentages total more than 100% because some residents declared more than one national identity.
- I'm glad you agree we shouldn't be interpreting the data at all, but for me it's got to be worth giving the actual question, and why not each statistic too? I actually fully-expected to find the section done that way. It's all useful stuff isn't it? We also absolutely need the ethnicity question, as it expands on the identity question. It's the best raw data (and reference, frankly) that there is: a census.
- I'd love to give my interpretation underneath it all(!), but I did only give a lot of facts. I know you find what I wrote somhehow 'pointy' (was it the order of things?), but I really do try and be aware of that kind of thing. What do you think is actually pointy about it? Maybe we could address that in turn.
- Off the record, I think you can actually take something positive from my text whichever 'side' of the emotional dispute you are on: ie whether you'd rather see I'm-nothing-but-Welsh, or I'm-just-British or I'm British-too! If only you knew the hours I've spent here over the years - in my numerous article edits at least - to try and compromise with the emotional positions of others: and specifically not to make anything I write 'pointy'! I always want things to be balance, objective and well-made. If there is anything 'directional' about it, it's just to convey meaning, and perhaps help other people from making the kind of interpretive mistakes that the writer of the dodgy text I highlighted above made. ie - give full-informative text that can stand the test of time.
- Re the sources, I'd agree the one you've found is not ideal. I must have spent an hour at least on that side last night. I think it just happens to be difficult in this particular area. A surprise perhaps, but that seems to be true. Good sources must be out there, but I think that sometimes people here do expect them to be close at hand - ie we take the internet for granted sometimes. In the absence of them - and we'd need a few interpretations to write 'balance' that/this sentences - I think it's even more useful just to give all the raw data, as I have done. And in a way that hopefully no one sees as 'pointy' obviously.
- By the way, I've thought the Wales article has been imperfectly-written in parts for more like 10 years, let alone 3! A lot of Misplaced Pages is still like that. If the offending parts here have indeed existed unchanged for 3 years, then for 3 years the article has been promulgating some highly-contentious and decidedly non-policy 'Original Research', albeit rather hidden-away in the demographics section. Perhaps it's no wonder that one or two non-Welsh (or non-Welsh residing) Wikipedians appear a bit confused about these issues. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Ticking all the non-boxes
"The census of 2001 was criticised by many in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe their national identity. Partly to address this concern the 2011 census offered a list of choices."
- I think this is a useful detail that could usefully be included. Or is it just fringe political trivial? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- If it is to be used we should drop "by many", criticised is enough. Also it was criticised inside and outside Wales, as the 2001 Census gave options for Scottish and Irish, but not English and Welsh. There were campaigns to add English as much as the addition of Welsh. It may be enough to just state "in the 2011 Census the option for people to identify themselves as Welsh was added". FruitMonkey (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm more than happy to drop words like "many" (though a ref could probably be found for that: I was a complainer myself at the time).
- I think there is a real danger in trying to pare things down all the time, especially with identity statistics. I think what I eventually came up with was pretty-much what has to be given. I actually went a lot of different routes. Aside from explaining itself (the best form of explanation I think), it's actually all useful information for readers of the Wales article.
- PS should this be merged? Matt Lewis (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- ^ "Census results 'defy tickbox row'". BBC Online. Retrieved February 23, 2014.
- ^ "2011 Census: KS202EW National identity, unitary authorities in Wales (Excel sheet 126Kb)". Office for National Statistics. 11 December 2012. p. 3. Retrieved 28 September 2013.
- "A Statistical Focus on Ethnicity in Wales" (PDF). National Assembly for Wales. 2004. p. 1. Retrieved 10 February 2012.
- ""What is your ethnic group?" question from 2011 Census" (PDF). Welsh Government. December 17, 2012. Retrieved February 23, 2014.
- . CIEMEN. 11 December 2012 http://www.nationalia.info/en/news/1284. Retrieved 23 February 2014.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=(help)
- 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
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- GA-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles