This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
RFC: Should the monarch be included in Wales in Year articles?
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Comments in support of the proposal reasoned that the monarch should be included for consistency with the 'Year in' articles of other constituent countries of the United Kingdom. Comments in opposition argued that it's redundant and doesn't really make sense on these articles. The consensus in this discussion supports the consistency argument ('all or none'; that is, so long as it's present on some constituent country articles, it should be present on all of them).That said, it's unclear whether there is consensus for it to be on any article for a constituent country, with some editors in support also expressing reservations on its utility. Future discussion on that issue is recommended, including exploring alternative methods of presentation (eg, some in the discussion discussed the idea of using an infobox). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Having taken notice that the monarch is included in the 'incumbent' section of the Year articles for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & the United Kingdom. The question should be asked. Should the monarch be included in the 'incumbent' section of the Year articles for Wales? GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes - Indeed, as it's done in the Scotland, England, Northern Ireland & United Kingdom Year articles. Which links to the British monarchy in these cases, for reader clarification. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Strong Yes. The monarch has many roles in relation to Wales. For example, the First Minister of Wales is officially appointed by the monarch, and just a month ago, she opened a new session of the Senedd. Also, the Government of Wales Act 2006 gave the monarch new functions of formally appointing other Welsh ministers, and granting royal assent to Acts of the Welsh Assembly. Peter Ormond 💬15:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Weak Yes I don't really think it needs to be included in the England, Scotland and Northern Ireland articles but if it is then its probably best to include it on the Wales ones for consistency.--Llewee (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
No - Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a whole and not a unique monarch for each of the individual subdivisions. Should only be included as an incumbent on the United Kingdom articles and not for Wales, Scotland, England etc for post Acts of Union articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Be consistent. While mentioned at England, Scotland and NI, it should definitely be mentioned here also. I'm uncertain whether it should be mentioned for England, Scotland and NI (at least post 1801/1707) but it currently is and this is the wrong discussion in the wrong venue to decide if we want to change that. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
No - per Stevie fae Scotland, it doesn't seem relevant as the Queen isn't specific to Wales whereas the rest of the listed incumbents are (e.g. First Minister, Archbishop of Wales, National Poet of Wales). If we included the queen, it would make sense to list the rest of incumbents in British politics, e.g. Prime Minister, Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom, etc. why would we draw the line at just the queen? It's better in my view to keep the list limited to just Wales-specific offices. Jr8825 • Talk20:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes for the purposes of this discussion, unless someone can demonstrate Wales is fundamentally different from other UK countries. Otherwise this discussion should be in a different place, as it would set a precedent for other articles.
Discussion
GoodDay
I'm disappointed that you haven't taken up the alternative suggestion of including the monarch in a UK box for all the home countries instead of wanting to put this in the "Incumbents" section of articles which are intended for matters of specific interest to Wales. It's definitely not good enough to just put (for example) "Elizabeth II" as that will just confuse readers ("Elizabeth II of Wales? Who's she?") Deb (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
It's simple: Instead of changing the Wales infobox which has been in existence for donkey's years, you create a "United Kingdom" infobox containing the names of the current incumbents such as the Queen, Johnson, etc. Then there will be no need for any conflict. Deb (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
We use the pipe-links [List of English monarchs|Monarch] before 1707 & [List of British monarchs|Monarch] or [Monarchy of the United Kingdom|Monarch] after 1707, in front of the monarch's name. AFAIK, nobody has been mistakenly thinking "Elizabeth II of Scotland", "Elizabeth II of Northern Ireland" or "Elizabeth II of England", in four of the other aforementioned Year articles, as she's preceded with link to the British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
How can you possibly know that? In fact, I regularly hear her referred to as "Elizabeth II of England" by people from all over the world. Deb (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
You're talking about the Year in Wales standard layout which was created years before the equivalent articles on Scotland and Northern Ireland were in existence. England doesn't even have a full set of year articles yet. What you've done is to impose a standard of your own preference on existing articles about the United Kingdom home countries, all of which have slightly different methods of government. You haven't explained why you did that rather than create a single UK template for the things that are the same about all four countries instead of trying to force each individual country into a mould that does not suit its specific needs. The monarch is of no "specific" interest to Wales, any more than the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer is. So the question is actually, why should Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland be treated the same as England? Deb (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I still don't know what you're going on about, with this UK template idea. I'll ask you a third (maybe fourth) time, show me a visual of what you're proposing? PS - I'm still not convinced of your claims that today's Wales is completely different from today's Scotland, England & Northern Ireland. Wales isn't an independent country, so let's stop trying to present it as though it were. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
It really sounds like you don't have much idea about how the UK works or how much bad feeling you will be in danger of stoking up if you force through your preferred layout. The purpose of the Year in Wales article - and this is at the top of each article in the series - is to list information of "particular significance ... to Wales and its people". You want to include the name of the monarch - which isn't of particular significance to Wales, Scotland, England or Northern Ireland, only to the UK - and yet you haven't suggested including the name of the UK prime minister. Nevertheless, you've insisted on removing the Prince of Wales, which is far more relevant to Wales than the current monarch.
