• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4

Excelent point on Paul Flynn. I've done the easy thing and reversed my edit. Niall123 20:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:George Street Bridge2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot accept your reverts to the Aberdyfi web site.

Please see the National Assembly document at http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/localgovernment/localauthorities/gwyneddcouncil/?lang=en) as I assume that even you would accept that the National Assembly is more authoritative than Gwynedd Council (an organisation you normally attach little credance to considering your previous edits!)

Also see the BBC site http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/northwest/sites/aberdyfi/

-- Maelor  14:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly an anglicised name (i.e. Aberdovey). I attach absolutely no authority to the "National Assembly". Their job is not to assign place names. Even the Royal Mail post town is ABERDOVEY. Given the obvious existence of an English-language name, that is what should be used on the English-language Wikipedia. I am also contemplating a move request back to the correct English-language name. Owain (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted a recent edit you made to the article Atlantic Ocean. You did not provide an edit summary, and I could not determine whether the edit was vandalism or a constructive contribution. In the future, please use edit summaries. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me.  Maelor  16:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give the edit-stalking a rest and actually READ the edit. Jeez! Owain (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the article as I see otherwise fine editors on the verge of breaking the three revert rule, please take it as a 'cool down' signal, I don't see any pointers in the Manual of Style, where's best to resolve the issue. --Alf ^melmac 17:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, I knew I was approaching 3RR and had no intention of breaching it; it's just a shame it's protected with the inconsistent country names that I was trying to fix! Owain (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was humming and hah-ing about putting Mon in the table at Administrative counties of England, as we have pretty well established it was (in law, anyway) until 1974, but it's unfortunately not on the map. Anyway you've saved me the bother. I altered the figures for 1961 to take out the county borough of Newport (VoB includes county boroughs in admin counties) Lozleader 20:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should get Morwen to put it in the map! So the VoB figures include CBs in a population figure for an area that clearly says "administrative county"... interesting! Owain (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it's annoying. I believe they have digitised the whole county census reports which include the administrative county and "associated" CBs. Fortunately the subtraction isn't too difficult with a spreadsheet. Lozleader 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a result of its database system liking hierarchy - and anyway the pop figures of admin counties without the respective county boroughs are not particularly interesting from a population growth point of view. Generally VoB is very useful but it has quite a lot of problems in its digitisation of Youngs that I've noticed - and they are naturally more interested in the statistics side of things - you get odd things like this there. I would love to make that map, but unfortunately I had a hard disk crash and lost all my stuff. Morwen - Talk 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Owain, You added an 'info box' to the Llandudno page June 2005, so I thought to ask you about it. I am an English speaking resident of Llandudno but (like most of us) I know perfectly well how to pronounce the name of the town. If a reader is a trained linguist he probably also knows how to pronounce it. However, if he is not, I very much doubt the IPA, which is now infecting the first two lines of many Welsh location articles, will be of any use whatsoever. I am not too bright when it comes to wiki infoboxes but would it be possible to provide for 'pronunciation' and therby get the IPA out of that crucial opening paragraph? Regards, NoelWalley 18:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting idea, perhaps an optional IPA field could be added to the infoboxes. As they are standard across the UK, it may be worth proposing the idea at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. Owain (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you saw this, but I outlined some principles on Talk:East Riding of Yorkshire about when I think articles about local government areas should clearly be split - we ended up splitting some Scottish articles before under those principles : Aberdeenshire, Moray and Renfrewshire. The idea is that that where there is a break in continuity of usage of a name, and also where there is a substantial difference in the territories that the two different times refer to, it would make sense from an encyclopedic point of view to split articles. This would lead to splitting the articles on Flintshire, Denbighshire and Monmouthshire into two: one covering the unitary authority by that name, and another covering the - on the basis that the names were in disuse between 1974 and 1996, and the modern principal areas are so different that they cannot reasonably regarded as a restoration, but rather the re-use of an old name. On this basis, we would keep the articles on Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire, and Anglesey as single articles. I am open-minded as to where the articles should be and how they should be disambiguation.

