Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales/Archive 2013

Can someone from Monmouthshire, or even Wales, take a look at Ty Gwyn, a disambiguation page which may need some cleanup or improvement.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  Done Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what was iffy about that dab: I simply linked to already extant pages.

What we could use – if people here have the sources or time – would be even stub-length articles on the legends concerning the Ty Gwyn ar Dav parliament under Hywel Dda and the Ty Gwyn (monastery) led by Dewi Hen. We currently don't have either.  — LlywelynII 11:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I find this band really catchy, so I dug up some reliable sources off gBooks and made a quick article on them. If anyone Welsh-speaking has a quick moment to translate a 3-line article, I'd appreciate it! Hopefully someone else likes punk music and would find this fun to add to cy.wiki. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You can make that request here. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Just curious. Does anyone have a source for Deputy First Minister of Wales? With such a source, we could move Deputy First Minister for Wales to Deputy First Minister of Wales. Thus matching with First Minister of Wales. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added 4 sources for the article-in-question. PS: It would be nice if we could have more input at that article's current RM. GoodDay (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It might be nice to have a Welsh-themed TFA on 1st March for a change... and I just happen to be one of the TFA delegates! Any ideas as to what we could use? Is Rhys ap Gruffydd up to scratch, for example? It passed FAC a long time ago and the primary author is long gone. Any other ideas spring to mind? If so, feel free to discuss here or - even better - make a nomination at WP:TFAR. If the instructions are a bit daunting, don't worry, let me know and I'll give you a hand. Diolch, Bencherlite^Talk 21:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes please, it would be great that we get more coverage on 1 March than National Pig Day. Do the articles need to be FA or can GA articles be nominated? FruitMonkey (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Only FAs can be nominated, although a keen editor (or group of editors) could no doubt get something promoted to FA status between now and then. Other Welsh FAs yet to appear on the main page are William Cragh, Russell T Davies, Tom Pryce, Sasha (DJ) and Wales national rugby union team (the last one in particular looks to be in need of some work to clean it back up to FA standards). Bencherlite^Talk 21:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, I've noticed that The Welsh Wizard redirects to David Lloyd George, but I wonder if the term deserves disambiguation. As an American who follows the Premier League, to me Ryan Giggs and Gareth Bale are the Welsh Wizards. I tried googling the term, and the results are a bit inconclusive, although apparently Merlin counts too? What do you think? --BDD (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Welsh Wizard", including the definite article (The or the), appears in our biography David Lloyd George only in the title of one reference. About the footballers I know nothing at all.

The three-word expression is crucial re whether any WP:redirect or WP:disambiguation is warranted. Merlin is irrelevant, even if he is undeniably both Welsh and a wizard, and even if he is commonly described as a Welsh wizard (as I think not). The same goes for mythological Gwydion (whom we call magician, hero, trickster), fictional Dallben (whom we call old man, guardian, mentor, meditator), and their ilk, even if they are somewhere termed wizards or even described as Welsh wizards.

Even a football club officially named "Welsh Wizards" without the definite article would be irrelevant. A club named "The Welsh Wizards", however, might require disambiguation and would require at least a WP:hatnote at biography David Lloyd George even if the club is not covered by its own article.

If it's true that Twm Siôn Cati "is a figure in Welsh folklore, often described as the Welsh Wizard" (quoting our lead sentence), that is relevant. Despite our ample coverage in that article, the figure may be so obscure (or may not) that for article David Lloyd George is sufficient; no WP:disambiguation is necessary.

Skimming the search report for 'the welsh wizards', I suppose that the several hits merit at least a disambiguation page with hatnote link at David Lloyd George --and I guess that you are right about relegating DLG to listing in the diambiguation-- but I don't know enough to answer with any authority.

--P64 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've BOLDly created a dab page at Welsh Wizard. I've added other figures with the nickname, based on a Wikipedia search for the phrase. I think we can safely ignore the definite article per WP:THE. If someone more knowledgeable wants to move it to Welsh Wizard (disambiguation) and have the phrase redirect to DLG with a hatnote, that's probably ok too, tough based on Google hits, it might be best to keep it as a dab. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Omit definite article "the" from the head of most article names but it frequently belongs as the lead word, although not in boldface) unless part of an official name.

As seems appropriate to me here, I have inserted plainface "The" as the lead word and "The Welsh Wizards" in the ballclub entry. [BTW previously I thought the football people were members of this club but now I see they are separately nicknamed people in a different sport.]

Perhaps the lead should say ", singular or plural," or something equivalent

Dates should be inserted ( ) for people. and perhaps for organisations (where I habitually use "(from YYYY)" if not defunct). --P64 (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. --as marked by strikeout and the lifespans are not for me! --P64 (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Since this is Wiki's home of all things leeky, I have to say this proposal will probably prompt some knee-jerk responses but kindly do hear me out, since I do think this is the best way forward.

A ap B or X ab Y is the English common name for almost all figures from Welsh history (with the obvious exceptions). That's exactly what the articles should be named and those names should be included in the lead sentence. Even names from the era when they wrote filius, map, or whatever else... today, it's ap or ab when we talk about them.

While everyone here knows that those words mean "son of..." and are not last names but patronymics, many of our readers don't know that. Oddly, many of our editors don't know that: editing articles on Welsh royalty, it's not uncommon to see someone has filled out the {{persondata}} with "NAME = Ap Llywelyn, Gruffydd" or even "NAME = FARFOG, TRIFFYN". Some proactive editors have begun adding notes to the lede sentence: things along the lines of "Gruffydd ap Llywelyn (English: 'Gruffydd, son of Llywelyn')". Aside from the ugliness (particulary to those of us already know what the word means), it misleadingly makes it look like that is the English form of the name whereas A ap B is already the proper English form these days.

If we did have to start the lead sentence with exactly the same name as the title, we would have to do it that way. But we do not have to start the sentence exactly that way: there are explicit exceptions to be made where it helps clarity and understanding. I think this is just such a case.

I propose we keep the pages exactly where they are and use X ab Y in running text and links but allow the style "A son of B (Welsh: A ap B)" and "A the Epithet (Welsh: A Ansoddair)" in the lead sentences of articles. We already do this with figures such as Rhodri the Great and it very clearly explains the meaning of the Welsh name and the fact that "ap B" is no surname at all and should not be handled as one. This would just permit us to use a similarly clean style to say, e.g., "Triffyn the Bearded (Welsh: Triffyn Farfog)" in the lead sentences of articles of less well-known figures, while keeping the title and other mentions as Triffyn Farfog.

(Obvious caveat: This applies to historic people before surnames became widespread in Wales. Obviously, more modern Welshfolk who are surnamed "ap Bethbynnag" shouldn't have that translated at all: it's simply their name—in a way quite unlike Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, whose name was simply "Gruffydd" but who was called the "son of Llywelyn" to distinguish him. That distinguishing nature btw means we should write X son of Y with no commas at all: it's a restrictive clause.)

So (deep breath)... thoughts? — LlywelynII 14:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Examples 1A & 1B

Examples 2A & 2B

Examples 3A & 3B

Also, from my talk page, there is this:

Nevertheless, whether "X son of Y (Welsh: X ap Y)" looks better than "X ap Y (English:...)" is irrelevant. We should go with the sources...

— Daicaregos

I hope I made this clear above but (if not) his reasoning is confusing WP:COMMONNAME (regarding page titles, which always should be at the first place where people will search for them) with WP:LEADSENTENCE (regarding lead sentences, which are explicitly permitted to use exceptions in cases like this, where the meaning and use of ap is unclear to the average reader of the English Wikipedia.) — LlywelynII 15:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

[oppose] I disagree with this proposal. We follow the sources, and English-language sources follow the Welsh conventions. I don't find, for instance, Bleddyn son of Cynfyn to be any clearer than Bleddyn ap Cynfyn considering that virtually no sources call him that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

(a) Again, follow-the-sources applies to page titles, not lead sentences.