You could use a variation on Template:Infobox UK country. That infobox already contains a section for incumbents that are relevant to the whole of the UK, as well as currency, time difference, etc; the difference is that names would need to change from year to year. If you feel it's necessary, it could go in the corner of each year page for a UK country, separate from the usual Year infobox. It would save work because the same template would cover all four countries, and would be more informative to the reader than repeating the names of incumbents in each article and leaving everyone guessing as to why Wales has a Queen and what her title is. Deb (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
A UK template isn't required. It's not used at the post-1707 Scotland, post-1707 England or the Northern Ireland Year articles. Also, the British monarch (not the British prime minister) appoints the Welsh first minister & therefore the British prime minister is 'excluded'. There's only two possible outcomes to this RFC & I'll be respecting whatever the outcome is. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
A UK template would be the easiest solution because it would offend nobody. Don't you care about achieving the most complete consensus on this? There are many areas in which the UK government takes precedence over the Welsh government, and if you believe that politics and government are the only topics for which the Incumbents section exists, then you should be taking account of that as well. The Incumbents section in the Year in Wales section was not created specifically for politics and government when the layout was established back in 2006 (before the other year articles you mention were thought of). How can the Queen be of specific interest to Wales when she performs the same functions in relation to other UK countries? Why is it not adequate to have her listed in the Incumbents section of Year in United Kingdom articles? Deb (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
She 'is' in the incumbent section of the Year in the United Kingdom articles. As the British monarch, she reigns in the United Kingdom, which means she reigns over Wales, Scotland, England & Northern Ireland. It just happens to be that England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland 'make up' the United Kingdom. On a somewhat related note, you may have noticed that the current British monarch is shown in the infoboxes of the United Kingdom, as well as Wales, Scotland, England & Northern Ireland. I'm just not buying into your argument that Wales is different or special from the rest of the UK. PS - Respectfully, you're not going to bludgeon me into agreeing with you, on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm trying to explain to you, since you don't seem to understand my argument. Why is it necessary to change the standard layout in order to have the monarch mentioned in the articles on each of the four home countries? Why is it not adequate to have them named in the United Kingdom article? If someone started a "Year in California" article, would you really expect them to list the President of the United States? There is absolutely nothing about the UK monarch that is of specific interest to the year in Wales. It's simply unnecessary duplication (as well as being insulting). Deb (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
If you want to open up an RFC calling for the removal of the British monarch from the post-1707 Year in England articles, post-1707 Year in Scotland articles, the English/British monarch from the post-1282 Year in Wales articles & the British monarch from the Year in Northern Ireland articles? Then do so. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
There is simply no reason for it to be there. It's just duplication of information that already exists in the Year in the United Kingdom articles. Consistency is not a good reason to include superfluous detail. Deb (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I would agree with Deb that a UK infobox might clear up any confusion. QEII is the head or state, after all, and is listed as an incumbent in "Year in" articles for Commonwealth countries. If we're including the monarch as an incumbent we should really include the UK prime minister too, who also has jurisdiction over the constituent parts of the UK - but Deb's infobox idea would potentially solve that confusion too. But overall, this discussion is being held in the wrong place, because the conclusion would apply equally to England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Sionk (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
For now, we should concentrate on the current RFC question. If the monarch is added? then later we can look into the UK infobox idea & present it to all the Year in place-in-question articles. GoodDay (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
The problem here is that you went ahead with this in its present form after I made the suggestion about an infobox. And by making this an RFC solely about the Year in Wales pages, when in fact it's about all "Year in UK country" pages, you've effectively prevented a proper discussion about whether the monarch belongs on any of those pages. Clearly I'm not the only one who thinks it's superfluous. There are also other alternatives, such as a simple explanatory note, which could have been put forward. Deb (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
An RFC concerning the Year in Wales, Scotland, England & Northern Ireland articles was already held recently, concerning the inclusion/exclusion of the monarch. That RFC ended in no consensus for either inclusion or exclusion. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't explain why you've chosen to open another discussion here, rather than about all the UK articles. The monarch was added to the Northern Ireland pages in November 2020 without any discussion (or even an edit summary) so it seems the NI pages should be included in any discussion too. Sionk (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
The post-1707 Scotland, England & the Northern Ireland Year articles already have the monarch in them. It's easier to attempt to bring one article-in-line with the other three, then to attempt to bring the other three articles-in-line with one. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
You're either willfully ignoring the point I was making, or mis-reading my post. If someone objected to the UK monarch in the Northern Ireland articles, reverted the recent edits and removed it, we'd have two sets of articles with, and two without. Sionk (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
More likely because they haven't noticed that the monarch is also listed under the year in United Kingdom - unnecessary duplication which you've so far failed to justify. As to whether a year is too long, remember what you said during this conversation? Deb (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
