Talk:Wales/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3 →

Contents 1 Pronunciation of Cymru 2 The map 3 Yr Arwr 4 Welsh Arms or UK Arms? - discussion at UK Wikipedians 5 There's another title for Wales 6 Welsh notables 7 Motto 8 Wikipedia:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board 9 khaled aliannual? 10 Yr Arwr 11 Neutrality?? 11.1 neutrality - Wales musical heritage?? 11.2 Protected 11.3 Further musical references 11.4 Musical Wales?? 11.5 Request for Comment 12 Lloegr = 'Lost lands'? 13 Welsh alphabet 14 Native name 14.1 Poll on whether Cymru or Wales should come first in the infobox 14.1.1 Comments on above poll 14.2 Scotland 14.3 Stylistic editing 14.4 Wales/Cymru 14.5 Summary: Wales/Cymru 14.6 Archived 14.7 Vandalism 15 Land stats 16 Wales's? 17 This reads as confused 18 Cawl 19 Hmmmm.... 20 Vandalism 21 Wales has its own Tartan Colours?? 22 Trivia

Pronunciation of Cymru

I noticed that on this page, the pronunciation is given as /ˈkəmɹi/, i.e. with the "English r". According to the article on Welsh, however, the language has the alveolar trill. I know I'm nitpicking, but I was wondering which version is correct. Rueckk 18:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right, it should be the alveolar trill (well, often a tap, but not the approximant; this is a broad transcription anyway as the final vowel can have various flavours). My browser can't read the character you used but I take it to be the upside-down (turned) lower-case r. Flapdragon 15:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

pronounciation of Cymru Say "cum-ree" you need a welsh accent to pull it off effectivly though

I am a welsh teacher, and I find that using a french r is usually quite effective.

The map

The map shows the country's location in relation to most the rest of state, except the Shetlands, which are not even depicted in an inset map, as is often done with remote territorial fragments such as islands and exclaves in order to save "empty map space". The same goes for maps of the United Kingdom and England, which sometimes fail to take into account that the Isles of Scilly and of Wight are in England, and not a foreign country like the Man. Perhaps these maps should be altered to reflect this? //Big Adamsky 20:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter? The purpose is to show where Wales is, the map does this. Where Shetland or the Scilly Isles are isn't really important in an article about Wales. The Shetland Isles and Isles of Scilly articles don't even have the whole of Great Britain on their respective maps. Alun 18:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether it matters or not depends. But the title underneath the map is Wales's location within the UK, and not A map of Wales with some surrounding areas. Yes, it might be regarded as pedantry. But then again: our articles can always be improved, no? //Big Adamsky 19:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Your free to alter the map image to include these things if you so wish. Astrotrain 23:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I know. I would. Tragically...I'm willing but presently unable... =[ //Big Adamsky 23:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well we can simply change the title¨?Alun 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this accurate enough? Alun 06:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yr Arwr

Is a complete English version of 'Yr Arwr' available on the web?

Welsh Arms or UK Arms? - discussion at UK Wikipedians

There is an attempt being made to remove national symbols and replace them with UK symbols. I argue that this is innapropriate on the pages for England, Scotland or Wales; but others seem determined to remove national symbols. I have initiated a section on the UK wikipedian's page for this issue, as its outcome affects the England page and the Wales page too: Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board#England_page.2C_Scotland_page.2C_Wales_page:_National_Arms_or_UK_Arms --Mais oui! 07:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

There's another title for Wales

Since 1996 some titles for Wales were "County Boroughs of Wales" and so on. Some people say that the name "Principality" is rather too old fashioned, understandable also since the Prince of Wales has no real purpose. What do you think about including this title into the article?

Does this article exist to report the majority or minority usage of terms? Principality is of course old fashioned because Wales is old fashioned and that is not an insult its been there for years. To throw away history because it does not fit your politics is ridiculous. I have never heard any Welsh person I know say County Boroughs. Most people just say Wales, older people and royalists say Principality.

