Talk:Wales/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Emblem or symbol

Titus Gold, the red dragon is a symbol or emblem of Wales. It is not a motto of Wales, and the cited source doesn't say so, but refers to a badge. Please remove it from the heading "Motto" in the infobox. It is covered in the body of the article. Cheers, Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes obviously the dragon itself is a symbol of Wales. The motto mentioning the red dragon appeared on the royal badge of Wales and is considered a Welsh motto.

This reference below cites "Y Ddraig Goch Ddyry Cychwyn" as a "motto".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/society/flag_officialemblem.shtml Titus Gold (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The source says the motto is contained within a royal badge, so does not cite the phrase as a motto of the country. For that, you would need a more specific reference, though I doubt there would be one. This paragraph applies:

It was announced that the flag to be flown on government buildings would consist only of the red dragon on a green and white flag, rather than the 1953 badge, which was still in occasional use.

Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Royal badge of Wales with motto: https://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/society/flag_officialemblem.shtml

"1953, a new royal badge was officially approved for Wales containing the motto: Y Ddraig Goch ddyry Cychwyn": https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0C0CVpGCHpsC&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA215&dq=motto+of+wales+y+ddraig+goch+a+ddyry+cychwyn&hl=en&source=newbks_fb&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=motto%20of%20wales%20y%20ddraig%20goch%20a%20ddyry%20cychwyn&f=false

"Welsh motto": https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/welsh-dragon-disappears-wales-office-12325049

"Welsh motto": https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nato-summit-wales-2014-logo-unveiled

"The motto of Wales": https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Wales_in_Pictures/d5RjAskhzKUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=motto+of+wales+y+ddraig+goch+a+ddyry+cychwyn&dq=motto+of+wales+y+ddraig+goch+a+ddyry+cychwyn&printsec=frontcover Titus Gold (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't see that any of these links (can't access the last one) establish the phrase as a current and/or official motto of Wales, the country. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I’ve rolled it back for now, and TG’s currently blocked for edit-warring. But their POV editing is, and will remain, problematic, once their short block expires. KJP1 (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a motto used for Wales has to do with POV. It seems to be a politically neutral motto. The "Cymru am Byth" motto is described as a "Welsh motto" so is no more qualified than "Y Ddraig Goch ddyry cychwyn" according to the reference used. The latter has been used as a motto for Wales in official capacity, unlike "Cymru am Byth". Based on mentions of them in various sources they both simply seem to be expressions of Welsh pride I suppose.

There are plenty of references to both mottos being used historically as "Welsh mottos" and so inclusion of both in the infobox is justified I think.

It's also appeared on coins associated with Wales:

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_2006-1101-320 Titus Gold (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Another mention of the motto at the NATO summit: "Welsh motto" https://blogs.fcdo.gov.uk/carolynbrowne/2014/07/14/nato-wales-summit/ Titus Gold (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

A passing mention in a blog Titus Gold is not a reliable source.SovalValtos (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not the only motto - see "Pleidiol wyf i'm gwlad" on coins. The point is, are any of them a current national motto in the sense that France has Liberté, égalité, fraternité or the USA has In God We Trust? I'm not even sure "Cymru am byth" (which is redirected to Wales, incidentally) is a national motto in the strictest sense, either. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The source for Cymru am byth is not really clear if it is the motto of Wales, to me it just states it is a popular saying for the Welsh like God Bless America or Vive la France, so it being there does not really make sense to me.

"Y Ddraig Goch ddyry cychwyn" has been used on monarchical symbols relating to Wales, mainly the Royal Badge as used on the former flag, but none of the sources provided clearly state it as the motto of Wales, rather mentioning it was on the Royal Badge, so yes the Badge's motto but not necessarily Wales' motto. "Welsh motto" can also refer to the language in the sources given above as they're followed by a translation, and are largely a passing mention in all sources provided or merely a picture, so not a good source either. So a source clearly stating it is a/the motto of Wales rather than of a Royal Badge, and not a passing mention in other organisation's logos would be needed for the motto's addition, in my opinion. DankJae 14:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It may be best to remove mottos from the infobox altogether and include a very short paragraph about these unofficial ones in the "National identity and symbols" sub-heading? Titus Gold (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable option to me. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Typo

The section reads: “Welsh national identity emerged among the Celtic Britons after the Roman withdrawal from Britain in the 5th century, and Wales was formed as a kingdom under Gruffydd ap Llywelyn in 1055, Wales is regarded as one of the Celtic nations.”

The second comma after “1055” should be a period. WillasTyrell (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks,fixed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

"Cymru / Wales" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cymru / Wales and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 28#Cymru / Wales until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 15:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

"Cymru / wales" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cymru / wales and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 28#Cymru / wales until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 15:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Irreligion Hatnote

Titus Gold I reverted your bold insertion into this article of a second hatnote in the religion section to your new Irreligion in Wales article. I did not remove the wikilink to this that you also placed in the article, but the hatnote in the religion section is unnecessary, especially considering the page is essentially a POVfork of Religion in Wales which could fully cover the topic. Now your bold insertion was reverted by me, and we should now discuss here to get consensus per WP:BRD, but instead you reverted the bold edit back in. I ask you to follow WP:BRD, and test the editor consensus. Would you therefore please self revert your re-insertion until consensus is clear. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

No problem Titus Gold (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. So the question is whether irreligion is required as an additional hatnote of the religion section. Let's see if there are other opinions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

As Religion in Wales has a Irreligion section, I believe a simple wikilink of "No religion" (rather than a hatnote) to Irreligion in Wales would be enough for now. DankJae 23:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Armed forces and veterans in Wales: should be mentioned

The new 2021 census figures show that 4.5% of people aged over 16 usually residing in Wales are veterans (3.8% in England). https://gov.wales/uk-armed-forces-veterans-wales-census-2021-html

In addition, 2019 show that there were 3,230 military and civilian personnel based in Wales, over 60 Ministry of Defence establishments and bases; including reserve centres and training facilities.