(b) Respectfully, I'm not sure how you can be serious that "Bleddyn son of Cynfyn" isn't clearer (his name his Bleddyn; his father's name is Cynfyn; "ap Cynfyn" is not his surname in any modern English sense). Surely you can look at this from the viewpoint of people coming to Wikipedia ignorant of Welsh.

(c) Which means the option of assuming proficiency and familiarity that Welsh historians can fall back on isn't one for us. The options are something like this or hyperlinking "ap" or including "(English: X son of Y)" in all of these articles. It's clunkier and more confusingly phrased.

(d) The proposal only involves the introductory sentence, explaining what the names mean. In the rest of the running text, people would see "Bleddyn ap Cynfyn". But if they click on him, trying to understand how his name works or why the "a" isn't capitalized, most of the time right now they're SOL. — LlywelynII 18:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

[support] As an english-only reader, I support your proposal, as it's helpful. Using english in these articles makes sense, this being English language Wikipedia. We must remember that not everyone understands the Welsh language :) GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Re persondata: thinking back and looking around, the persondata info was added en masse by a group of well-intentioned wikipedia improvers (akin to those who now notify us about redirects in our edits), and not by content editors. They apparently did the best they could when encountering a name that was unusual to them (ap Y, X; Ap Y, X). Perhaps best is to just correct it when found and move on; and if it gets changed again, notify the changer/group of the correct form. Some recent edits have included alternate names in the persondata section, which I suppose is good, but it isn't seen by casual readers and I don't know how it will be interpreted when persondata is processed by a program. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Persondata isn't encountered by normal readers except to the extent that it makes their searches more helpful.

I mentioned it in the hope of showing the editors here—whom I'm sure already know perfectly well what ap means and (like Cuch above) don't even understand how people cannot—that normal English-speaking Wikipedians do not in fact understand how these names work and this (to my mind) is the best way forward.

As far as the problem with existing Persondata info, yeah, I don't see any easy solution for that either. Even if you had someone script something that would automatically move "ap Y, X" into "X ap Y", I don't see how it could distinguish between the modern Welsh who do use those surnames from the earlier ones under discussion here. — LlywelynII 18:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Following what our sources applies to all article content. I don't think readers are served by being given a name that doesn't appear outside of Wikipedia. And I really don't think that "Bleddyn son of Cynfyn (Welsh: Bleddyn ap Cyfyn)" looks any better than "Bleddyn ap Cynfyn (English: Bleddyn, son of Cyfyn)"; in fact, it has the side effect of suggesting that "Bleddyn son of Cyfyn" is some kind of common name for the subject. You may be overestimating the extent of confusion based on the persondata; in my experience most readers don't have much difficulty following along at these articles or at those with other foreign patronymics (we don't have Leif son of Erik, Conchobar son of Ness, or Kenneth son of Alpin for instance).--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Much agree on the principle; however, it is in our interests if those not familiar with Welsh names become comfortable with them, and knowing what they mean helps considerably ... in my experience in the western hemisphere, most people are completely lost as to the meanings and pronunciations of Welsh names. Overcoming that without seeming to be intrusive or provocative is to our benefit, whatever the mechanics. The comparison given is certainly accurate and correct on the one hand, but perhaps not a good comparison for other reasons ... Leif's role is commonly taught in school history classes and there are more descendants of expatriate Irish and Scots than of expatriate Welsh, so it's a question of larger numbers promoting familiarity; and no, these names are not necessarily clear in English-language wikipedia for those who learned English as a 2nd language (I actually once explained to a group of Slavs why "McGowan" and "Kowalcic" can be connected ... they said it made sense, but this was in a bar, of course). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As an english-only reader, I could easily make the erroneous assumption that Leif Ericson's father's surname is also Ericson or that MacNessa & MacAlpin are the family surnames of Conchobar & Kenneth respectively. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure there are ways to clarify the issue without creating our own Anglicized name and treating like it's a common one for the subject. In fact, just adding the gloss (English: [Conchobar], son of [Ness]) should do the trick.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That's acceptable, too. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, as far as this discussion goes, that's just not true. Not that we could make up a new name as OR, but these names do in fact mean "son of". The scholarship can assume everyone reading it already knows that; we can't; we're just discussing how to explain that. I understand and respectfully disagree with both your aesthetics (X (English:Y) is much more abnormal) and concern (the page names would remain A ap B; the text would remain X ab Y; the only thing that would change would be cleaner glosses at the heads of the pages on the topic.)

The better compromise than (English:....) would be {{Welsh-bio}} infoboxes in the manner of Chinese pages. Welsh name on top, English gloss in smaller text beneath. But surely that's more cumbersome and disruptive than the proposal. — LlywelynII 02:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Side point: You surely realize that "Llywelyn the Great" > "Llywelyn Fawr" but "Idwal the Bald" < "Idwal Foel" only because a wide English audience doesn't talk about the latter; likewise "ap" is kept in English scholarship just because it's so very much shorter than "son of". But again, I'm not proposing ignoring the common name; just glossing it more elegantly in the lead sentences to articles. — LlywelynII 02:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Several MOS guidelines relate to this point. MOS:BOLDTITLE, which says: “If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence”, would be sufficient reason to oppose, but also … MOS:LEADALT (Non-English titles), which says: “Although Wikipedia's naming convention guidelines recommend the use of English, there are instances where the subject of an article is best known in English-speaking sources by its non-English name. In this case, the non-English title may be appropriate for the article.” This is the case here. I do not recall seeing any sources referring to Grufudd ap Llywelyn as 'Grufudd son of Llywelyn'. And no examples have been provided. The 'X ap Y' format is the widely accepted way to refer to most Welsh people of that period and that is the way it should be shown on Wikipedia. Daicaregos (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You're completely on point. For article titles. None of that applies to WP:LEADSENTENCE as pointed out above, since WP:BOLDTITLE is met by the proposal. — LlywelynII 13:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Take Bleddyn ap Cynfyn as an example. Saying "Bleddyn son of Cynfyn (Welsh: Bleddyn ap Cynfyn)" is in my view simply wrong, as Bleddyn ap Cynfyn is his common name in English sources. However, saying "Bleddyn ap Cynfyn (Welsh: Bleddyn ap Cynfyn)" (as it says currently) is, in my view, unnecessary and looks silly. We should say "Bleddyn ap Cynfyn (English: Bleddyn, son of Cynfyn)". English language sources commonly use the Welsh name. But, the English language translation of the name - which it is relevant and helpful to include in the article - is "..son of...". There is no confusion about this. We do not start off articles on, say, Rio de Janeiro, by saying "River of January (Portuguese: Rio de Janeiro)". The same principle should apply here. We should include an English translation and explanation in the text, but not try to claim that the translation is the common name in English when it isn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You're certainly right about what happened to Bleddyn's page. Fixed. — LlywelynII 13:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The proposal obviously strikes you as unpleasant, so I don't imagine I can convince you otherwise. I'll still point out that "River of January" is a strawman more than an analogy. Bleddyn's name wasn't "Bleddyn ap Cynfyn": it was just "Bleddyn". He's called "Bleddyn ap Cynfyn" to distinguish him from other Bleddyns. (Bleddynau? Bleddeinog? Whatever...) That was the entire rationale behind using the lead sentence to explain that, rather than treating it as a modern English name, which is obviously so confusing to our English audience. — LlywelynII 13:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Bleddyn was my bad; I missed switching the gloss to English. However it does demonstrate the issue with the proposal, as Gh says. At any rate, I don't see any evidence that it's really so confusing as you're making it out to be - or at least I don't think your proposal would make things better.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons very similar to those stated by Ghmyrtle. However, I take your point on WP:COMMONNAME not necessarily applying to the opening sentence. But I think it's actually a little confusing to have the bold name different from the article title. I know there are a few articles that do that, but when I open the Rhodri the Great page and the first thing you see is Rhodri son of Merfyn (not Rhodri the Great) my first reaction is who he? My response on the "River of January" point (that you make to Ghmyrtle above) is that, because of my foregoing point, WP:COMMONNAME in practice should apply. Regardless of whether "Bleddyn ap Cynfyn" was his actual name that's how the sources refer to him hence that's why his article is called that and, for me, consistency therefore requires that the opening of his lead should follow the article name. However, you make a valid point on the ap/ab creating confusion and giving the impression this is the individuals' name, I think as a matter of MOS, the English meaning (in the form of, eg, "Bleddyn, son of Cynfyn") should always follow. DeCausa (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, when someone is better known by a sobriquet that differs from their "real" name, the general practice is to include the "real" name first and then the sobriquet. So, for instance, William the Conqueror is "William I, usually known as William the Conqueror..." while The Notorious B.I.G. is "Christopher George Latore Wallace (May 21, 1972 – March 9, 1997), best known as The Notorious B.I.G...." I think that's idea Llewelyn was trying to get at in invoking WP:LEADSENTENCE. The problem is that "X son of Y" isn't a "real" name and is rarely if ever a common name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

