Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Caroline Street is one of the third oldest streets in Cardiff". What does this mean? --Scaramouche 21:16, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could anyone add some more physical photos of Cardiff's skyline and attractions? Please respond. (Cepb 13:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

"A fourth river, the Lleucu has been culverted." I think this is wrong I do not beliebve there is such a river in cardiff- in fact Lleucu is a mythical welsh river and I think it has been entered here to continue the myth- Even if it is true then there are other streams such as the canna (as in canton and Pontcanna) which are more significant 24/4/07

No, the Lleucu most certainly exists and is alive and well, but I'm not sure it could be called a river as it is really a 'nant' or a 'stream'. It is the Welsh name of 'Roath Brook' and is recorded on lots of websites (a google search brings up a lot of them, in Welsh and in English for example http://www.runtheplanet.com/runningroutes/route.asp?r=178645). It is the name of the Ysgol Feithrin (Welsh medium nursery school) covering the area around Penylan, which meets in a church beside the brook. It is also the name used in Welsh by Cardiff County Council for Roath Brook. Of course, Nant Lleucu and Nant Fawr are in fact one water course and Nant Fawr is a major water course in Cardiff. As Nant Fawr just means 'Great Stream' it suggests that Nant Lleucu was probably the name of the whole of the watercourse at one time, and as such Nant Lleucu would be an important watercourse.

People keep playing with this section. Someone had put in some rather rediculous population figures. For instance, 60,000 students is well in excess of the combined populations of the universities. Those studying at FE colleges are generally not considered students. Furthermore, it is erroneous to say that students are 'not enumerated' in the census. They are - as the rapid rise in Cathays' population between 1991 and 2001 shows. No accurate predictions have been made for Cardiff's population, and 400,000 is highly unlikely before the late 2030s - unless there is a boundary extension.

ARGH its been done again - I had to change this just recently. It is NOT TRUE that students aren't counted. 2005 showed a population 319,000 versus a final estimate of 310,000 in census 2001. And The latest estimates from the Cardiff Research Centre saw growth in the city population of 15,000 per decade from 2011 onwards. So for the borough itself, if we take the estimates at face value and project between 2005 and 2011 based on the rate of growth between 2001 and 2005, we may get

2011 - 334,000 2021 - 349,000 etc

STOP CHANGING THIS!!

ARGHHHH its happening AGAIN! STOP STOP STOP STOP. Its some unregistered git - yes I'm unregistered but I make correct useful changes.

There is no "Cardiff Metropolitan Area" with 1.4m people. This is not a statistical entity or an administrative unit.Pondle 23:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to Google "Cardiff Metro Area"...yes, you've guessed it...nothing...this is a non-statistic, I'm not sure that this word exists...but I know "Cardiff Metro Area" doesn't. Seth Whales 22:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Its been put as unoffical they are thinking of making a metro area for the city to help areas outside the city boundries, this also brings more people to the city and the population for the wider south east wales metro(short for metropoltian!) area they are thinking of making is 1.4million, It makes it look more important as a city in the U.K. The population of the urban area is predicted to be over 349,000 as Caerphilly is now part of this so stop changing it. Also the population in 2006 wasent 317,500 it was more than this it is predicted at 321,500 in 2006 and more now as a lot of houseing developments have gone up in the city. So actualy you've got some things wrong iswell becasue 317,500 is wrong!And also explain this if the urban area u keep puting down 327,000 Caerphilly, Dinis-Powys and Penarth must be little villages! becasue all of them have a much bigger population than 10,000 its more like 60,000 put together! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.1.234 (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of this proposal of creating a Cardiff Metro Area, do you have any references? Has it been in any of the papers (Echo, Capital Times etc)?

Since when has Caerphilly been included in Cardiff figures? I notice you've also been editing the List of Welsh principal areas by population page as well, giving Cardiff two sets of figures. What's the point of this, aren't you then including certain population figures from Caerphilly CBBC and Vale of Glamorgan twice!--Rhyswynne 09:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

wow you couldnt of searched far! Its under Cardiff Urban Area on wikipedia. The total official population of this urban area was given to be 327,706 in 2001. Growth since 2001 have increased this figure to give a 2005 estimate of 349,756( there you go) i ll admit i aint sure on the Caerphilly one but i have seen it on sites i think it was on the Cardiff Fourm on BBC South East Wales site about a year ago. But the urban area is about 349,000 so leave that and also the population in 2007 for the City is about 325,000 so u can change it to that if you want but its not 317,500 it was 5,000 bigger than that in 2005! never alone 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.1.234 (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion seems to be going around in circles..can we not use the official figures for Wikipedia??? So for the 2001 Census it was 305,353 2001 Census and the estimated figure for 2006 from Cardiff Council was 317,500 Latest Official Population Estimates for Cardiff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seth Whales (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

OK stop changing figures i will carrying on changing it back to what the predections are for 2007 so i dont know why your trying i dont give up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.1.234 (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it not worth asking admin to lock this page so that unregistered users can't edit it? I'm of the opinion that we should use official figures or sourced estimates.--Rhyswynne 10:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The urban area is a sourced estimate by one and only wikiepedia: Growth since 2001 have increased this figure to give a 2005 estimate of 349,756 so leave it at 349,756

As we're all finding out, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source - anyone can just come along and post any old figures (as you well know!). You need to find a reliable source, maybe the following policies from wikipedia will help you: Verifiability (particulalry the bits about Burden of evidence and Sources). There's also a guidelines about Reliable sources and Citing sources. Again, here's a link to a page on Cardiff City Council's website which has estimates for up to 2006. I think you'll agree that the council is a reputable source.--Rhyswynne 14:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested : The Welsh Assembly Government Statistical unit has just published population projections for the local authorities Wales based upon the midyear 2006 baseline. Cardiff's population is projected to grow by nearly 25% by 2031 and reach nearly 400,000 at that time. The VoG (ie Barry, Penarth, Dinas Powys, etc) is also expected to grow by ~20%. See link below for details: http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/statistics/headlines/pop2008/hdw20080630/?lang=en Mark July 200818:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Cardiff 'metro area', or correctly termed 'Capital City Network' has now been identified in the 2008 Wales Spatial plan, which is an official document of the Welsh Assembly Government. When looking at most North American cities, 2-3 figures are given..Local Authority, Urban and 'metropolitan', often consisting of towns some miles out of the city centre itself. The latter figure (1.4m) for Cardiff is officially recognised by WAG and warrants an inclusion here. As long as a link is provided then people can make their mind up on the validity of the boundary, but rest assured the cardiff city region is now formally identified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.163.218 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I read the paper and it doesn't justify your recent edit. --Snowded (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As a professional urban planner (!!) I can assure the IP editor that the WSP "Capital City Network" is a much more widely and broadly defined concept and area than anything which could be called either the Cardiff "metropolitan area" or even the "city region". Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

DAdo the photographs accompanying this article give anyone a sense of what Cardiff looks like? Should this not be the purpose of including images? Dave63 10:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reckon the photos should be more integrated in with the article rather than just in a clump at the bottom. Make them slightly bigger too, and possibly less of them. - FrancisTyers 13:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I think there are far, far better images of Cardiff out there that could be used. The view from Penarth in the south, or the Graig in the north gives a good panorama and demonstrates the extent of the city in one view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.163.218 (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

All but two of the photos are not of Cardiff at all, but of Caerphilly and surrounding area.

Whilst an essential visit following a night out, I doubt that Caroline St played a key in the city's industrial history ......

The Wikipedia guidelines state that the first sentence should concisely define the topic. In other words, for a city, it might state where it is, how large it is, and briefly descibe it. This does not include details of history such as which traditional county it is in though it might include a mention of current county or unitary authority. Traditional county details belong further down the article, perhaps in a history section.

This view is also stated in the Naming Conventions policy.

Your revert, Owain, breaches these Wikipedia conventions and guidelines. I'd appreciate it if you would restore the text to my last version. Thanks. Chris Jefferies 28 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)

1. The first sentence has not changed.
2. the traditional county has nothing to do with history, but with geography, which is why it is near the top of the article. Owain 28 June 2005 21:52 (UTC)

The policy also states that traditional county information is in the present tense, and should form part of the opening paragraph. Owain 28 June 2005 21:52 (UTC)

it does no such thing. It clearly states that Cardiff is a unitary authority, and that it is geographically in a traditional county - this is allowed by the policy! Please see the edit history for a version that was accepted by both viewpoints. Your unliteral editing has re-ignited the edit war and re-introduced inaccuracies that had already been ironed out. Owain 28 June 2005 21:52 (UTC)

Hi Owain. My mistake over the first sentence, sorry about that. However I cannot agree with you that 'the traditional county has nothing to do with history', surely it has to do with history, geography, government and no doubt other things too. But that's not the point. The point is that however you characterise it it's too detailed and minor a point to appear in the lead section of a Wikipedia article. The current county might be relevant, but the historical county is certainly not.

The fact that it is geographical is not an argument for including it here. For example the name of the main street is geographical but would have no place in the lead section.

The Naming Conventions policy simply does not state that 'traditional county information should form part of the opening paragraph'. Indeed it clearly states 'We should use the current, administrative, county'.

It also states 'We should mention historic counties in articles about places and in references to places in a historic context, but only as an afternote' (my emphasis).

It is a matter of opinion whether your revert breaches Wikipedia conventions and guidelines. My opinion is that it does, your reading of those conventions and guidelines seems to be selective and biased.

I am therefore restoring the text to comply with Wikipedia policy. Chris Jefferies 29 June 2005 11:41 (UTC)

The 'current county' as you put it is simply the local city council - hardly relevant in a paragraph defining where a place is, I'm sure you'll agree. Whereas the 'historical county', as you put it is a specific geographical reference, and I would hardly call that 'too detailed and minor'. Owain 29 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)

That is simply a facetious argument. Clearly the main street has about as much relevance as the city council has in describing where a place is. Yet you seem to think that the mentioning the city council is relevant, and the geographical county is not. I simply fail to see the logic in that argument. Owain 29 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)

I was not quoting verbatim from the policy, I was attempting to explain it. A quote from the policy is "Coventry is in the West Midlands, and within the traditional borders of Warwickshire". That is clearly an opening sentence that mentions both the administrative county and traditional county. Owain 29 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)

Yes, but then it goes on to give 'acceptable things', one of which is to mention the traditional county in the opening sentence! You can quote these things selectively if you wish, but my version is clearly allowed by the policy! Owain 29 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)

I see that you didn't bother checking the edit history, which has evidence of a previous edit war. A factual compromise was reached that was acceptable to both parties, but you seem to want to stir it up again for some reason. My version clearly mentions both administrative and traditional areas in an unambiguous way that is compatible with the policy - what is possibly wrong with that? Owain 29 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)

The policy has not been broken! I refuse to let this article lie, with the prefectly valid and acceptable reference to Glamorgan shoved into the eighth paragraph with the completely factually incorrect "The city once formed part of the county of Glamorgan". I am reverting to the compromise version that was agreed between myself and G-Man. Owain 29 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)

I only put it like that because I knew you would revert it, not because I particularly like it. Frankly I dont see why I should have to compromise with agreed policy and some other position. If were talking about the policy then it clearly states.

Articles about counties should not be split up and should not be disambiguation pages. They should treat the counties as one entity which has changed its boundaries with time. We should not take the minority position that they [traditional counties] still exist with the former boundaries.