I think there should be at least a mention of armed forces and veterans in demography, but I would argue there should also be a sub-heading or heading on the military in Wales (and regiments associated with Wales) also. Titus Gold (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

For me, aside the census results, nothing much has changed since the last discussion, although wouldn't mind a sentence on veterans in demography. Keeping a open-mind though. DankJae 23:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reply. Will look to just add a sentence for now in the demography section then. Titus Gold (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I've added a summary paragraph under "Law" and two sentences in the demography section. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted as clearly undue, inline with the previous two discussions on the matter. CMD (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussions were mainly about a new heading or subheading on the military and MoD in Wales. I think it's a bit strange to exclude a few sentences given there's now a Welsh government census publication on veterans as well as a previously existing UK parliament publication on the military in Wales. Would ask you to reconsider. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

No reasoning has been given here as to why this information is due. My current consideration is that the sources were all very specific/primary, with none providing evidence of due weight to the wider topic. Do discussions of Welsh demography usually include prominent coverage of veterans? Does coverage of Welsh law usually mention MoD bases? CMD (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Veterans in Wales

Welsh government census report exclusively on Welsh veterans.

Welsh gov. schemes specifically for Welsh armed forces and veterans in Wales.[1] and [2] and [3] and [4] etc.

Welsh veterans national support groups.[5] and [6]

Wales veterans commissioner.[7]

Welsh veterans awards [8]

Wales bases and locations

Discussed in UK Parliament research briefing.

Welsh locations of bases.[9]

Rellocations and Welsh gov concerns on military presence in Wales.[10], [11], [12]may have influenced: UK government relocating Welsh rifles to Wales and new barracks. and [13]

Wales specific data given in tables (second link down).[14]

Other Armed forces activity in Wales

"Wales’s contribution to the UK armed forces" UK Parliament research briefing.

Wales national reserves and cadets organisation.[15]

Multiple articles on proposed independent Welsh armed forces/defence force.

Welsh royal navy in ITV Wales news. and Navy destroyer linked to Cardiff.

Sennybridge training centre Powys.

Royal Welsh regiment heavily associated with Welsh rugby national team. [16]

Articles on Welsh aspects of forces. etc.

Current Welsh regiments and brigades summarised at Armed forces in Wales including 160th (Welsh) Brigade, Royal Welsh, RAF Valley, MOD St Athan (also others that are Welsh but based in England)

Armed forces covenant Wales and report [17], [18]

Military recruitment in Wales report [19]

Joint Military Command Wales (JMC) armed forces support to Wales NHS during COVID (both Welsh ambulance and Welsh vaccination programme). [20], [21], [22]

Calls for more Welsh soldiers to be based in Wales. [23]

Wales specific celebration of armed forces day, dubbed Wales armed forces day in Wales by some.[24], [25]

Welsh language role for Wales recruitment. [26]

Remembrance and historical Welsh forces

Remembrance in Wales involving Welsh regiments and Welsh national memorial park.[27] and [28]

Welsh memorial parks for Welsh regiments and soldiers during world wars: Welsh Memorial Park, Ypres and Mametz Wood Memorial

Historical Welsh forces e.g Royal Welch Fusiliers and many more.

As I mentioned, the previous discussions were based on a new heading or sub-heading about the armed forces in Wales. There's a lot more info available than listed here, this is just based on a quick search. There's more than plenty of evidence and due weight to justify at least a sentence or two I think. Titus Gold (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Do any of these relate to the questions I asked? Keep in mind excessive WP:DETAIL on this article that is already too long. CMD (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Multiple citations show the due weight of the topic. Multiple citations also show the discussion and policies of Welsh veterans. Multiple citations also discuss Welsh bases. I agree that there is no need for much detail. I would only include the recent addition and no more but would be happy if someone wanted to edit that addition. Titus Gold (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the issue is not whether there are sources that talk about armed forces in Wales, but whether there are any references that suggest that talking about armed forces is a major aspect for understanding the topic of Wales. There are lots of subjects we could include on this page because there are references linking them to Wales, but the article would then be very very big, and, perversely, not very useful. Here's an example: Pentecostalism. I am aware of multiple sources that link the rise of Pentecostalism to the Welsh Revival of 1904, and there is a whole apostolic movement closely associated with Wales. Yet I think (hope) we can agree that a section on Pentecostalism in this article makes no sense. It would be WP:UNDUE despite the existence of many books and articles that make that link. So if we are agreed on that, the question is not whether articles about veterans in Wales or military in Wales exist. The question is whether a treatment of the subject of Wales is incomplete if these things are not mentioned. Suitable sources would be histories of Wales - particularly any history that said something like "one cannot understand modern Wales without understanding its military history". Although it need not be as strident as that. So far I haven't seen a source that passes muster on that point. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The armed forces of Wales had a huge effect on Welsh history, see Military history of Wales (Wales in the World Wars) and Armed forces in Wales. The world wars obviously had an enormous effect in Wales including the effects of the deaths of many soldiers, as did they in other countries of the UK. Later conflicts like the Falklands and the troubles in NI also had significant numbers of Welsh soldiers etc. There is a whole heading on military presence in Scotland. Again, Wales has more veterans per head than England and there are many Wales specific military organisations for veterans and the armed forces e.g Head of the army in Wales, Welsh Brigade, Wales veterans commissioner etc. I'm surprised I have to make a case just for the inclusion of a few sentences. Titus Gold (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: once again what is at Scotland doesn't matter, and for transparency the three linked articles are your creations. DankJae 19:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of that policy and yes I started those pages which have since been edited by multiple other users. I'll leave you to discuss amongst yourselves about what you think the most appropriate outcome is, as I've made the contributions to the discussion that I wished to make. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Page layout on wide Vector 2022

The page doesn't look good on Vector 2022 with max width. All the images are on the right side, and they are becoming more mismatched to their sections the lower I scroll the page. Maybe we need to move around some images. RoadTrain (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Potential to add some sections similar to Scotland

Just want to test the waters on introducing any new content and subheadings.