Welsh notables

Is there much point in the "Welsh notables" section when there's a whole List of Welsh people elsewhere? Also, I'm not sure that bands (Gorky's Zygotic Mynci etc), however notable, really count as "notables". Flapdragon 23:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I have been wondering the same. (I think I would count Gorky's myself, but I do wonder who on earth some of the others are.) And every so often someone has to go and alphabeticise the list again. I would swear that Catharine Zeta Jones should come under 'J', incidentally: was not 'Zeta' a middle name? Telsa 08:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd definitely file Catherine under "J", I'm not terribly convinced there's a large clan of Zetas living near Swansea! Maybe I'm sad, but I do actually recognise most of the names on the list, except for the bands since I'm middle aged and so unhip my bum's nearly falling off! I do wish people would learn to alphabetise, though. -- Arwel 12:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The point about Gorky's was that however notable a band might be, it is not a notable. That means a person. And we have a perfectly good list of Welsh people already. Flapdragon 16:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, Zeta is a middle name, given after one of her grandmothers. However, it is commonly hyphenated with her surname, e.g. Zeta-Jones. I don't know whether this is a correct usage, but it is common, even on her Wiki. I'm guessing it may be some sort of stage name? Most references therefore seem to put her in the Z's. DigiMike 23:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Motto

Where is this motto "Wales for ever" used?, where does it come from? Astrotrain 21:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but it's certainly been around for a long time. Gareth 22:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board

I've created a fairly simple Wikipedia:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board (shortcut WP:WWNB) to try to get things started. Please have a look and consider signing on, adding it to your watchlist and helping to make sure any users with an interest in the subject know about it. Also please feel free to add things and to change anything you feel needs changing – I'm not under the impression that I own it! Rhion 19:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

khaled aliannual?

I'm not a speaker of Welsh, but I noticed that the word "annual" had been replaced by this phrase. Though I don't know what it means (I'm assuming it just means "annual"), I would suggest that it either needs capitalisation (if its a noun describing the event) or needs to be reverted back to English. This is the English language version of Wikipedia and I think the reason for changing "annual" to this Welsh phrase needs explaination. --Mal 02:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC) No, that's presumably someone called Khaled Ali making his vandalism mark! It didn't last long, anyway. -- Arwel (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yr Arwr

Is a complete English version of 'Yr Arwr' available on the web or anywhere else publicly accessible?

http://cy.wikisource.org/wiki/Yr_Arwr Marnanel 21:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality??

I am questioning the insert "Wales is known as the home of many musicians and musical styles". This is a skewed positive statement and demonstrably biased, unless positive statements are cited, I do not accept them, it is a very subjective statement and should be removed. I do not know Wales as such place.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazzajf (talk • contribs)

I believe that this is better challenged using {{fact}} rather than marking the whole article as {{POV}}. I have edited accordingly. Velela 14:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts - the article has pelnty of evidence of diversity of range and number of musicians. It is also worth reading the Welsh culture and Music of Wales articles if in doubt. This article is already over-long and repeating text from other articles is not justified especially when it is adequately referenced from here. Velela 15:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

neutrality - Wales musical heritage??