But frankly I have no interest in going over this traditional counties argument again. We argued this matter comprehensively at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places) and your favoured approach recieved only two votes. As far as I'm concearned the matter is settled. G-Man 29 June 2005 21:17 (UTC)

Votes? How can you you have a vote when you don't know what you're voting on? What place to votes have in a factual encyclopaedia anyway? The fact of the matter is that many people don't realise that there are different things that could reasonably be called counties. e.g. ancient counties, registration counties, administrative counties and ceremonial counties. The fact that people such as Chrisjj don't realise this leads them to add factually incorrect sentences such as 'Swansea was part of Glamorgan prior to local government changes'. Local government changes only change administrative counties, not the other three. If you take the position that counties are 'one entity which has changed its boundaries with time' then why the hell are there different ariticles on traditional, administrative and ceremonial counties? Surely counties are one entity that have changed over time? Why the hell have infoboxes got entries for traditional, administrative and ceremonial counties? Surely there is only one set of boundaries that have changed over time? Nonsense. This is dumbing down of the highest order. The whole encycolpaedia is in danger of become self-contradictory at this rate, not just the straitjacket 'policy'. Owain 30 June 2005 11:17 (UTC)

I dont agree, the facts are disputed. The notion that traditional counties still exist in the present tense in any meaningful sense is debatable. And it appears to be a minority position that they do. And before you start I'm well aware of you arguments that traditional counties have never been abolished and still technically exist etc etc. But the question of whether they exist still in any "real world" sense and should be regarded as still existing entities is a matter of opinion. And your opinion appears to be the minority one, hence the result of the vote and the policy. As for Why the hell have infoboxes got entries for traditional, administrative and ceremonial counties? thats a good question, its nothing to do with me. Personally I would prefer that they were called 'historic counties' in the infoboxes rather than 'traditional counties' as it's less confusing. G-Man 30 June 2005 19:05 (UTC)

I strongly agree with G-Man on this. What do other editors of this article think? Comments anyone? Chris Jefferies 30 June 2005 19:18 (UTC)

Hi Owain, I think we need to be careful. This is the Cardiff talk page and I'll try to reply in a way that will benefit the Cardiff article.

The lead section should be brief and to the point, and the entire article should adhere to Wikipedia conventions and policies. The Cardiff lead section should mention that it's a large city, that it's the capital of Wales, that it grew from a small town because of its port and the coal trade, and a few other major pieces of information. This section is a brief summary of the main facts - the first thing a reader sees.

Detailed information belongs further down in the main body of the article. That some people hold the point of view that Cardiff is still part of Glamorgan is something that can be legitimately mentioned in the main body, but NPOV probably requires that we also mention that others do not hold this view.

My opinion is that Cardiff is a unitary authority, was once in the county of Glamorgan, and that some people take the view it's still in Glamorgan. Not all of that needs to be in the lead section. I'd be interested to hear the views of the other editors of this article. Chris Jefferies 30 June 2005 12:02 (UTC)

I am geniunely interested as to when exactly you think Cardiff was in Glamorgan, and why. Owain 30 June 2005 14:55 (UTC)

As Cardiff is a unitary authority, Wikipedia guidelines ([[Naming Conventions, second paragraph, second scentance) suggest that we use the traditional (see Subdivisions of Wales) counties as geographical references. My preference would be to include this information in the lead paragraph. Iain 1 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)

That's almost right. The convention states we should use the ceremonial county which in this case would be South Glamorgan (also see the 1974 section of Subdivisions of Wales. But we should consider keeping the wording short and simple. How about this draft...

Cardiff (Welsh: Caerdydd, from caer, "fort," and dydd, "Aulus Didius") is the capital and largest city of Wales. It is a unitary authority and part of South Glamorgan.

It has the advantages of conforming with both lead section and county naming conventions for a unitary authority. Chris Jefferies 1 July 2005 11:00 (UTC)

That convention is therefore useless. South Glamorgan is a local government area that existed between 1974 and 1996 and is clearly part of a larger area called Glamorgan. The perpetuation of former local government areas as geographical references is clearly absurd, when they were created with the efficient provision of local government services in mind, not in the context of a wider geogeraphic framework. Take any place in Pembrokeshire: The county has existed since the 12th century, it also exists as a unitary authiry since 1996, yet we are supposed to put 'it is in Dyfed'. That is a classic example of where common sense should take priority. The centuries old traditional counties are much better suited to this purpose than local government areas that existed for a mere 22 years! Owain 1 July 2005 14:00 (UTC)

I attempted to stress Cardiff's heritage as Glamorgan's main town/city for generations by including the fact that it was the county town of and centre of admin of Glamorgan and South Glamorgan. This was un and then re-edit, but never the less stresses Cardiff's long-term, regional importance. Owain's changing of county town to county borough fails to stress Cardiff's central importance to the area and puts it in the position of being on an equal level with the other boroughs of Glamorgan.

I also think it's important that Cardiff's conversion into an apparent 'city county' is held in perspective - just like Swansea, Bridgend, Neath, Caerphilly, Port Talbot and the other principal areas of Wales's most populous county, Glamorgan's district councils were all split from their sub-county councils (South, Mid & West Glamorgan) into unitary authorities. The 1994 local government (Wales) Act was not some kind of special status for Cardiff but central government tinkering with the administration of all of Wales.

With regards to the points raised above, geographically South Glamorgan is definitely more accurate than South Glamorgan as there was no North or East Glamorgan county council and the most Northerly point of Glamorgan is in Mid Glamorgan and the most easterly point of Glamorgan is in South Glamorgan. If South Glamorgan is used to describe the geographical location of Cardiff then it betrays the use of the fundamental terms of north, east, south and west (Cardiff is definitely southwest Glamorgan). Anyway, longitude and latitude are already included and I added ceremonial and traditional counties to the info box so any user can choose their favourite, and possibly learn a little about the UK's recent chaotic use of the word "county". So there's no need to argue over which one is more relevant (Traditional). Owen Spedding 13 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

Hi Owen, it's good to be able to discuss Cardiff for a change instead of policy. Each place deserves to be considered individually, and if you feel there's a good reason to mention Glamorgan in the lead section, then you should definitely make the change. There will always be exceptions to any policy rule and it's important to be flexible, that is what Wikipedia is all about.

The problem we have with Owain's edits is that he systematically changed lead sections of articles on British places wholesale to reflect his (minority) opinions about historic or traditional counties. There was no justification on a case-by-case basis. I suggest you go ahead and change the text as you think fit, or propose the wording here for discussion, as you prefer. (But be aware, others who disagree may change it back - one of the many joys of Wikipedia :-)

Thanks for explaining. Chris Jefferies 09:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I want to try and help to resolve this difficult situation. I live in Cardiff, watch the page and a bit saddened about the number of edits which do not actually improve the article, but just flip between opposing views as to whether “in the traditional county of Glamorgan” (or somesuch) should appear in the introduction.

We need some way of stopping the attrition of edits and reverts so we can all get on with life. The only way of doing this is having policies. We have one on the use of county names but it clearly can be read more than one way. The “put Glamorgan in the introduction” camp point to the acceptable Coventry example in the policy: Coventry is in the West Midlands, and within the traditional borders of Warwickshire. The “leave Glamorgan out” camp point to the only as an afternote comment in the policy proper.

There seems to way out but to refine the policy to be explicit about the use of traditional county names in article introductions.

If there was to be such a proposal, we would need to consider the relative value added by referencing current administrative boundaries compared to traditional counties. The current boundaries tell us about the governance of the place, and put it in the context of regional political and service delivery frameworks. The traditional boundaries tell us where it is, with reference to a spatial framework that to all intents and purposes has no current relevance. And people know where it is anyway, because there is a map. --Dave63 11:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Both sets of boundaries are important. Yes, the local government boundaries tell us about the governance of the place and the traditional county boundaries tell us where a place is. That's why having both is a good thing. What is especially useful is having a set of boundaries that are outside of the scope of constant political meddling. In that context I would say the traditional county boundaries have plenty of current relevance.

Owen Spedding wrote Owain's changing of county town to county borough fails to stress Cardiff's central importance to the area and puts it in the position of being on an equal level with the other boroughs of Glamorgan.. No it doesn't, a county borough was independent of the county council, whereas municipal boroughs in Glamorgan were not. Owain 12:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hope I don't start a war here. I've edited the 'Roman' part of the article. Linking Cardiff with Aulus Didius Gallus and presenting it as fact is erroneous. Propounded by the Internet, I suspect this idea came originally from a misreading of Tacitus. I won't go into details, but the hypothesis is tenuous almost to the point of being arcane. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it is unlikely. (Posted by User:194.81.116.246 at 15:55, August 10, 2005)

Does anyone have a usable source of someone saying this? If not, it probably should be removed. Vashti 15:35, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

The only source used is 'Slaters Directory' from 1880 and that is hardly a reliable source. The commonly accepted theory is that it comes from Caer and Tyf (the genetive of the river Taf in Welsh), this becomes, Dyf due to mutation and gives - Caerdyf, here the English and Welsh forms start to diverge. The -f in dyf becomes -ff in English (a common change) giving us Caerdyff. The -f in Welsh changes to -dd (a common change in the local Welsh dialect) and that gives us Caerdydd. It all works very well using well understood sound laws. Caeridi doesn't work and has no accademic basis to it. It just makes this article look silly and detracts from its accademic value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.164.93 (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there some mentioning of this contest, arguably the most recognized contest in classical singing in the world? Especially since Welshman Bryn Terfel, former winner, started his career at the Welsh National Opera.::::::::::OiBrent

I'm sure there are lots of mentions of Cardiff's centenary on the internet; it would be interesting to know if there are any residents of the city who are a hundred years or older, and who have lived there since it was city-ised in 1905. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I read that a new way of transportation would be installed in Cardiff by 2003: Urban Light Transport, a mixture of taxis and trams which runs on a given track and carries each passanger to his or her destination (or a stop close to it) without stopping. (source in Hungarian) Has it been realized since? Adam78 11:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I remember seeing this demonstrated on the TV. It looks incredibly cool, but there's no sign of it. Vashti 08:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

See article Personal Rapid Transit and the site of the company that proposed the Cardiff plan [1]. Also see this [2] site for links to news stories on the scheme.

AFAIK Cardiff Council are official still behind the scheme, but the last statement saying that is quite old now. The Welsh Assembly were going to fund the majority of the costs, and they pulled their support in 2004, so it is de facto dead. Although I can't ATM point out the evidence it is generally agreed the scheme floundered because of fears about the shear amount of dedicated infrastructure that would use up precious space in the city centre (along with the visual impact of that infrastructure) and that most of the support was built upon unrealistic/false expectations that it could provide all the flexibility of cars/taxis but for the user and government costs of buses. It has also been siad that the scheme (which from the start seems far more suited to uses such as at Heathrow, than for an organic city) was only ever dabbled with by the Assembly as a publicity stunt type thing to attract inward investment.

According to current transport and urban masterplans for Cardiff, the only major public transport schemes considered for the foreseeable future are the conversion of the City line and Coryton line (see Valley Lines) into a light/semi-light rail loop line (more station, more frequent service, etc) with a major park+ride site near M4 Junc 32. Similarly public opinion is still generally leaning towards the much bigger conversion-expansion of the urban commuter lines into the core of a cut-price tram-train network (thou of course, they don't express that in those technical terms). Such a plan as been mooted and proposed innumeral times over the last 2 decades, particular in Assembly in-put into the re-franchising of the local rail operations. First group actually went as far as making it a core commitment of their bid at the last round. (Yet, they lost.) According to experts, chances of it happening soon have been damaged by the Assembly committing to funding the purchase of new trains to replace the worse of the aging rolling stock currently in use. This spring the Assembly finally gets control over rail transport policy (replacing the DfT/SRA), having until now had almost zero influence over the rail operations. Given this, there are significant chances they might decide to make an impact with these new powers, which moving with the conversion would do. Most transport policy document from the Assembly and related bodies have hinted in this direction and related devleopments (such as establishments of one or more PTEs and advances such as electronic ticketing). --Myfanwy 11:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello there - I would like to add my site to the list of external sites on the page about Cardiff. I am not going to lie - it's for basically increasing traffic to my site.