Candidate sub-headings:

- Intergovernmental relations

- Constitutional change

- Local Government

- Military (seems strange that this is completely omitted and possibly the strongest candidate here) Titus Gold (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

More reasoning than it is at Scotland is needed here, you've just provided headings with no information? What are you proposing in each section? Please explain, may be as a small paragraph or bullet points? (not just an excessive list of citations with no context as above). Not sure what is the difference between this "Constitutional change" and existing "Devolution" sections? What is to add to "Local Government" which is not already mentioned? "Military" is still undue IMO per discussions above/archived, although willing to be open-minded. "Intergovernmental relations" could work, although that needs explaining. Thanks for starting a discussion though. DankJae 02:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that more reasoning is needed and you make a sensible points there. If we want to aim for featured article status then Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Assessment states:

"b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;

c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;"

I would actually argue this article is already better than some of the country articles but for completeness, a Wales article and particularly the politics and government section should mention intergovernmental relations and military presence. As far as I can see these two are the missing pieces the article could benefit from for full context and completeness. I am open to their inclusion as short incorporated paragraphs or with sub-headings:

Intergovernmental relations: short summary paragraph of intergovernmental relations including Welsh Government and Westminster relations, IGR Council and British-Irish council. Perhaps this could be incorporated rather than with a separate sub-heading.

Military: I think a summary paragraph of military presence in Wales is needed under a sub-heading, including main demographics and main military organisations and main figures involved. Titus Gold (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is over 16,000 words long already. It is already too long to get through as a featured article (and too long for readers to read it through, tbh), so we need to be very careful about adding yet more sections. Is anyone seriously looking at seeking FA status? A more fundamental look at the whole thing would be required. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Noting in passing that TG added the International diplomacy section the day before they began this "discussion", nobody with experience in the area would think the addition of two further subsections on Diplomacy and Military would make this article FAC-ready. It's as spurious an argument as "Scotland has them". KJP1 (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Just read what was added and I oppose the addition of intergovernmental relations. This is just repetitive of Politics of Wales but apparently not considered due for a mention on Welsh Government. Here is a probelm with an article about Wales: there is a LOT you can say, and this article must be an overview. We have lots of child articles, all linked from here, that flesh out detail. There is no strong reason why intergovernmental relations deserves special mention in this overview article. As for military, that was discussed in December and there was no consensus for the addition then either. A more productive discussion might be whether we could actually reduce sections that are repetitive of child articles. Looking at that huge history section, I suspect that is repetitive of the History of Wales article which is itself repetitive of it 8 or so child articles. If readers are reading the same information over and over again, they are going to get bored quickly. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@KJP1 Thanks for mentioning. Yes added only two sentences for better balance as the previous content gave undue weight to US relations with no mention of European offices etc. which has greater emphasis in international diplomacy.

@Sirfurboy I agree certain areas of the article can be trimmed down.

How about:

- a single sentence on IGR Council, British-Irish council and UK-Welsh gov relations?

- a single sentence summarising military? 16,000 word article without a real mention the military is due for inclusion, particularly given 4.5% of adults in Wales are veterans, 3,000 personnel, 60 MoD bases etc. Titus Gold (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the page. This editing is wp:tendentious and disruptive. There is literally still a discussion on this talkpage about this topic, yet it's brought up as a new topic and edited into the page again and again. CMD (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I have re-worded the paragraph without sub-heading since a sentence was poorly cited with Wikipedia:UNDUEWEIGHT to USA relations. Titus Gold (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Having failed three times to gain consensus on your military point, you want to debate it again. On the diplomacy point, while claiming to want a discussion, you make the changes you want before posting here. I’m afraid I long ago stopped being able to assume good faith with regard to your editing. And you don’t/won’t/can’t write in a summary style. It is not summary in a country article to list every trade office. You will immediately reply that Scotland does, but that is not a Featured or even a Good article, having been delisted some time ago. So, you’re not even using a best-practice model when you claim “Scotland has x, so Wales should too”. Part of the criticism of Scotland at that time was article length, and your indiscriminate additions to this article, which is broadly the same length, are making the issue worse here. You would actually be better spending your time looking at what could be summarised/trimmed/removed before contemplating further additions. But your history shows no evidence that you take any advice contrary to your own views, so I won’t hold my breath. KJP1 (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

There was no previous indication of controversy regarding international diplomacy re-word as far as I was aware and thus no indication of requiring talk page discussion. Following a revert of a sub-heading and re-word and then a second revert of a re-word only, I have since added a proposal re-word below. Would appreciate politeness in comments, thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Holidays section

Is this needed? There is already coverage of St David's Day in the National symbols and identity section, and I would have thought we could trim and put what remains there. Not sure how RS Celtic Well is? The original url doesn't work for me. KJP1 (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Not as a section, no. St David's day is definitely important enough for a mention, but as you say, that is already there in a section that makes the most sense, and also gets a mention in the religion section, which also makes sense but is a duplication, so maybe a tweak on the wording there (or maybe we allow the repetition as it will only be a few words). Adding a third holidays section is overly repetitive though, and the other holidays are of more dubious notability here. Candlemas is not specifically a Welsh festival, Santes Dwynwen celebrations are modern, and the information about the fire festivals appears to borrow from Irish tradition, James Frazer, and modern pagan speculation, which does not make it wholly wrong, but certainly does not make it a Welsh holiday. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I’ll have a go. KJP1 (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