There can't possibly be a yes/no result from this RFC because of the issues listed above. You are wasting everyone's time by refusing to consider alternatives. Deb (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The result of the "vote" may appear to be a consensus to add or don't add, but it will not be adopted because of the way you've handled this. Deb (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah, you may be assuming that a "vote" is binding on the closing editor. That's not what it's for. A request for "comment" is just that. Although there are lots of comments, you've rejected a better solution to the issue. Deb (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ProcrastinatingReader: I'm going to interpret your closing as "add the monarch", since the monarch is already in the post-1707 Year in Scotland, post-1707 Year in England & Year in Northern Ireland articles. Meanwhile, I would recommend that the main opponent @Deb:, set up an RFC for the Year in articles (with his infobox proposal) covering 'all' four constituent countries, 1801-1922 Year in Ireland articles & 1541-1800 Year in Ireland articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
GoodDay - Don't even think about it. The discussion was closed without consensus, and that's because you refused to compromise on a better solution. Deb (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I believe, if you open up such an RFC (with the infobox idea) in the proper place. You would get an overwhelming consensus for it. GoodDay (talk) 08:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, I think it might help us both, if you were to clarify 'exactly' whether the monarch should be added into the Year in Wales articles (as they are included in the post-1707 Year in Scotland, post-1707 Year in England, Year in Northern Ireland articles), or not. Myself & Deb are reading your decision, differently. GoodDay (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Until there's a consensus to remove it on all (or change the presentation on all), yes, the monarch should be added as per The consensus in this discussion supports the consistency argument ('all or none'; that is, so long as it's present on some constituent country articles, it should be present on all of them).ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Then, you'll step aside & allow me to re-implement PR's decision? In the meantime, you can challenge his close in the proper place. GoodDay (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, pardon me, @ProcrastinatingReader:, but I read your conclusion as stating that, although there was consensus within the narrow context of this "vote", there's no consensus for this to be included in any Year article. If that's not what you were trying to say, I must contest this closure. Deb (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
It's unclear whether there's consensus for it to be in any year article. But, in this discussion, there was consensus for it to be in every year article if it's in any year article (i.e. consistency). I understand the status quo as being that it is in the other year articles, so it follows it should be in every constituent country's year article, until there is consensus to change its presence (or appearance) on all of them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Further more, he's 're-added' the prince & princess of Wales in some of the articles, in defiance of an earlier RFC which had an overwhelming consensus to exclude the prince & princess of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
In the meantime, I'm preparing a new RFC on my sandbox covering all UK-related Year in Place articles, in accordance with the second half of your decision. GoodDay (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
There has been a discussion at River Dee, Wales about the length of the River. The 1910 Encyclopaedia Britannica cites it as 70 miles which just about goes from Farndon to the exit sluices at Llyn Tegid. Some other well know rivers such as the River Thames provide no source for the length which just gives a figure for two different lengths from the two disputed sources to a point off Canvey Island. The River Teifi and River Tywi rely on the Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales published in 2008. If anyone has a copy of that esteemed publication in either English or Cymraeg, would they be kind enough to quote a suitable ref and a length. FWIW the actual length of the Dee from Point of Ayr to its source appears to be around 110 miles as measured on a 1:25000 OS map. Thanks VelellaVelella Talk 14:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Velella - as you note, the issue is wider than just the Dee, indeed it's one that affects rivers throughout not just Wales but the whole of Britain. I'm attempting to secure a copy of the WA Encyc of Wales myself - will let you know if I'm successful! best wishes Geopersona (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Looking to speak to the UK based wikipedia editors
Hi there,
My name is Victoria and I work at the cross-party UK think-tank Demos. We bring the voices of the public into policymaking, and a big focus for us is bringing those voices into political debates about the future of online life.
Right now, we’re listening to people who earn low or no pay from their online work, to understand what they think a fair and desirable future would look like when it comes to being paid for this work.
We are looking at this because new technology could make it easier for people to monetise their work online, instead of relying on existing ways of being paid such as advertisers, subscribers, and through traditional platforms. We are keen to hear perspectives both from people who would like to monetise their online work and from those who would not find such an option desirable, for example, those who volunteer their time online, view their content creation as a hobby or feel getting paid would negatively change the nature of the work they do.
I’m posting here to see if there are any wiki editors that would be interested in taking part in this project. We believe perspectives like yours should be included in decisions about how people are paid for their work online. The outputs of this project will be social media content, a short report and a site that highlights the views that come out of the workshops. Through these we will try to shape the debates held by politicians, the media and tech companies about how online payment for work is run.
It would involve joining a 1.5 hour Zoom workshop with others who do work online across various platforms, where we’d discuss as a group people’s experiences and how the systems for being paid for online work could be improved.
We will need your email and the name you would like to use in the workshop. We would record the Zoom call for our research but would delete this on completion of the project. We recognise that this discussion would touch on sensitive personal information, and all personal data would be handled and stored in accordance with Demos’ privacy policy, which can be found here. If we use any quotes from you, we will reach out to you first to check if this is okay, and we can use a pseudonym if you prefer.
You would be paid £125 for your time and we would try to organise the call at a time that is convenient for all. At present the workshop is scheduled to run in the week beginning 9 May but there is some flexibility here to move the call forward if that week proves difficult for people.
This project is funded by Grant for the Web (you can read their announcement about the project here), a fund to boost open, fair, and inclusive standards and innovation in web monetisation. Demos itself is an independent, cross-party charity and has control over how the project is run.
Thank you for taking the time to read through this. If you are interested in taking part or would like to learn more, please contact me at victoria.baines@demos.co.uk and I can provide further information.
Vbdemos (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
per WP:APPNOTE - "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion."