I would not add/spam wikipedia by just adding it, so I wondered if you would mind checking it out, and deciding whether it deserves a link from the Cardiff Page.

http://www.cardiffians.co.uk

It's not finshed yet, but there is a LOT of content on there.

Many thanks!

sitemaster AT cardiffians DOT CO DOT UK

As somebody who keeps a very close eye on link-spam, I very much welcome someone making the effort to come to the talk page first, and seek a third opinion. And after a good look through the site, I think it's worthy of inclusion; as far as I can see, it meets "what should be linked to" (5) and doesn't fall foul any of "what shouldn't be linked to" of the external link guidelines. It's a good resource and I'll add it to the external links list now.

(PS - just for your information, the site doesn't display quite correctly in Mozilla, but that's no criterion for exclusion!)

Aquilina 22:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aquilina,

Many thanks for having a look at the site, and for allowing for it to be added to the list of external sites on the Cardiff Page. I will of course add a link to Wikipedia (something I should have done a long time ago anyway!)

I am pleased that so far, everyone who has viewed the site has given it favourable reviews. The link from Wikipedia will help no end to increase the site's visability on the internet, and bring more people to the site. This is what spurs me on to keep adding to, and improving the site. I will see what I can do about the Mozilla issue, and appreciate your bringing it to my attention.

Kind Regards,

Cardiffians Sitemaster

I've reverted some of the changes the recent anon made. While much of it was good, some seemed odd - the repeated emphasis on Wales being a principality, the removal of the Welsh for "Cardiff" from the opening together with the emphasis that "less than 25% of the population use Welsh) (by contrast with Wikipedia standard practice as shown in Milan, Florence, Moscow and many other pages), and the deliberate description of Cardiff's universities as "provincial" (a technical term rarely used as it refers to every university which is neither Oxbridge or in London, IIRC). Vashti 08:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Cardiff, you've now reverted these changes back. I don't believe these changes are neutrally worded (see WP:NPOV). What does everyone else think? Vashti 18:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Having just found The Principality of Wales, which appears to be a POV fork of Wales, edited only by User:Cardiff, this is looking *very* peculiar indeed. Vashti 18:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. See Saint David's Day, which I just reverted. Cardiff removed important information, and is not complying with WP:NPOV, IMO. I support your revert, and will do the same myself. I am also checking this user's other contribs.Econrad 18:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Vashti 19:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've requested temporary page protection. This is getting childish. Vashti 19:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also been bold and gone through the differences between the page as it was last night before our friend showed up, and how it was this evening after the last revert, putting material back as it was. While some of the material looked as if it might have been improved, I don't know how much of it can be trusted, or how many of the revisions were accurate. The list of excisions from the "Natives of Cardiff" list, in particular, was shocking. Vashti 20:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the source for this one? Being up here on a hill looking at Caerphilly Mountain, the word that springs to mind for Cardiff's landscape is not "flat". Vashti 02:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but if you view the city from Caerphilly mountain or other high areas then most of the city is quite flat, especially compared to other parts of Wales! Perhaps it could be changed to 'mostly flat' or something along these lines. Tom1000

Mmm, although if you go to the north and east, around Thornhill, Lisvane and Llanrumney, the mountain begins rising well before you ever leave the city boundary. "Relatively flat" is a little bit misleading when the rest of the sentence could well be "although the hills would be considered significant anywhere else here they happen to be in the shadow of a mountain". Maybe remove the comment so that it starts "Cardiff's geographic features ..."? What do geographers say about Cardiff's terrain? Vashti 03:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cardiff City has a bowl like landscape, the edges of the city have mountains and so are high up and rocky, but the majority of the city is in the middle of the bowl and flat. 172.207.122.165 (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed most of the links from the bottom of the page as not actually being informative about Cardiff. I removed two university departments and one personal blog. I left in the most comprehensive travel guide - I think we only need to link to one of these. I also took out the Wiki link that was added, as it's not yet a very complete Wiki - if anyone wants to go and contribute it's at [3].

The BBC link is the kind of quality page that I think we should be linking to. Vashti 12:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I see an anon has added the wiki page back in again. What's the consensus on this? Vashti 03:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the external links. As for the cardiffpedia wiki, articles such as:

Cardiff University is one of the biggest Universities in the UK. It has 25,000 students and 5,500 staff and an annual turnover of £300 million. (that's the entire text)

don't add anything to the content here. The link might be worth having once its got some comprehensive in-depth coverage, but for the time being that link is only there for the wiki's benefit, not the reader's. I'd remove it. Aquilina 09:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've removed the link again; we'll see if it comes back. :) Vashti 01:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I confess to having added the link in question at first, but have not re-added so I'm not sure who that was. I guess I should have visited the Talk page before adding it. I accept the critisism that its not yet a comprehensive resource. Hopefully it will be in the future, and can be added by consensus. RobsterCardiff 14:08, 12 June 2006 (BST)

When the wiki is more mature, I would be happy to see it added. :) Vashti 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The river Lleucu is new to me. Wherever it flows it cannot be more than a stream. Specific references in the body of the article are suggested for Llandaff Cathedral, the Catholic archbishopric (together with C19 Irish immigration- as well as other patterns of immigration),the historical role of Nonconformity.

---

Clive Sweeting

Does anyone else think that a local station broadcasting shopping TV should be listed next to the national TV stations? We haven't listed student radio or the local stations which we've occasionally had, for instance. I've reverted it twice, and the account which was adding it has done nothing else but add plugs for that station. It's been added again by an anon, but I'm reluctant to revert it again. Anyone else? Vashti 12:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A new arrival has made a start on a Cardiff music scene article. I have added a couple of categories to it, but I think it needs more facts and references (and bands, probably :)). I don't know much about music in Cardiff, but perhaps someone who watches the Cardiff page might..? Telsa (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Two values for coordinates are given: which ones are correct? It would be wise to make the article consistent. -- Casmith 789 16:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added Roath to the list of 'inner-city' districts in the districts section of the article. It seemed foolish to exclude it given that it is described as a district above "areas of and around Canton and Roath" and at the bottom of the page in the list of districts as well as in the article on Roath.

I have also wikilinked the rest of the districts i.e. Penylan and Gabalfa since half the list were linked and the other half not. I suspect it doesn't matter whether they are linked or not due to the aforementioned section at the bottom of the page but there should be some consistency. Grangetown and Riverside no longer lead to disambiguation pages. Kae1is 21:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole page seems to have too much text and not enough photos, so it would be better if there were more photos, or central station perhaps for transport, a picture of queen st or st marys st, and a panorama of the bay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apple 123 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Having lived in Cardiff before migrating to Australia I remember inner suburbs of striking Victorian and Edwardian terraced houses, many of them stone built. Examples being Cathays, Roath and of course Colum Road! It would be nice to see a reference, and a small photo gallery, of this characteristic urban landscape that is among the best preserved in Britain. MichaelGG 10:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If Cardiff was declared the Capital of Wales in 1955, but the Assembly wasn't constituted until 1999 (I know the history of devolution), what significance did this have? Presumably it was more than an honorific, but what government functions operated at the Welsh national level? Even the Welsh Office was based in London. All I can find is Category:Welsh executive agencies -- economic development, and the tourist board. --Dhartung | Talk 19:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually worked for 5 years at the Welsh Office at Cathays Park from 1969 to 1974. Whilst there was a London Office, that was very much a foreign outpost and regarded as a 'touching base' operation with the 'Saesneg' in London. The vast majority of the staff, the decision making and - during my time there the Secretaries of State (the Hon. George Thomas not to be confused with his successor Peter Thomas) - were very much in residence in Cardiff. MichaelGG4 January 2007 (UTC)

The article states the postal code as being CF1 to CF6. I live in Cardiff and my postcode starts CF14. So it obviously goes further than CF6. Does anyone know where to obtain a definitive answer to this?

The postcodes used to run CF1-CF6 but a while back (1997 or 1999 I think) they were expanded. I used to live in CF4 and it became CF14, for example. My girlfriend now lives in CF41! Royal Mail would be a sensible place to find this out, probably sending an email would be the way to get a definitive answer. --YFB ¿ 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone has added a new map that shows the location of Cardiff to be near Bristol and actually places the location dot on the English side of the Severn and this is repeating itself throughout other Welsh pages. Can someone revert it back to the previous map that highlighted Cardiff in a seperate Wales map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple 123 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bk logo.jpg is being used on this article. 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 there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. 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 14:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've merged the article 029 about Cardiff's telephone code into this article, so the 029 page is ready for deletion 82.3.18.24 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have basically copied the sub-sections of the Geography section from Los Angeles, as this section I believed needed to be sub divided to make it clearer...I have also added a Climate Chart as this article needed one. But please edit it to improve the section. Seth Whales 11:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The location box gives the reader an easy and simplified method of understanding Cardiff's location in relation to its wider geography. However I believe it is important see the principal town of the Valleys area, Merthyr Tydfil added. How can you include Caerphilly and Aberdare and not include Merthyr Tydfil. Geraint McCarthy 16:01 GMT, 18 March 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 16:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why people are still stating that Cardiff is the 10th largest city in the UK. Wiki's List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population clearly states that it is the 14th largest, and the List of conurbations in the United Kingdom says that the Cardiff urban area is the 21st largest.

Whoever is stating that Cardiff is the 10th largest city in the country, please provide some sort of reference to back your claim up.Bettia (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

- Cardiff's population is 317,500 ([4]). This makes it the 11th largest city in the U.K. The largest settlements articleon Wikipedia measures it as 292,200 or something but this uses unofficial measurements, I don't know what they're leaving out but Wikipedia has no right to say how populations are measured. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Added: This is the CITY population not Urban Area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshleprechaun (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Welshleprechaun, the figures you are using are only an estimate. The figures used on the Wiki article are taken from official census figures, which can be downloaded form the link given at the bottom of the page. Okay, so the population of Cardiff has grown since 2001, but so has the population of every other city in the UK. Bettia :  Talk to me  09:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The list of largest settlements is nothing to do with the city council populations, look at the city of Leeds for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.216.227 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading through the PDFs given on that site (and in particular the second PDF titled 'Population & Demography 2001 Census in Cardiff Section 2'), it's clear that the estimate figures given are not just for the city of Cardiff but for Cardiff COUNTY - this includes towns such as Radyr and Tongwynlais that fall within the county boundaries but outside the city. Therefore, it's no good for this particular article. B e t t i a^{t a l k}  12:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

But Radyr and Tongwynlais are part of the city itself. Practically the entire city falls within the county boundaries Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Radyr and Tongwynlais are both physically separated from the city. Also, if you look at Cardiff Urban Area, you'll see that Radyr is counted as separate from Cardiff. B e t t i a^{t a l k}  16:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