International diplomacy reword

I'm proposing reword to this if agreeable since the current paragraph has undue weight towards US diplomacy and is not a very good overview:

The Senedd also promotes Welsh interests abroad. It has its own envoy to America, primarily to promote Wales-specific business interests. The primary Welsh Government Office is based in the Washington British Embassy, with satellites in New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, and Atlanta. The United States has also established a caucus to build direct relations with Wales. In the United States Congress, legislators with Welsh heritage and interests in Wales have established the Friends of Wales Caucus. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

References

As so often, your blizzard approach to editing, and your habit of changing text while discussions are ongoing, makes it very difficult to work out what you've done. But, assuming the above is your proposed text:

• How does a paragraph that only focusses on the US address your concern that the existing text is UNDUE towards the US?
• What information is contained in the fifth sentence that isn't already covered in the fourth sentence?

Re. your comment, " would appreciate politeness in comments", I'd appreciate your starting to work as a genuinely collaborative editor, rather than constantly attempting to bulldoze your own viewpoint into articles. How's that for a deal? KJP1 (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This proposed text confuses the Senedd with the Welsh Government. Indeed that whole section seems confused on the issue (since this edit: [29]), and there is nothing on the formal separation between legislature and executive in Wales. It all needs a rewrite.

My counter proposal for this latest accretion is this: All we need in this article, is an additional clause on the roles and responsibilities of Welsh Government (as part of the rewrite):

and also promotes Welsh interests abroad.

Detail belongs in the Welsh Government article where overseas offices currently get one line in the estate section. We certainly should not say more here than in the child article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely fine with that. As you say, at the country level, it’s all that needs to be said. KJP1 (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

p.s. I took a look back at the GAR of 2020, when User:Tony Holkham and I worked on keeping its GA status. Apart from a lack of cites, which was addressed, the main concern of the reviewers was LENGTH. Then it stood at 201,373 bytes. It’s now 231,227 bytes. It really does need pruning back, rather than adding too. As people have said, the History section is an obvious place to start. KJP1 (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I have pruned back text about the devolved government, including what I hope is just enough detail about its history (feel free to disagree) and making the separation of executive and legislature clearer. Maybe that could be clearer still. There is widespread misunderstanding about the difference between Senedd and Welsh Government, so that is a point we should seek to explain clearly. It was a small section, but I took it down from 461 words to 200. All the detail is on linked pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It’s a great start! RL is a bit hectic just now, but I will try to find some time to pitch in. KJP1 (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I accept these attempts to be more concise and summarise if they are consistently applied across the whole article.

What other improvements could be made to aim for a featured article nomination? Titus Gold (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

A lot more concision, better sourcing, and a lot more cohesive writing. An absolute proliferation of single paragraph sections. CMD (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to see that new sections for improvement have been made below. Titus Gold (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Sport and Performing arts sections

Is there any guidance on naming individuals? I think it’s been discussed before. What we have in the Sport and Performing arts sections, and to a lesser extent elsewhere, is lists of boxers/rugby players/bands/singers etc. etc. with all the issues of “why name x but not y”? Are the eight named boxers, the “best” boxers Wales has produced, for example? Is there a recommended approach? KJP1 (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:UKTOWNS has guidance on naming people in a settlement, but Wales is the whole country so that is not the answer. We mostly follow those guidelines here though (subjects must be notable; use prose and not a list). You could ask the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, but I expect the answer is going to be editor discussion! My own opinion is that less is more. So Famous Welsh players over the years include list of 8 names would come out. That paragraph links to Football in Wales, which would be a more appropriate place to list the most famous players, and there is a list there that does not quite match this one. The Football in Wales link could be more prominent though, as it is linked by the text "its own football" followed by league. That is not quite right, and we want the link to be visible for what it is. Similar arguments can be made for all these lists of names. I think they belong in more specific articles, not the Wales article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep - it's not easy. I've been looking at FA/GA country articles to try and get some idea of the approach adopted there. The first notable thing is how few there actually are; 10 FAs, 11 GAs. Second, particularly in relation to the FAs, is how old they are. Many are 20-odd years old, and haven't been reviewed for a decade. Not sure how well they'd withstand a FAR/GAR now. Bulgaria (2018 FA) and Singapore (2020 GA) are probably the best examples. I think I'll try a less is more approach, and we can see what other editors think. KJP1 (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Might a reference similar in scope to [30] which has made an overall selection but specifically re Sport or Performing arts help? I have not found one yet. [31] might help for Olympians. I agree 'use prose and not a list'.SovalValtos (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that not naming any - the approach I’ve generally tried - looks a bit odd. For example, not to mention Burton/Hopkins in the Drama section just seemed weird. But I know a bit about drama. Where I’m completely at sea, Sports/Singers, I’m much less sure. Why should we name Burton, but not Gareth Bale. But then is Bale more “notable” than Ian Rush/John Toshack? Is Bassey more “notable“ than Church/Jenkins? Probably depends on age. And as for the boxers, I’ve not got a clue. Maybe we should try and get input from the Wales Project? I am confident User:Kosack, for example, could come up with the “most notable” footballers. But as Sirfurboy says, I suspect consensus may prove tricky! KJP1 (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

In general, a random list of names is of zero help to readers. It's window dressing in the place of what should be good prose. The reason to include names would be if a source specifically pulls out a name (or names) with regards to a specific point regarding the wider culture of Wales. As for country articles, they are not great, and the Culture sections are generally bad. It's a tough nut to crack. CMD (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

History Section

I spent a good hour just thinking about the history section yesterday, and all the repetition. I have sentences and almost whole paragraphs that are repeated verbatim on as much as 5 pages (in one case we have the same sentences on Wales, History of Wales, Wales in the Middle Ages, Wales in the High Middle Ages and Military history of Wales). The structure is also repeated a lot, starting with prehistory and moving linearly through time to the present day.