Ceredigion presents a problem however. Under the principles above Cardiganshire and Ceredigion would be merged. I don't see that renamings are terribly significant: we wouldn't after all, have separate articles about the county of Anglesey and the county of Ynys Môn. Morwen - Talk 12:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested an idea a while ago that the main page could have three sections in the main Xshire article, with summarised information on administrative, ceremonial and traditional. Then in each section have the standard Main article: Xshire (administrative), Main article: Xshire (ceremonial) and Main article: Xshire (traditional) at the beginning of each section. It may be a hard job to go around and fix all the links (esp. when the target can't be inferred from the context) so I reckon this might be a good solution. Owain (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to know more exactly how this would be implemented to say specifically. It could easily de-emphasise the continuity of the pre-1889 geographic counties with the 1889-1974 geographic counties. I wonder if it might be a good idea to make a draft of how this would be implemented at a few articles: maybe Warwickshire, Wiltshire and Worcestershire? Morwen - Talk 10:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, having looked at the Worcestershire thing, that is effectively was I was afraid of, that it totally ignores the former geographic county and kind of pretends that no local government existed prior to 1888. Additionally, what would be the point of having two separate articles Worcestershire (ceremonial) and Worcestershire (administrative) when the ceremonial county has the same borders as the current non-metropolitan county? Morwen - Talk 16:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a work in progess! The '(traditional)' page will contain the pre-1888 information and certainly in this case the ceremonial is the same as the non-metro version, but that isn't always the case. It depends if it would be a good idea to have a uniform set of articles even if they refer to the same area. At this rate I'm starting to think that keeping everything in one article is preferable! Owain (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly agree for the W counties. How would you feel about having an article like User:Morwen/Flintshire (historic) separate from the article about the 1996 Flintshire? Morwen - Talk 09:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a good idea, but again you get a context problem: Which article does say, Connah's Quay link to? It's in both the historic county and UA area. There's no problem in the infobox, but in the general article body you'd have to choose. We may end up opening up another edit war! Owain (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tricky one. I'd prefer to avoid having wording like "in the principal area of Flintshire and in the historic county of Flintshire". We can avoid that by talking about it being an urban district in Flintshire (historic) and then part of X district in the county of Clwyd - that gives an excuse to link to Flintshire (historic) in the main body without the prose sounding odd. Morwen - Talk 10:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is the wording that Britannica uses. Although we don't necessarily need to use it, because using infoboxes allows a generic description in the opening sentence while leaving the finer points to the box. Your wording suggests that either urban districts are current local government entities, or that Flintshire as an ancient county is tied to an extinct local government area. My other concern is that if not all articles are going to be split, then this may cause more confusion than it is trying to solve. Owain (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your example differs slightly as Wrexham isn't in modern Denbighshire: if you look up Denbigh itself it says "historic and present county of Denbighshire". The thing is, the Monmouthshire, Flintshire and Denbighshire articles are already split, it's just that the splits happen to share the same page at the moment. When looking at the 13 counties as a set, having a Denbighshire (historic) but not a Pembrokeshire (historic) isn't terribly tidy, I must agree - but I think it's tidier than the current situation overall. Morwen - Talk 11:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISTR you had a sourcetext of that somewhere online? Can't find link - can you link to it from Laws in Wales Acts?. Morwen - Talk 18:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi! can you tell me how to insert infobox????????

thanks Sushant gupta 10:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which infobox are you after? If you are new to them just copy the code form another page that has one and change the values in the name=value pairs. Owain (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can the riot act be read 30-odd years after its repeal? :-) --Philbarker 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the cunning use of templates to make it read every day! Owain (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought was clever. --Phil 03:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope my slight change in wording is an improvement, feel free to revert if it's not accurate.--Philbarker 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:UK geo collaboration of the month for October 2006 is Rutland. 80N 21:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (P.S., if you don't want to continue getting COTM updates, just change your settings at WP:UK geo.)[reply]

Hi, Owain. I noticed that you removed the Welsh flag from the infobox at Gareth David-Lloyd. I had copied it from Eve Myles when I made the page. Is there a reason it shouldn't be there? I've put a note up at Talk:Gareth David-Lloyd, but I didn't know whether you had kept that on your watchlist or not. I'll see you there! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back in August, you changed the ports & harbours section to the UK for each of the cities listed within it rather than the smaller countries for consistency. I respect the need for consistency but would like to point out that if you follow the links to those cities, they all mention the constituent country they're within, and some don't mention the United Kingdom in the intro paragraph or even intro section, aside from the infobox listing the UK as the sovereign state under the constituent country. Most of the cities they're twinned with, if you follow those links, also list the constituent country rather than UK beside the city name.