But the city and county of Cardiff are the same things, aren't they? Radyr is within the city boundaries, even if it's a separate urban area. I think ONS talks a load of nonsense in some cases, but the list of largest settlements are the official figures Wikipedia uses. Bracknell is part of Reading urban area according to them. Whilst the 2006 figures are only estimates, they are the figures used in the infoboxes, so maybe we should say Cardiff is the 11th and 14th largest city in the UK. 82.5.216.227 (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC) well i live in pentych/tongwynlais/radyr area of the city, and yes it is part of the city just becasue the M4 seperates it dosent mean nothing it is part of the city and the city nd county are actually the same thing, anyway you only have to travel across the city to see the amount of apartments, highrise buildings ect contructed scence 2001 and the increase in the economy ect ect and with this comes a lot of people to the city, not all cities in the U.K are growing hardly any are, as ex PM said Cardiff is a great example of one of a few cities with a growing population so i think Cardiff will be about 9th to 11th in 2011 anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardiff123098 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed the reference for this, as it was a mirror of this page. When I looked a couple of years ago, I wasn't able to find any reference to this culverted river at all - can anyone provide one? Vashti (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick Google for it and I found this [5] - I don't know how reliable it is though B e t t i a^{t a l k}  12:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Aha. "Nant Lleucu" - as referred to here. But "nant" doesn't mean "river", it means "stream" - and there are several similar streams in Cardiff. It isn't a river; while I have great affection for that stream, it's a piddling thing compared with the Taff, Rhymney or Ely. On that basis, until someone produces a reference which ranks Nant Lleucu with the three major rivers, I'm going to remove that reference. Vashti (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's no more notable than the stream that runs along the edge of Bute Park and along Boulevard de Nantes, and I dare say there's quite a few more. They should either all be mentioned (as streams, not rivers of course), or not at all. B e t t i a^{t a l k}  15:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the stream known in English as 'Roath Brook' is Nant Lleucu to Welsh speakers in the city (the local Ysgol Feithrin that meets near to it is called 'Ysgol Feithrin Nant Lleucu'). However, I agree that it is of a different order of magnitude to the Taff and the Ely!EoinBach (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

When referring to Cardiff's population, is it better to use government census figures from 2001 (as I have proposed) or council estimates from 2006 (as Welshleprechaun has proposed)? B e t t i a^{t a l k}  16:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think its insane to use 2001 figures. That was 6 years ago and the population has grown in so much that it's gone up 3 places in terms of largest city. Wikipedia is meant to be as up to date as possible and therefore it is much better to provide the situation last year than that of 6 years ago. The 2006 figure may not be dead exact but its an official educated estimate Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of which figures are eventually used, I'd urge people not to use Wikipedia as a reference, as I have seen in the history. Find the official source for the figures and quote that. Vashti (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Welshleprechaun's argument has a hole in it wide enough to drive a small planetoid through, in that the part about Cardiff being the 11th largest has been completely fabricated - I can't find a source for the ranking anywhere in the Cardiff demo data. In any contest between the Cardiff authority's estimates and the figures on our list, the figures on our list take precedence. That list contains the actual census figures from the ONS, which trumps any intermediate estimate. 90.203.45.214 (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate WL's concerns about using 2001 information, although I would stop short of calling it insane as it could be construed as an insult simply because these are official government census figures, regardless of how they arrived at that conclusion. I also appreciate his efforts in including both sources in that sentence as a concilatory measure. However, I also agree with the point above as I have also been making that point - we cannot state that Cardiff is the 11th largest city in the UK unless we go to the councils of all the other cities in the UK to see what they are estimating their populations as. Until someone makes the effort to do this (and perhaps record this in the 'List of settlements' article, perhaps as a new column in the table), I would suggest removing this existing statement entirely...

"The official population figures from the 2001 Census place the city as the 14th most populous in the UK, however in 2006 the city and county offical estimates Cardiff as the 11th largest city in the United Kingdom. "

...and expand the opening introductory sentence with something along the lines of

"...with recent local government estimates state the city's population as being 317,500.]]<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/content.asp?Parent_Directory_id=2865&nav=2872,3256,3302| title=Cardiff Council 2006 Official Estimate | accessdate=14 December 2007}}</ref>"

This seems to read better and I believe it addresses everybody's concerns regarding verifability and the age of information used. I hope we reach consensus on this soon before this turns into an all-out edit war.

Also, Welshleprechaun has requested that anyone who wishes to edit this particular piece of information should state their reasons why on this talk page, and I totally agree with this. It would also be a whole lot better for people to log in when making edits. B e t t i a^{t a l k}  14:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have included the 11th largest city line and referenced it. Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that's wrapped things up nicely. Well found WL. B e t t i a^{t a l k}  12:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Still flawed, as the list cited claims itself to be using 2001 census data, so therefore does not support the claim that current estimates put it at 11th. 62.121.31.177 (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded it slightly to suit your comments, but was it really necessary to delete both references? B e t t i a^{t a l k}  12:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

More worryingly, the numbers on this list (the apparent source), don't tally with our own numbers. I've no idea where they're getting 305,353 from - the official Census tables contain the number 292,150 (which is the number on our list). It should probably be noted that the linked list specifically refers to cities - hence excluding places such as Reading and Dudley - o it isn't really useful as a general reference in other articles either. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

{{fact}}ed the "11th" statement yet again, as the above flaw has yet to be dealt with. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well we've already agreed on it. Yes, the reference has gone, I'll find it again. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That source is no good. You are claiming that it has moved up and is now the 11th most populous place in the UK. Your source seems to claim it was in 2001 the 11th most populous city, so it can't be used to back up your original claim. Also, because it excludes anything other than settlements with city status, it's not a helpful source to use in general, so you need to make a pretty compelling case to be using it as reference here and nowhere else. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take out the up 3 places clause. This leaves the 11th largest city statement. The references list the largest cities with city status with not settlement and the article statement is talking about city with city status. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That only serves to introduce more confusion, because our own list of largest United Kingdom settlements by population does not discriminate, and neither do any of our other major location articles - especially down into the 20s where it will make a difference. It makes absolutely no sense to discriminate here and nowhere else. References should support the article - you seem to be changing the article to fit the references. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I mention you're still tying the "11th" claim attributed to a primary school teacher (reliable source?) based on 2001 census data to the 2007 estimate? I think we already went over the part where the census figures trump any and all intermediate estimates, right? 90.203.45.168 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of this has already been discussed (see above). We are not going by list of settlements in the United Kingdom by population because it doesn't use the generally accepted definition of a city. There are not going to be any specific souces saying Cardiff has gone so many places up in terms of population. Instead we are going by the fact that the 2001 census population was this, the 2006 government estimate is this. Comparing the two populations along with the current population of other cities, we can see how many places it has gone up. The references however support the 11th largest city fact, not the up 3 places fact for the above reasons. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We should be going by our list, for the sake of consistency. Those figures are verified against the ONS census data, and use fair and consistent criteria across the board. You have yet to provide a reason why this article should go against this convention. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no right to give its own definition of a city. It, for example, give Radyr as outside of Cardiff's city limits which is incorrect. We shouldn't go by this because it does not use the generally accepted definition of a city and other editors agree. Would you please read this entire section above, including, the Cardiff's size section. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain why this article should use different criteria from any other? 90.203.45.168 (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that your complaint is in the wrong place. You disagree with the definition of the area of Cardiff that we are using for the population ranking list. The definitions we have used are precisely those by the ONS - the figure on the big list next to Cardiff is precisely what the ONS listed in the census data next to "Cardiff". If you disagree with this definition, then the appropriate venue for your complaint is not this talk page - you want to email info@statistics.gov.uk to tell the ONS they've got it all wrong. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick Google for lists of the UK's largest cities and found the following results:

• http://www.listsofbests.com/list/9194 - 11th
• http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/population/cities.htm - 11th
• http://www.ukcities.co.uk/populations/ - 12th
• http://www.citymayors.com/gratis/uk_topcities.html - 16th (includes Wirral, Kirklees, Fife and Lanarkshire) - 12th if only counting cities
• http://www.citypopulation.de/UK-Cities.html - 13th

With so many variations (including the 14th place quoted by the census figures), I now feel it would be too unsafe to quote any sort of ranking with regards to Cardiff's size. For the sake of maintaining this article's accuracy, I suggest we stick to simply stating Cardiff's estimated population. B e t t i a^{t a l k}  09:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you guys, I didn't know that you'd already had this debate. Anyhow, the 'official' stats from ONS make Cardiff the 14th biggest city and 21st biggest conurbation - consistent comparisons from 2001. This is more accurate than saying "it's one of the largest cities in the UK" - which is entirely subjective. Largest if you mean top 20, not if you mean top 10 or top 5! http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/fom2005/03_FOPM_UrbanAreas.pdf http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/census2001/ks_ua_ew_part1.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_United_Kingdom_settlements_by_population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conurbations_in_the_United_Kingdom Pondle (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed 14th largest city to largest settlement if we're gonna go with this statistic because the city area would include areas such as Radyr which the settlement excludes for some reason Welshleprechaun (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this debate, a lot of the issues appear to be down to the fact that there are two separate definitions of a city. The first definition is that of Local Authority, which is the 317,000 figure; and the second is that of Urban Sub-division (or settlement), which is the 292,000 figure. Both methods of measurement have their positives, and both have their negatives.

If we first look at using local authorities as our definition, then there are several issues with that, which can best be shown by example. Pretty much everyone agrees that London is the largest city within the United Kingdom, but the City of London (which is the relevant local authority) has a tiny population. There are many local authorities that do not tie in with the general usage of "city" in British English, such as City of Leeds that contains other substantial towns which quite clearly are separate from Leeds itself; or perhaps City of Carlisle, which is mostly rural areas. There are also large towns which do not have a local authority named after them, such as West Bromwich or Huddersfield. There are even some cities in this situation, such as Inverness or Hereford, as well as local authorities that by no definition are towns, such as East Riding of Yorkshire. On the other hand, local authorities have generally well-known boundaries, and are well understood.

Taking the Settlement (or Urban Sub-Division) figures, they are based upon the actual built-up areas. Within conurbations, it looks at the pre-1974 boundaries to see if an area was considered to be a built-up area (i.e. an Urban District or Municipal Borough) before then. If not, then clearly the settlement has expanded in that direction, and hence can spill out of its local authority boundaries where these are tightly drawn (such as Reading). On the other hand, if the area was built-up prior to 1974, then it is generally considered to be a separate settlement. The problem with this method of measurement is that it is less well understood, and can produce results different to the local authority method.

Imagine, if you will, that the old county of Glamorgan was reconstituted as a single-tier local authority - then both Cardiff and Swansea would disappear from the local authority figures, but would still appear in the settlement lists; and Glamorgan would suddenly appear as one of the largest UK cities by that method - which quite clearly it wouldn't be in any meaningful sense. Interestingly, the UK goverment simply defines cities by listing them

The problem with then comparing and using rankings are twofold. Firstly, all figures need to use the same form of calculations, whether that be by local authority or by settlement. Secondly, all figures must come from the same time - it is impossible to compare a collection of 2001 data with some 2007 estimates in this way. You wouldn't compare the 1911 population of, say, Belfast with the 1981 figure for Leicester!

In short, both methods have value, but care needs to be taken when looking at comparisions, and it should be made clear which methodology is being used. Hope that helps! Fingerpuppet (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We are using consistent Census 2001 data on settlements and urban areas here, specifying our terms and our sources. Obviously an LA comparison produces different results. But some cities are underbounded and some are overbounded, making direct comparisons of LAs rather less useful.Pondle (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

After going through the list of castles given in the History section, I have removed the following:

• Ruperra Castle (this actually appears to be in Caerphilly, not Cardiff)
• King's Castle (this appears to be nothing more than a fortified manor house, rather than a castle)

If anyone has any information on the last one, please re-add it. B e t t i a^{t a l k}  —Preceding comment was added at 15:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

is this section relevant, I've never seen it on a city article. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly right about it not being mentioned on any other city article and the section does border on trivial, but would keeping this information harm the article as it stands? It's certainly of limited importance so perhaps simply shifting the section it to the bottom of the page would be better, as well as tidying up the introductory sentence. B e t t i a^{t a l k}  10:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted those two links because, in my view, they go against WP:EXT guidelines:

• Menter Iaith has its own wiki article, therefore any links for it should go only into that article and not here. In the Links to be avoided section of WP:EXT, item 14 states "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." This link clearly falls within that guideline.
• The Chinese Community Services link is purely an advertisment for a special event, therefore it should not be linked at all. Besides, the Chinese community in Cardiff is very small compared to the many other communities that make up our city, such as Indian, Pakistani and Arab. Should we put a link to each and every website for these communities too?