Understandable as this linear structure is, my current thinking is that the history on this page could be reduced to perhaps a single section, which does not start with Neanderthal remains found in Wales, but instead starts with the creation of the Welsh nation. Non linear prose that would then take in the Britons as the people displaced or cut off from the other Britons but Anglo Saxon/English encroachment, and would then have a brief history of the conquest and beyond. The current history sections exceed 4300 words. My aim would be to cover it off in 1000 words, which would go a long way to bringing this page back to acceptable length.

I intend to lose no information, because History of Wales has the linear structure, and I am currently trying to find information on this page that is not covered in the other articles and to merge it to appropriate places, so as to preserve information. I can put my draft in a sandbox for review if you wish. If there are major objections to the approach, please say so before I spend too many hours on this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

As is the case with many country articles, the History section fails on WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Needs a substantial trimming. Go for it. DeCausa (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it sounds exactly the right approach. I'll steer clear of the History, and look to trim in other areas. I've merged the Holidays section into National identity and been able to do a bit of trimming/consolidation there without the loss of anything essential. KJP1 (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This is going slowly but I thought I would share my progress. I have two drafts in: User:Sirfurboy/sandbox2. There is a 1000 word version and a 500 word version. I am not happy with either, but I am sharing now because the danger is I do it all on my own and come up with something that obviously reflects my biases and thus will not do! So please feel free to edit into my sandbox or else to comment on what I have done wrong.

The 1000 word version perhaps spends too long on the conquest era and glosses over the later history. The 500 word version perhaps just puts too much in too little space, or is too non linear. Please say if there are clear omissions. I can easily add more and then work on précis. Note that it is unreferenced. In my head there are references for it all (and I added a few Harvard style in text citations already) but I don't see the point of adding all the references until the draft is broadly right. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not easy thing to do - thanks for taking a crack at it. On a first read through I think it would need to be the 1000 word version. What jumps out at me, before thinking about overall coverage, is the first 2 paragraphs. IMHO, it creates a problem with chronoligical repetition i.e. going back and forth on the timeline. Also, it puts too much emphasis (by simple volume) on Welsh enthnogenesis. I think it would be better to maintain the chronology - and have only one or two sentences on identity developent/ethnogenesis but link it to Welsh people which should be the main focus for that. That's my 2p. DeCausa (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I can do that. I'll just leave it up for other comments or agreement before changing. My thinking for the first couple of paragraphs was to deal with the making of Wales and then circle back to the chronology. However the execution of that is hard in a summary style. Happy to take it back to broadly chronological - but I do think that rather than starting with neanderthals and first settlers, something up front should be about the concept of Wales. I agree, however, that the volume of that is too high and that the existence of repetition is problematic. I definitely intend to link the whole thing to child pages, including Welsh People. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Don’t worry about it going slowly. We’re not in a GAR situation, and can take the time that’s needed. Much better that way, enabling time for reflection and comment, than a rushed approach. I agree the 1000-word version is the way to go, and I think it looks very good. My only suggestion is (perversely!) a little bit of modern day expansion.I think a line about the revival of the Welsh language, and its being an officially bilingual country, together with the Senedd being the first Welsh parliament for x hundred years,would be appropriate, even though both points can be expanded in sections on the language and the parliament. KJP1 (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

"Welsh Nation" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Welsh Nation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 12 § Welsh Nation until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Units used in this article

I feel like the current use of units for dimensions in this article is a little weird. It flips between metric first and imperial first with almost every measurement. Is there a reason it doesn't stick to one being presented first or is it just the way sources differ? XeCyranium (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are curiosities in the UK, where distance is still expressed in miles, and area can be acres (historically) or hectares, and heights can be in feet (historically) or metres. They could be changed to be more consistently expressed, but I don't see a pressing need; it's rather a touching idiosyncracy. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"more genuinely Welsh areas"

@Elmidae: @Eopsid: it strikes me that neither this nor this actually reflects the point made in the source. It's not really about "genuinely Welsh" or Welsh-speaking areas. According to the source, what Danny Dorling's research (and we can wikilink link him rather than saying who he is) found was that English retirees in Wales were a reason leave was in the majority, contrary to expectations. We should just say that. DeCausa (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would probably be preferable - fewer assumptions involved either way. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

An interesting fact from that source which I don't think we have in the Demographics section is that the English make up 21% of the Welsh population. DeCausa (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2023

It states 538,300 people in Wales are able to speak Welsh. The most recent number is 906,800 according to the Welsh government's most recent data: https://www.gov.wales/welsh-language-data-annual-population-survey-april-2022-march-2023 109.129.9.130 (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Our article currently uses the 2021 census figure. The 900,000 figure is from the Annual Population Survey, which, per your link should probably not supersede the census - "We consider the census of population to be the key source of information to measure the number of Welsh speakers in Wales." If you have a compelling argument why the APS number should be used instead of the census one, please provide it here and reopen the request then. Cannolis (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

National identity

(copied from User talk:Tony Holkham)

