Misplaced Pages

I agree that there should only be one map. Chances are though, that those who know where the British Isles are, probably know where Wales is. Whereas, someone who doesn't know where Wales is, is much less likely to recognise a map of the British Isles. Some other countries use a single multi map (the Monaco article is a good example), which would be worth considering. Dai caregos (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree we should delete the second map I wish to record my profound disagreement with the comment by User talk:GoodDay), much as I respect him/her as an editor. --Snowded (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know GoodDay was an editor? (only joking, GD, I expect they are in your Canadian interests or elsewhere!). I tend to click on images to view them - they are all basically thumbnails. Doing it doesn't offer much though! My main problem is that the colour orange changes context over the pictures. My old geography would have given a straight 0/10 for doing that, especially without a discernable key. If it wasn't for that I'd put up with the size. Ideally to me, the first one would be closer (and have some place names on it for those who clicked on it) and the second one would be a somewhere the middle of these two.

Maybe the first one could instead be the political map that is currently a bit lower down the page, and the second one could be the first map here, maybe with some labels photoshopped on (Europe, maybe France, Ireland and the UK countries would be enough)? Neither of these two are labelled at all. Because of Wales' position and small size, having two maps is fair enough imo, though I agree the second one here isn't great.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I do now see how it comes across, therefore I apologies for any offense I've unintentionally caused to you (Snowded) & to everybody. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey you are one of the good guys! No offence was taken --Snowded (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the second map seems pointless, and in any case the difference between dark orange and red is too subtle to see; so even if we would want a second map, this version is not very helpful. Arnoutf (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there is consensus for the removal of the 2nd map. Might as well do it now to speed along the consensus building of the first map.Pureditor 23:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Edward I and the Conquest of Wales

It is generally accepted, and stated in this article, that Edward I conquered Wales. But is that actually true?

As I understand it, it was only the Principality of Wales that was made part of the Kingdom of England by the Statute of Rhuddlan, enacted on 3 March 1284, not the whole of Wales. The Principality comprised just two thirds of Wales, mainly in the north.

These territories did not include a substantial swathe of land from Pembrokeshire through south Wales to the Welsh Borders which was largely in the hands of the Marcher Lords and were not subject to English law.

So, is it correct to say that Edward 'conquered Wales'? Jongleur100 (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be more accurate to say "completed the Norman conquest of Wales". The term Principality does not really apply the the pre-Edwardian position by the way. --Snowded (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But I get tired of reading 'Edward conquered Wales' In my dictionary the word 'conquer' is defined as 'to gain control of by force'

He only did this in the north and north-west. Nitpicking, maybe, but most of the south remained largely independent of the Crown until the Laws in Wales Act 1535. I should have written 'principality' with a small 'p'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jongleur100 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Worth a change, although Wales was conquered, just by several people over a century or two! Edward also used the welsh princes against each other and it was a lot more than the north and north west. The territory is that covered by the Treaty of Mongomery and included most of mid Wales and a large proportion of the south. --Snowded (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough, the article doesn't include the word 'Norman'. Maybe it should read something like : 'The 13th Century defeat of Llewelyn by Edward I completed the Norman conquest of Wales and brought about centuries of English occupation'. What do you think? Jongleur100 (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I really like that, although you may attract the Unionist POV guys with the final sentence. --Snowded (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Opening para (again!)

I'm going to reopen discussion on an old chestnut in the opening para - the references to the Assembly's "business ties". I compromised on this before, but the more I look at this, the less I like it.

• Yes, business support policy is a devolved matter, but I see no reason to priviledge it over other devolved matters such as health policy or town planning or anything other aspect of public policy that doesn't get a mention.
• Yes, the Assembly has a business partnership council, but it also has a partnership with the voluntary sector. On what basis should one devolved matter or form of partnership be mentioned and not another? I don't think that this lives up to WP:UNDUE or follows the guidelines at WP:LEAD Pondle (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

How about "...direct ties with various international bodies, xxx (or xxx, xxx) and the business world." That could deal with any 'undue' (in terms of it being more evenly weighted). Notability is fine, imo - is there any specific (or other) way it fails WP:LEAD? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO it fails WP:UNDUE as I explain above - "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement". I don't think we should be singling out a particular devolved matter or interest group for special emphasis in the lead. The choice seems purely subjective.

Why it fails WP:LEAD IMO - "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article... Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article... the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject". Pondle (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of my suggestion? We do both disagree on the importance of the Assembly to Wales, but for me it's simply here and is clearly notable. We just have to get it right. I thought you could look at filling in the extra words as you've been thinking about it (and know a lot about governmental workings too). How about "... more direct ties with domestic matters, various international bodies, and the business world." Can you work on that? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. The Assembly is here and is notable - no argument from me on that! - but you shouldn't give undue weight to one devolved matter over any others, especially in the lead section of the Wales article. I'm happy to include more detail on business support policy or any other aspect of economic development in Politics of Wales or Economy of Wales if you are anyone else feels that coverage is inadequate, but I don't think it belongs in the lead. Pondle (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be coming from two angles. Maybe I'm confused? You seem to me to be suggesting that it is 'undue' in the sense that other factors need to be there to balance it (so I suggest putting them in). But you also seem to be saying it is not notable enough for the Introduction (which is why I wrote the above - I think is, as needs to be got right). --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Once you single out one particular devolved matter or one particular interest group, as is the current position, then you're giving undue weight; two possible solutions:

a. either list them all - becoming cumbersome and blowing WP:LEAD apart completely;

b. delete or demote (which I favour).Pondle (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to list them all! There are collective nouns in this world. I'll search for them as soon as I can, but I can't help feeling that you could do it a lot more easily than I could. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a courteous note that I added a tag about the sprawling lead to the article (without actually seeing this healthy discussion). There's a bit of a trend at the moment to cram everything into the leads of all things "British Isles" (scare quotes intentional!) - we need to get into the habit of letting go of/saving some material for the main article. What that material should be is, well, upto you fine folk, but I'm noting my opinion that the lead is in a bad way at the moment and needs a a trim, if not a pretty significant rewrite. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is just your subjective opinion - and this discussion is a lot less healthy now such a biased admin has got involved. What are you up to? Apart from the now-resolved 'country' issue and this Assembly issue (mostly just myself and Pondle), this parag has been stable for months. Why did you not look at Talk before putting the template in? It looks massively provocative. With you coming from the UK (as has Pondle come to think of it) this looks appalling. You've suddenly got the hump about these intro's - you never had it before. And you seem to be buzzing around a couple of editors who share your view - I notice you just awarded one of them "the right to Rollback". I don't know about anyone else, but it looks really bad to me. Your template on Wales was a unnecessary blot to the article - so I've reverted it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Coat of Arms Image used in the Infobox

During this evening, an anon IP user has been changing the image of the coa for Wales in the infobox. I reverted them, but the user simply reverted by reinstitution of the image without any discussion which I had asked for on the talk page. They are now on a short rest from wikipedia as a result. However, can I ask for comments about the image that was used for a long time and the one the anon IP user tried to insert on a number of occasions?  DDStretch  (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A new coat of arms was approved in July, one source here it probably needs more than a BBC report to determine it but it looks authoritative. This in no way endorses the behaviour of the IP user and you were right to ban them in my opinion. From a quick glance I think they have the right image. --Snowded TALK 03:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)