Talk:Wales

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject UK geography (Rated GA-class, Top-importance) v t e This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles  GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Wales (Rated GA-class, Top-importance) v t e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles  GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance) v t e This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.Wikipedia 1.0Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial TeamTemplate:WP1.0Version 1.0 articles  GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article is within of subsequent release version of Geography. This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated GA-class, Top-importance) v t e This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles  GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Celts (Rated GA-class, Top-importance) v t e Wales is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Celts. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts articles  GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Countries (Rated GA-class) v t e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles  GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Wikify : Add Gini coefficient to each country. see: Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 11#Can anyone create a bot that take Gini Coefficients from a page and add them in each country ? Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 5#Adding Income inequality / Gini Index. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Archives
2003–2006 2005–2006 2005–2007 Jan.–Apr. 2008 Apr. 2008 Apr.–Mar. 2008 Apr.–Jun. 2008 Jul. 2008: Debate and Poll on "country" Jul.–Dec. 2008 Dec. 2008 – Sep. 2009 Sep. 2009 – Sep. 2010 Sep.–Dec. 2010 Dec. 2010 – Nov. 2011 Nov. 2011 – Jul. 2012 Jul. 2012 – Feb. 2014 Feb. 2014 Feb. 2014 –
Threads older than 3 months may be automatically archived by MiszaBot.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2015

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

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

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

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

GA reassessment

More comments have been added (below), but they are not triggering the talk page on watchlists. Can anything be done about this, as most people watching Talk:Wales will not see the changes? Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This article will need GA reassessment if not improved. There's a considerable amount of unsourced text (fails WP:V), MOS:IMAGELOC issues, and needs significant trimming per summary style as it nearly 100K readable prose (focus). buidhe 06:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair warning. I have to agree that the article has "slipped" over the years, and should be tightened up; not the worst offender, by a long way, though, in these respects... Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Wales

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept This has been here six months and undergone a lot of trimming and sourcing in line with the reasons for delisting. I still feel there is more progress to be made with reducing the sections, but as it stands it I feel the Focus criteria is met. AIRcorn (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page a week ago, "There's a considerable amount of unsourced text (fails WP:V), MOS:IMAGELOC issues, and needs significant trimming per summary style as it nearly 100K readable prose (focus)." buidhe 18:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

A week is not very long, is it? I made a start but other editors need to be given a chance to comment and edit. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to close this reassessment unless you list the specific statements on this page that are unsourced. If you feel there is a problem then the onus is on you to point out what it is and not expect other editors to second guess you. With regards to the article size and placement of images, you've linked to guidelines, not policies. These are superceded by consensus and common sense. If the location of the images are a problem in your eyes, move them. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The article as it stands does not meet the GA criteria. GA reassesments must be open at least a week and may only be closed by an uninvolved editor. You are welcome to voice your opinion which will be taken into account by the closer, but you are not uninvolved. buidhe 21:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

(a) It wasn't a week, it was six days. (b) Triggering a formal reassessment with so little warning causes much more work (not to mention aggravation) than giving those interested time to bring the article up to scratch. Re-assess the article if you think that is the right path. Simply tagging unsourced paragraphs (and threatening loss of GA status on the project page) will not do. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Reassesment can be open as long as necessary as long as improvements are being made. It isn't intended as a threat but as a process of improvement. buidhe 21:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the "inline" part of the relevance template used. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

In what way am I invloved?Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You expressed your personal opinion that the article should not be delisted. That's equivalent to !voting keep in an AfD and then closing the AfD as keep, which is not allowed. buidhe 12:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Catfish did express the opinion that the article should not be delisted. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No I didn't. I'm a little concerned about the interpretation of WP:INVOLVED here and suggest Buidhe reads it again. However, I see the article is being improved as we speak so I'm going to step back. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hi all. Just a process note at this stage. I might get around to looking at the article at a later date. There is no guidelines on how long to wait before bringing an article up for reassessment. In my experience leaving a note at the talk page and waiting any length of time is the exception rather than the rule. Also I would not worry about the deadline. We require at least a week, but in practice these are left open much longer. As long as editors re working to get the article up to standard I don't see anyone closing it. The aim of everyone here is to improve it. AIRcorn (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comments: As noted above, this article is far longer than our guidelines recommend. There are some obvious areas that can be cut, for example there is no need for historiography on such a high-level article. The section headering in History is also quite excessive. There are other areas throughout the article with headers covering a single paragraph of even a single sentence. "Cities" is a level 2 header that could be literally just a sentence in Demographics. There are also many tiny paragraphs throughout the article, which are discouraged by MOS. The Culture section lacks any sort of cohesive focus. There's nothing that tells the reader facts about Welsh culture, merely a series of sections with various specific examples. Lastly, there are various citation needed tags scattered throughout the article which should be fixed. CMD (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we are clear now what is wrong with the article, and that probably doesn't need repeating. I just hope there are some editors willing to come and put it right so it can retain GA status. Sorry if this sounds grumpy (it probably is), but there are more than 900 editors watching this article. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added some cites to the Transport and Music sections, which I think deals with the remaining Citation Needed and Failed Verification tags. Is the outstanding concern broadly about the length of the article? Wales's population puts it around the Albania/Puerto Rico mark, both of which have substantially longer articles, 245,347 bytes and 322,351 bytes compared with 209,487 bytes for Wales. I know that's a bit of an "Other stuff exists" argument, but it doesn't seem unduly long to me. That said, I'm sure there's some trimming/combining that could usefully be done. KJP1 (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is not over-long by some standards, I agree, though some of the topics that have a main article could be reduced a little as some do "go on" a bit. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I've had a go at combining some of the very short para.s and will have a look at doing some judicious trimming particularly, as you suggest, where's there's a corresponding Main article. KJP1 (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