Hi, just regarding your revert here [32], could we maybe then use a different term than "national identity" ? I'm not sure to which bit you're referring later on, because there's no mention of "national identity" until Tryweryn in 1965? Yr Enw (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC) Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The first point is that the statements in the lead do not need citations because there should not be anything in the lead that is not supported in the body of the article, and cited there. Secondly, there is a section on National identity under demography, which also refers to the Culture of Wales article. There is also a section on National symbols and identity, referring to a main article on that topic. I hope this answers your question. Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply. I understand the first point and agree. Thanks for clarifying. I still have an issue with the second aspect, though. My point is that the lead sentence mentions: "Welsh national identity emerged among the Celtic Britons after the Roman withdrawal from Britain in the 5th century, and Wales was briefly united under Gruffydd ap Llywelyn in 1055". But the section to which you refer doesn't mention national identity emerging at this time, and neither does the linked article on Welsh culture (apologies if I'm just missing them). And, as far as I can tell, no source in the article supports that assertion either. Given the general scholarly consensus is that nations and nationalism are a much more recent phenomenon, what I'm proposing is replacing the term "national identity" with "culture", because the former term is misleading when applied so far back in time. Cofion gorau. Yr Enw (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

First, apologies to Yr Enw for re-factoring your comment. It just becomes a bit tricky to follow a conversation if there are indents in individual posts. On the substantive points, we're all agreed on the first. On the second, I share the concern. The key point is that the statement in the lead, "Welsh national identity emerged among the Celtic Britons after the Roman withdrawal from Britain", should be amplified and sourced in the body. As far as I can see, it isn't. The Post-Roman era section makes no reference to "national identity". If Yr Enw is right, and I think they likely are, we shouldn't have a statement in the lead that is not supported, or indeed covered at all, in the body. KJP1 (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yr Enw - I agree with proposal that the term Welsh culture is better than national identity. Be bold. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive discussion @Tony Holkham and @KJP1. Will make the change. Yr Enw (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to add I support the change: "national identity" is an anachronism during this time period. Cultural commonality is much more relevant concept. DeCausa (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a problem across so many articles, but I guess we can only really change it when we encounter it. It gets more confusing when you've got historians using the term uncritically, as well (as with English national identity). Yr Enw (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It should say what Wales was united as under Gruffydd ap Llywelyn (a kingdom), the word united on its own is vague for readers.

The following discussion 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.

---

What’s the thoughts of other editors on this? Jake-Hughes23 (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

To make this suggestion useful you would need to produce multiple accounts, and uses, in modern academic sources, of such a definition for the lands controlled by Gruffydd ap Llewelyn. As far as I know there are none. If you cannot produce any, this question is not helping to build a better encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, the modern academic source I would use is the book “The Last King of Wales: Gruffudd ap Llywelyn, c.1013-1063” written by two Welsh PHD historians Dr Michael Davies, and Dr Sean Davies. Jake-Hughes23 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Could we have some quotations please, also comments on the standing of this source? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I will provide more quotes and sources below -

Dr Rhun Emlyn is a medieval historian at Aberystwyth University, he stated “There were a number of kings and princes during the period who controlled most of Wales but he (Gruffydd ap Llywelyn) was the only one who ruled the whole of what we now know as Wales” he said.

The late Rhondda -born historian John Davies recognised Gruffudd’s achievements as a warrior in his book A History of Wales, writing: “From about 1057 until his death in 1063, the whole of Wales recognised the kingship of Gruffudd ap Llewelyn. For about seven brief years, Wales was one, under one ruler, a feat with neither precedent nor successor.”

And here’s some more quotes from an article written by University of Wales PHD historian Dr Sean Davies - https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofWales/Wales-Mercia-Harold-the-road-to-1066/

“Gruffudd ap Llywelyn killed Gruffydd ap Rhydderch in battle in 1055 and retook Deheubarth.

He marched on Hereford in the same year and around the same time he also seized Morgannwg, which was between the Afon Llwyd and the River Towy, and Gwent. He also took extensive territories along the border.

In 1056 he was victorious over another English army in Glasbury, Powys.

He was now recognised as the King of Wales”.

“His name was Gruffudd ap Llywelyn and he was the last, and the most formidable, King of Wales”.

“Gruffudd, meanwhile, gathered a huge army and marched to a pre-ordained meeting point with Ælfgar near the mouth of the River Wye. This was the heartland of Gruffudd ap Rhydderch’s domain, and the latter was killed by his northern rival and namesake, Gruffudd ap Llywelyn thereby becoming the only man to unite and rule all the lands that comprise modern Wales”. Jake-Hughes23 (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

What’s the issue? It already says Wales was briefly united, and “united” isn’t remotely “vague”. More importantly, has anyone asked for a Checkuser on this obvious sock? If not, I’ll do so. KJP1 (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

User:DeCausa has beaten me to it. KJP1 (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no issue, I’m only suggesting to add that it was united as a “kingdom” because it was, and because it adds more context and information. Richard Keating requested credible sources and quotations which I have provided. I have come to the talk page respectfully to avoid an edit war. Jake-Hughes23 (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You have provided quotations which do not support your point, some from sources that are evidently unreliable, and you are pushing your original research. I hope for a quick resolution from the sockpuppet investigation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The quotations and sources are from books and articles published by Welsh historians with PHD degrees, they are reliable sources and clearly state that Wales was unified under one Welsh king, Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, therefore they do support my point. Jake-Hughes23 (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

A source that incorrectly asserts that Gruffydd was "recognised as the King of Wales" certainly isn't reliable on that point. Your comments are not helping to build an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s not incorrect, Gruffydd was recognised as the King of Wales by Edward the Confessor, King of England. Here’s a source from the early 1100s to prove it followed by the page numbers and quotations - The Chronicle of Florence of Worcester, with the Two Continuations; Comprising Annals of English History, from the Departure of the Romans to the Reign of Edward I. Translated from the Latin, with Notes and Illustrations by T. Forester : Page 158 “Bishop Aldred and the earls of Leofric and Harold afterwards reconciled Griffyth, King of Wales, with King Edward”.