Bishops of the Church in Wales are clearly priests of the church in Wales. That is more defining than their personal nationality. But their nationality is actually British. That is legally defined. Welsh nationality is merely cultural, undefined and undocumented. Rathfelder (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Welsh Anglican says nothing about nationality. My friend from Manchester has moved to Wales and is a vicar in the Welsh church. That doesnt mean she isnt BritishRathfelder (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe you're mistaken here. "English" and "Welsh" are used throughout this encyclopedia as nationalities. "British" can be helpful when someone is not clearly one thing or the other - for example, an English person born in Wales or vice versa. The word "priests" is also confusing as most people read it as referring to Catholic priests rather than Anglican clergyman. Regardless, the Church in Wales is a thing, as is Church of England. Deb (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
@Rathfelder: if your friend is English and an Anglican priest then she is an English Anglican priest. This is how categories work on Wikipedia. However, 'Welsh Anglican bishop' is open to misinterpretation, and lazy people might refer to the bench of bishops of the Church in Wales as 'the Welsh bishops'. There is a real example: Cherry Vann, the Bishop of Monmouth, might well be classified as English. I have not found a reliable source to confirm this, possibly because the press is more exercised with her sexuality than her nationality. Her article should not be included in Category:21st-century Welsh Anglican priests. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Neither she nor her bishop would describe her as that. She is a Welsh Anglican priest. The denomination is more significant than nationality when it comes to priests.Rathfelder (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
This is clearly all point-y nonsense about something that is not disputed by anyone else on Wikipedia, or any government, or any reliable source. Sure, Wales is not an independent sovereign nation, but no-one disputes that. All the same it has its own borders, language, national anthem and government ...and church. And someone's nationality is largely (and particularly on Wikipedia) defined by how they describe themselves and how they are widely described in reliable secondary sources. Sionk (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
Hi, a user has controversially moved Transport for Wales → Transport for Wales (government agency) without a discussion, if it can be reverted (now technical as TfW is now DAB) and reopened as a requested move that would be great. This article has been subject to constant undiscussed moves over the years, if a RM is opened, any comments are welcome to finally settle this issue. Many Thanks – DankJae12:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm becoming concerned that the copious edits of Titus Gold over recent months on Wales-related articles may not be getting the attention from other editors that they deserve - perhaps because some of the articles concerned are newly created. Inputs from other interested editors would be appreciated, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I have ensured that content I have contributed is well referenced and factual and I would greatly welcome any support, contributions or feedback. Thanks very much. Titus Gold (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The founder, Charles Ward, has just died. Does he need an article of his own? I'm pretty sure the article on the studios needs a bit of an update. Deb (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Would think the Rockfield Studios article is sufficient, unless Charles Ward was also notable for something else. Sionk (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi. As some will know, User:Martinevans123 has been blocked for apparent copyright violations and several of his articles have been deleted, including one on the important Welsh artist Nicholas Evans. To avoid further controversy, I have recreated the article in draft, using additional sources. If anyone would like to take a look at it, offer feedback or even formally review it, that would be welcome. Deb (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
How crazy is that?! He's been one of Wikipedia's most diligent contributors. I'll try and have a look sometime. Sionk (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I can't begin to guess what the problem is with the article. Evans is clearly notable. Many of the sources used are off-line. Do you know where the COPYVIO issues arose? Sionk (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I've just published the Military history of Wales page following on from Armed forces in Wales. It needs a lot of citation and expansion so any help would be hugely appreciated.Titus Gold (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Titus Gold If you're not sure that these articles are good enough, you should really be starting them in draft space, not putting them straight into article space. Deb (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I've just removed non-cited content from this page but would appreciate any help to expand the history background to each decade. Thanks! Titus Gold (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Wales colleagues, Hope my post finds you well. I usually edit as a volunteer over at WikiProject Women in Red, but am working for the National Trust on a short paid pilot to assess and expand some of the content related to their sites here. Details of the project are here. One of the areas for expansion they have identified is for the Dolmelynllyn Estate in north Wales, which currently has a redirect to the Ganllwyd page. I would like to expand the existing redirect (please see Talk page). Please let me know if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Unless I've missed a memo, I thought paid editing in Wikipedia was frowned upon. But thanks for being so upfront about it. Sionk (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder @Deb! I think @Sionk in general its not encouraged, however in this case, one of the reasons to expand some of the National Trust content is so that the organisation might be able to make a case to get involved in Wikimedia's work further. As lots of people in the organisation are new to the wiki-world, new Wikipedia content that's measurable is one way of providing evidence to support further work, so in this case I would say that creating some paid content might (very much might I want to stress) end up supporting work by the NT in the Wikimedia movement more broadly and so would be worth the COI. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
You're right. Although it's discouraged, it's not outright prohibited. However, it's important that nothing you write should be able to be interpreted as promoting the National Trust. It's a good idea to create these new articles in draft so that others can offer constructive criticism. Deb (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm quite sure most if not all NT properties must be well documented somewhere by reputable third party sources, so there's little doubt they'd be suitable subjects for standalone articles. If you need my help, I'll send you my hourly rate ;) Sionk (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks very much @Sionk and thanks very much @Deb - the paid editing guidelines suggest using the Articles for Creation wizard too, so what I'll do is use that to start a draft and then post it here, if you'd have time to take a look at it? (I can't offer anyone an hourly rate I'm afraid :( - but I can offer to return any favours in future ;)) If it then gets accepted at AfC, I'll sort out the redirects I mention above. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Deb and hello @Sionk, I've started a draft for the Estate in my sandbox, if you have time/inclination I would be grateful for any comments on it. I'm waiting for a few further sources to be supplied, but I think it is mostly there. Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Appreciate that editors hold strong views on paid editing. I do, and it did my head in at AfC. My preference would be that we didn’t have any, but we do. Given that, my personal opinion is that User:Lajmmoore’s work falls the right side of the line. They have scrupulously declared their COI, put everything new through AFC, discussed changes to existing articles on the talkpages, they’re aware that Wikipedia’s not a promotional platform, and the subjects they are covering are inherently notable. All in all, I think it’s a net positive but I understand that for others it is a bright-line rule. KJP1 (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @KJP1 for adding your views here, especially (personally) the note on scrupulousness. What's been really invaluable its all the editors (like everyone in this section), whose supported with reminders and discussion. Very much appreciated. Lajmmoore (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The editing of User:Titus Gold on Welsh-related articles has generated considerable comment. My own view is that they are not here to help build a encyclopaedia. Rather, I think they are engaged on righting a great wrong, namely the English oppression of Wales, and that their editing pushes a “Welsh Nationalist” POV. They attempt this through:
non-neutral editing of existing articles;
creation of fork articles, which they then use to shoehorn their views back into the main articles;
creation of entirely new articles on subjects that enable them to push their agenda;
All of the above are accompanied by other issues - poor writing, weak sourcing, OR and SYNTH among them.
