Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board/Archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Notice Board
This is just to get things going - I've copied some things over from the Wales Portal and added one or two. We don't seem to have a lot of Featured Articles or Good Articles with a Welsh connection. Or maybe I've missed some? If so, please add them.
Please add any articles you think could become Good Articles or Featured Articles with a bit of improvement, or even might already be good enough to nominate. Rhion 20:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The request for cawl cennin
I've seen the request for cawl cennin on a couple of pages now, but I don't know where it comes from. Does the requester know there's a Cawl stub? Might be worth just expanding that, perhaps? --Telsa 13:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. I don't know who requested it - possibly "Cawl cennin" could be created as a redirect to the "Cawl" article. I'm not sure how to expand the Cawl article though. Does anybody have any ideas? Rhion 09:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Piccies
I have some pictures I keep meaning to upload, but the whole Commons upload and categorise process seems really involved and complicated. If someone could give me a hand, I'd be really grateful, because I am completely muddled about what I have to do in what order. Pictures include Nevern's yew corridor, bleeding yew and Celtic cross, the Gorsedd at an eisteddfod proclamation, scenes inside Swansea Market, bits of a smashing old map of south Wales in the museum stores (undated alas, but given the amount of woodland marked south of Merthyr Tydfil, I suspect pre-1800), submerged woodland at low tide in Swansea Bay, the Corris Railway, and several of a slightly (ahem) muddy Eisteddfod maes. Any requests for "we need that one first" will be cheerfully considered, but not much will happen until I figure out how I am supposed to be doing this. I seem to remember it took me a day of reading to do the last one. --Telsa 13:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Just a small point, but you are far better uploading all images directly to Commons, rather than the English-language Wikipedia. It is exactly the same procedure, but has the huge advantage that all language editions of Wikipedia can simply access images. The code used in articles is identical.--Mais oui! 13:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- If you upload your images to Commons and drop a note here when you are done, I will certainly lend a hand in categorising them etc. Provided you include the right licensing info when you upload - Public domain is probably safest if you are happy with that - that will stop the images from being deleted. Velela 15:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Celtic Mythology
I have said on the talk page to it, and on the Scottish board, that a great deal of the material is well meaning disinformation, usually of the New Age variety. --MacRusgail 13:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Men with Welsh descendants signed American Independence
Americas constution and declaration of independence was created by people of Welsh descent. I have also learned that there are loads of people running the U.S. today are of Welsh descent, though I don't see much of this on wikipedia.
Draig goch20 15:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
.You haven't seen Category:Welsh-Americans then? See also British-American. We really need a Welsh equivalent to the Scottish-American article.--Mais oui! 10:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
.. Agreed - a Welsh-American article needs to be created - there is a lot which could be said. I'll add it to the list of wanted articles. Rhion 12:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Having started the article, I then found there was already a Welsh-Americans article listing a great many Welsh-Americans. Doh! Still I think there's a place for both - I've started a bit about Welsh emigration and settlement in the U.S. in Welsh American with a short list of famous people here and a reference to Welsh-Americans for a complete list. Rhion 16:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested merge
I have requested that the new British language (Celtic) article be merged into the Welsh language article. Contribute at Talk:Welsh language.--Mais oui! 10:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV campaign continuing at the Plaid Cymru article
With dismay I note that hostilities have resumed at the Plaid Cymru article. Is that party an advocate of Nationalism or Welsh nationalism? And what is the party's official title:
- Plaid Cymru, or
- Plaid Cymru - Party of Wales
Have your say on these topics and others at Talk:Plaid Cymru, and I really do urge Users to up the quality of the Politics of Wales article and the entire coverage of Welsh politics here at Wikipedia: the standard of presentation and sourcing is truly lamentable at present.