The UK is definitely a country, Number 10 defining it as four countries within a country, so both Aberdeen, Scotland and Aberdeen, United Kingdom are correct. In fact, a brief google is in your favour, claiming 1.27 million hits for Aberdeen, Scotland, 415,000 hits for Aberdeen, United Kingdom and 960,000 hits for Aberdeen, UK. combining the latter is significantly more than the first result, but shows the nomenclature divide is not clear.

We're both correct, but Wikipedia tends toward referring to the city and constituent country more often (providing consistency), and I like to present additional information as long as it is correct and relevant (specifying England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales).

I won't edit war. I'd like to change those items, but am open to being significantly convinced of your view, and will abide by consensus (I'll ask other good faith editors of the article to chime in if I feel motivated enough). TransUtopian 15:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the articles don't mention it in the opening paragraph is because it was moved to the infobox to stop the kind of pointless edit wars you're describing. Twin town articles should link to the soverign state just like they do with every other soverign state - that would be proper consistency. Owain (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Okay, my misunderstanding is more basic then. I clicked on constituent country for the first time and... wow. I can glimpse the reason for the confusion and differences of opinion now, for example the first paragraph of Distinctive status. Do you know of any books that delve into the subject but from a layperson's perspective? I still think of London, England and Aberdeen, Scotland just as Los Angeles, California... hmm...

In town twinning, there's "Los Angeles, California, United States" and "Montreal, Quebec, Canada". Granted, states and prvinces are not equal to constituent countries, but would "Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom" be an acceptable compromise? They're both in lists.

I have a feeling the answer will be an emphatic no, due to the intense feelings and my lack of full understanding of this issue. My desire is merely for more information, which mentioning both Scotland and the United Kingdom in that structure would provide, and what I'm accustomed to associating. I'm an American with misconceptions I have to keep correcting, though this issue is clearly an... unclear and divisive issue at home as well. TransUtopian 11:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Indon (reply) — 16:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Newport High Street station2.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify the link to the source of this image. Could you please provide that? Thank you. — Indon (reply) — 10:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please ask the photographer to email permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org confirming that he has agreed to release these photographs under CC-by-SA 2.5? We need to do this to have the information on file and to confirm his identity. Thanks, --Robth^Talk 06:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The persmission has not been confirmed yet; I'm deleting Image:George Street Bridge.jpg. If the author labels the image as released under a free licence, any admin will undelete it; feel free to contact me for this. Conscious 14:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf 15:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Newport-Mon-Coat-of-Arms.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the tag to {{seal}}: you might like to add the source/rationale bit. It seems that one bot is taking the deprecated {{coatofarms}} off of image pages without telling the uploader or replacing the tag with anything else. A second bot is then labelling the image as having no tag. Lozleader 14:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep changing the map to a national UK one with a dot that clearly doesn't place Cardiff at the right location and instead points at somewhere near Bath on the English side of the Severn! Can you please refrain from doing so because this is quite innaccurate and a bit misleading, or revert it back to the seperate Welsh map which was clearer? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apple 123 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is a standard UK map which used latitude and longitude to place the dots and is used in all other UK infoboxes. If you believe the lat/lon for Cardiff to be incorrect then please check it and come up with more accurate figures if they are wrong. Given that this is a global encyclopaedia, the UK map is more useful to the majority of readers than a map of Welsh local authorities. For the sake of consistency I am going to revert to the UK map. The local authority map would be better placed on the Cardiff Council article. Owain (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from in regards to this showing a national map but seeing the map on both this computer and others it places the dot somewhere between Bristol and Swindon - in other words on the English side of the Severn. As a slight compromise what about adding borders to show the seperation between England and Wales? Also on most Scotland pages (see Edinburgh) it has Scotland seperately and I think this would be a better model for Cardiff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple 123 (talk • contribs)