There are specific guidelines regarding length and style, Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Article size, which are included in the GA criteria. Wales is currently 40% longer than the 60kB of prose probably should be divided threshold. There's room for variation, but given country articles naturally come with numerous subpages, they have easy routes to become more concise.

Regarding citations, there's no tags, but there's clearly areas which lack sourcing. For example, over half of the Music section is currently unsourced. CMD (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

“probably should be divided threshold”? Not getting what you mean there. KJP1 (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Sorry, on re-reading, I think you’re saying it’s 40% over the threshold at which it should probably be divided. Don’t think I’d agree that it should be trimmed by 40%, nor do I think it infringes the GA criteria by not being. An article on an entire country will likely be longer than an article on a rather more circumscribed topic. As for sourcing, I think you’re probably closer to FA criteria requirements than GA. As a comparison, the USA, another country GA, is a third as long again, with about a third more sources. But there are clearly areas that can be tightened, and more strongly sourced, so we’ll crack on with those. KJP1 (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The most recent featured country article, Bulgaria, is currently at 53kB of prose, so that may be a good example of a country article which meets GA Criteria 3. As for sourcing, GA Criteria 2 is "Verifiable with no original research". CMD (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: United States is also undergoing GAR, with multiple editors commenting that its length is an issue. (t · c) buidhe 16:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Tony Holkham - Not entirely clear as to how community consensus is reached in GAR but wanted to note that there doesn't appear to be consensus here. The criticism had two limbs - uncited material and length. In my view, the first has been addressed, certainly to GA standards. The second is a matter of opinion, but I think it is clear that two editors, Tony and myself, both of whom contribute extensively to Welsh topics, are not of the view that it is overlong. I've pinged Tony in case I'm not representing his view accurately. KJP1 (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is too long, given that sections with main articles could be cut (even more). Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The sourcing has improved in my view. On size, criteria 3b points to specific guidelines on the matter. The length is probably related to some minor MOS:OVERSECTIONing in the article. CMD (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Was going to close this as keep as while it is still a bit lengthy it probably just meets our requirements. I did make some edits to the article though and after another reading through again have a few more suggestions so thought I would put them here.
  • Shouldn't the Medieval Wales, Norman conquest and Annexation to England sections in history be combined. They cover the same era and fit under the same daughter article. They could then be reduced and summerised better.
  • Modern Wales is a bit too long. It smacks a bit of recentism and doesn't have a main article. I would suggest creating a main article and moving most of the info there.
  • I think the same could be done with climate. There is no main and things like the highest recorded temperature and other misc stats would fit in better if there was one.
  • The culture section is probably a bit bloated. I know it is hard to choose which ones are worth mentioning and everyone has different tastes they want to highlight, but there are main articles for each one so they can be trimmed without any real loss. I am not Welsh so it is hard for me to say what should be featured and what not. I do know a bit about sport and a whole paragraph on rugby and another on football are probably a bit excessive relative to the scope of the article (it also mentions hosting the World Cup twice). Cricket probably doesn't warrant two sentences and Tony Farrs mention seems disproportionate too.
• Overall I would say as it stands it meets the GA criteria, it could just be fine tuned a bit more. AIRcorn (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn - Very much appreciate the interest and the helpful comments. I like the suggestions a lot and will look to action them over the next few days. The culture section is tricky, as it is hard to make value judgements on notability between different musicians etc. Just one point of difference - a mere paragraph on rugby is hardly sufficient! Football I know nothing about, but I shall ask Kossack. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. If we can get away with a couple of sentences I am sure Wales could too. I don't know if it needs the four professional sides mentioned or the competitions outside the world cup and six nations. Also documenting a two year period of league being professional doesn't seem that relevant. You get a lot of if X is mentioned then we should mention Y. Sometimes it is better to not mention too much of either if we are trying to keep it overviewish (for example I am not sure any sporting person should get explicit mention unless they are extremely famous). For comparison Wales mentions 25 sportsmen (Gareth Edwards doesn't make the cut) while NZ mentions just Hillary. I am not suggesting that this is the blueprint for a country Good Article, it just happens to be the country article I am most familiar with. AIRcorn (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, hardly anyone is watching this reassessment sub-page because it doesn't automatically link to the article or its talk page, and any changes to it do not trigger the talk page watchlist for those watching the main article. I'm not sure why this is, but it's an unhelpful function of Wikipedia. Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A positive and useful list provided above by Aircorn - thanks for that. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It is transcribed to the talk page and the edit transcribing it there will trigger the watchlist. Not sure if it is possible to link the two pages anymore than that. As someone who used to and occasionally still does a lot of maintenance of GA and GAR noms it is useful having these on a separate subpages. If you want to ping anyone here or leave notes anywhere that is not usually an issue as the aim is to improve the article not delist it. These comments will be triggering the talk page now, but they will not be added to the reassessment page. AIRcorn (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2020