B e t t i a^{t a l k}  14:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you for pointing out the relevant guidelines. Although Menter Caerdydd itself has no wiki article (Menter Iaith only describes what a Menter Iaith is), I accept it's only indirectly related to the article. I hadn't read the content of the Chinese Community Services site thoroughly enough. --Rhyswynne (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to get this article to Featured Article status. It certainly has all the makings. So who wants to join me? -MichiganCharms (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to see this article get to that stage. First we need to make sure all the 'pending tasks' at the top of the page are done: -

• Expand introduction: three paragraphs would be good.

 Done

• Add economic data to industry section, possible renaming "Economy and industry" with subpage Economy and industry of Cardiff if required. Include GDP & employment stats (they mightbe available in this PDF file, or from local authority site). Mention major economic sectors and employers, with stats where possible. Tourism might fit better in this section, at least, when looking at it in terms of how many people visit the city and how much money they bring in.

 Done (but no subpage - is it needed?)

• Possible demographics section, with info on population, including changes and structure. Also include any census data that looks interesting.

 Done

• Expand history, with subpage History of Cardiff. Is the fairtrade city thing notable enough to be mentioned here rather than a subpage?

 Not done (just a timeline at the moment, full History of Cardiff page still to be produced)

• Either a geography section, or two new sections: "physical geography" and "Areas and transport".

 Done

• Incorporate the existing transport section, but turn it into prose. Include statistics on transport if available.

 Done

• Describe the situation and landscape, e.g. beside the Bristol Channel and at the estuary of the Taff. Is it on the river's floodplains, or on hilly terrain? Briefly mention the underlying geology.

 Done

• Climate, e.g. using [6] [7] [8].

 Done

• If there are not many areas and suburbs of the city, briefly mention them all. Otherwise describe some of the notable ones and create a List of places in Cardiff article.

 Done

• In the politics section mention the four constituencies and who represents them. Has Cardiff been home to any really notable national politicians, or political activists who have made a major contribution to national life? Currently the only mention of the Welsh Assembly is in a photo caption. This might be the best section to mention it in.

 Done

• If possible expand the education section. For example, how many schools are there? See Bristol#Education for ideas for what to mention.

 Done

• If possible mention a little background on the city's town twinning, if there's anything interesting to say.

 Done

• "Natives of Cardiff" should be a category, but many of the more notable ones could be mentioned elsewhere in the article, e.g. historical figures in history and cultural figures in culture.

 Doing... (notable musical artists and politicans are mentioned, but no sportsmen, entertainers, historical and cultural figures etc)

• In my (Joe D (t)) opinion the article should be reorganised somewhere along the lines of: Geography, History, Economy, Culture, Politics, Demographics, Education, in order to better reflect the importance of each aspect of the city.

 Done (more or less)

• CITE SOURCES!

 Doing... (most sources are done but there are still some sections that need citing)

Once these are addressed, I think the next stage would be a peer review to see if there's anything else that should be done before going for FA status. B e t t i a ♦ ^{t a k i l} 09:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly a chore, using the timeline as a guide and with limited sources. Any help at all would be appreciated. -MichiganCharms (talk) 08:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe these can help → [9] B e t t i a ♦ ^{t a k i l} 11:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got access to a few useful sources and will contribute as and when I can. However, given the length of the Cardiff article I suggest we focus on completing the History of Cardiff article first. Pondle (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed my mind since the 'History' article is badged as a timeline and is comprehensive - would we really want to meddle with it? I will make some revisions to the section in this article instead. Pondle (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a point... There appears to be rather a large gap in the history of Cardiff between the 4th Century and 1081. Did nothing notable happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.204.196 (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Work in progress. Any (well sourced) contributions would be welcome. :) Daicaregos (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In a word, no. According to Rees anyway (someone more recent may shed new light on the matter). But since the reader shouldn't be made to guess, I'll add something about the Dark Age. Nev1 (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Nev1 (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed Castell Morgraig from the article because it is clearly in Caerphilly and not Cardiff. See source Welsh sites www.castlewales.com etc. Seth Whales (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Its actually on the top of the hill from cardiff to caerphilly - behind the travellers rest pub. Its nearer to cardiff than caerphilly. This is a fact, as i regularly visit on a pub crawl that stretches from rhiwbina to whitchurch. - curnunnos

I have never seen an academic source identify Cardiff as a primate city. The Wikipedia article on the subject - itself lacking in citations - cannot be cited as a reliable reference. London is clearly the UK's primate city, Cardiff is a regional centre. The classic definition of a primate city is: "A country's leading city is always disproportionately large and exceptionally expressive of national capacity and feeling. The primate city is commonly at least twice as large as the next largest city and more than twice as significant." (Mark Jefferson, 1939). Clearly Cardiff is bigger than Swansea or Newport but it is not twice the size - see the discussion on User:Welshleprechaun's talkpage. Other elements of the definition are subjective. [10] [11]Pondle (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a repetition of my reasons for rejecting the view that Cardiff is a primate city, as noted on my talkpage.

• 1. Size. Using consistent data, Cardiff is not at least twice the size of Swansea (the next largest city). If we compare Census 2001 stats for built-up areas: Swansea - 169,880 Cardiff - 292,150; Census 2001 stats for wider urban areas: Swansea - 270,506 Cardiff - 327,706;[12] Census 2001 stats for local authorities: Swansea - 223,301 Cardiff - 305,353.[13]

Cardiff is smaller than Bristol, which is roughly the same distance away. Bettia ^(talk) 12:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• 2. Political significance. No-one disputes the fact that Cardiff is home to the National Assembly of Wales and most of the Assembly Government senior civil servants, but remember that unlike some other capitals, the Welsh Assembly Government also has national administrative offices in other towns and cities (including Merthyr, Carmarthen, Newtown, Swansea, and soon Aberystwyth and Llandudno). Also, while Cardiff has the lion's share of Welsh national institutions, some are outside the city - the National Library of Wales is in Aberystwyth, the Wales National Pool in Swansea, the National Velodrome is in Newport, various bodies like the Urdd, different unions etc. have their HQs outside Cardiff.
• 3. Expression of national feeling. This is subjective, but I think that the sense of Welsh national identity in Cardiff is arguable, as witnessed by the 1999 devolution referendum result when a majority in Cardiff voted against devolution - see Denis Balsom's Three Wales model discussed [here http://www.swansea.ac.uk/history/research/Wales%20the%20Postnation.pdf] Pondle (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Cardiff should not be declared to be a primate city until reliable, secondary sources are given. Find some credible article somewhere that says that Cardiff is a primate city, and then it can be added. Until then, the use of all that data for population and political significance is pure original research. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the 'castles' sub-section of history should be moved to landmarks. It's breaking the chronological flow at the moment - and that's the organising principle of the rest of this section. Any objections? Pondle (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Bettia ^(talk) 11:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I dare say everyone here will have noticed the Too Long tag placed at the top of the page. Looking at the size guidelines, I can see where the concern comes from (the page is currently 86KB and the guideline says anything over 60 probably should be broken up), but personally I think this page would count as one of the occasions where 'the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time' - this city has a lot of history and modern day points of interest, and therfore plenty of encylopedic material. For the time being, I believe it would be better to keep working on the history section, collect references for the parts tagged as unreferenced, and generally ironing out any problems.

Obviously, the Too Long tag shouldn't be deleted until consensus is reached. What's everyone else's thoughts on this matter? Bettia ^(talk) 15:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Total size is 294k only 5% over Boston: Cardiff generates 300,654 bytes (294k) of HTML page code, including tables (but not image sizes). However, I also reduced image sizes cutting 180kb so that the page displays faster and more narrow on 800x600 screens. Comparing Cardiff's 294k to Boston's 280kb, Cardiff is only 5% larger than the Boston article. I think the formatted size of 294k is large, but I don't know which sections are adding most. Another large article, Morocco, had 100k in the bottom hidden navboxes, but there were 18 navboxes, while the 7 navboxes for Cardiff span only 25kb. I suspected the Climate Table was huge, but only 26kb, athough a simple numeric table would add much less. I don't know what else to fix to reduce the Cardiff size. Considering Cardiff's 294k is only 5% above Boston's 280k, and the images were made 2x faster today, I think we could agree to untag "Too Long". Who objects still? -Wikid77 (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• It is well structured. Best to do some pruning here - I vote to remove the tag --Snowded (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's too long, it affects its readability. The history section is excessively long especially when it has its own article. The amount of K is only an indicator of length. "Too long" mainly refers to readability. There's a lot of good info that probably deserves its own article. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Welshleprechaun's already started us off on the History section and it seems Seth Whales has been busy on that subject too, if his sandbox is anything to go by. I guess the Economy and Industry section could be also sub-articled - there's quite a lot of stats provided by the council which could be expanded upon. Bettia ^(talk) 11:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Michellecrisp (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