*sigh*

"X son of Y" is the real English name for all names where ap is being used as a patronymic rather than a surname. X is the name qua name; son of Y is used in the absence of an epithet to distinguish him from the other Xs running around. It's just not commonly expressed that way because (a) people talking about Welsh culture already know how it works and (b) it's shorter AND (c) more colorful than the English expression.

So, yes, you finally understand exactly where I'm coming from, but the other active members here oppose that method of explaining things (however efficient and superior to the alternatives), so let's move on (unless there's a shift in the consensus as people slowly realize I was completely right about this falling well within Wiki's guidelines; don't really see that happening, though, given it hasn't yet). — LlywelynII 09:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

*Sigh*. Yes, I understand where you're coming from, but (a) you're overstating the problem, and (b) this suggestion just introduces further problems. Namely, it treats a construction that rarely if ever appears in any source as if it's a common and accepted way to refer to the subject. As you finally understand that there's no support for it, let's do move on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a translation, not an "accepted way to refer to the subject". There's not "no support" but, yes, among the editors here who presumably patrol the Welsh pages, there's obviously quite little so let's move on to find something most of us can agree on. — LlywelynII 15:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support, when the use is genuinely patronymic: We would provide a translation if this were any other language. This should really be discussed at WT:MOS; it's virtually pointless to try to come to a consensus about this here, due to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy not being supportive of wikiprojects making up their own insular rules, and because this group is entirely populated by editors who consider the meaning of ap/ab/map/vab to be transparent and to not require translation, while much of the rest of Wikipedia is going to have the opposite opinion (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS was written for a reason). The discussion below about how to make such translations is perhaps more productive, but again this isn't really the right venue, as this needs to be handled consistently regardless of what language the names are coming from. I have to agree with Llywelynll immediately above that Cucuhullain's argument immediately above that is faulty; it is never assumed at all that a gloss (translation) is "a common and accepted way to refer to the subject" without a reliable source saying so, in which case it would probably also be the article title per WP:COMMONNAME+WP:USEENGLISH. PS: No comma is needed in the gloss and should not be added since it wasn't in the original (adding it because of some Victorian prescriptive grammar fetish for commas or assumption of non-restrictive use is a NPOV/NOR problem). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

{{rfc|style|hist|lang}} Given that the membership here dislikes explaining the names in the form X son of Y (Welsh: X ap Y), what is the preferred alternative?

• A ap B (English: "A son of B") in every single Welsh page?
• {{infobox:welsh-bio}}?
• {{welshname}}? (Header: This is a Welsh name. It means X, son of Y.)
• <!--X son of Y--> text commented out next to the name, so only editors see it?

 — LlywelynII 13:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Support As an "Anglophone" (but AFAIK, not "scared off") non-Welsh person - for the reasons explained in my above "Oppose" post. DeCausa (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say adding the English gloss in the lead will be sufficient. A header is a cool idea, but it doesn't much help us at articles that don't have the patronymic in the title, such as Llywelyn the Great or Hywel Dda. Either way I don't think we need to make it official practice, or to go around inserting it across the hundreds of articles on medieval Welsh people. We can just add it as we improve articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This was never about forcing change across all existing articles. It only happened because Dai objected to my personal edits to some articles. I was right his objection was largely a lack of empathy where he refuses to acknowledge how much the community at large does not understand these names and treats them as surnames (see below); he was right that the Welsh Project members would refuse to support my preferred format for fixing that (see above).

Anyway, if you like headers, we can create a header format. Obviously you don't use it on pages where it doesn't apply (although even something like Llywelyn the Great could have one explaining how Llywelyn ab Iorwerth works). — LlywelynII 08:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

LlywelynII, don't personalize the debate please; no one cares about your opinion of Dai or your unflattering theories about his motivations; see also WP:AGF. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

  Done: {{Welsh name}}, {{welshname}}, and {{wn}} all work and include support for female names:

This Welsh name means Elen daughter of Llywelyn.

Open to commentary on whether we need to specify "traditional Welsh name" or use commas (They're not technically necessary since the description is being used restrictively, but people might prefer them).  — LlywelynII 11:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No comma, unless the original included one. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose – "A ab B (date-date) …" is perfectly fine as it is. I see no good reason to provide the translation (English: "A son of B"). The translation would often be redundant anyway as, if the subject's ancestry is known, it is often noted in the Lead that A ap B is “the son of B ap C”. I don't recall translations of Scottish or Irish biographies for those named 'Mc' or 'Mac' something, nor are they on biographies for those named 'von' 'van' or 'de' (unless sources use an Anglicised version of their name), and there is no need for it here. Daicaregos (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no "opposition". This needs to happen and as the rest of us go about improving the English-language articles for native English speakers, you should not go around making the articles less helpful. The question is which format would we prefer, given that my original thought concerning using the lead sentence was opposed by the active participants above.

Yes, all of the alternatives are worse (which is why I was in favor of my way in the first place), but this is where we are now. — LlywelynII 09:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The "good reason" to provide the translation is that not everyone understands Welsh patronymics. As noted elsewhere mac and ó names that are genuine patronymics would also be translated. So would van/von/de names in cases where it literally indicated the origin of the subject and did not form part of a modern surname. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Sledgehammers and nuts come to mind here. I'm sorry, but I don't think there is a substantial problem. To maintain the correct position of indexing, say Bleddyn ap Cynfyn, under B rather than A or C, all that is needed is a hidden message in such articles to explain to editors that his name starts with the letter B. We don't need any explanation in the text - it's simply a matter of indexing, isn't it? Or we could add a template. For example, {{Template:Chinese name}} is used for Chinese names (like Mao Zedong, family name Mao). Something similar could be done for old Welsh names, if necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

<!--Bleddyn son of Cynfyn--> would be another option, I suppose. Would fix most editing issues but not particularly helpful to readers.

Why would we not need explanation? The "substantial problem" is that not everyone understands Welsh patronymics. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, that's two votes for template. Done and done, including support for ferch. — LlywelynII 11:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment. LlywelynII seems to be trying to make this personal. It isn't. I disagree that a problem existed that needed to be solved. "A ab B (date-date) …" was perfectly fine. The only improvement needed now is to return these intros to their simple form – which should have been one of the options given above. The points made about similar translations for Scottish, Irish, German, Dutch and French names seem to have been missed. Daicaregos (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It isn't personal except to the extent that Dai is involved in the conversation, but you've missed the point that your preëxisting knowledge of Welsh culture is causing you (and Dai) to miss why something like {{chinese name}} is necessary in the first place. Yes, it's superfluous to explain things that are already common knowledge; no, except among the present company, "ap" does not qualify.