My previous point holds. It is a subjective statement that I am objecting too, it is certainly not neutral. You are missing the point, every country has evidence of a musical heritage and plenty of it too, the point is that Wales is not necessarily known for its' musical heritage and I will not tolerate this prevarication represented in the statement I object to. Bazzajf 20:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right, all cultures do have a musical heritage. Wales is known widely as The Land of Song[1] and the Bardic tradition and musical culture of Wales is particularly central to people's sense of identity.[2][3]. And of course there's Eisteddfod. How this compares to other cultures is difficult to determine on an objective basis as music/language/culture/ethnic/national identitiy are so closely inter-related in all societies. We need simply to come up with a more neutral form of words and some citations. Alun 04:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What matters here is not how Wales' musical heritage compares with other countries, but that Wales is widely perceived as a musical country — the Land of Song, and all that. I don't think there's really any doubt that Wales does have that image, but we should indeed find some citations to support the claim. --Stemonitis 12:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Stemonitis. I don't think you can say there's no doubt that Wales has this musical image. I am Irish, I have been to Wales and I never viewed it or knew of it in this light and I am not an ignorant person, there are many songs in irish which allude to Ireland being a land of music and song and i'm sure other countries have similar tagline tunes suggesting the same thing. The point as it was expressed to me by an eminent Wikipedian when he was criticising my contribution in a totally different realm is that in order to be neutral, we must also present a World View i.e. that everyone in the World who access articles should understand and appreciate the sentiments of the article, to me this statement about Wales being known for its' musical heritage is a total prevarication and misleading to all who read it. I am from Ireland and no such Wales exists in the context it is presented in this article Bazzajf 13:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, so you don't see Wales in that light, but countless others do. About half of the web hits for "Land of Song" refer to Wales, for instance (many times more than for Ireland). You are right that citations are needed, but you cannot deny that other people perceive Wales as a musical sort of place. --Stemonitis 13:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The comparison with the equivalent Irish sites is informative. There are equally contentious statements there which one could potentially claim to be equally misleading. However in the overall context of the article, I would have no concerns other than the provision of some supporting evidence - certainly nothing that would justify the draconian use of POV templates. What is needed is some balance and judgment. It is also worth noting that the statements in the Wales article and in the Irish articles do say a great deal about the general culture of the peoples of those countries and how they perceive themselves and would like others to perceive them. In Wales there is great emphasis on music at school and in the Urdd and as somone who is not Welsh I can nverthless recognise and identify with the validity of the statements made. Velela 14:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I live in Finland, and several people have mentioned Wales as a musical country and the land of song when they have become aware that I am Welsh. So I would suggest that it is really quite a well known part of Welsh culture. Alun 14:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Would that be other Welsh exiles mentioning it to you perchance, I jest. The reality of the situation which some of you seem to be failing to grasp is that if I went out onto the street here in Dublin City and took a voxpop on whether or not they recognised or were aware of Wales being known as a land of music or song, the vast (and I emphasise -vast)majority would not. I would suggest only in Wales or amongst exiled Welsh nationals would this be put forward. Wikipedia is a Universal resource so the statement doesn't hold. Bazzajf 15:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are just adopting the POV that because it is something you are unfamiliar with, then it cannot be a generally recognised feature of Welsh culture. I do not think you can generalise about other people's perceptions of Wales. You might actually find that in your hypothetical straw poll of the people of Dublin, a fair amount of people might have a greater awareness of Welsh culture than you do. This is not some insular Welsh thing, and we are not making claims for something that is not very well known. Here's a book about it Valleys of Song [4], and here's what the reviewer says Valleys of Song puts forward a clear and richly illustrated explanation of the phenomenon of Welsh choralism and this The image of Wales as 'the land of song' is very much a Victorian creation based on the immense popularity and international renown of its choral singing, particularly in the industrial communities of the south. From the mid-nineteenth century to the First World War, the valleys of south Wales were the centre of a vibrant musical culture which embraced not just choirs but orchestras, bands and opera. Alun 16:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