Page 157 “Meanwhile, after an interchange of messages, Griffyth, Algar, and Harold met at a place called Biligesteagea, and peace being proposed and accepted, they contracted a firm alliance with eachother”. Jake-Hughes23 (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2023 (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.

Great Britain in lead

Just noticed, the lead doesn't mention Wales is mainly on the island of Great Britain? I find that an odd omission. Was it removed? Can it be added? DankJae 00:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, and it could be confusing. Are you talking specifically about the island of Great Britain (in other words, to exclude offshore islands like Anglesey and Bardsey), or the political entity of Great Britain (as in "The United Kingdom of... "), which includes the offshore islands? You could have a somewhat imprecise wording such as "...a country in Great Britain that is part of the United Kingdom...." - but, would that really be helpful to readers? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

just the island, of course worded to "mainly situated on". But I guess its omission was intentional so will not discuss it further. DankJae 08:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2024

change snowdon(yr wyddfa) to Yr Wyddfa. (english name was dropped from use in 2022) 2A00:23C7:A082:E101:C1EC:35A:17EA:1D24 (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Not done, article is at Snowdon. CMD (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Population at 2021 census

@DankJae there seems to be a inconsistency in the ONS data for the 2021 census. In Nomis, they use the 3,107,494 figure. It's also the figure used by the Welsh Government. But in the latest ONS mid-year pop estimate dataset, they give the 2021 census figure (not the mid-year pop est — the actual 2021 census figure) as 3,106,770. There's a similar discrepancy for England but not for Northern Ireland it seems.

I've sent a query to the ONS as to which is correct. Either the latest 3,106,770 figure is a correction or else it's a mistake or it's something I have misunderstood. Dgp4004 (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Could we just round this to 3,107,000? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dgp4004, ah finally found it hidden on one of the data sheets. Hmn, is this the only source found using this figure? One from only a month prior uses the usual one,[33]? Relying on a figure hidden in a dataset for a different purpose seems dubious, if the most accessible figures from the ONS use the original one best stick with that for reliability.

Looking further, the documentation alongside that dataset[34] seems to give the impression they are estimating that there were some minor anomalies, but that doesn't mean that the original figure was incorrect (based on the actual entries they got).

Their methodology states they adjusted Wales' figure by about ~700 (rounded) because of an estimated internal migration (that's around the difference in figures?). I guess that is the reason? but if the ONS haven't updated it across most of their publications, then I believe the original more accessible figure should stay if until they update the rest. The ONS may have got 3,107,494 entries from Wales, but estimate about 700 of them internally migrated? [35]

It's been over a year since they did that, so I assume the ONS did not want to carry the estimated anomalies forward? DankJae 14:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Well found! Let's stick with 3,107,494 then. Dgp4004 (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2024

Can a registered user please add to the 'Geography and natural history' section that 'Rocks found in a quarry near to the village Llangynog, Carmarthenshire, in 1977 contain some of the Earth's oldest fossils which date from the Ediacaran period, 564 million years ago, when Wales was part of the micro-continent Avalonia.' or words to that effect. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68005838

Thanks 2A00:23C2:8B08:E501:EDD1:4289:671B:48B3 (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Country, State or Nation?

This helpful article helped me understand the difference between a Country, State and Nation. I note the confusion of different interpretations of each word. However I would argue the introduction of this article should read "Wales is a nation that is part of the United Kingdom". This would better agree with the wiki definitions of Country, Nation and State (polity). Ssojjoss (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a bit more to it than that. It is a good article, and one thing it brings out is that the definition of a country is somewhat fluid depending on usage and context. The UK is a quasi federal unitary state, so we are quite clear what the state is, but nations and countries are not so narrowly or carefully defined. If Wales is a nation, then the territory of the nation is surely a country. See for instance definition 5 in the Oxford English dictionary for country: "The territory of a nation; a region constituting an independent state, or a region, province, etc., which was once independent and is still distinct in institutions, language, etc." And that argument has been accepted by the UK government, ISO, the UN and others, who have documents referring to Wales as a country. So no, there doesn't seem to be a good reason not to call it a country. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a very UK (and, at that, UK Wikipedian) concern which doesn't translate well around the globe, or even across the anglosphere. ("Nation", "patria", "fatherland" and cognates tend to be the equivalent fuzes elsewhere.) The bottomline is that what is or isn't a "country" isn't definable. They are, per the RS, either called that or they are not. There's no objective basis for saying that Wales or Northern Ireland is a country but Texas or Catalunya isn't other than custom and practice in the English-language RS. It just is what it is and there's no productive purpose in delving any deeper! Just go with the RS-flow an refer to Wales as a country. DeCausa (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I’d agree on the bottom line - it is what the RS say it is. And there are numerous RS that refer to it as a “country”. But nor am I seeing any conflict with Wikipedia’s definitions. “A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation or other political entity”. That seems to fit Wales perfectly well. KJP1 (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The word "other" should be removed I think. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The compromise reached years ago, for the intros of this page, Scotland & Wales - "is a country that is part of the United Kingdom". As for Northern Ireland's intro - "is a part of the United Kingdom". GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

ISO 3166-2:GB defines Wales as a country. Which is as close to an official answer as we'll get.

https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:GB Dgp4004 (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

No it's not and is not the reason why we describe it as a country. It's because of WP:DUE: if reliable sources predominantly describe it so (which is the case) then that's what we follow. If that "predominance" changes, then we would change. That's it. nothing more nothing less. DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Anthem

It would appear, according to Wales.com, that "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau gradually became accepted as Wales’ national anthem – though to this day, it has no official status as such". Therefore, should this be taken as Wales does not have an official national anthem? Similar to Scotland, England and Northern Ireland not have an official anthem, instead a song which is used as an unofficial anthem primarily at sporting events? Goodreg3 (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, I would point out this article from the BBC, which concludes "Increasingly sung at patriotic gatherings, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau gradually developed into Wales' national anthem, although it is neither officially or legally recognised as such". Therefore, this would suggest that it must be recognised on the article that Wales has no official national anthem, and instead, commonly, the anthem used unofficially. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia convention in cases like this is to use de facto so I have added that -----Snowded ^TALK 22:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Granted, however, I thought it best to open up a discussion here as your previous reverting had a bold claim that it was the official national anthem as it "had been the national anthem before the Welsh Government was established". Whilst true, that does not appear to be relevant. It is indicated through a number of sources that there is no official or legal national anthem of Wales.