(Personally, I'd argue people don't generally understand Mc or O' either where it's being used as an actual patronym instead of the surname it turned into; but that's neither here nor there. We're not responsible for the Wikipedians' mistaken understandings of or edits to Scots and Irish pages.) — LlywelynII 11:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Where used as actual patronymics, names with mac and ó should certainly be translated as proposed here for the Welsh equivalents. We would do the same thing for Thai or Shoshone or whatever. (PS: The anglicized "Mc-" and "O'-" are virtually never used as actual patronymics. If someone's doing that it's almost certainly a mistake, a POV/OR reinterpretation of sources.) — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment the solution at Hywel Dda, should be adopted for these articles. GoodDay (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The section Alternatives, above, is incomplete. The status quo is, of course, another possibility. Please note your preference below from these options – please add any comments to the following 'discussion' section.

A) The lead sentence to begin: “Ll ap C (xxxx–xxxx) was ...”

B) The lead sentence to begin: “Ll ap C (English: Ll son of C) (xxxx–xxxx) was ...”

C) Add a header ({{welshname}}) saying (This is a Welsh name. It means X, son of Y.). Lead sentence per A) above.

D) A(n unspecified) change to the infobox only {{infobox:welsh-bio}}. Lead sentence per A) above. (please add any detail if this is still proposed; delete if not)

• A) (as proposer) Daicaregos (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• B) GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

  How about X ap Y ("X son of Y") or X Cymraeg (“X the Epithet”), using quotes, without cluttering the lead with repetitions of English? It doesn't change the meaning; just looks a little nicer. — LlywelynII 16:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: again, cf. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:POINT, which you're really pushing against with this. The issue was never whether we needed to do this for all entries everywhere. The issue is what format my particular edits should take, given that there are valid reasons (and fairly strong consensus) to begin the Welsh pages directly with article name.
  It's fine to choose a different format and that's what we've done. However, creating a straw poll here doesn't actually create any broad and binding consensus to never helpfully edit pages for native English speakers. Now that I've scripted it, I'll be using the header unless there's a strong consensus that we prefer a different format; if you go around removing it without adding the information into the lead per B or some other format, I would expect you will (and should) quickly run afoul of admins per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:POINT.
  You are not only ignoring the vast, vast majority of users who do not know how Welsh names work. You are spending time and effort trying to make other editors' helpful edits disappear. I don't want to think Ghm is right that you're making this personal, but what possible reason can you have to make the encyclopedia's entries less helpful and useful to native English speakers? — LlywelynII 16:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, I think the hat notes are an interesting idea, but a gloss in the text is sufficient. In fact, it's likely better as not all of these articles use the patronymic. In any event, I hardly think this is something that needs to be enforced across all articles; the level of confusion simply isn't as great as it's being made out.

On another note, let's please take it down a notch. This minor issue isn't worth getting worked up about.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, you'd only use one or the other, depending on which was more appropriate.

The level of confusion is quite as great as is being made out. Inter alia, I just edited a page where "Tomas ap Rhodri ap Owain Gwynedd" was treated as if "Gwynedd" were Thomas's surname.

As for 'getting worked up', I'm here discussing how to move forward and best service our entries. I'm here in honest response to confusion about whether my initial edits were against policy (they weren't, but we're looking at 'better' ways to get the same point across).

Creating a second vote in the middle of the first one (and that for the express purpose of bringing greater attention to points he'd already made) and moving my comments around to remove my objection to his duplicate vote is very hard to square with good faith. — LlywelynII 15:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

So you did. Please don't add your new template to articles. The discussion has not concluded and no consensus to use it has emerged. Also, please stop adding translations to Welsh leaders, as you have to Owain Gwynedd here. Clearly, as you have noted, there is no community support for them. Daicaregos (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

First, please refrain from employing such a snarky and combative tone.

Second, there is community support for such glosses from myself, GoodDay, Cuch, and DeCausa. Ghm is ambivalent and you are the only one who opposes them in full. As such, kindly avoid any editing of such glosses until a consensus has emerged. — LlywelynII 16:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't read the Welsh language and therefore find that an english-version being added, is helpful to me. I can't read the minds of other english-only readers, but can only assume the addition will help them aswell. GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What does this mean? - "I don't want to think Ghm is right that you're making this personal....." I've never said any such thing (assuming that by Ghm you mean me). Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You did discuss this becoming personal. True that you directed your comment against me, although as shown by this duplicate vote, comment editing, & Dai's tone and misconstruing of facts below, that part was apparently off the mark. — LlywelynII 15:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I did nothing of the sort. Please point to where you think I made any comment like that. If you are misreading someone else's comments as mine, I suggest you check more carefully next time and withdraw that statement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you did, although I didn't take it personally and (as I said) it seems to have been directed towards the wrong editor. It's two bolded "comments" up from here (or CTRL+F for "LlywelynII seems to be trying to make this personal."). — LlywelynII 16:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean "LlywelynII seems to be trying to make this personal...." The comment signed by Daicaregos? I am not Daicaregos. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

AHHHH... Well, then, you are completely correct and I somehow scanned the wrong line. Give me a sec and I'll fix my comments. — LlywelynII 16:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

And (obviously) my apologies. — LlywelynII 16:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The version of this at WT:MOS#Translating patronymics covers (I think) all of the different possible formatting cases when the translation is done in the lead. Fewer things to argue about. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Lloyd uses it so I assume it's not bogus, but Google is almost silent on the point: 7 (total) hits versus 300k for Aberffraw or Dinefwr. Anyone know any details about the place or what the modern Welsh form would be? Llys... something.  — LlywelynII 10:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No. No-one knows. Somewhere in the Caerwent / Caldicot / Portskewett / St Pierre area, but beyond that, it's a mystery. I'm not aware of any local place names, field names, etc., that are related to "Lisarcors" either. (I live locally.) Bring back Time Team!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree about Time Team. Still, any idea what the modern Welsh form would be? Llysargwr? — LlywelynII 13:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My guess for the modern Welsh would be Llys yr coed or Llys y coed. Though where exactly, not a clue. Daicaregos (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere near a forest... ^_^  — LlywelynII 08:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

'Cors' = marsh/fen. "Llys ar [y] cors"? (yes, 'cors' is feminine, so 'y gors', but it might not always have been so.) Hogyn Lleol ★ ^(chat) 19:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the alternate view! (And yeah, it's pretty common that modern Welsh g is used in places that used to get c – Meuric → Meurig, &c.)

But then you mean the modern form of that name would be something like Llys ar y gors? or would modern Welsh contract it somehow? — LlywelynII 15:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Place names can be fickle, and there must be hundreds of examples where small words have over time been left out from the original name, rendering a literal translation difficult. e.g. Betws [yn] y Coed, Glan [y] môr, Tŷ [yn/wrth y] Groes. It could be something like that. Hogyn Lleol ★ ^(chat) 15:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any copy of the Brut y Saeson translated anywhere, even though various historians cite points from it that differ from the other chronicles. (Rhodri Molwynog had a passage that wasn't clear, but I assume the Brut y Saeson isn't itself one of the Iolo forgeries, given its appearance in the Red Book &c. If it is a forgery, obviously translating it is unimportant and it'd be nice to have a notice put up on the new page.) I put up a page about it with links to three MSS. copies, but they're untranslated Welsh. I don't think it's very long, so if someone who can read Welsh has the time to just add a page a day to Wikisource, it'd be wonderful. — LlywelynII 17:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Weird. Google completely failed at this but then I just discovered a link to a translation buried in one of the Arch. Camb at an inappropriate place in one of someone's footnotes to a page on a random Welsh village. Hopefully, I'll be able to port it over to Wikisource over the next few days. — LlywelynII 22:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. — LlywelynII 09:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It might interest the members of this project that the article Crachach is currently being discussed at WP:HD#Crachach article (Crachach). — Sebastian 00:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, I moved that discussion to Talk:Crachach. — Sebastian 00:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