(re-indenting) The stereotype of Wales as peopled by singing miners (amongst others) is so widespread that the film Twin Town (set in Swansea) used it in its tagline, which begins "Rugby. Tom Jones. Male Voice Choirs. Shirley Bassey." For context, you can read the other stereotypes in the tagline at IMDb's page on it. Telsa (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Many of Bazzajf's comments on almost any topic are designed to inflame opinions and provoker discontent and dissention - see these. [5], [6], [7] and even putting a POV tag on Wikipedia [8] ! This is an archetypical example of a Troll engaging in Flamebaiting. There is no evidence of assumed good faith WP:GF. I suggest that he is ignored. If needs be, we can ask for ptotection for the article. Mrs Trellis 08:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I am engaging in healthy debate, if I wanted to flamebait as you put it, I would be far more provocative. I am entitled to my opinion and if some people disagree with me, that is their right too, as I browse wikipedia, if I see something I disagree with, I engage in discussion and argument about it, that to you may appear as flamebaiting from a troll but to me that is why discussion pages are here. The {{POV}} on the Wikipedia page was done erroneously when I was experimenting with the neutrality insert and trying to make it function. In an ideal World, Mrs Trellis, we would all agree with each other, tell each other how wonderful we are and consensus would be a byword for communication. The reality is that opinions differ and if my style of putting my opinion across in disagreement with others is provocative to you, well that's too bad but I am not going to compromise my style of discussion to appease a sanctimonious contributor like you. If I really was what you accused me of being, your insert would of been removed from this page by me and I wouldn't of warranted it a reply but I accept you have the right to say what you wish in any style you choose once you are following a rational train of thought and not clowning around. I have always been rational with my contributions and the basis of your criticisms of me are foolish, unreasonable and unfair. I can only compare them to the person proffering them. Bazzajf 09:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - "There is no evidence of assumed good faith WP:GF.". Try taking your own advice.

Bazzajf, you are editing against consensus, since nobody here agrees with you. Please stop. Vashti 12:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made a three revert rule report here. Vashti 12:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The partial text of the Britannica reference I cited is as follows: "Wales has been popularly called “the land of song,” and its traditional culture has been rooted in oral (and aural) art forms, including the spoken and written word and vocal music, particularly choral singing involving multiple parts and complex harmonies. The singing of penillion, simple vernacular songs, to the accompaniment of the triple harp was a feature of Welsh folk culture until the early 18th century, and efforts have been mounted to revive the form. The cymanfa ganu (“singing festival”) has been a popular expression of religious Nonconformism since the mid 19th century. Some of the most renowned Welsh composers, such as William Williams Pantycelyn, almost exclusively composed hymns, although Walford Davies established himself as a classical composer in the 20th century. The Welsh National Opera (1946) is highly regarded, with soloists of international renown, including Sir Geraint Evans, Dame Gwyneth Jones, Dame Margaret Price, and Bryn Terfel. The Welsh Guards Band, a unit of the British Army, is also a familiar presence at festivals and parades and has released several recordings. Popular and rock music enjoyed a resurgence in Wales in the late 20th century and contributed to a movement playfully dubbed “Cool Cymru.” Welsh-language recordings by pop groups are a mainstay of contemporary radio programming and enjoy popularity throughout Britain and abroad. However, the country's most popular recording artist, singer Tom Jones, has recorded his music only in English." Vashti 12:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to edit against consensus? He is just starting a one man edit war. Be that as it may, I think Bazzajf is simply ignorant of the facts. It is one thing to demand verifiability, but if we verify this statement and he then claims this is not neutral, he needs to provide some evidence (verifiability) for his point of view. So in order to make a neutral statement, ie one that gives both points of view, we need to verify both points of view. So can Bazzajf provide a verifiable source for the proposition that Wales is not well known for it's musical herritage? Alun 13:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Alun, thank you for your contribution. Can I put two points to you, firstly in relation to editing against consensus, to answer "yes" - it is possible to edit against consensus. People like me stand on my own two feet, stand up to scrutiny, stand up to debate and discussion, stand up to a weight of opinion against me and stand behind my name and only my name each time I weigh in with my opinion. It is my belief that many others however employ sockpuppets to corroborate and support their point of view which in my view is a very cowardly and dishonourable method of "argueing" one's point. This is the reason why you can edit against consensus, because if there was a stipulation against it, the victim of the stipulation would employ the use of sockpuppets. I'm sure there are some contributors on here who employ them e.g. Velela, Mrs Trellis, Vashti, Stemonitis.