(For some reason we Scots seem to (rather surprisingly) work well together in this subject area, whatever our allegiances, but the Wales-related articles seem to lack this atmosphere. I think that the result is quite obvious if you look at the depth and quality of the coverage of Scottish politics, compared to Welsh. Not that I mean to boast or anything... )--Mais oui! 10:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of rulers of Wales
The article List of rulers of Wales has had a lot of very questionable material added to it - a list of the "High Kings of Britain" for example. It needs some surgery - see the article's discussion page. Rhion 16:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ar Log
Someone added a lot of material to Ar Log. I promptly removed about half. Sorry! The removed stuff is all on Talk:Ar Log page pending rewrite, verification, and so on, but beyond owning two CDs, I don't know much about them except for their connection with Dafydd Iwan — a link which doesn't seem to impress the recent editor — their longevity, and their well-known-ness, or whatever the word is. To my annoyance, I can't find any sources to say some of the facts that seem to be worth adding: comparisons with other bands, what Alan Stivell said about them, etc. Despite my removal of references to genius, world-class, pioneering, etc, I do like the music, and any band around for 30 years has to have more to say about them than a list of lineup changes. And at the moment, I don't think the article does them justice at all. But I don't know how best to improve it. Help from someone who knows the subject would be much appreciated. Telsa (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ignore the above. The same person then added a lot of really good stuff too, and it's much more complete now. Telsa (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Emrys Hughes
I have started the Emrys Hughes article. --MacRusgail 16:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've added a bit to it. Rhion 21:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Castle drive this week
Hi all -- this week I've taken up working on a few of the Welsh castles that need either creating or de-stubbing. I worked yesterday on Aberystwyth Castle and have a bit more to do today; my goal is to also create Rhuddlan Castle and Builth Castle this week. More eyes and minds are welcome, particularly at Aberystwyth which I'm actively working on today, if anybody's looking for something to do. Best · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Good idea - there are still a lot of castles not covered. Castles in Wales shows a lot of red links. Incidentally the castles here are arranged by the old counties rather than by the present ones for some reason. Rhion 12:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- But also be aware that even that list is incomplete, some missing castles include Lampeter Castle (Norman - underneath the current University Building) and Castell Aberlleiniog near Beaumaris. I will add these to the list but there are almost certainly more. ([1] lists very many more.) Velela 12:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I've started Dinefwr Castle - any contributions welcome. Rhion 14:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Looks great! I think all the castles could use more fleshing out as it regards their military strategic importance, with references to battles etc., but my own access to such information, given my geographic location, is rather limited. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've started Dinefwr Castle - any contributions welcome. Rhion 14:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thread on Wikimedia-UK
Please see:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/
in particular
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2006-March/000497.html
where David G. is looking for some translation help. Perhaps. Gordo 09:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Baaas
Hi all, I was wondering if one of you lot who has Macromedia Flash can extract a tidbit of information about The Baaas from its official homepage - my computer (uni owned) does not allow Flash player, and I assume there is some useful links on that page. Yeah, it sounds very low priority, but I'm trying to get another DYK. ;) Thanks in advance. --Dangherous 20:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- There's just some game as far as I can tell: you get to move around the house of these Baas and Meees and sounds happen and then your computer freezes. Or is that just me? Seriously, despite the obvious appeal of multicultural opera-singing sheep, I don't think it's worth linking to: isn't there some "don't link to pages which require plugins without good reason" policy? Telsa (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Languages, linguistics and references
Anyone like to have a look at List of English words of Welsh origin? So far it's, um, somewhat original research. (And lacking in the ones my dictionary lists, strangely.) Whilst I'm at it, have we any people familiar with Old Welsh and/or Brythonic knocking about? They are being claimed as the origin of the Lancashire placename Darwen and I feel somewhat at sea as an IP address adds a theory a day to the page. Telsa (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm working on this now. If anyone wants to suggest additional words (the list of candidates is rapidly shrinking), please feel free to add them, on the talk page if you can't provide a documented etymology, and I'll look them up when I get a chance.
- I'm going to remove the bit about "lots of Welsh words come from English, but the linguists are dumping on us" - it may well be true, but if it's not documented it can't stand. Sources, people! Vashti 08:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Who are the best sources for Welsh history?