After nearly a year of discussions with the National Library, National Museum of Wales, Cadw and the Royal Commission, the Welsh Language Wicipedia has just launched a Pilot which trials around 150 NLW images on a CC-BY-SA license. Should this be successful, then it's quite possible that more than 150,000 other images will follow. I've created a Template for the NLW image catalogue, and Fae has uploaded all 50 images using his bot, which you can find here. There's a bit of work on these images: adding onto relevant articles and categorising. Please feel free to spread the word! Can some one write a DYK, so that we can benefit from the number of clicks? We now await the other partners to follow suit. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty cool. We definitely should get on adding them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cuchullain! I also made a request to Visit Wales, who looks after Cadw's images / photos here for an image. They agreed to do that on CC-BY-SA for use on WP, although Cadw have locked them up with a "Crown Copyright" padlock for years! Take a look at this image here which I uploaded onto Commons. Please request other images from the Visit Wales site. I suggest that you copy their authorisation from their email onto the image details, just in case. There's a wealth of stuff there, which you and I have paid for through our taxes. The Robin Hood inside me emerges... Llywelyn2000 (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: I have corresponded over the last fortnight with Visit Wales, who although want to release Cadw's images on CC-BY-SA have now realised that we allow commercial use, and say that their hands are very much tied by Cadw, who will not allow this. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The National Library have just released all 1844 - 1910 Welsh and English language newspapers printed in Wales - totally out of copyright - in a digital format for our use! Take a look here. Brilliant stuff! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Surely that means we can also upload all the fantastic Staniforth cartoons from these articles too, right? Thanks for bringing this to our attention. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Whaw! Yes! That's a new one for me! Historically important, visually exciting! Thanks. Can we blitz these JMS cartoons? What other hidden jewels awaits us!Llywelyn2000 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have worked on expanding the Croesor Quarry article, and it is now fully referenced, apart from the short Current conditions section at the end. This appears to be two first-hand reports from explorers, which are unreferenced and are partially written like a guide book. I have added {Fact} tags and a {Manual} template to the section, explaining my reasoning on the talk page, but wondered if anyone had any advice on what to do. Apart from that, I think the article could now be assessed as B-class. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed Skinsmoke is creating large numbers of Wales subcategories, to such a level that many have (and will only ever have) one item of content. For example I've already nominated Category:Bays of Cardiff and some others for deletion.

Surely there isn't an agreement here to categorise everything to the smallest geographical level? it seems to be counter-intuitive and contrary to the spirit of the guidance in WP:Overcategorization. Sionk (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The smallest level would, of course, be village, town or community, not county. It's worth noting that some categories are subcategorised right down to that level, which seems unnecessary (do we really need Category:Buildings and structures in Llandudno, when the articles are already included in Category:Buildings and structures in Conwy County Borough?). The county level, however, covers a large geographic area with a substantial population, and many of these categories can grow to be quite substantial (for example Category:Mountains and hills of Gwynedd with 170 articles to date, or Category:Rivers of Powys with 59 articles). Skinsmoke (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It needs common sense, in my view. Category:Buildings and structures in Llandudno seems a bad example for your rationale, because it is a large town with a number of notable buildings and structures. On the other hand, while there are several notable buildings and structures in Wrexham county borough there is only one noted hunting lodge, so little reason to create Category:Hunting lodges in Wrexham County Borough.

Back to the main thrust of the argument, creating Category:Bays of Cardiff borders on complete silliness, because the marina known as Cardiff Bay is the only bay in Cardiff that will ever possibly exist for the foreseeable future. I can see some of your new higher level categories are beneficial, but many others are not. Category:Geoparks in Wales seems useful, but creating sub-categories for each of the 7 areas that has a GeoPark is not. Sionk (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sionk is right. WP:COMMONSENSE is obviously more important here than any unnecessary imposition of consistency. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's a whole raft of village categories created for Denbighshire and other northern counties, with little more than the article about the village itself. I've spent a lot of time at WP:CFD and will leave it for someone else with an interest in north Wales to tidy things up if they so desire. Sionk (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I recently re-did the Bodelwyddan page, and was wondering if people from the Wales Project would take a look over it? I don't think it's quite stub quality any longer? Korlus (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there any template (similar to {{NHLE}}) for citing sources like this one: " ""Bryn-yr-Hen-Bobl Chambered Tomb and Terrace". Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales. " ? And is this the best site to go to for authoritative info on Welsh standing stones etc? An editor is creating a lot of stubs, and is responsive to suggestions for improving them, but his sole source is one book, The Modern Antiquarian, and it would be useful to be able to add an authoritative External Link (as I did at Bryn yr Hen Bobl). Any thoughts? PamD 19:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me there is a concensus that SSSI's and listed monuments are notable by the very fact they've been recognised as important by official bodies. The Countryside Council for Wales seems like another good source. There are often very detailed decriptions of the sites and rationale for listing. Sionk (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The template seems a good idea, and shouldn't be to difficult to set up. I think I'm right in saying that User:Llywelyn2000 is currently in talks with the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales regarding making their content more accesible for Wikipedia/the open web in general, so something like this that would genrate inbound links to them should be of interest to them.--Rhyswynne (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can see there are 3 principle bodies that hold ancient monument data: RCAHMW (accessed via 'Coflein'), the 4 Archaeological Trusts (Accessed via Archwilio) and Cadw, (plus portals such as 'Historic Wales', which attempt to give a single access to all three.) Unfortunately, All 3 bodies have different coding systems, and call many sites by slightly difference names. To take Bryn yr Hen Bobl as an example, it is

-SAM_NO AN006 on Cadw's list, and is called 'Bryn-yr-Hen-Bobl Burial Chamber'. (Cadw will cheerfully supply their spreadsheet of Ancient Monuments, but don't actually publish it!, so is not really a citeable resource, despite being the statutory list. It does include grid refs, community, Unitary Authority and Historic County though)

-PRN 2172, 'Bryn yr Hen Bobl Chambered Round Cairn' on the Gwynedd Archwilio site, (with a good site record, but no means of providing a citation link. You have to find it from the map/search.)

-NPRN 300180, 'BRYN-YR-HEN BOBL CHAMBERED TOMB AND TERRACE', at RCAHMW Coflein. You can at least use the NPRN as a template based citation (http://www.coflein.gov.uk/en/site/300180/details will take you to the page), but Coflein don't seem to do lists, so you have to search for each site in turn, to find its number)

All of which seems less than helpful, but appears to leave Coflein as the best first source for using in a template, although it could include an optional reference to Archwilio, but would require the user to search for it. ('Bryn yr Hen Bobl' entry at Archwilio, for instance). RobinLeicester (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated John Dee for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Really good news about Wici Cymru: Barry Morgan the Archbishop of Wales has joined Rhys Ifans as Patrons. We also have received great news about the Welsh Government funding the training of new Wicipedian (and Wikipedian) editors along the Coast Path. Trainers will be needed, so please get yourselves accredited on the Wikimedia UK scheme as soon as possible. More info in the next few days. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Can I please draw your attention to a discussion on WMUK's Water Cooler. What triggered this discussion was that information (in this case regarding a Wikipedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland) was only published on Wiki-en, disregarding the Scottish Gaelic and the Welsh language Wici, and others. As someone points out at the Water Cooler, WMUK have a responsibility for the indigenous languages of Britain as well as en, or change their name to Wikimedia England. The second reason for this discussion was my suggestion that the person employed as WiR should have some knowledge of Scottish Gaelic. Too much to ask, I fear! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a member of Wikimedia UK (it looks like a subscription is required!) and am not familiar with its activities. However, I can see there is a not-so-subtle subtext from the outset of the discussion that Welsh and Scots Gaelic are just another minority language, long with Bengali, Polish etc. From a Wales point of view, with 20% of the population speaking Welsh, we'll have a far different perspective on the issue than people in England or, dare I say, Scotland. However, in my view at least having a paragraph acknowledging the other official UK languages, placed on the frontpage of Wikimedia UK, would seem to be a good start! Sionk (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Valid point which they should hear. You don't have to be a member of WMUK to contribute on the Water Cooler. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have finally got round to doing something with the spreadsheet data from Cadw on the 4,186 Scheduled Monuments in Wales, and my plan is to generate lists covering all 22 principal areas. So far I have 'done properly' Blaenau Gwent and Bridgend. I can rapidly roll out the basic data, as shown for Caerphilly. The full 'list of lists' is shown at Scheduled Monuments in Wales, and you will see I have had to subdivide the counties with more than 250 entries. Any thoughts on the way I have proposed this would be welcome on the talk page, especially before I implement them! RobinLeicester (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A lede intro to each list will be required. It'll probably save time to write one and paste it into the other lists as they're created! Sionk (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Wales for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I've had a go at answering some of the questions, and would encourage other project members to do the same. It would be good to get the project mentioned in the Signpost, after all. Bencherlite^Talk 17:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have created an article about Dr Thomas Bowles (1696–1773), an 18th-century English cleric whose churchwardens prosecuted him under ecclesiastical law for not being proficient in Welsh. The Cymmrodorion funded and publicised the prosecution as a test case. Would any fluent Welsh speaker like to add a Welsh language version of the article?