I guess testing the template is the responsibility of those that designed it! I agree it should be robust enough to work in the majority of cases though. I'm not sure how adding borders would help in this case - it may even make it appear worse. As for the Scottish articles, they should include the UK map, not the one they are using now as it implies that Scotland is an island all by itself. Wikipedia is not the place for advocating such nationalist nonsense. Owain (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Owain, Thanks for your additions/corrections to the above article. I've put Wales and England back into the article, since it's best to have a country attached to the locations (otherwise, the US/Oz tie looks at first glance like it was played in Newport, Rhode Island). If you think it's more appropriate to have "United Kingdom" or "Great Britain" there instead, feel free to change them. Thanks! Chris 04:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps UK or GB would be better considering that Newport was definitely considered to be in England in 1906. Owain (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This new place template... Consensus for removing removing the old templates hasn't been achieved. Has it? How many were involved in the discussion. A small group of people seem to be making quite a change and doing it at speed for fear of debate. The county issue being so contentious why on earth do this? Perhaps the new template is fine but perhaps historic county should be included.Breakone 19:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has most certainly not been achieved. In any case the whole premise is backwards. I do not need to justify inclusion of data that was agreed upon with great debate before, they need to justify its removal. I am all for a new unified template, but all existing data needs to be preserved. Any attempt to rush this through and deprecate the existing templates is clearly bad faith and POV. A call to arbitration is clearly needed here. Owain (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I suggest you make a request for comments, which I will support, if you are still interested in pursuing this. In the mean time, User:Kanaye has been reported for a breach of the three-revert rule. 163.167.129.124 13:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Newport City Council logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Monmouthshire Council logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently there has been a new category rolled out for metropolitan boroughs which means that towns in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham are being tagged with 'Oldham' I am trying to get the category renamed to "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' since Oldham is a town with different boundaries to the borough. This is part of a direct assault on small town identities (the same group of people who are tagging things as Oldham) are also behind recent changes of altering historic geography on biographies i.e. changing pre-1974 birth locations from Lancashire to Greater Manchester. Also, many of the 'people from Royton' articles are being changed so that they read 'Royton in Oldham' - completely incorrect. I believe the current ill-conceived category names perpetuate these wrong perceptions, so would like the Category:Oldham category renamed as "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' and make it clear it only applies from 1974 onwards. If you feel like supporting this initiative would please consider voiting for a Rename at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Oldham. Thanks. 88.104.64.157 12:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for extending Bettws. I've added a bit more to clarify what 'County' means and what 'District/UA' means (I changed this to 'Principal area' which is a tidier term).

What do you think?

Ewen 14:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. According to http://gazetteer.co.uk there are other Bettwses that can be added too... Owain (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What is the plural of 'Bettws'? 'Bettwsau'? Ewen 17:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I noticed that you blanked the page, without explaining why in an edit summary, at Category:Buildings and structures in Gwynedd and I was wondering why. Any particular reason? Hope you can enlighten me! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 16:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been superceded by the Anglesey, Merionethshire and Caernarfonshire subcategories and now contains no articles. Owain (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered whether that was the case (an edit summary would have made it clearer straightaway) - but, when you say "superceded", is there a guideline/consensus that says buildings (or indeed, anything else - people perhaps being another matter) should be categorised according to former counties, rather than present-day counties? I'm not pointing accusatory fingers at you, I hasten to add; I just want to know what the score is, as a member of WP:WALES. If there isn't a guideline, then perhaps there needs to be some discussion at WP:WALES and elsewhere. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 21:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have amended the U.K university template, as institutions have become seperate from the University of Wales. But the link you provide [1] in the comment space does not provide evidence that this is so. It may just be that they have not updated the website. But I can not find any material on the web which says this is so. --Benjaminevans82 16:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this link. [2] a let me know what you think--Benjaminevans82 16:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the wales.ac.uk page doesn't literally say that they have become independent, but it does list all the former federal member institutions as "accredited institutions" rather than "member institutions". I think the BBC article is slightly confused as it is referring to the changes of name of the three mentioned institutions. As the University of Wales is now confederal rather than federal it has no member institutions and therefore all are independent. Owain (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Tredegar-House.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 18:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to our discussion above [3], I thought I would let you know that there is now a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board#Which century are we in? on whether old shire county names should be used in articles / categories, with particular reference to List of castles in Wales and the subcategories of Category:Buildings and structures in Wales by county. Bencherlite^Talk 22:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason you're removing |cardiff_distance= from infoboxes for Welsh places? You're not providing any rationale in your edit summaries. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How far to Cardiff? Who cares? It is a completely arbitrary piece of information. The infobox contains geo-location information already that allows the place to be found on a map. "How far to Cardiff" is unnecessary and arbitrarily-biased towards one specific city. In a nutshell, pointless. Owain (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is that your point of view or have you secured a consensus for this approach? Why no edit summary? Is it pointless to you, or everybody nationally and internationally? Have you conducted a survey about this?... I'm still concerned.