Dealing with Titus Gold is challenging;
They superficially engage but don’t actually listen;
They edit-war (three bans to date);
They respond to suggestions/criticism by walls of text;
They are extremely prolific, both in editing and article creation, which overwhelms editors trying to engage with them/review their contributions.
All of the above can, and probably should, be demonstrated by diffs, but I think it likely that other editors who follow the main Welsh pages will already be aware of the issues. I would be very interested in whether or not the concerns I have flagged are shared and, if they are, what remedies might be appropriate.
Definitely not here to right any wrongs thank you. The edit contribution critique is unfair as I alway cite and ensure my written content is well referenced and accurately worded. I am always willing to discuss and accommodate other editors. The last "edit war" was a mistake on my behalf where I made slightly different edits to try to accommodate disagreement with other editor which were too similar. Given that I have made over 7000 edits, created good articles e.g Welsh devolution (which is under GA review), this criticism is a bit unfair. Nationalist POV is unfair as I have made large additions and improvements to the Unionism in Wales and included this in lists also. I welcome reviews of the current versions of articles.
P.S If you look at all the pages I've made, only around 10-15% of them are actually on topics that are in some way related to "Welsh nationalism". Even for the "nationalism-associated" pages, I have only added correct and well cited information. Quite an unfair criticism. Titus Gold (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I can see some useful edits and contributions ...and a definite level of enthusiasm. But I've also noticed a complete lack of understanding about how Wikipedia works and what Wikipedia is and isn't for. Hopefully lessons are being learnt and Titus Gold will continue to improve their approach. I haven't noticed an unwillingness to engage ...yet. Sionk (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I have some similar concerns. I've worked alongside Titus at Welsh Wars of Independence, Welsh independence and Welsh devolution and I've noticed they tend to write and collate information that reflects a Welsh viewpoint rather than a detached, impartial one. I'd put a lot of this down to inexperience: they tend to edit quickly rather than carefully, citing primary sources and websites that say what they're looking for, rather than carefully determining source reliability and searching for the best possible sources. I'm hopeful they'll see this as an opportunity to learn. I was glad to see Titus responded positively to my message today on their talk page.
I'd like to offer Titus some further advice. You need to show you recognise the seriousness of these criticisms and are taking them on board. Unfortunately, it's common for editors who care about an issue to end up with topic bans because of them. Your passion is great -- Industrial revolution in Wales was on my to-do list for years -- but you also need to appreciate and consider our encyclopedic purpose, there's more to it than just covering every issue. WP:MAINSTREAM is a helpful essay, and I'd personally recommend taking the time to read our neutrality policy fully, it's actually a great way to think about how knowledge is created and what we're aiming to do here. The same goes for our guidance on what makes a source reliable. There's no easy shortcut to writing an article. A lasting impact is achieved by finding excellent sources and writing a balanced summary of them, because this'll stick: people can tell when all aspects of a topic are covered, and they'll trust it. Copying chunks of text from other articles and writing quickly isn't a substitute for this, selecting information this way often reflects what you personally consider important, rather what a group of experts might. There are some great tools you can use: you're eligible for the Wikipedia Library, which gives you free access to academic collections, and The National Library of Wales has a fantastic online collection of scholarly journals relating to Wales. Jr8825 • Talk21:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate all your inputs, both constructive criticism and positive feedback. I particularly appreciate the balanced reviews and advice and those who have shown patience or appreciation for my contributions. That is very much appreciated. On the whole I hope you can see that I'm definitely improving my use of dialogue and when it comes to significant changes. I would do so even more but often find I get no response for weeks for some queries. I will give that neutrality policy a read to help develop my writing skills further. I will also take on board your suggestion to use less primary sources.
Would you like me to avoid copying relevant texts between articles in future? As far as I understand, it is allowed by Wikipedia rules but the occasional editor seems to frown upon it. I'm happy to adapt my approach for your benefit with regards to that.
I wouldn't say you have to completely avoid it, but large-scale copying is something you should only rarely need to do. Jr8825 • Talk22:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Also, IagoHughes is edit warring again and a second pair of eyes would be appreciated, including restoring the lead if appropriate. I don't wish to revert a second time. Jr8825 • Talk00:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Selective use of unreliable sources and puffery on pages relating to Glyndŵr
This appears to be a more severe problem than I first realised. I spotted the issue over at Welsh Revolt (see the above thread), where claims sourced to Terry Breverton that are incompatible with modern historians' discussions of the primary sources were added. Iolo Morganwg and other 19th century/very early 20th century sources are also used uncritically. This appears to be a major issue at the article on Owain Glyndŵr himself, and also on pages where content has been copied from that article, such as Owain Glyndŵr Day. I think most of the damage has been done recently, but again, a few extra eyes on these pages would be appreciated, especially as there may be a valid discussion to be had about whether we should remove doubtful claims by early historians/antiquarians, or whether they might be worth including (because of their cultural impact) provided they're clearly attributed and modern scholarship is prioritised and presented alongside them. Although the documentary evidence for Glyndŵr's war is patchy, he's not King Arthur: we should be presenting the historical evidence first, and not conflating it with legend and myth (his cultural significance to Wales is so great I suspect it deserves its own article). Jr8825 • Talk16:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I hate to say this: Terry Breverton is an unreliable source - highly prolific but not a historian. Many of his books are self-published. Deb (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for this suggestion. I've removed the Breverton text from Owain Glyndŵr Day and it seems to have already been removed Owain Glyndŵr.