My 2nd point concerns the verifiable source issue, I should not have to provide verifiable source as an alternative to the one provided if I do not subscribe to the verifiability of the source provided to support the supposition that "Wales is known for its' musicla heritage etc." Thank you Bazzajf 14:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree with the Encyclopaedia Britannica and all the other editors who have commented to date, Wikipedia policy requires you to provide a source if you want your opinion included in the article. Vashti 14:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, if verifyability is provided, as it has been, then it is not good enough to just dismiss the source, you have to provide some evidence that it is not a reliable source. I would also point out that the criterion for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability not truth (see WP:V). It does not matter what you think, if there is a published source that is considered reliable, then it is verified. So the onus really is on you to either show that the source is not reliable, or to produce another source that contradicts this one. Alun 14:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not verifiable, where in the Encyclopedia Britannica does it say "Wales is known for its' musical heritage". IT DOESN'T, it may refer to the "Land of Song" but that is merely a tagline and not a factual reference from the Encyclopedia. Bazzajf 14:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It says "Wales is popularly known as the Land of Song" and that its culture is rooted in aural art forms. That this is mentioned in an extremely brief encyclopaedia article is certainly sufficient evidence that Wales *is* known for its musical heritage. Vashti 14:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Get with the programme, it's a tagline, a catchphrase, it is a sorry state of affairs if someone is using a tagline as verifiable proof of the supposition that Wales is known for its' musical heritage. Surely someone can provide more verifiable references than this. Bazzajf 15:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You stated above that there was no evidence that Wales was known as "the land of song" or "a land of song", because you'd never heard of it. When you're told that one of the most reputable encyclopaedias in the world describes it as such, you dismiss it. Is this your good faith in action? Vashti 15:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

DON'T MISQUOTE ME, DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, Don't try and embellish your argument with falsehoods in the best traditions of a tabloid journalist. I never said "there was no evidence that Wales was known as "the land of song" or "a land of song"", Show me where I said this. You have lost any diminishing credibility you ever possessed. You are a fraud. I have no intention of dealing with people who lie, you have no honour and therefore I have little or no time for you. Let that not prevent me from wishing you all the best in your future pursuits. Good luck. Bazzajf 16:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"The reality of the situation which some of you seem to be failing to grasp is that if I went out onto the street here in Dublin City and took a voxpop on whether or not they recognised or were aware of Wales being known as a land of music or song, the vast (and I emphasise -vast)majority would not. I would suggest only in Wales or amongst exiled Welsh nationals would this be put forward. Wikipedia is a Universal resource so the statement doesn't hold. Bazzajf 15:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)". Your own words. Vashti 16:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It was probably a waste of my time and effort but I did just what Bazzajf suggested , although not in Dublin but in Gort instead which I suspect is more typical of Ireland and its friendly welcoming people. I stood at the entrance to the ‘’Super-valu’’ supermarket and conducted a poll.

Methodolgy: Adults without accompanying chidren were selected. They were asked if they were native Irish. Any non natives (which included several east Europeans and Russians) were excluded politely. Each respondent was asked the same series of open questions. At no time where they given hints as to possible correct answers nor where they told the reason for the survey – they were just asked if they would mind answering a few questions.

Questions:

1. Have you heard of the principality of Wales
2. Can you describe where it is ? (to validate q1)
3. Which words sum up Wales, its character and its people.
4. If you were to ask to sum up Wales in a single phrase what would it be. I.e. “Wales is the land of……..”?

Results: A total of 50 valid responses were collected out of a total of 71 potential respondents who were approached and of which 64 who agreed to be questioned.(14 were non Irish nationals or who could not correctly identify Wales).