09-April-2008: Today, the wide scrolling image for Cardiff City Hall had become a massive 10x larger scroll region. I couldn't get the MSIE browser to reduce the region, so I converted the image to a quick, static panorama that seems to look ok as it spans the screen. If someone can get the Template:Panorama_simple to reduce the scrolling region, then restoring the shifting image would be OK. However, it seems to look ok as a static wide image and allows the article to display much faster than as a scroll-region. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference to there being a "best school" for several reasons. Using ESTYN data on exam results (which if used should be referenced by a link) assumes that the secondary school with the highest score, using one way of measuring exam results, is the best. A primary school might out perform it, a school in an impoverished area might have worse results but be doing a better job with its core material. --Snowded (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, as someone from the U.S., watching the various "making of"s and "behind the scene"s and interviews of several BBC tv shows, it seems that Cardiff is regarded as the armpit of the empire. There's been a ton of jokes made about it. Nothing on the page, which is somewhat understandable. Someone care to explain why it's viewed that way?Mbourgon (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Having watched most of those shows I have no idea what you are talking about. No one that I know in Britain really talks about Empire anymore, let alone armpits. I haven't heard any jokes - or seen them on the BBC (although irony is not well understood in the US and is often misinterpreted). Perhaps you can provide an example? --Snowded (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean programmes such as Torchwood and Doctor Who? Yes, fun is made out of Cardiff, but it is purely in an ironic nature. The sheer scale of such programmes (involving aliens and other planets) contrasts greatly with what is essentially a small, ordinary city in Wales, which is why comments such as "...in Cardiff?!" are frequently made. I don't quite get what you mean by "armpit of the empire" (as Snowded said, nobody really speaks of Empire or armpits anymore), but there is no ill-feeling towards Cardiff at all. Apart from the fact that I absolutely hate Cardiff getting free publicity off the back of Doctor Who etc :D (joking, by the way). 86.136.247.54 (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Could it have something to do with its geographical position, being near the base of Wales which looks a bit like an arm on the map of Great Britain? Pure speculation, though. --Yerpo (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Since 1996, Cardiff is a unitary authority area that, as far as I can tell, can be called both a city and a county. This is not to be confused with historical counties, which are discussed elsewhere in the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that Cardiff is indeed an Administrative County in its own right. In the wake of the 1996 local government changes in Wales, the letters patent for both Cardiff and Swansea's City Status were reissued to "The County of Cardiff" and "The County of Swansea" respectively. Fingerpuppet (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A recent letter from Cardiff Council shows the full name of "The County Council of the City and County of Cardiff". Seth Whales (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the opening sentence has become a bit confusing. "Cardiff is the capital and the largest city and county in Wales" is inaccurate because although Cardiff may be the most populous county in Wales, it certainly isn't the largest. It needs rewording to something like "Cardiff is the capital and the largest city in Wales, as well as the most populous county", but I just feel it's a little wordy. Any suggestions? Bettia (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In my view the article is about the place, not the administrative area per se. The fact that it is an administrative area called a "county council" is worth mentioning in the text, but is not of sufficient general interest to justify inclusion in the lead sentence, especially as it would need a bit of explaining which would detract from the flow of the text. I think it should just say "largest city" in the lead, and the administrative niceties should be dealt with under "Governance". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As Fingerpuppet says, Cardiff unitary authority area has inherited Cardiff's city status, so for legal and most practical purposes the city and the county is one and the same thing. The only exception is that ONS does define settlements and 'urban areas' based on built-up zones rather than admininstrative boundaries, and on this definition, the city of Cardiff (small 'c') is a smaller area than the City and County of Cardiff. Pondle (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The ONS definition is addressed at the Cardiff Urban Area article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the county bit cn be left out of the lead paragraph but be included elsewhere in the page. harris 578 (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note to explain that I rollbacked the two edits regarding the name Cardiff, as a major part of this section was deleted without explanation even though they were important parts of it and were backed up with references. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 08:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I think the references that cite the "Fort of Didius" meaning are themselves pretty dubious and I have some sympathy with the anon ID who deleted that section. I may tweak the wording a little. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of sites which carry this query (such as the city's tourism website), and I think I've also seen it in a book about placename origins. On the subject of sources, I'm wondering why Slaters Directory has been tagged as unreliable? Is there someplace on the web where this is suggested? If not, perhaps that Unreliable Source tag should be removed? Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 15:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps my wording was a little over-hasty, as a lot of local sites do indeed refer to the Didius theory. It sounds to me like something concocted as plausible by "antiquarians" a century or two ago, but apart from what Prof. Owen says (e.g. here) I don't have the evidence one way or another. I'll remove the Unreliable tag, as indeed it's not necessarily any more unreliable than many other sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The Didius claim is seen as laughable in accademic circles and doesn't even feature in most of the books on Welsh placenames that I have seen. Slater's directory is an unreliable source, it's version of what happened doesn't work phonologically, where as Caerdyf to Cardiff and Caerdydd does. I will post a list of modern accademic sources to show that this needs to be removed and rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.164.93 (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I think the reason that version doesn't tie in is because it states the actual name was changed from 'Fort of Didius' to 'Fort on the Taff'. Secondly, that doesn't really prove why Slaters is an unreliable source, and unless your academic sources clearly state that the Didius link is false (rather than just stating that the name Cardiff is derived from the Taff) then we shouldn't really favour one opinion over another. Thirdly, if it IS established that the Didius link is incorrect, I reckon (and this is just my opinion) it should still be mentioned with a note adding that are sources disputing it, if only to clear up this misconception and set the record straight (although it seems the text as it stands does a pretty good job of that - establishing which theory is favoured by academics without crossing any NPOV boundaries). Any thoughts? Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that we need to identify (1) where Slaters got their information from (as a "commercial directory" it won't have been their original research), and (2) identify any authoritative modern sources (eg Prof. Owen, or similar), which clearly refute the Didius story (rather than just setting out a different theory). If User:81.104.164.93 has access to reliable academic sources, it would be very useful to use and reference them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be possible that we have an oblique reference to the Caerdidi theory in The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales, which is now the standard reference source for all things Welsh and is published by the University of Wales Press. This encyclopaedia was published in Welsh and English and both versions are mirrors of each other, so if something is in one it is in the other etc., details of the encyclopaedia can been found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6896500.stm, University of Wales Press 2008, ISBN 978-0-7083-1954-3. This really is the authoritative encyclopaedia of Wales. I don’t have the English version so I’m going to quote the relevant Welsh part and then translate it.

“Caerdyf - ‘y gaer ar Daf’ – yw’r ffurf mewn Cymraeg Canol (rhoes hwnnw’r Seisnigedig Cardiff), ac mae’r affeithiad a achoswyd i’r sillaf olaf gan derfyniad genidol coll yn tystio bod yr enw yn deillio o’r Frythoneg. Erbyn y 16g trodd yr f ar ddiwedd yr enw yn dd, gan roi Caerdydd. “Caerdydd – the fort on the Taf – is the form in Middle Welsh (which gave rise to the Anglicised form Cardiff), and the vowel affection caused to the final syllable by the lost genitive ending proves that the name originates from Brythonic. By the 16th century the f at the end had turned into dd, giving Caerdydd.” The reference to 'Originating from Brythonic' means that it can't have been Didi (a Latin name). On a phonological level ‘Caerdidi’ couldn’t give the form Cardiff where as the original Welsh could. Caerdidi could, on a very superficial level, lead to Caerdydd but Caerdydd is not the base form for Cardiff and Caerdyf (the form that gives Cardiff) could not have developed from Caerdydd whereas Caerdydd could have developed from Caerdyf (this is all well understood to people who work in the field of Welsh linguistics).

Also the BBC website has a video explanation of the origin of the name Cardiff by Professor Gwynedd O. Pierce of Cardiff University where he explains the origin of the name and then goes on to mention the Didius theory which he says ‘is of course rubbish’. Professor Pierce is the author of a number of books on Welsh place names and is considered an expert in the field. The video can be seen at http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/whatsinaname/sites/videoexplorer/pages/?jumpTo=cardiff . As this article is part of the Wikischools project it is important that as many facts as possible are correct and I feel that it is time to bury this Didius ‘rubbish’ once and for all on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.164.93 (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have speakers on my work PC so I'll take your word for it. There is one thing I should add - would it be possible that it was originally called Caerdidi while the Romans were in charge, and the name was changed when they withdrew from this country, perhaps because the locals didn't want anything more to do their former imperial rulers? It's just a theory on how it may have come about, that's all. Anyway, I don't think it would be a good idea to delete the Didius reference, but rather add a sentence saying something like "However, this view is not accepted by all scholars...". That way, Wikipedia is being used to clear up this common misconception and give the correct information instead - if the Didius theory really is rubbish, this would be the best and most informative way to clear it up. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 08:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, 81.104.164.93. In my view, Prof. Pierce's comments (added to those of Prof. Owen, already cited) make it even more important that WP "buries" the Didius theory (which is clearly still widespread). In my view, Prof. Pierce's quote that it is "rubbish" should be included on the page, with a link to the BBC interview. But I'd still like to see some evidence of where the Didius theory, included in Slaters', actually originated. And Bettia, sorry, but your theory is just that - your theory, not backed up by evidence, and therefore shouldn't be included. "However, this view is not accepted by all scholars..." is just too weak - is the Didius theory now accepted by any scholars at all? I've seen no evidence that it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bettia, I don't see how we will ever know what the Romans called the fort on the Taff, and I don't think that speculation is right for Wikipedia, however, I doubt that they called it Caerdidi - the form just isn't recorded in any old documents. I'm going to delete the references to Didius as I think that I have shown that they are erroneous and don't add anything to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.164.93 (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that I have complied with the needs to present evidence that the Didius theory is wrong and edited the page to remove it but discovered that another user 'El C' reverted the page straight back without any explanation or reasons for doing so. I'm goint to revert it back again. If the other user has a reason for undoing my changes I would like to know, if would be good if he could give his reasons. If I'm doing this incorrectly I would also like to know as I'm new to Wikipedia and don't want to tread on people's toes but this needs to be correct! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.164.93 (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No edit wars please! (although I note you've already reverted the last change). I expect that User:El_C reverted you because (1) you have no registered user name and it is often the case that unregistered users engage in vandalism, and, more importantly, (2) you did not put in an edit summary to explain why you were making the change. Can I suggest that you (81.104.164.93) have a read of this - not a criticism in any way, but as you point out you are new here, and there are established ways in which things should be done. In relation to the article, we can cover both angles. Clearly the modern academic views need to be emphasised, but, given that the "Didius" theory is widely assumed to be correct, there also needs to be some explanation in the article of why it is untrue. I will have a go. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried to put in an edit summary! As regards your revisions, I don't think that Didius should be mentioned at all, but if it is, I don't think that there is a need for 'locally' to be mentioned. The fact that some organisations locally propegate this theory (because they read it on Wikipedia!) doesn't mean a great deal nor does it add anything to the article. We could equally say 'Locally, and amongst scholars, it is believed that Cardiff is derived from 'Caerdyf' - afterall, Professor Gwynedd O. Pierce is a professor from Cardiff University! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.164.93 (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd assumed that many of the sites got their information from sources which predate Wikipedia. I'm not wedded to any particular form of words, but I do think it is important that a reference to the Didius theory stays in, given that many people obviously believe it's true, but that the article clearly refutes it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I know it was just a theory Ghmrytle - it was just a bit of food for thought, that's all. I've made a slight amendment to the text to try and make it a bit more neutral, but I think we're all there now. Good work everyone. BTW 81, I think the reason your changes were reverted was (as Ghmyrtle said) you didn't include an edit summary and you're using an anonymous IP account, but also becuase you deleted a block of text - this is classic vandal behaviour (of course, we all know you weren't vandalising the page) so he reacted to it immediately. This page has also been semi-protected in the past to stop IP vandals, so if that happened again, you wouldn't be able to edit this page in future for a while. It really would be best if you opened an account. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 12:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've set up an account! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EoinBach (talk • contribs) 13:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that it is unlikely that anyone will know exactly where the name originally comes from, it may be that "Cardiff was originally known by the name of Rhatostabius Ostium"...see www.google.co.uk/search. Actually Rhatostabius Ostium sounds more Roman than anything else that I have heard. What are your thoughts? Seth Whales (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... "it may be that..." isn't very encyclopaedic. BUT this suggestion led me to this, and I've now further amended the text to push the "Didius" theory further back into the mists of antiquarianism. Any advance on 1802? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there appears to be no real consensus as to where the name of Cardiff really did come, therefore I would suggest that the article does not just become a series of points of view of some "academic" rather then some other "academic". I would suggest listing all the possible theories that are corrected cited and leave it at that. My own personal theory is that during Roman times Cardiff was probably known as Rhatostabius Ostium (sounds like Latin to me), and it was not until probably AFTER that the Romans left that it became known as Caer-Didi. But again this is only my theory and as Ghmyrtle said it "isn't very encyclopaedic", as it is only my point of view. Seth Whales (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No. There is no "problem". There is a clear academic consensus - unless you can find a scholarly source to the contrary - that the name comes from Caer + Taff. That is based on linguistic evidence on the way in which the Welsh language developed. The other theories on the name are now not accepted - although they may still be circulating among non-academics. The job of WP is to inform with the facts, which the current text does, while noting that there have been other - now rejected - theories in the past. But those theories should not be given equal validity now. And as for your "theory" that something "sounds like Latin"... !!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this so called Roman name is relevant to the modern name of the city, and it is unclear whether it actually refers to Cardiff or not (some have argued that it refers to Roath - with the Rato- element representing Roath - although I doubt this myself. The form derives from Ptolomy's map and there is no Ostium appended to it on that map (as far as I can make out). I think that is would be better to stick with the academic consensus, after all this is an encyclopaedia and we should depend upon experts in the field and all the modern experts seem to be in agreement that the name Cardiff derives from Caer and Taf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EoinBach (talk • contribs) 02:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few more amendments. The "Caer-Didi" theory seems to come from William Camden, who is notorious for his dubious theories on name origins which later became accepted as fact. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it reads well at all, no blame on you Ghmyrtle for that. It is just trying to cover too many different theories. This is an encyclopedia and I don't think that we should give all of these theories in the main article. I think that we should just give the modern theory (Caer dyf > Cardiff, Caerdydd), possibly if really need be keep the bit about in the past people used to claim "Caerdidi .... rubbish", and have a separate article for the origin of the place name Cardiff, which sets out in more depth the various theories on the Roman name Ratostabius and Caerdidi, but emphasising that Caerdidi doesn't work phonologically, and has no historical backing (i.e where are the examples from early documents or even late ones! etc). 81.104.164.93 (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, personally I don't think the issue deserves a whole article, though I'm willing to be converted. An alternative would be to consign the Ratostabius/Didi theories to a footnote, although if the entire existing text was placed there it might look odd. Maybe a brief reference in the text (along the lines of "Earlier theories, that the name refers to a fort established by a Roman General Didius, have been refuted by modern scholars"), plus a footnote would do it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be the way to do it. Explain the Caerdyf, Cardiff, Caerdydd theory and then use the 'earlier theories' line with a footnote is a perfect way of dealing with this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.164.93 (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I still find the origin of the name to be too controversial, I know it is nearly 100 years old, but it is worth considering what the 1911 Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica said, "In documents of the first half of the 12th century the name is variously spelt as Kairdif, Cairti and Kardid. The Welsh form of the name, Caerdydd (pronounced Caerdeeth, with the accent on the second syllable) suggests that the name means "the fort of (Aulus ?) Didius," rather than Caer Daf ("the fortress on the Taff"), which is nowhere found (except in Leland), though Caer Dyv once existed as a variant"...your thoughts please. Seth Whales (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are that this has already been explained! Caerdaf was not the Welsh for Cardiff it was Caerdyf with a fossilised genitive 'Taf' = 'the Taff' 'Tyf' = 'of the Taff'. This type of genitive is very very common in Celtic Languages, for example Irish, Fear (a man), Fir (of a man) and such genitives turn up in early Welsh literature, for example Nef (heaven) turns up as 'Nyf' (of heaven) in the Gododdin. The fact that the Author of the article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1911 did not know this suggests either 1) nobody had realised this (although I think that it had already been commented on before this date) or 2) that he (and I assume it was a he who wrote the article) didn't know this. Also as regards the examples you have given - Kardid would actually have been pronounced very similar to the modern Welsh Caerdydd in Early and Middle Welsh. D at the middle and at the end of a word had the value of modern Welsh 'dd'. Cairti shows another peculiarity of Welsh phonology which is the loss of a final 'dd' sound in many dialects (including some in South Wales) so for example Castell Newydd Emlyn is pronounced with the dd sound in standard Welsh but is actually pronounced in the local dialect of that area as Castell Newy Emlyn (a search on Google will bring up plenty of examples of Castell Newy Emlyn). I would suggest that this form merely shows this well attested phenomenon (and even if it didn't it still doesn't support 'Caerdidi'). As we have kairdif forms (which is how Caerdyf would have been spelt in early Welsh!) in English it strongly suggests that the base form was Caerdyf. No where does anyone propose to explain how Caerdidi became Cardiff, as it just doesn't work phonologically, but Caerdyf to Cardiff and Caerdydd (and even to Kairdi) does work using well attested and well understood sound changes in Welsh. I feel that it would be well worth reading Hywel Wyn Owen's explanation of Cardiff at http://www.uwp.co.uk/book_desc/1458.html On the evidence side, Giraldus Cambrensis called it Caerdyf! In addition to all of this, even the early claims for Caerdidi had to argue that the name was later changed to ‘Caerdaf’ which corrupted to Cardiff. To my mind it seems that the Caerdidi argument was nothing but an attempt to try to explain why Cardiff is Caerdydd in Welsh (which could look a bit like Caerdidi) where as it was Cardiff in English – the Caerdydd would come from Caerdidi and Cardiff from Caerdaf, however, we know that this kind of explanation is not needed as modern scholars understand this all very well. I feel that there really is little point in debating this further if the only evidence that can be deduced has to be antiquarian or nearly a hundred year old encyclopaedias. If there are any modern Scholars who argue for Caerdidi I would love to hear who they are and what they have published on the topic. Wikipedia is supposed to present up to date facts and theories and as far as I know no modern Scholar argues for ‘Caerdidi’. If it is included as a credible possibility then we might as well edit modern articles across the board where modern understanding differs from that in the 1800s or even in 1911!81.104.164.93 (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've come to agree more strongly with 81.104.164.93 (aka EoinBach) in this discussion, and have now edited out the information which I think is irrelevant for this article. Comments? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