Welsh Revolt however, seems to be needing a lot of attention.
Sadly the whole page (Owain Glyndŵr) is in an extremely poor state in terms of sourcing, it needs to be looked through carefully the with use of one of R. R. Davies' respected books on Glyndŵr. There are two issues: 1) an almost complete lack of inline references, together with a romanticised and non-scholarly tone and 2) the inline references that do exist mostly rely on archaic (or unreliable, in the case of Breverton) sources. I'd point to this revision from August 2021 as a point of comparison, before additions which uncritically recount romanticised legends (e.g. "[he] managed to escape capture by disguising himself as an elderly man"). That said, the Aug 2021 revision isn't good either, as there are almost no inline references so verification is impossible. In all honesty, the whole thing needs to be gradually rewritten from the ground up, section-by-section. I'm hesitant about making commitments myself, but I do hope to work through and expand the article on the Welsh Revolt which might overlap considerably.
Regarding sources, the earliest usable scholarly secondary source should be considered John Edward Lloyd's Owen Glendower (1931). Lloyds's work on Welsh history is considered a milestone in terms of his rigour and research of primary sources, although he should be used alongside Davies and more modern historians, as in many places Lloyd will now be significantly out of date because of more recent research/better understanding of the period & primary sources. Earlier sources than Lloyd listed on the page (Iolo Morganwg, Bradley (1901), Tout (1901), Burton (1730), Lowe (1912), Morgan (1911); and Bannister (1902) at Welsh Revolt) should not generally be used except with great care, or as primary sources demonstrating popular historic views of Glyndŵr. Jr8825 • Talk17:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for this @Jr8825. Looks like a long-term project to get one's teeth into. I think I will aim to use J. Graham Jones "The History of Wales" to form a cited skeleton to build on. RR Davies' book is well respected yes. "The last days of Glyndwr" by Gruffydd Aled Williams, John Davies' History of Wales may prove useful too. Do these seem like reasonable sources? Titus Gold (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Jones & John Davies both look excellent. Jones' book is published by a university press, generally a very strong indicator of trustworthiness/academic reputation. J. Davies is published by a major publisher, Penguin, has had a revised edition and appears to have been well received). Williams' Last Days of Owain Glyndwr is slightly more complicated, so I'll explain my reasoning here to show how I'm measuring it against our reliability guideline.
I've previously found that the publisher, Y Lolfa, produces some very good books on Welsh history, but it's a small printing house without the reputation of more established ones, and it offers self-publishing, so has to be treated as (and used in accordance with the guidance at) WP:SELFPUB. Effectively, can it reasonably be assumed that the author is an established expert on the topic? There are now a few considerations. Firstly, the book's description is "an examination of the traditions which have developed about the location of his death" (my emphasis), which suggests that it's a cultural evaluation (indeed, it's described as an examination of the medieval poetry and literature surrounding Glyndŵr) rather than a broader historical review. Secondly, Williams is a retired professor who lectured in Welsh medieval poetry, and appears to have a well-established reputation. Finally, the book won a cultural award sponsored by the Welsh government. All together, what does this tell us? Williams can reasonably be assumed to be an expert in the cultural history of Glyndŵr, so he's probably a very useful source for summarising how literature and primary sources have treated Glyndŵr, but because it's not published in a peer-reviewed journal or by a major publisher, care should be taken if there are any exceptional claims that contradict other good sources. In many cases it will be appropriate to attribute Williams' analysis, rather than state it in Wikipedia's voice. Jr8825 • Talk19:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Respectfully, I think this is an overreaction. There are definetly things that can be improved, restructured or better sourced, but to claim the whole page is "extremely" poorly sourced or false information is not true, the vast majority of the Owain Glyndwr page including the lead is accurate and did happen, and is supported by decent sources.
I have removed some of the Breverton sourced material on both pages, and replaced some with the actual bibliography he used in his book, which is from records from the 15th century and credible historians (no different than using R.R. Davies as a source for example).