Dr Bowles once paid a Welsh speaker half a guinea to translate a sermon into Welsh. Please don't expect me to offer a reward!

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Welsh law is a modern reality. It is also the term by which Cyfraith Hywel has been referred to by historians, prior to the Welsh Assembly's ability to pass national law. Wikipedia's article on laws passed by the Senedd is Contemporary Welsh Law. It begins “Contemporary Welsh Law is a term applied to the body of primary and secondary legislation generated by the National Assembly for Wales, according to devolved authority granted in the Government of Wales Act 2006.” Well yes, and no. The term is simply “Welsh law”. The word “contemporary” is redundant. My reason for posting here is to see how editors would suggest changes to the articles to reflect today's reality. Possibilities include:

• Merge both articles to Welsh law, with the current article under a separate historic section (Cyfraith Hywel, perhaps)

• Keep separate articles. But renamed (possibly as 'Welsh law (Cyfraith Hywel)' and 'Welsh Law')

Any suggestions or ideas welcome. Should we come to any agreement here, we can post on the article talk pages for an further comment. Daicaregos (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. At last we have a Wikimedia UK Manager here at Wales, as published today on WMUK's home page. Keep a keen eye on the developments on this page, please, until I've set up a wikiproject. Llwybrau Byw! Living Paths! will need a few trainers - paid thanks to a Welsh Government grant! In the meentime can I also draw your attention to the Wikipedia (and Wicipedia!) Training Day in Monmouth on the 20th of this month. Details here. Hwyl! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm hoping I'm posting this question on the right Wikiproject page (other option seems to be Military History):

There's been a short conversation about the use of location map in articles about castles, specifically related to the Newport Castle article and the discussion at Talk:Newport Castle#Location map.

Do you have guidelines or a position about the use of a location map in an infobox for articles about castles?--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Since no response so far, I posted it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Location map for castles?, which may be more appropriate.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The existing location map conforms to usual practice, now it's been reduced. Looks good! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been going thru all of the various categories for Historians, and I was dismayed to discover that there is no Category:Historians of Wales -- only Category:Welsh historians, which was erroneously parented as a sub-category of Category:Historians of the British Isles along with Historians of England‎, Scotland‎ and Cornwall‎. If there were just a handful of articles to look thru I would take care of this myself. But there are dozens of articles in Category:Welsh historians, many of which also belong in Category:Historians of Wales -- and of course, there may well be other non-Welsh historians who also belong in the Category. So I hope that a member of this Project will take on the task of creating and populating the missing category. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created the category. But apart from a small handful of well known historians I don't know who else should be in it, so I'll leave others to populate the category further. Sionk (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There has been some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Settlements and civil parishes about the desirability of having an article about the total area for each parish/community, distinct from each village/settlement article. This would give an overview of settlements in the area, as well as local landscape, geology and geomorphology, nature reserves, scheduled monuments, archaeology, agriculture, land use, etc as appropriate, in a way that confuses things if a single article is trying to do both tasks. Some Welsh communities now have their own article, and some are presumed to be that because their principle settlement has the same name. This raises the question of how to disambiguate it. In England there are numerous 'placename (parish)' articles, and it is pretty clear this will refer to an area of land. Would the same be true of (for example) Moelfre (community)? (The List of communities in Wales does not have any examples that use this at present. The w:cy equivalent currently has 6 articles listed along the lines of Cadfarch (cymuned).) (Some places, of course, have town councils instead of community councils, although I notice, to pick a random example that Ammanford is described as 'a town and community'.) Can anyone on the ground comment on how a 'name (community)' formula would seem, and whether there is other established usage that would work better. RobinLeicester (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I recently PROD'ed Llangennith, Llanmadoc and Cheriton because it seemed to duplicate the village articles. However, the PROD was opposed on the basis all community council areas are notable. Though I'm not 100% sure what you're proposing (above) I'd be interested to follow this conversation! Sionk (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Calling a community council a town council is a fancy way of saying we are more important. The only legal difference is that the chairman is called mayor. A council can choose to be a town council, so calling all and sundry community, in particluar that Neyland (community) is less misleading than Neyland (town), is most probably the way to go. Agathoclea (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

A community (Wales) in Wales (created in 1974 as part of local government reorganization) replaced the civil parishes of Wales. The communities can choose to have a community council, but many do not. These are the smallest units of census statistics so we use them quite a bit on Welsh articles as it is difficult to get the correct town populations. So the largest settlement in a Welsh community is often the name of the community, thereby Ammanford is a town and a community. If you look at the Bridgend article for instance you will see that the foot template has a section for towns and villages and communities, with much overlap. Whenever I find overlap I treat the article as the settlement article, but will state in the lead that the town (or village) is also a community comprising the town itself and town X, town Y and town Z. Apart from mentioning the community population, that is as far as it normally goes. I have found little desire personally in the project, despite agreeing that they are notable, to create community articles. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Many do not is a bit misleading as a very small number of communities do not have a council, but that is not really important. What is important though, is that the boundary commision could be a good source of more detailed data. I remember a good few reports posted on the Pembrokeshire Council's website a few years ago. Agathoclea (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no problem with data. http://www.onevoicewales.org.uk/local_councils has info and maps with boundaries. The issue (as there is some agreement on the idea) is the terminology. I agree that '(town)' is even less helpful. I guess that where needed '(community)' is the way to go. (It just doesn't sound like an area of land in the way that parish does!) But I am not more taken with '(community council area)' except as an explanation within that articles. RobinLeicester (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:John has been systematically removing links to the Wales article from other articles (example here), on the grounds of "overlinking". My view is that this is a global encyclopedia, with many readers elsewhere in the world who will have little idea of where Wales is, or much about it - and so the links should remain. I've asked him to explain his reasoning here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help. As the link you quote from my edit summary says, our policy is not to link to "the names of major geographic features and locations"; I think Wales definitely qualifies. If you wish to challenge this consensus, I suggest WT:OVERLINK would be the place. Before you do so, would your hypothetical reader of the Trellech article who had no idea what or where Wales was, be able to click on the Monmouthshire link and immediately find it? I think they would. I am not just removing links to Wales by the way but to all the commonly mentioned European countries, and this is the first time somebody has queried it. --John (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