Since I am sure everyone has nothing better to do that to answer my calls for help..:)
User:Wobble asked for cites for History of Wales and Welsh people#History. Whilst the former article looks great to me, I wrote a lot of the early version of the latter, and it certainly could do with some fresh eyes (or a complete rewrite, possibly). I mostly wrote it to get rid of the version that started with a claim that the Welsh were the closest relatives of the Basques or something along those lines, and I was expecting many more corrections and expansions than actually happened. I already know from extended arguments all over the talk page that the article should make it much much clearer that historians used to talk in terms of "the Celts" arriving and displacing any prior inhabitants completely; and that now they are much less sweeping, thinking in terms of a transfer of culture. So I have included something on that as well. But whilst I enjoy history, I have no background in it: so I don't know whether these are good sources, or whether there is a recognised authority I have completely omitted. So if anyone feels in the mood to vet references and point out better sources, do feel free to head over there! I have put my proposed quotes on the talk page for now. It all starts at Talk:Welsh people#Fact and reference check.
More generally, perhaps extending the "Web-based resources for Wales" section of the noticeboard to include non-web stuff, like "good authorities to know about", might be worth doing? Or starting a new "non-web-based" section. We could start it with the "further reading" listed in the History of Wales article, if everyone is happy with that?
Telsa (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- On a related note, I think part of the problem with articles like the History of Wales one is that there is just a list for Further reading at the bottom of the article. It is not possible to know which assertions in the article are derived from which sources. I am in favour of in line references, either Harvard referencing or footnoting (did I just make that word up?). My preference would be footnoting, but I'm happy to use either. One reason I think this is better is that if we just have a list of publications at the bottom of the article, then any unreferenced new edits that are not from these sources are made to appear as if they do indeed come from these sources. This means that the credibility of the article is bought into question. So I'd like a proper fact and reference check, and a little more neutrality, so if several POVs exist they should all be given some space, especially on things like cultural diffusion, which you have mentioned. Alun
-
- I'm not entirely clear here - do you consider that every assertion given in the History of Wales article should have a footnote, or just assertions which could be controversial? For example I've never heard anyone dispute that Llywelyn the Last was killed in 1282, and you could source it from any one of a hundred history books, but is it really worth the bother? Looking at the other "History of ...." articles, History of Ireland has just three footnotes for potentially controversial points. History of Scotland, History of England, [[History of France}], History of Spain and History of Greece have no footnotes; after that I gave up checking. Is our history so much more controversial than theirs? Incidentally it would be helpful if you identified any specific points you feel are not neutral. Rhion 12:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- do you consider that every assertion given in the History of Wales article should have a footnote, well I don't, but the verifiability policy does: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources....The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references......Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. I should also point out that the policy also states The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. The three policies being verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. I am only involved with a few articles, I don't have the luxury of much spare time for working on wikipedia, but the articles I am interested in I would like to improve, I think verifying all the assertions in an article as a way of improving it. I don't find the argument that other articles are not well referenced, so why should this one be, as very persuasive. As for llywelyn, the fact that it has so many potential sources for referencing makes it very easy to put one in, surely? For example it took me about five seconds to google Llywelyn 1282 and come up with this [2], then a few minutes to type <ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/wales/gruffudd.shtml Principality of Wales Llywelyn ap Gruffudd 1220 - 1282] '''Welsh Timeline''', BBC Homepage, History</ref>, so one can easily reference from web based sources as one goes along for verifying this sort of fact. The fact and reference check states that Wikipedia's Achilles heel is the perception that Wikipedia is not a "good" source of information, and that it is a less "definitive," or "authoritative" source than others. This perception likely comes from the idea that "normal" people could not competently create an encyclopedia......Imagine an article in which every fact is referenced with multiple sources! Wikipedia has the potential — hopefully the destiny — to be the most cross-referenced body of knowledge ever created, but to get there, it needs help. I want to try and make reliable articles, that's all, it's what I see wikipedia as being all about, a body of work that people will be able to use as a reference source when they are doing projects or whatever, and be able to cite as a good source of information. 