I also want to state that mythology is an integral part of Owain Glyndwr’s history, not just now six centuries later, but in reality during his life and the rebellion itself, it is well documented that at the time his enemies speculated he had supernatural powers, and he was known to use disguise, trickery, hide in caves… with even William Shakespeare himself taking inspiration from these “romanticised legends” surrounding Glyndwr, just over a century later. And for these reasons they should absolutely be included, especially when backed up by sources such as the Annales Henrici Quarti from 1402. IagoHughes (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Then I suggest we work to improve the citations in the existing article over time, as the vast majority of it seems accurate, just poorly sourced. IagoHughes (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
In case this article was not noticed, just pointing this article of Welsh national identity. It is a recently created long article of a major Wales-related topic, of which a significant part of its content is copied from elsewhere. There may be some copyedits towards the article at minimum (i.e. BE) or a wider review of its content if determined by others. The author of the article @Titus Gold, has had their edits criticised by some (as well as personally), therefore reviewing the article would be helpful to ensure, whether the criticisms are founded or not, they do or do not impact such article. Considering I raised the various campaign articles above and only then were they discussed sufficiently, I believe many recently-made articles of major Wales topics may have been missed due to excessive and fast editing. Many Thanks DankJae17:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I think that overall it's a WP:POVFORK -- that is, the subject is more neutrally and appropriately covered at either Wales, Welsh people or Culture of Wales. And now, editor's cap aside, I'd personally suggest taking a read of imagined community, which is the most commonly accepted academic framework for explaining nationalism/national feeling. You might find it interesting/informative. Jr8825 • Talk17:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
There is possibly a topic here, so I'm not sure if the concept is inherently a fork, but the current page is certainly a fork (most of it being copied) and somewhat relatedly is entirely WP:SYNTH. CMD (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a fair point. I didn't realise English national identity etc. also exist. Agree that if it's going to be made, it needs to be written from scratch using direct sources on the topic. Starting as a stub is fine. However, this mass-copying has got to stop because it's producing widespread synthesis. Jr8825 • Talk17:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
This page is vastly better than English national identity and Scottish national identity as far as I can see. This page is not synth because it includes some original text, including some by myself. It does of course include significant copying where appropriate as is allowed under Wikipedia rules. I don't know where the WP:POVFORk idea is coming from because I don't disagree with related pages' content. If you want to highlight certain paragraphs you want re-written from scratch or you think should be omitted, then I'm more than happy to assist with that. Titus Gold (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
That is not what WP:SYNTH is. A start to dealing with synth would be to remove the text/paragraphs based on sources that aren't talking about Welsh national identity. CMD (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
As I understand it, synth is coming to a conclusion using multiple sources that is not stated by any source. I've accurately portrayed info stated by sources. I don't believe that sources need to use the term "Welsh national identity" to be relevant and included. Titus Gold (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
You're portraying the info as related to Welsh national identity, which requires sourcing. Also, are you saying you checked every source for all the text you copied for accuracy? CMD (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Looking at this again, I increasingly think the article is a POVFORK of Culture of Wales; the same absolutely goes for English national identity and Scottish national identity, which seem like slanted forks of "Culture of X" articles that inherently emphasise that culture's subjective distinctiveness/historicity. A "national identity" is a way of describing a common culture; and "culture" is less subjective than "national identity". "National identity" specifically is problematic because most scholars of nationalism think "national identity" is a modern era label (see here). So, while a feeling of kinship existed among Welsh-speaking people in the Middle Ages, it may be conflation to call this a "national identity" in the sense we understand it today, or treat it as such.
As for synthesis, there's definitely big dollops on that page right now. Pretty much the whole history section is synthesis. To take one example, a distinct Welsh identity is usually described by historians as emerging in the Early Middle Ages in response to the Anglo-Saxon invasion, as the Romano-Britons were pushed into smaller regions of Great Britain and their identity was placed in contrast with emerging Anglo-Saxon identity. Yet you've copied/written big sections on pre-Roman Britain, and Celtic opposition to Romans. This is synthesis because you personally think these things make up early Welsh national identity, but the sources provided don't say this, and it's questionable/subjective. Another example is the inclusion of discussions on devolution and Welsh independence. Summarising these topics implies they are a manifestation/inherent part of Welsh national identity, which is a political stance/view. We would need sources that discuss how devolution or the independence campaign relate to Welsh feeling of national identity. Jr8825 • Talk18:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
User:Titus Gold has now turned his attention to this article, cutting great swathes of text/images and dumping big chunks into other articles. There are issues with the article, particularly in relation to referencing, but it provides a high-quality overview of a nation’s architecture that has few equals on here. We now have an overview of Wales’ architecture with no significant mention of John Nash, William Burges or Clough Williams-Ellis. The damage he has already done in the political sphere looks set to be repeated here. KJP1 (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
(The political articles are greatly improved with cited text unlike what previously existed e.g Welsh devolution which did not even exist before I created it.)
The article Architecture of Wales was enormous and contained swathes of excessive text and images well beyond WP:SIZERULE and WP:TOOBIG recommendations and there are two banners on the top of the page indicating this need to improve the page and reduce its massive size. The article also contained excessive non-cited text, which is the only text that I removed rather than moved. The banner itself even suggests moving excess text to other pages. I have only moved relevant sections that are too specific for particular individuals to the relevant pages. There was even enough text for the core of a new page Buildings associated with Owain Glyndŵr which I encourage you to review. Titus Gold (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can see, you have removed in its entirety sourced information about important architects like Clough Williams-Ellis, William Burges and John Nash. This is not 'improving' the article but wholesale destruction and deletion. Sionk (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I moved those texts to other relevant, more specific articles. Please read the article in its entirety, there are still multiple mentions of each one of those important architects and their work. If you really want to copy some text back and integrate it properly within a wider section of buildings in Wales, be my guest. Titus Gold (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Would've been more constructive if a simple split(s) of the article was proposed, just saying, due to the size of the edits. Plus when copying the text to another article, it would be suitable to then summarise the copied section at AoW pointing to the spin-off article, rather than 'amputating' the section. DankJae14:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
More reliable sources is the main improvement for me. Almost half of the sources used are not fully reliable per WP:RSP, three are from Twitter (and even if so maybe should be formatted using Cite Tweet), another from Express.co.uk and Medium. So better sources would be preferred as a start. Plus the Derek Rae twitter source is only on a Welsh olympic football team, so its not fully relevant (but related) to a Welsh olympic team as a whole.
Another source for Wales' olympic performance would help, and a more indepth explanation of the Team GB "controversy" and how it is relevant to a Wales Olympic team, remember football is one of the sports where the nations compete separately outside the olympics but in many other olympic sports they do not, and as Rae suggests too, this may merely be opposition to a GB Olympic football team, rather than a GB Olympic team as a whole. (The source is mainly talking about the football team(s))
Not sure using Jade Jones as the image, considering other similar articles of actual national representations just use the flag. Jones has neither stated her support for the proposal, so seems to be chosen just because of fame. Therefore not directly related to the article.