Furthermore, per you talk page above, can you please explain why you've been changing categories and articles for Wales demarcating to "traditional county", whilst failing to mention the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) to your peers? I'm sure you're aware we need not take this to the wider community again; it is always dealt with hard and fast, as you no doubt know. This type of thing is really frowned upon. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to explain anything to you. You're the one with the lack of consensus! This "cardiff_distance" isn't even a real infobox field. Where is the consensus for adding it? Please read the linked discussions for jumping to your accusatory conclusions. Owain (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"cardiff_distance" isn't even a real infobox field" - that doesn't make sense; you're removing it; it exists; it's real. Nor have you answered my questions, which is sad. People have obviously worked hard to make this function avaliable, and others have taken the time to fill it in because they believe it to be helpful. Removing it without discussion or at least an edit summary with a rationale is very unhelpful.

Why have you been asserting that Newport in is the historic county of Monmouthshire? QUOTE - "We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries". This tier of geography should be toned down or removed immediately. A consensus exists for us to take this stance, and not to have it in infoboxes. Can you please change this?

You haven't explained why you've been categorising Welsh people and places according to former county. As such, I intend to bring all these inline with policy with the aid of the community. It is the most useful approach for readers as has been established in the past.

You're right - you don't have to explain anything to me or anybody else (unless this goes further), but lets be realistic here - it is more than a courtesy to provide justification for your actions; something that if you cannot do, you risk having your additions reverted. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have no idea how infoboxes work. You cannot simply say cardiff_distance=X if it isn't programmed into the template. If you don't believe me take a look at the version before I reverted it. Can you see anything? No, didn't think so.

As for the categorisation, I didn't start it - I was just completing it. Look at the Welsh Wikipedians' notice board if you don't believe me. You and I have been through the historic county debate many times and a consensus was reached - everyone is happy. Please don't start edit warring again. Owain (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I've never edit warred - with you or anybody else. This is fancification - can you point to an example? It's a rhetorical question, don't bother.

In a nutshell, after all these years, you're breaching the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places). "a consensus was reached" - um, where? "the historic county debate" - what debate? It's over, we have policy, we have source material. I seem to remember that this county nonsense is always unpopular and overturned - I'm actually upholding consensus. Can you point to one that says you are your locality are exempt?

Newport is not in Monmouthshire - you're soapboxing which is not fair to readers. Let me quote the policy again incase you missed it - ""We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries". Infact, I believe this may even be a Conflict of interest on your part. You're so closely affliated with your political pressure group that you shouldn't be editting about places and counties all together. Is there any reason I shouldn't report this to the COI notice board (with all your diffs)? What gesture are you going to make to show you're not promoting your political group and ideologies on Wikipedia? -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Newport is in Monmouthshire, as it is also part of other areas for various purposes. That is no more soapboxing that denying it. I am denying nothing. As regards the policy, it has been pointed out numerous times that "consensus can change". I am not a member of any political pressure group. Where do you get that idea from? I have already said tha tI am all about offering all possible information. I am not denying anything or removing anything relevant. What has this got to do with how far somewhere is from Cardiff anyway? Owain (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias are tertiary sources and thus not reliable sources. You've been editting Wikipedia long enough now to know that. Do you have any other reliable source that asserts Newport is in Monmouthshire? I could provide a wealth of reliable material that asserts it is not. I also have a policy of Wikipedia's that states: ""We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries." Thus per not only policy, reliable source material, a mainstream standpoint and what readers want - Newport was in Monmouthshire. You're not being fair by owning that article and smearing that locality's demarcation with such a bizarre stance on geography.