PS - Having randomly come across this, it occurs to me that the best place for a more in-depth discussion of Cardiff's name(s) would be here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to complicate matters, I've come across a (wholly unreferenced but interesting) reference here to the name Cardiff meaning "fort of the agreement", implying some form of treaty between the Romans and Silures. Anyone know any more about this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is wrong on so many levels - firstly the Silures weren't within the "brotherhood of Cymric/Kymric tribes" as the Brythons hadn't started to self identify as 'Cymry' at that time, this identification came much much later. Secondly, how on earth do they get 'Caerdydd' to mean 'Fort of the Agreement'? I just can't even imagine how they will manage to make that work! Thirdly the early Welsh pedigrees aren't being and haven't been ignored, a lot of work has been done on them and still is being done on them. I would love to read the book it sounds like a great laugh.EoinBach (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to find a reference to Pernik being a twin town of Cardiff. I just cannot find anything, it is not on the Cardiff Council website which was updated on 10/6/2008. Seth Whales (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the first I've heard about it too! Apart from a few Wiki mirrors, the only mention I could find of any twinning arrangement is here. It seems there used to be a coal trading arrangement between the two cities, and Pernik also appears to be twinned with Lugansk, but I can find no definate indication of a twinning arrangement between Cardiff and Pernik whatsover. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Its here they are Nantes, Stuttgart, Hordaland County, Xiamen, Lugansk --Snowded TALK 11:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted the reference and but a citation request against Pernik --Snowded TALK 11:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If some things are fixed by next week i'll give it GA Status. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Any clue as to what? --Snowded TALK 12:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Add more info to the Climate section. Such as record temperatures. Don't wont to add another table as this will add size to the article
• The article may be a bit long. It's tricky though because all the information is relevant.
• Reduce some images sizes. Aaroncrick (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see that a few statements are repeated in a few different sections of the page. I will remove to leave one instance. Harris578 (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also the section Political representation is a bit boring. I would like to remove it. Harris578 (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes go ahead and do it. Aaroncrick (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fix up Cite Error for reference 62 and 82. Aaroncrick (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I will fix these cite errors this afternoon. Harris578 (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Cite errors 62 and 82 have been repaired. Harris578 (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that this article has been rated as GA for various projects (I spotted this when getting Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography listing up to date) but I can't find any evidence of it being nominated at Wikipedia:Good article nominations and its not in the list at Wikipedia:Good articles. I think it should achieve GA status without too much difficulty (although there a few issues such as a 'citation needed' tags in the Geography section) and would like to see one of the regular editors nominating it. If you need any help with the process let me know.— Rod ^talk 09:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The article received no formal GA nomination or review. Good article status was proclaimed by Aaroncrick. This article should definitely be subjected to a formal GA nomination and review and under that rationale I will be restoring this article to B class. Please nominate the article at WP:GAC. Mvjs (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

ive changed the photo of Cardiff and put a more modern version to look the city more inviting there. Lets face it we got a skyline to show off now. If you dont think its ok, i used free images, say and if you think you can do a better job please may you create one. The Cardiff Bay image makes the city look dull and not very vibrant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123TOBY123 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the existing one to a modern skyline with cranes. Either Cardiff Bay or the castle/city hall etc are the iconic images. --Snowded TALK 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well you are ovusily an old timer who dosent like change. Lets face it this city has changed and so has the skyline in the last 2 years. The council wants to make the city look vibrant, exciting and modern which it is, but the old photograph dosent show it off. Lets face it Cardiff on wikipedia is probably the most visited Cardiff page in the world.--123TOBY123 (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC) leave it as it is and ask other people. Maybe have a poll if we can't agree. You should'nt think you can rule wikipedia, people have told me about you.

Well if people have told you about me, then you are obviously not a new editor. Have you ever edited here before under another name? I remember a previous pattern of changing photographs from a now banned editor. I suggest you revert and as you say discuss it here. If others support you fine, but do not edit war. Also stop the personal abuse its pretty childish. --Snowded TALK 21:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I support Snowded - the original photo should remain. Don't forget we are addressing an international audience who will be looking for an image that is representative, not promotional or necessarily showing recent changes. And a montage of pics, all of which are too small to be seen clearly and understood, just looks poor - it might be OK as a leaflet design, but not here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally - it's not our job to promote Cardiff, just describe it. Let's leave the sales patter to the city tourist board! Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 10:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok two editors have agreed. Could we put it on the economy page or the economy section of the article to show modern cardiff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123TOBY123 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

IF its properly sourced and kept the same size as the others and one picture not a collage I would have no objections. We had a lot of problems on these pages with an Editor Cardiffxxxx (I can't remember the numbers) and his various socks. Multiple silly edits with figures, but also a tendency to put up lots of photographs a lot of which were removed by bots. I don;t want to go back there. --Snowded TALK 16:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have had the results of a check user. [[14]] 123TOBY123 is our friend Cardiff123098 Harris578 (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. I've just been going through the peer review comments (lined at the top of this page) to see what could be done before nominating this for GA status. One of the prevailing comments is (as mentioned before) that the article is too long. Looking at it, I reckon the Culture and recreation part could be moved to a sub-article and condensed here on the main article, like we've already done with the Sport and Economy sections. What does everyone else think? And what about the History section - is it still too long, or is it fine as it is? Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bettia. Yes I would go along with your suggestion for the culture and recreation section and think the same could be done to the history section as well. Thanks to all who have contributed to them as they are a wealth of information but they actually contain too much information now!

Also just to let you all know. I have had a rename from Harris578 to Ponty Pirate. Ponty Pirate (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've created the Culture and recreation in Cardiff sub-article, and ported the main article section to my sandbox for anyone to work on. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick question - would the Language sub-section be better suited to Demography rather than Culture? Bettia (rawr!) 14:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved it - it seems much more at home there, I feel! As far as the main bit in my sandbox goes, so far I've managed to cut around 5K in total, which helps. I may go ahead and implement those changes tomorrow if there are no objections. Bettia (rawr!) 15:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner. Yes I think you have done a fine job, you must have put a lot of time into it. Thanks. Ponty Pirate (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

'it is Wales's centre for business, education, sport, tourism, culture,'

Can we get this changed to - 'it is South Wales centre for..'? The centre for business is North Wales is certainly not Cardiff, most in the North would regard either Manchester or Liverpool as their central or 'local' place of business. Sport? Absolutely not. Most in the north support English sports teams. Culture? Not a chance.