Question 3 - Multiple answers were received from respondents - the total number of answers by categories were (categorisation was undertaken after completion of the survey – no categories were suggested to respondents)
Mountains and hills = 42
Sheep = 17
Daffodils and or leeks = 22
Prince of Wales = 13
Coal mines + industry 16
Beaches = 35
Castles = 30
Birds (Kites mentioned specifically) = 9
Male Voice choirs = 17
Song, singing, harps = 31
Named musicians including Aled Jones, Bryn Terfel, Shirley Bassey, Tom Jones, etc. = 63
Other various ( specific places, churches, lakes, rain, Eisteddfod, road-works(?) etc.) = 19
Adding the Male Voice choirs, Songs singing and harps and Named musicians(i.e. all those related to Music) = 111
All but two respondents mentioned something musical at least once.

Question 4 – ‘’’Wales is the land of …..?’’’
Song 27
Music 11
Sheep 5
Mountains 4
Castles 2
Lakes 1

Is this data valid for Ireland as a whole? I can't possibly comment, it is a straw poll but certainly more informed that the view of a single user who appears to suggest that he knows the mind of the Irish people. Are the results statistically valid - probably not, the sample size is very small compared to the population of Ireland. Could this survey have been invented ? Of course it could but what would be the point. At the end of the day anything can be questioned with very little purpose other than to create aggravation Mrs Trellis 15:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Your dedication is an example to us all. :) Vashti 16:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mrs. Trellis which I am certain is a sockpuppet has a lot of time on his hands it seems. The survey is obviously one of a fraudulent nature. Why? Because I am certain if it were a bonafide survey, then at least one if not several more of the respondents would of replied that Wales is the land of RUGBY but as Mrs. Trellis may have little or no interest in sport, he failed to include this as a response in his self-serving survey. Bazzajf 09:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I had some time on my hands, - I was on holiday. A better challenge would have been around the demographics of those surveyed which was much more interesting because it would appear that in rural Ireland (and I am sure that the people of Gort will forgive me for that description) most of the shopping at supermarkets is a task that seems to fall to women, and it would seem women of a certain age. There was also a football match on on television at the time. But skewed as the sample may have been, I value the opinion of Irish women as being as good as any other and possibly much better than some. Mrs Trellis 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been called once already on your assertions that everyone who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet. You chose not to back them up or substantiate them. Either do so, or stop libelling other editors. Vashti 22:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear. If Bazzajf has evidence of inapropriate sockpuppetry then he should notify an admin. If he doesn't then it is little more than a personal attack, and is certainly not assuming good faith, so he should stop making the accusation. The official policy on sockpuppetry states that there are legitimate uses for multiple accounts, it is only for certain purposes that sockpuppets ate banned, for example multiple voting. Alun 09:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the page because of the edit war. Please resolve you issues here at the talk page before requesting unprotection. Edit warring is not a solution to a conflict. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Further musical references

"Welsh arts, film and, above all, rock music have hit the world and killed off the stereotypes of pit villages, rugby players and male voice choirs." -- Lonely Planet Wales; page 7; Abigail Hole, Etain O'Carroll, John King; ISBN 174059424X.

"Revered as much for their knowledge as their divine power, the druids were integral to the start of an oral tradition of storytelling and song writing -- one that is celebrated to this day." -- ibid., page 25.

"Fiercely protective of its reputation as a land of song, the voice of Wales is most commonly heard amongst the ranks of male voice choirs. Although found all over the country, it is in the southern, industrial heartland that they are loudest and strongest. Their roots lie in the Nonconformist religious traditions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when Methodism in particular swept the country, and singing was a free and potent way of cherishing the frequently persecuted faith. Classic hymns like Cwm Rhondda and the Welsh national anthem, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau (Land of my Fathers), are synonymous with the choirs, whose full-blooded interpretation of them continues to render all others insipid." -- Rough Guide Britain; by Rough Guides; page 782; ISBN 1843533014

"Partisan nationalistic attitudes can lead to extreme, even fantastic claims. Thus, the musicality of the Welsh people has been traced to Giraldus Cambrensis, who invented counterpoint and gave his people the merit of his discovery." -- Shai Burstyn, "Is Gerald of Wales a credible musical witness?"; Musical Quarterly, Vol. 72, No. 2 (1986), pp. 155-169. (This is an interesting one - I think it doesn't argue that the Welsh *are* generally considered musical, it's pointing out the dangers of making stupid historical links!)