"Wales is exceptionally high achieving in the Olympics" not sure if this is WP:PEACOCK ("exceptionally" mainly) as it is not a quote from the source, would prefer if its worded to just the facts.
As of now, the article topic does not have wide coverage in a lot of sources, therefore may not be notable enough, but it may be idk. Every Plaid proposal does not necessarily need an article. Ideally do not publish it until other editors have agreed that its final draft state warrants an inclusion. Please be patient before moving it to the mainspace, some other articles of yours have been moved back to draft, so allow time for other editors to comment before moving to mainspace. We're in no rush, the Olympics aren't tomorrow. Thanks DankJae10:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
This section may be more relevant at Great Britain men's Olympic football team. If new sources clearly tie the two debates together, i.e. discusses the football team controversy and clearly states support for a separate olympic team as a whole as a result, then the sources currently used could remain but summarised greatly. However, if such source cannot be found, the section does not really make sense to be in the article. As is relies on the assumption opposition to a Team GB football team means opposition to Team GB as a whole, which I do not believe is the case due to the unique role of Wales in football not present in many other olympic sports. Thanks DankJae09:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
These all look a bit like WP:OR, I can see little evidence of a concerted 'campaign' for any of them. In the case of the first three, they appear to be occasional suggestions or proposals. The latter would maybe better titled Opposition to the title Prince of Wales. Sionk (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The 'campaign to end the Prince of Wales title' has now been changed to 'movement to end...', but in these things we need to follow what reliable sources say, and I don't see reliable sources talking about the 'campaigns' in the article titles. The content of the articles is well-sourced, but there is no sourcing for grouping the content into those articles. Llwyld (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Moxy - We do - and are struggling, without success, to address it. Do you have any suggestions? I’ve floated before the idea of a Welsh-topic ban. Anything else? KJP1 (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Alfred Russel Wallace for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I do not understand what the information requirement is that we would be seeking to fill with these pages. These are not Welsh elections but UK elections, and if we just draft them by copying text from the UK pages on the subject, then its just a POVFORK. I think there is an encyclopaedic subject in "How Wales Votes at General Elections" (but that is not my proposed title of the page. That needs some thought). It is of interest, for instance, that the Conservatives historically are usually second placed but never win, and that Wales has voted Labour since time immemorial. It is an interesting subject as to how liberalism became so firmly embedded a century ago, and links with non-conformism etc. I would suggest that this would be a useful article to look at if no such article already exists. I don't think there is much to be said for forking UK general election articles though, and trying to individually find a Welsh context. All you will find is Wales voted Labour even when England voted Conservative. Better that this be placed in a broader context that can be treated encylopaedically. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
It fails WP:10YT. This is an encyclopaedia, not a current affairs site. I would presume information about the representation is better placed in some fuller article looking at the subject in the round. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
@Sionk, Well it's not 100% certain, in the unlikely event that a early snap election is called and held before the final new boundaries are confirmed (likely confirmed early-mid next year?). But indeed most likely will be applied for the next GE. There is a section on the reduction at UK Parliament constituencies in Wales. Most of the other UK GE in Wales articles are short, usually on just the results (may be add "results" to their titles tbh), so the "next" article is quite early. Although opinion polling since 2019 (done at a Wales-level) may be suitable there? DankJae14:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Of course. I notice there are already articles about the next Senedd election and the next Scottish parliament election, not until May 2026. Filled with micro detail about stuff tangentially related to the election(s). Crazy. Sionk (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Ebbw Valley Railway article
For the transport ones among you, this article is currently a Good article, but also needs updating for South Wales Metro possible changes - I don't really like a GA to have a tag! I was considering delisting but thought this might be better/easier/quicker! Please do help update it, with sources, of course, if you can. Thanks. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
The “New articles” section on the Project page has listings going back to January 2017. It should probably be trimmed to include only articles created in, say, the last 6-12 months, or some other equally arbitrary cut-off. Any objections? KJP1 (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Fine - I’ll trim those prior to 2021. I hadn’t noticed, but you’re quite right, the DYK doesn’t seem to be working. We’ve certainly had more recent Welsh ones than are shown. KJP1 (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Don't mind the trimming too, definitely noticed more DYKs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Article alerts than the DYK section. The new articles section seem to be missing many articles too, from what I've seen over the last few months, so that section is not fully updated either. DankJae20:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
FAR notice
I have nominated Tom Pryce for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Irreligion in Wales
A new page just created. I have posted something on the talk page, Talk:Irreligion in Wales, asking a question about whether this constitutes a POVfork. Consensus may well not agree with me, but would appreciate if interested editors took a look to see what they think. Per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, I will take any precipitate actions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
As far as I have researched, there currently is no competitive Welsh cricket team, only the senior-friendly team. Welsh cricket teams have previously existed but not regularly since the 1930s it seems. I have no opposition to splitting the article or moving some relevant info or redirects to another article. I researched both previous teams and proposals for a new competitive team. I retained all cited info on the previous existence of the Welsh team and did look for further citations, adding any I could find. There doesn't seem to be much info at all available on previous teams. I welcome further research, additions or other proposals. Titus Gold (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
This restoration of the article should simply be reverted. We've had a AFD discussion which concluded the article should be merged. Reviving the article under a different name is subverting the AfD process, surely! Sionk (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
With the old title restored, the article still is slanted to the proposals. Any more info on the historic team? It would be of great help. Thanks DankJae19:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