But what is the rationalisation behind your unlinking? The links do no harm to an article, providing they are not duplicated within the same article.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 20:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Again quoting from OVERLINK, "an excessive number of links, mak[e] it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly". In other words we do not link every word we could link, but instead focus the linking onto targets which will actually help the reader. --John (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever we may individually think or know about Wales, it has a population of about 3 million - that is, about 0.05% of the world's population. I would say that the vast majority of the world's population - and the vast majority of English Wikipedia's readership - have very little knowledge of the place. It is, in global terms, certainly not a "major geographic feature [or] location". Yes, readers can click on the Monmouthshire (or wherever) link - but why should they not be able to click on the Wales link? What purpose is served by removing the links? I'll wait to see what other editors think, but am happy to pursue it at WT:OVERLINK if necessary. Incidentally, the same argument also applies to Belgium and probably other places as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering the general confusion about England/Scotland/Wales/UK/GB it seems to be helpful to link to smaller, lesser known nations such as Wales. I interpret the phrase "major geographical locations" as United States/France/Spain/Australia/India etc. Surely there must be some more urgent task to do than remove these wikilinks?! Sionk (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Concur, my own travels in the States see very few people recognizing where or what Wales is (in fact a homeless vet in Washington was the only person I spoke to who had a good understanding of the place). The vast majority of the English speaking world is confused regarding Wales and therefore linking is required. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the specifics of John's deletions of such wikilinks. In my opinion, for relatively small entities it's a matter of some editorial judgment and depends on context--if a "smaller" geographic entity precedes it (such as the cited Monmouthshire) then I see no reason to keep the wikilink. I routinely remove them for countries especially in articles where the country is simply not a matter of concern one way or another. The argument that Wales is relatively small may be valid to some; I don't rightly see it, though I don't think I've ever removed it for Wales specifically. But I don't put stock in the argument that "linking is required". Drmies (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"Wales" gets some 4000-5000 hits a day. That seems to imply to me that people want to know more about it. I tend to agree with Ghmyrtle that a lot of global users will not know much about Wales, or even where it is. Hogyn Lleol ★ ^(chat) 06:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The Netherlands gets twice as many, the US five times as many. Your argument then should mandate overlinking. Drmies (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll just point out that saying Monmouthshire instead of Wales does side step a little bit of POV pushing - significant documentation and maps published before 1974 puts it in England. You won't get that issue with Gwynedd. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If some of you could jump across the pond, maybe on the back of Bran, and beef up Usna (Deirdre legend)? That's be great. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is a good microcosm of previous discussions on this subject. I'd say unless there is significant support at the relevant MoS talk page for suspending this guidance that it should stand. Out of respect I'll hold off making any more delinking edits for 24 hours or so. In general though, as we seem to have concluded here, links to countries are unhelpful (there is always another geographical link so the country article is only one more link away), distracting (the narrower geographical article has more chance of being relevant to the article, and the country link just dilutes the linkage in the article) and divisive (with the best will in the world, this sort of discussion can easily devolve into nationalism; I'm glad it hasn't really done so here). I suppose that's why OVERLINK has evolved and has strong project-wide consensus. --John (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this talk page. What we have is a disagreement between editors on the ground, as it were, who see merit in maintaining links to an article on a country which is not a "major geographical location" in global terms; and bureaucrats (using the term loosely) who believe that a guideline established, I would guess, mainly by editors from large countries like the US and England should override those views. The answer in these cases is usually to maintain the status quo, and not to unlink existing terms that link to the correct article. I'll raise it at WT:OVERLINK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I dislike 'Wales' piped to 'Welsh' (Welsh) but examination rather than elimination of those links is likely to be useful. My experience here is nearly limited to fantasy and children's writer biographies and book/series articles, where pipes to 'Welsh' and longer linknames that include the word are much more common than plain Wales links. That experience suggests it will be useful for the project to examine all pages that include [[Wales|Welsh and same with a space before or after the pipe. (If no one here knows to find those pages, some help service may be available, but I don't know it.) To check linkage of 'Welsh' in every article can be done without technical help and is likely to be worthwhile

Either Welsh language or Welsh people is likely to be a valuable replacement target and that will sometimes be true of Welsh literature (interesting on other grounds), Welsh mythology (where W folklore redirects), Welsh culture and Welsh geography (which redirect to X of Wales).

For "authentic Welsh background" that defines the English-language Tir na n-Og Award in children's and teen literature, one very particular case, I have linked Welsh background to Portal: Wales. It's evident that the committee interpretation of 'background' is not limited to the scope of any one W article. At the same time I have linked the award sponsor Welsh Books Council which provides a plain Wales link at one remove. [This is ongoing occasional work and the W links are not as a rule located in the lead or infobox.)

P.S. English Wikipedia is much bigger than its siblings and must have far more readers who are not native users of English. Does anyone here know how commonly other languages use 'Wales' and 'Welsh' as W names. That may be relevant to W links in general. In English we call the Germans German and the Dutch Dutch. Not everyone does and I doubt that these terms are high on the list of second-language teaching priorities. --P64 (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This September the UK is taking part for the first time in the international photography competition Wiki Loves Monuments. Participants will be invited to submit pictures of listed buildings of significant importance (grades I or grade II*), as recorded by Cadw. The main external website for competitors can be found here, and you can leave a message there if you have queries about competing. Do please join in, and let people in your local area know of this excellent way in which both existing and new Wiki users can help improve the encyclopaedia by contributing photographs of local listed structures. What about organizing a local Wikimeet to attract new people?

In preparation for the start of the competition on 1st September there is still quite a lot of work to do, and we would like to ask for the help of members of this wikiproject. Your local and expert knowledge will be invaluable in ensuring that the lists of eligible buildings are up to date and correctly formatted. If you look at Listed buildings in the United Kingdom you will see how many structures are included. If you then follow the link to Listed buildings in Wales, you can get to the detailed lists for your area. Alternatively have a look at the WLM planning table. Can you help to ensure that the lists for your area are up to date and well presented?

Some of the lists have been semi-automatically generated from data provided by Cadw. These use pre formatted templates (eg Cadw header) which will make it much easier for competition participants to upload their photographs to Commons as an automated process. Please don't change the template structure, as we need to ensure that the templates are properly compatible with the WLM standards that are in use worldwide. The format will allow a bot automatically to collect the information and to put it into the international Monuments Database.

The data still needs the attention of local editors:

• The "title" may need wikilinking to a suitable article name (whether we currently have that article or not). If there are several buildings in one street all of the wikilinks point at an article about the street; however each entry has a separate line in the list.
• The "location" column looks and sorts better if just the parish or town is included (& wikilinked).
• The "date completed" column sometimes has eg "C19" for 19th century, and "C1850" for c. 1850 when the date is uncertain - these need to be corrected manually.
• The "grid ref & lat & long" (which is occasionally missing) may be given to 8 characters — only 6 (grid ref) or 5 (lat & long) are really needed.
• Clicking on the "list entry number" should take you to the data sheet for that entry on the Cadw database which can be checked if needed for details.
• The image column should have a picture added if we already have a suitable image on Commons. (N.B. if you are going to be taking photos yourself for inclusion in the competition don't upload them until September)
• References may be added according to normal WP practice.

For further information, please see Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom.

If you have any queries, please post them not below but on the Organizers' help page on Commons.

Anything you can do to help improve these lists will be much appreciated. The final deadline for cleaning up is 31st August.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Today (9 September) the total uploaded images for each country on WLM are:

• Scotland: 436
• England: 2,308
• Wales: 251

There are bits of Wales with gaps: everywhere apart from Ceredigion and Denbighshire! The Wales uploader is here, and you can upload more than 50 images at the time if you like! The data copies automatically, with only minor changes from image to image. I've also started tagging them to articles on cy. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the uploads!!! The final count is:

• England: 8,605
• Wales: 1,801
• Scotland: 1,395
• Northern Ireland: 36

Now let's get them on Wiki! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Wales Coast Path#Sections 'for marketing purposes'. on whether we should have individual articles on the different sections of the Wales Coast Path, like this one. Comments welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

At least two of Wales' largest establishments are refusing to free their photographic collections on a CC-BY-SA licence. Their reasoning is that they must show an income and secondly that all their content is on a "Crown Copyright" licence.