"The Roman conquest of Wales began in AD 48, took 30 years to complete and lasted over 300 years."

The conquest didn't last over 300 years. Could you reword it?

"The Roman period in Wales began with the conquest, a 30-year period starting in AD 48, and lasted over 300 years." 64.203.187.98 (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Tony Holkham performed the edit but forgot to comment here. 64.203.187.98 (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Didn't need to comment; answered=yes. Cheers, Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

UK Prime Minister - Infobox

Has anyone thought about adding the British Prime Minister to the Infobox below Parliament of the UK? I just find it strange that it’s not there already! The office is the head of the central government of a sovereign state that Wales is part of, so why not add it? What’s everyone views on this? Ciaran.london (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

UK PM should not be added. Note - We don't have the US President in any of the US state infoboxes or Canadian PM in any of the Canadian provinces/territories infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Welsh Royal Badge

Hello, Tony Holkham, I have noticed that you reverted one of my edits on the addition of the Royal Badge of Wales to the Wales article. May I know what seems to be the issue with the inclusion of the said badge? Regarding about the use of the badge in the Welsh government, here's an article by the BBC that talks about the royal badge of Wales being used for all succeeding Welsh laws by the government. [1] Here is also an example of a legislation with the use of the said badge. [2]. The template of the Politics of Wales (which Welsh articles about law have) also uses the badge. PyroFloe (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

PyroFloe I don't see an issue with the badge itself, or the use of it. I simply thought it wasn't relevant to the main article on Wales the country. Others may disagree, which is why I transferred your comments from my talk page to the proper place here, where it will attract the attention of other editors interested in Wales. Thanks for your comments and links. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

My view is that it's not necessary for the country article. It's a "niche" symbol which, I suspect, would go completely unrecognised by 99% of Welsh people. Similar logos were also not in the infoboxes of the articles on the other UK countries, until recently added by Pyrofloe. KJP1 (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@KJP1 I do understand that it is a pretty unfamiliar symbol of Wales, however it is still officially a symbol of the said constituent country, besides that, I think that it should be included like how the coat of arms are included in sovereign countries, where it is a niche symbol that is unfamiliar with their citizens although a national symbol in the meanwhile. PyroFloe (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

PyroFloe, you could put it in Wales#Government_and_politics or Wales#National_symbols_and_anthem, I suppose, with a reliable source, but I don't see the need to put it in at all, given that it features prominently in Politics_of_Wales. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Tony Holkham, I suppose we could just insert it under the National symbols of Wales heading for now. Even though I think that it should be included, I'll just respect your decision until someone brings it up again and hopefully it will be inserted in the infobox in the near future just like how the Netherlands, Curaçao, Aruba, and Sint Maarten as a constituent country of a Kingdom of the Netherlands has it's coat of arms in it's infobox. PyroFloe (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed before if you check. There is no reliable source which says it is anything more than a Royal Badge. There is a very brief BBC article but nothing which says it will always be used on Welsh Laws and even if it is used there that is all that could be set. We also resolved a long time ago that we would talk about countries not constituent countries by the way. Its on the Welsh Politics page, without better sourcing that is all we should do. -----Snowded ^TALK 15:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)