212.54.27.63 Alun 17:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I wouldn't say that www.bbc.co.uk was a reliable source for Welsh history - it has a great many errors, some of them pretty basic. What you would need for the Llywelyn 1282 reference is either a primary source, say Brut y Tywysogion, or a reliable secondary source such as Beverley Smith's book, which makes it a considerably bigger job. I'm not at all against putting in a reference for every fact (I am a librarian after all and I know that Wikipedia has a long way to go before it can be regarded as a reliable reference source) but there is no quick and easy way of doing it for a subject like Welsh history where all the really reliable sources are still only available in print form. Rhion 20:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think it depends on what sort of fact one is checking, a generally accepted fact, like the year Llywelyn died is unlikely to be disputed, the more outlandish or controversial the claim, the stronger the source needs to be, this is what the verifiability policy has to say Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources. I always assume the BBC is a prety reliable source for basic things. I think most people would consider the BBC to be relatively reliable, the reliable sources guideline describes reliable sources as Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia, I would think the BBC would fit into this category. The policy also has this to say At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. I think when it comes to history then relatively uncontroversial things are easily verified, and I personaly don't see it as a problem to use web based sources for verifiability. When it comes to more controversial subjects, where there is no academic consensus, then the neutral point of view policy becomes important, and also the reliability of the sources is certainly very important. Alun 10:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that www.bbc.co.uk was a reliable source for Welsh history - it has a great many errors, some of them pretty basic. What you would need for the Llywelyn 1282 reference is either a primary source, say Brut y Tywysogion, or a reliable secondary source such as Beverley Smith's book, which makes it a considerably bigger job. I'm not at all against putting in a reference for every fact (I am a librarian after all and I know that Wikipedia has a long way to go before it can be regarded as a reliable reference source) but there is no quick and easy way of doing it for a subject like Welsh history where all the really reliable sources are still only available in print form. Rhion 20:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- do you consider that every assertion given in the History of Wales article should have a footnote, well I don't, but the verifiability policy does: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources....The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references......Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. I should also point out that the policy also states The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. The three policies being verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. I am only involved with a few articles, I don't have the luxury of much spare time for working on wikipedia, but the articles I am interested in I would like to improve, I think verifying all the assertions in an article as a way of improving it. I don't find the argument that other articles are not well referenced, so why should this one be, as very persuasive. As for llywelyn, the fact that it has so many potential sources for referencing makes it very easy to put one in, surely? For example it took me about five seconds to google Llywelyn 1282 and come up with this [2], then a few minutes to type <ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/wales/gruffudd.shtml Principality of Wales Llywelyn ap Gruffudd 1220 - 1282] '''Welsh Timeline''', BBC Homepage, History</ref>, so one can easily reference from web based sources as one goes along for verifying this sort of fact. The fact and reference check states that Wikipedia's Achilles heel is the perception that Wikipedia is not a "good" source of information, and that it is a less "definitive," or "authoritative" source than others. This perception likely comes from the idea that "normal" people could not competently create an encyclopedia......Imagine an article in which every fact is referenced with multiple sources! Wikipedia has the potential — hopefully the destiny — to be the most cross-referenced body of knowledge ever created, but to get there, it needs help. I want to try and make reliable articles, that's all, it's what I see wikipedia as being all about, a body of work that people will be able to use as a reference source when they are doing projects or whatever, and be able to cite as a good source of information. 212.54.27.63 Alun 17:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Prince of Wales
Does anyone else think this last edit to Prince of Wales is a little, um, lacking in NPOVicity? It seems one-sided to me. Vashti 14:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Although written in a fairly informal style the new edit does seem to be factual. One might quibble at the last sentence but I don't think it needs many changes for it to be perfectly acceptable. Nigel45 22:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about Owen Tudor being a cousin of Owain Glyndŵr - I'm not saying it's wrong but I'd like to see some confirmation. Rhion 08:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Translation help?
Bore da... I know this is a little cheeky but I am helping out (or trying to help...) a local band who want their EP to be named in English and Welsh... If possible could someone provide the translation or close equivilent Welsh term for the title "The Path Not Taken" ? Many thanks.... doktorb | words 01:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- "Y llwybr nas cymerwyd" would do I think.Rhion 08:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Do me a favour?
I wonder if anyone could do me a favour? My wife and I will be in Cardiff this coming weekend—our work's jolly is to see Tosca—and we have some free time on Saturday morning (20 May)). I wonder if anyone can recommend somewhere nice to hang out between about 8am and 12noon…somewhere we can get a nice cup of tea would be ideal TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 08:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of people of Welsh descent
There is a proposal that List of people of Welsh descent should be merged into List of Welsh people. Have a look and see what you think. Rhion 07:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it would seem a sensible idea. Hogyn Lleol 12:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Telsa has identified the article as a copyright violation anyway, see Talk:List of people of Welsh descent.