3 recent Freedom of Information Requests (FoIRs) asked for amounts of profit they had made by selling copies of these photos. I expected a profit of at least £30,00; these are the average amounts received in one year:

The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments

Two weeks ago they admitted: The commercial reuse (of our photographs) is a source of income for RCAHMW, and we may wish to levy a charge on such reuse by licensing it ourselves. Creative Commons license CC BY-SA would undermine this ability. FoIR February 2013

Income (before subtracting costs such as printing, admin etc): £3,900

CADW

Income (before subtracting costs such as printing, admin etc): £950 FoIR February 2013

These miniscule figures are the total income from resale of digitised photographs. Neither Cadw nor RC could give details of the costs involved in sourcing the images sold, printing, postage etc. It may well be that both are even making a loss! The average charges made of a single image (in both cases) is around £40; this means that Cadw only sold around 25 images in a whole year, and that may be to only one customer.

The National Museum of Wales

The first year Amgueddfa Cymru – National Museum Wales made a profit from the sale of images was in 2012 – 2013 with a profit of £1,201. I can confirm that all previous years we have not record any profits for the sale of images. FoIR September 2013

A Pilot project was started two years ago betwen RCAHMW, CADW, the National Museum and the National Library and Wicipedia Cymraeg to assertain the effect of placing 50 images from each of the 4 bodies on CC-BY-SA. Would the earth stop? By spring, RCAHMW and CADW had decided not to contribute! The National Library, however, has been breaking new ground as far as open content is concerned.

Their second reason for not placing these images in the public domain is that they are licenced on Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright allows a “delegation of authority” which would permit the images being free for both profit and non-profit use, but they are reluctant to use these powers. The people of Wales paid for these images over the years. The transparent, socialist Welsh Government we have, in my belief, wants them in the public domain and should now insist on that happening. These jewels have been locked up, hidden from view for too long.

It is my belief that hundreds of companies, businesses, academic bodies, publishers, television companies as well as non-profit communities - and Wikipedia - would use these locked-up resources (these hidden jewels) and in turn would develop new products and services that would help build up the Welsh economy. Images released on CC-BY-SA could be used to "sell" Wales on a world stage as a heritage tourism destination and used for inward investment – as well as informing the Welsh people themselves about their own heritage.

I estimate that we have 1,500 regular Wikipedians in Wales: let's get the images into the public domain as part of the Living Paths project! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

How? Do you have a plan? Daicaregos (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Funny! Until the last three words I thought it was another plug for Wiki Loves Monuments. Sionk (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Fancy a meetup at a pub in Cardiff to discuss? We haven't had a wikimeet at the capital for over a year and is well overdue! How about Friday 1 November at the Future Inns (or elsewhere) to coincide with the EduWiki Conference? If you agree then I'll post it on the Wikimedia UK main page. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Whaw! I've had several responses from the Welsh Wicpedia, none yet here! There WILL be a Meet-up at the Future Inns at the Bay, Cardiff on the Friday (1st) at 6.30. It would be really good to meet over a coffee or whatever and discuss the modus operandi!! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Wiki Project Wales.

We still have some places at the 2013 EduWiki conference in Cardiff, Wales.

The conference schedule is almost finalised

Wikimedia UK is delighted to be hosting this event in Wales and hope some local editors will sign up. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sunday 13th October, 11am at Llandaff Cathedral - the Legal Service for Wales, attended by the new Lord Chief Justice, various leading judges with Welsh connections (all dressed in their finest), civic leaders, High Sheriffs, Lords Lieutenant etc etc. It might be a good opportunity, if anyone's around, to take some photographs of the procession. Bencherlite^Talk 07:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Never mind the quality, feel the width. If anyone would like to play "spot the m'lud" be my guest. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Marvellous! I know who some of the judges are (from appearing in front of them...) and recognise some of the others, so I'll try and identify them under their full-bottomed wigs when I get a chance. Thank you very much. Bencherlite^Talk 22:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Some additional thoughts here would be welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmarthenshire Coast Path. Sionk (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I have just created a page for Nantclwyd Hall, a listed building and home to lawn tennis in the UK. I would be pleased to see some of you expand this page. Please write on my talkpage if you can help. I won't be watching this talkpage. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Second Cardiff Meetup announcement has just been made. Details are available here where you can sign up. It will coincide with the EduWiki Conference. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know, we'll be upstars at the Urban Tap House, Westgate Street tonight. Laters!--Rhyswynne (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In case anyone's interested, User:Brough87 has been removing Argentina from the infobox of the Welsh language article on the grounds that "Welsh is not native to Argentina". Should you wish to weigh in, please do so here. garik (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

this now appears resolved reasonably amicably, suggest archiving EdwardLane (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone shed any light on what has happened to the River Usk page? After some edits by Verbcatcher it is now unavailable, a particular technical error I've never encountered on WP before. Geopersona (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks OK to me... Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Weird, I clicked on it jsut now, it opened initially, than the tab (not the whole browser) sort of crashed, giving the URL 'res://ieframe.dll/acr_error.htm#wikipedia.org,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Usk' Where does one report something like this on WP?--Rhyswynne (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), I think. But I've checked again and it's OK for me - I'm on Google Chrome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I've posted the issue under (miscellaneous) at the Village Pump. It still won't work for me in IE but Chrome opens it up without a problem. Quite peculiar. cheers Geopersona (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay for me on Firefox 24.0
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You may be aware that the technical issue (which also affected the Bristol Channel article), and which was related it seems to the River Severn article, has been fixed. Geopersona (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly new here. Could I ask, is there any policy or guideline on linking equivalent articles in English and Welsh Wikis or helping to expand one or the other by translating content? I only ask because I'm expanding Crymych in Wikipedia and looked at Crymych in Wicipedia (though I don't speak Welsh - yet) and see it is different. Tony Holkham (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tony, Wikis in different languages tend to develop quite separately according to the whims and policies developed within those language wikis. Of course there are some articles which have been translated from one to another, and at that point the two versions may be equivalent but they are likely to drift apart again as further edits are made to one or the other or indeed both. There are of course links to other language versions of particular articles in the left-hand navigation column of each page. cheers Geopersona (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Dopey me hadn't noticed the language links in the left panel. I take your several points - they make complete sense now I've thought it through! Cheers Tony Holkham (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

1. It's a high priority that the "Languages" list (in the left margin by default settings) is complete for editions of Wikipedia that do have an equivalent page. For an article, that is an article about the same thing (or maybe a redirect).

If there is a "Languages" list but it's incomplete --Cymraeg is missing from the list here at English Wikipedia (EN.wiki), or vice versa-- then you should select "Edit links" at the foot of the list and fix it.

Those inter-language interwiki links have been moved from the bottom of the page to the margin only this year (Wikipedia:Wikidata#Interlanguage links (Phase 1)). Some may remain at the bottom of the page. Where there is no "Languages" list and you need to create one ... for now, i suggest, make a list of those pages, and come back--or go to Wikidata--when you have a few of them :-)

2. Here at EN.wiki there is Template:Expand Welsh for use in an article to recommend that others incorporate material from CY.wiki and Template:Translated page to report that material from a language-to-be-specified edition has been incorporated by translation. As I understand it, there is copyright reason for the latter (see WP:TRANSLATION), so CY.wiki should have its own version. But 'Cymraeg' isn't in the template's list of Languages :-)

--P64 (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That's useful info - thanks VERY much. Still learning, but's it's gradually becoming clearer...Tony Holkham (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to those two templates P64, I do a fait bit of translation between the en:wp and cy:wp (and sometimes cy>en) ond wasn't aware of either. The matter of giving 'crediting' translated content from en:wp was raised on the Welsh Language wiki quite recently where it was suggested that a mention in the Edit summary would suffice, but a template would be much better. We'--Rhyswynne (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)ll get on it!

Myself and FruitMonkey (talk · contribs) have recently listed the article Arthur Gould (rugby union) – the 19th-century Welsh rugby players – at peer review. We're looking to take the article to FAC, and would appreciate any feedback. The review can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Arthur Gould (rugby union)/archive1. Cheers! - Shudde ^talk 10:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

English_exonyms#Wales. Can someone check this please. See also article Talk. Many thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A heads up, please, for the Train the Trainers event in Cardiff, 1 - 2 February. The main English language page is here and if you prefer reading in Welsh then take a look at this page. Diolch yn fawr! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)