"Outstanding in Borrow's inquiry as he travels the land on foot is the extent to which ordinary Welsh people are truly affirmative of the 'land of song' and of the Bards. ... George Borrow, then, was wandering in a place newly promoted as a land of bards and singers..." -- Stephen Wade, "In my own shire: Region and belonging in British writing, 1840-1970"; page 37; ISBN 0313321825.

"Roberts, John (Ieuan Gwyllt, 1822-77): perhaps the man most responsible for Wales's reputation as "the Land of Song", he published his Llyfr Tonau Cynulleiddfaol (Book of Congregational Tunes) in 1859; and his Swm y Jiwbili (Sounds of the Jubilee) in 1874, both of enormous influence." -- Peter N Williams, "Presenting Wales from a to Y"; page 222; ISBN 1553954823.

Vashti 16:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Musical Wales??

On reviewing them, I am not satisfied with the citations offered. Bazzajf 13:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to substantiate your personal opinion. Failing that, I suggest we take this to the RFC stage and see what they think. Vashti 13:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have now placed an RFC at [9]. Vashti 14:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would help if Bazzajf could give us some indication of what sort of citation he would find acceptable to support the statement if the ones provided are not satisfactory. Rhion 18:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Wales is popularly known as "the land of song", and is known as the home of many musicians and musical styles". This is a contention. This is not a fact, all countries have some semblance of musical culture and heritage, in my view Wales cannot be differentiated from these countries on this basis. In other words, I would not pick Wales out as being known as the home of many musicians and musical styles above any other country, the citations offered do not qualify this contention. Please remove it. Bazzajf 09:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide some citation to prove your claim that this is a contentious matter ? So far we have only your word to go on. Everyone else seems quite convinced that Wales is indeed "the land of song". When a person is in a minority of one, as you are, that person had better have some strong evidence that what they are saying is true. So far you have failed to come up with any. Therefore we have to come to the conclusion that you are just plain wrong and that "the land of song" reference should be kept. -- Derek Ross | Talk

Please note that Bazzajf will be unable to reply here for the duration of his block (i.e. until 23rd June). He can still edit his user page, so any direct questions to him should probably be placed there. --Stemonitis 14:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... Well, we'll wait. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a great danger of getting bogged down in an unresolvable dispute here. It's almost certainly impossible to prove whether or not Wales is more or less musical than another nation. After all, what are our criteria The point is that Wales is considered stereotypically to be the land of song, much in the same way that France may be considered the land of good food or England seems to be considered by many Americans to be the land of good manners. In my experience, Americans are actually more polite, but that's not the point. It's just a matter of historical perceptions. garik 12:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

But this was Bazzajf's original point, he claims never to have heared that Wales is the Land of Song, and also that no one outside of Wales considers it the land of song. Have a look at his previous posts. Alun 14:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Alun is right. No one is disputing that other countries may be just as musical as Wales nor that that fact would be difficult to prove one way or the other. The dispute is over whether Wales is well known as "the Land of Song". Bazzajf says "no" but has provided no evidence to back up his claim; everyone else says "yes" and some have provided evidence of one form or another to demonstrate it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