--92.17.35.194 (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well,

• Cardiff is the primary commercial centre in Wales,[15] and that should be reflected in the intro;
• I'm happy with the line on sports, because the national rugby and football teams both play at the Millennium Stadium and the Welsh Institute of Sport is based in the city too;
• Education could potentially be justified by the base of the University of Wales registry and the Welsh Joint Education Committee;
• However, the line on tourism is potentially misleading - sure, Cardiff gets more day visitors than any other UA in Wales, but it's not a "holiday destination" like certain parts of North Wales (where tourists spend more time and money)[16] and there are many popular attractions across Wales.[17] Pondle (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Manchester and Liverpool are not in Wales and therefore can't be the business/sport etc. centre of Wales. And we're talking about Wales as a whole. Regarding the tourist bit, there's no doubting that Tenby or Rhyl aren't centres of tourism but tourism isn't just about summer holidays by the sea, it's visiting another place for recreational purposes. Cardiff receives the most visitors than anywhere else in Wales (there's a ref somewhere). New York is a centre for tourism, but people don't go there for their summer beach holiday. Also, the educational bit can further be supported by Cardiff having four universities. Welshleprechaun (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The source I linked to says that Cardiff gets most visitors, however tourist spend is higher in a couple of North Wales UAs. The point is that (as you say) there are different types of tourism (day visits, business travel, hill walking, bucket-and-spade etc.) and people visit different parts of Wales for different types of tourist experience. Cardiff has a particular - and a very important - niche, but calling it the "centre of tourism" ignores the fact that many key destinations and top attractions are elsewhere in the country. Pondle (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well with that logic, Cardiff can't be called a centre of education because other places have schools and universities, which is just silly. Why is tourism any different?Welshleprechaun (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the "centre of education" line is better justified by the presence of national institutions in the city (as I mentioned in my comment above), rather than the fact that there are simply more institutions/students in the city. There are various centres of particular educational expertise and excellence across Wales, Cardiff doesn't have a complete monopoly [18] Pondle (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it has a monopoly, and that's beside the point. The point is why tourism is being single out from the other factors. Welshleprechaun (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I explained in my comments above. Plus, the "centre for X" line is ambiguous; after all, what does it really mean? I would prefer to change the second sentence of opening para to "Cardiff is Wales' chief commercial centre, the home of numerous national cultural and sporting institutions, and the most frequently visited tourist destination in the country." I think that's more accurate and less ambiguous. Pondle (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Then you would have to change hundreds of Wikipedia articles with the line is a centre of... Welshleprechaun (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

These things have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Anyway, I think the text that I've proposed reflects the city's importance? Pondle (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The article states that the Manic Street Preachers have 'links' with the city. Can someone please tell me what these links are, and if they are notable? The Manics were originally a Blackwood-based band, attended school in Oakdale, and Nicky Wire and Richie Edwards both went to Swansea University. Where's the Cardiff connection?

If the Manics recorded albums in Cardiff, some members of the group live in the city or there's some other notable connection, that should be stated explicitly. "Links with" is vague and could be WP:WEASEL Pondle (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've found links that show the Manic Street Preachers and The Automatic have recorded albums in the city. However, I couldn't find any thing at all for the others so I've gone ahead and deleted them. Bettia (rawr!) 11:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent job on finding those refs WL, but I've re-deleted Jem from that paragraph. Although there are some sources saying she was born in Cardiff, her article and few other other sources say she was born and raised in Penarth, and didn't start out in music until she was at uni in Sussex. Out of all the sources mentioning where she was born (either Cardiff or Penarth) the only one I could find resembling a reliable source was this BBC page mentioning Penarth and her school, so I think we should stick to that for the time being. Bettia (rawr!) 09:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And is the city really Wales' chief educational centre ? There are Universities all over the country and the National Library is in Aberystwyth. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 09:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The University of Wales is based in the city, as is the Welsh Joint Education Committee and the former ACCAC, but I dislike this "Cardiff is the centre of education" form of words. It seems to imply that if you want an education in Wales, you have to go to Cardiff - which is ludicrous. Pondle (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read carefully this sentence, it says that Cardiff is Wales' chief educational centre, not just its educational centre. This means that the most important educational establishments are based here. The WJEC, 4 Universities with around 40,000 students and the University of Wales. Other articles describe cities as a centre for...or chief centre for... It doesn't at all mean imply that if you want an education in Wales, you have to go to Cardiff, so stop bickering. Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Who's bickering?. Just asking pertinent questions, which is what I thought talk pages were for. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk

It's true that Welsh Ministers are based in Cardiff Bay, but the Assembly Government has offices all over Wales [19] - the entire Social Justice & Regeneration department is based in Merthyr, for example - and WAG has a location strategy to be "located across the country".[20] Pondle (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

So London isn't the seat of the British government. None of these statements imply that EVERY building related to the government, sport, education etc. is based in Cardiff. It says that Cardiff is the CHIEF CENTRE of such things and that the most important buildings relating to them are based there, which I think you know. Stop trying to manipulate everything. Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As you both make valid points can I please suggest a compromise. Instead of 'the seat of Welsh assembly government' I propose 'the site (or location) of the National Assembly for Wales' which emphasises the importance of the city while conceding that not all of the WAG is based there. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk

Not so sure, "seat" is the normal term used for the main location of Government. Why should Wales be different? There is no implication that all of government is located there. --Snowded TALK 14:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What does 'seat of Government' tell anyone about a city that 'site of the National Assembly' doesn't ? I'm trying to head off an edit war here. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 14:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don;t see any need for an edit war. Cardiff is the seat of government, but other offices are located elsewhere. Why not just draft a paragraph along those lines? --Snowded TALK 14:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to do that, as I have more pressing matters to attend to. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 14:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with a phrase such as "main site", but I'm concerned to avoid a misleading impression that all WAG staff are based in Cardiff. Following the Fullerton Review in 2002, which concluded that "the Assembly could no longer sustain having the majority of its operational functions located in and around Cardiff"[21] the WAG location strategy was implemented, and in 2006 the Wales Tourist Board, Welsh Development Agency and ELWa were all absorbed into the Assembly Government, also making their employees civil servants and their numerous buildings (most of which were outside Cardiff) part of the WAG estate. It's possible (though I'm not certain) that a majority of WAG employees are now based outside Cardiff - don't forget that the National Assembly for Wales in Cardiff Bay is, post-Government of Wales Act 2006, legally and organisationally distinct from WAG. Interestingly WAG is now describing itself as a 'dispersed organisation'.[22] Pondle (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The majority of UK civil servants are not in London, but it is still the seat of Government. The meaning of the word is not linked to majority population. I will amend as per above discussion above, but for the avoidance of doubt Pondle you do not have agreement to remove the word seat. --Snowded TALK 15:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There must be some acknowledgement that the Assembly Government has offices and staff (including policy functions) across Wales, otherwise the article will present a misleading impression of the WAG's structure and location. I've tried to create a compromise ("main site") that did this. Pondle (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don;t think there is any need as the phrase seat of Government does not give such a misleading impression. I have however added a qualification by way of compromise --Snowded TALK 16:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the compromise wording. Pondle (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it must be stated that are various offices across Wales, but is the clarification really introduction material. I suggest clarifying it on the main section on governance. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I will oppose any change that leaves the unqualified bald statement "seat of the Assembly Government" in the lead (though I'm happy with "seat of the National Assembly for Wales", which Jongleur100 suggested). Brewer's Politics[23] defines a 'seat of government' as "the building, complex of buildings or city from which a government exercises its authority". There are entire WAG departments (including senior policy roles, not just back office jobs) in other places across Wales. Snowded made the comparison with Whitehall - while I accept that a majority of civil service posts are outside London, "nearly three-quarters of senior civil servants employed by UK government departments are in London and departments say that, excluding local service delivery, the majority of their London-based functions are policy".[24] So WAG is highly unusual in dispersing policymakers outside the capital. Pondle (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

⬅ and power is exercised by the Assembly and to a degree the office of the Chief Minister. They are in Cardiff, other offices execute policy they do not determine it. Look I qualified the statemnt, how about we all live with that? --Snowded TALK 18:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Civil servants "work with the government to formulate policies [and] deliver them".[25] There are senior WAG civil service policy roles located outside Cardiff. But that's beside the point - I'm happy with your compromise wording, I only chimed in to express my opposition to revisiting it again.Pondle (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Seat of government, this applies to Cardiff...and Pondle don't say it doesn't because not ALL government offcies are in Cardiff, as they're rarely, if at all, in one fixed location in a country. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You're like a dog with a bone, Welshleprechaun. Look, It's highly unusual - especially in the UK, which has a tradition of government centralisation - to have policy functions located outside the capital. Didn't you read the Lyons Review reference? UK Government departmental headquarters "setting the strategic policy framework" are based in London.[26] In contrast, the WAG Social Justice and Local Government department is based in Merthyr.[27] The Department for Economy and Transport is based all over Wales[28] as is the Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills[29] Staff from Health & Social Services will be moving to the new Llandudno office, and Rural Affairs and Heritage in Aberystwyth.[30] Pondle (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I can also quote you Kathryn Bishop[31], one of WAG's non-exec directors: "this strategy (the location strategy) transforms the Welsh Assembly Government from a centrally-located organisation into an all-Wales organisation." [www.civilservice.gov.uk/documents/live/ppt/Day1/bishop_presentation.ppt] Pondle (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You're still not getting it. Every country has ministries and departments outside of the capital. The HMRC for example has offices all over the UK but the seat of the UK government is still London. There may be a slightly higher proportion of offices outside Cardiff to outside London but the National Assembly and therefore the WAG is headquartered in Cardiff, making it the seat of government. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You're not getting it Welshleprechaun. UK Government departments and executive agencies have back office and 'delivery' functions in the regions, but what Lyons calls "the governmental core supporting ministers and setting the strategic policy framework" (i.e. the HQs of the Ministerial departments) are based in London. For more info about the role & importance of Whitehall heaquarters, and how they differ from say, the Pensions Service office based in Newcastle, please see the Lyons Review (see para 20 here[32], para 1.8 here[33], para 8.27 here [34], para 9.8 here[35]). In contrast, WAG has policy functions, departments responsible to Assembly Government ministers, based in regional offices. It's different. Pondle (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, the Welsh Assembly Government and the National Assembly for Wales are two different legal entities. Pondle (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Morning all. After seeing this news report, I've deleted the reference to the Bay Pointe development as it seems it'll no longer include the 33-storey towers that were originally planned, and would therefore no longer be notable enough for a mention on this page. Obviously this is going to have implications for the Bay Pointe article as well. Bettia (rawr!) 09:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The image File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved - image was removed from {{Commonwealth Games Host Cities}}. Franamax (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Cardiff is now live. You can join by adding your name to the list on the project page, where you will also find tasks to be done to improve Cardiff-related pages, or you can add your own. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This has to be a national capital to be on the "top" list. Not even Los Angeles or Istanbul are there! Here is the list: National Capitals Wallie (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is [36]. As I have said before, wikipedia isnot a reliable source. Nev1 (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cardiff became the official capital of Wales in 1955. [37] ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 15:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That list mainly comprises sovereign states and dependent territories rather than geographic nations. As most people will know, Wales is generally acknowledged to be a nation or a country but it is also part of the UK which, devolution notwithstanding, is a unitary state. Pondle (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The list at National Capitals is pretty inconsistent anyway. The capitals of Mayotte, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Martin and St Pierre and Miquelon are included, but these are all parts of the unitary state of France. Arguably, the capitals of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland can be described just as validly as national capitals. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Could the reverters of this[38] please explain why it isn't notable? The Rugby World Cup is a major world event, and it's notable to mention the bid. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Its only notable if they win the bid --Snowded (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the bid is certainly worthy of mentioning in the Millenium Stadium's article, but I'm not at all sure what relevance it has to the city of Cardiff as a whole. This article is more than big enough as it is, and if we want to get this to GA or FA-standard in the future, we should be looking for ways to streamline this article rather than clogging it up with info on something which may or may not happen in six years time. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand you're point, but it's not just the stadium that would host it, it's the city. It's like saying it's not worth mentioning Eurovision 2009 on the Moscow page, just on the arena hosting it. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see the analogy with Moscow. I think the point Bettia was making was that if the bid is successful, then it would be worth mentioning. Until then it is only worth mentioning on the Millenium Stadium's article. To use the Eurovision analogy, it's a bit like saying that if Malta ever wins Eurovision the following year's final will be held in Valetta. It's too full of ifs! Skinsmoke (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cardiff/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is possibly the best article in Wales. I've read many articles on wikipedia and not many are better than this one. In the future reducing the article size should be a priority. Possibly delete some images, especially the ones already on another Wikipedia page. Well done on such a fantastic page. Aaroncrick (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)