• Everything you need to know about Wales' National Anthem
• Welsh National Anthem
• The background to Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau

Goodreg3 (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I reverted to a long standing stable version - you might want to check WP:BRD and also check out the language rentry in the UK article. It doesn't say 'none' with defacto added on the end that would be absurd. I'll replaced 'none" with 'de facto' which is in line with the reference which does not say there is no national anthem, it says there is no official one -----Snowded ^TALK 22:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

No official national anthem would certainly confirm there is "none". There is no official national anthem, rather, one which is used on a de facto basis. That does not take away from the fact there is no legal or official anthem in this instance. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, I am aware of the BRD cycle, which is why I reverted back and then opened this discussion for others to become involved to get a consensus on this. Whether reverting to a long standing stable version or not, it does not excuse the fact that the article currently appears to be displaying wrong or misleading information that there is a legal and official national anthem of Wales. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The reference you give does not support 'none' it does support 'de facto'. Many long standing things are not official, but they exist. You need to check the UK article on language as an example. Otherwise you evidentally are not familiar with the BRD convention - it does not mean that the disputed edit stands, it means the long standing version does until resolved. I've done my best to respond here and shown you why with examples. There is nothing wrong or misleading in de facto -----Snowded ^TALK 22:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Arguably, it doesn't support a de facto use in my eyes either. We just take it for granted that it is commonly used as the Welsh anthem in the same manner as the other countries of the UK. Unless you can find alternative sources which support it as either a de facto anthem, or official, or indeed legal, anthem, then please do so. I will leave it and see what others suggest. Additionally, the layout you have created on the article infobox in my opinion does not flow well and not in line with other countries. I would also ask for clarity on what you mean by referring to checking the UK article on language as an example? As I have tried, but to no luck as I am unsure what you are referring to? Goodreg3 (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

If you check the information box on the United Kingdom article under language you will see that English is 'de facto'. It is the convention for things that exist but are not official. Somewhat ironically Welsh is I think the only official language in the United Kingdom which sort of makes the point. As to format, de facto could be moved until after the recording if you think that would flow better, But none is as incorrect as official would be -----Snowded ^TALK 23:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not in anyway against the usage of de facto, however, I would point out a long standing convention and stable version on Scotland which referred to a national motto of Scotland. This was found to be factually incorrect, with no sources confirming an official motto of Scotland. It could have been argued that Nemo me impune lacessit or In Defens were de facto mottos of Scotland, however, they were not referred to as such as there was no evidence of them being either officially or legally recognised as such, hence it was removed. So, it may penetrate to the same outcome here, the recognition of no official national anthem, but rather, an unofficial one. Whether you want to refer to that as de facto on the basis on commonly accepted Wikipedia language, fine, but it does not excuse the fact that there is no agreed, official or legal national anthem of Wales, and I think the article should perhaps be a little more clearer on that. Goodreg3 (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me repeat a point to which you have not responded. Many things exist by custom that have been established over time. It would be nonsensical to say that English is an unofficial language, although technically it has never been made official. The word to describe that situation is deItalic textfacto and that is more than sufficient. -----Snowded ^TALK 07:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Other pages do not create precedents for this page. De facto is perfectly good. None is wrong. Scotland is not Wales and it is a different situation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It would appear this debate has caused some unrest amongst fellow Welsh Wikipedia contributors. I’m not saying de facto is right or wrong, I couldn’t care less about how it is worded. Rather, the debate is about whether Wales does or doesn’t have an officially recognised national anthem as the article, up until yesterday, suggested. The situation here and the Scottish motto isn’t far apart in my view. They could both be considered de facto considering the long standing tradition and assumption of the Scottish motto. What I am saying is, is that it wasn’t kept and refereed to as the de facto motto. It was removed because it wasn’t the official or legal motto of the country. The very same situation here with regards to a Welsh anthem. Goodreg3 (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I think anyone with any knowledge of Wales reading the article would probably think "de facto" was pedantic. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The debate is about whether Wales does or doesn’t have an officially recognised national anthem. No, the debate has thus far been whether it is an official anthem. "Officially recognised" is not well defined. It is used on official occasions such as the opening of the Senedd. How is that not official recognition? De facto is indeed a touch pedantic. We can tolerate that pedantry, but let's not make more of this than we should. The page is to tell people about Wales, not to tell people how clever the editors are. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Unofficial or none (which I reverted last night) are plain wrong. So the choice is really being saying nothing other than having it as the entry or adding 'de facto' -----Snowded ^TALK 14:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty understanding what is the current dispute. As of now, it says it's "de facto", which seems correct. As far as I can tell, no one's say it need be changed. The argument seems to be over what it previously said which doesn't seem relevant any more. Is that right? DeCausa (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

That is right. The current version appears to command a consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2024

Please add a hatnote:

{{Distinguish|Whales}}

This parallels the {{Redirect-distinguish|Whales|Wales}} currently appearing atop Whale. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: Merged into {{about}}. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)