Briefly - consensus has not changed. That's absolute nonsense!- You're in an absolute minority of people. You're entitled to your views, of course, but not soapbox them, because we still have a policy set up to combat this. Can you point to a quantifiable request for consensus change? - No. Even if you did, can you provide reliable source material that the former counties still exist with their former boundaries? - No. Let's be a little more realistic about this - please.

To answer your contention, I believe you to be a member of ABC because you promote it, use its material (which has been proven to have falsifications and misquotations of commentary), allege to its unusual ideology, and have demonstrated you have inside infomation [4]. This page, demonstrating again the underhand tactics of ABC (that clearly don't fool anyone), as well as showing the lack of support for its ideas, also asserts my point that you're so closely involved with this group there is evidence of a conflict of interest.

Again, do you have any other reliable source that asserts Newport is in Monmouthshire? If so, now's your opportunity to convince me. If you cannot, I believe I've provided enough of a rationale for this to be changed. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that encyclopædias are tertiary sources and I didn't actually cite it in any article, I am merely pointing out to you that this so-called minority position isn't as minority as you are suggesting it is. Someone brought up the categorisation on the WWNB and there wasn't a single dissenting voice regarding the current categorisation, in fact the point was made that on English Wikipedia there is a convention that the term "the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" should be used. This is clearly a higher-level rule and should be respected. Whether or not I am a "member" of ABC, it is not a "political pressure group" - stating that it is is soapboxing! Why is an article on the Historic Counties Trust an underhand tactic? I'm not sure I follow your logic there. To summarise - a place can be in more than one geographical locale. If Britannica's sources are not good enough for you, why not the ABC themselves? After all Wikipedia is not necessarily about truth, just that which can be referenced. Owain (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of reliable sources - here's two for starters: the Royal Mail lists three different overlapping geographical locales in the PAF: Administrative area, Postal county and historic county. The contemporary "Gathering the Jewels" project - which brings together the National Library of Wales, Society of Chief Librarians (Wales), National Museums and Galleries of Wales, Federation of Welsh Museums, Archives Council Wales, Royal Commission of Ancient and Historic Monuments Wales, Council of Museums in Wales, Wales Higher Education Libraries Forum, Welsh County Archivists Group and is sponsored by the Welsh Assembly Government. Owain (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another two reliable sources - British Telecom phone book, British Broadcasting Corporation Weather search Owain (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another point - I resent the implication that I own the article. Many other people have contributed (shock horror - with the same minority view as me!) and no-one who actually lives there has ever complained about it. Check the edit history. Owain (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in, if I may, it's not right to say that "there wasn't a single dissenting voice regarding the current categorisation" at WWNB: the original commentator didn't agree with it, neither did I. Wikipedia_talk:Welsh_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Which_century_are_we_in.3F may refresh your memory. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 19:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But as you created the original structure, you are dissenting with yourself? The fact is, it clearly isn't as clear-cut as Jza84 likes to make out it is. It could easily be argued the other way - i.e. given that there are reliable sources stating Newport is simultaneously in Monmouthshire, Gwent and South Wales - why should any one take precedence over the other? Owain (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to be brutally frank with a question here. Have you been using a sockpuppet recently to create/recreate categories for South Wales according to former county? User:ArfonOwen seems to have a very comparable contribution style and username to yourself. Do you have any advice for him regarding how this is a breach of policy (WP:PLACE)? Perhaps you can nominate these for deletion as a mark of your ability to work within policy and not have us go to checkuser? -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of Scottish counties by area, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of List of Scottish counties by area. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Newport County crest.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Newport Transport logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed this problem myself, so you do not need to do anything! Arriva436 (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Newport YMCA crest.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has reached epidemic proportions on Wikipedia! Have you given up? Lancsalot (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]