Aye. As regards the stereotype, one thing that comes to mind is that Terry Pratchett populated his Wales spoof Llamedos almost entirely with singing harp-playing druids. Far from a reliable source, but while we're dealing in reputation... Vashti 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! I obviously missed the point of the posts. My feeling is that Wales is considered the Land of Song. Certainly my non-Welsh British friends are very disappointed to learn that I can't sing terribly well. As a Welshman I've been almost plagued with 'so are you a good singer' type questions. All anecdotal though... But I think the Llamedos evidence is not unreliable. Pratchett deals with such stereotypes. If he didn't think people wouldn't get it, he wouldn't put it in. garik 23:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Bazza, you've been asked to substantiate your points regarding the phrase under dispute. You have not done so. The situation has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction except yours, and the phrase continues to be tagged as under dispute; until the situation is resolved, please don't edit the phrase any further. Vashti 00:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, don't tell me what to do and what not to do. My points have already been well substantiated. The summation of the RFC by Daduzi is a fair one, as is my edit. It is a neutral NPOV edit which we can all subscribe too so stop being so empty-headed and obstinate. You are doing yourself no favours. Bazzajf 11:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing I've learned in the course of editing here is that watering down articles to the point where nobody disagrees with them results in meaningless, badly written articles which are full of untruths. Wikipedia articles should be based on sources. I agree that the phrase about artists and styles could be better sourced, and I'm happy to leave the tag on it until it can be sourced or removed. If you can find a Wikipedia admin who agrees with you that the Britannica reference is meaningless, I will personally change the "land of song" quote to "Wales is sometimes known as the "land of song". But NPOV doesn't mean that articles have to follow *your* point of view. Your POV is not necessarily the neutral one. By the way, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Vashti 12:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so silly as to speak on my behalf. My POV would be that "Wales is not necessarily known for its' musical heritage etc." but my edit was NPOV and I conceded it was noted for its' muscial heritage etc. by some so how is that following my POV. Think before you type. Furthermore to suggest articles are full of untruths when nobody disagrees with them is frankly laughable. If anything it is the contrary, they must be absolutely true, they may be shorter but in order for people to be in total agreement must be factual. Again, think before you type please. Thank you. Bazzajf 12:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I wedge myself into this topic of contention. I am old enough to remember when coal miners lived in Wales, really! And way back then, Wales was known as the 'land of song', made immortal by Paul Robesons film "The Proud Valley". There is a subtle difference between music and song. Per example, I can sing (or so I have been told), but musically, I am almost totally illiterate. I have never heard of Wales being referred to as 'land of music', for instance. The problem here could be for younger editors accepting the 'land of song' tag, because nowadays the media just pumps out its narrow little coverage, and all is pop or rock and little said about other aspects of culture. Wales had a marvellous choir and singing tradition, and presume it still has, and the valleys made the acoustics just perfect, though I haven't heard much about it lately. Media again! Red blaze 02:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This page was posted on WP:RFC. Having reviewed the dispute I thought I would post a summary of the arguments thus far, in case others wish to comment also. As I see it the issue is as follows (actual quotes used where possible, my own interpretations of arguments used when not, and apologies if anything is left out, feel free to correct):

My own take: setting aside anecdotal and/or unverifiable evidence (2 against; 3 & 12 for) it does seem there is sufficient evidence to support the assertion that Wales is known as the "Land of Song" (1, 8, 10 & 11 for, 2 would need some exact figures) so I don't see any reason not to include the statement (and I say this as someone who had never previously heard Wales referred to in this way), though I do think Bazzajf makes a good point as regards worldwide applicability, we should be careful to ensure this isn't just an Anglo-American thing, and if it is make it clear in the article. The second part is less clear, in particular there doesn't seem much in the way of evidence for the "home of many musical styles" claim. Perhaps this last part could be omitted or rephrased to more closely match the evidence provided. Of course, if someone can find a source than there's nothing wrong with including it, properly cited. In any case, given the evidence uncovered in the course of the dispute I think it would be worthwhile to source the claims made in the statement, and any other claims in the article as a whole corroborated by the sources. The musicality of other countries is largely irrelevant "the Land of Song" does not imply that there are no other countries that are also famous for song, and I seriously doubt that readers unfamiliar with the country would interpret it as meaning Wales is the only musical country in the world.

On another note, I couldn't help but notice that the tone of the debate became pretty personal and agressive at times. Given that Bazzajf is currently on an enforced break, I think it might be good to take the time to cool down a little, and if and when he returns try to keep the discussion to the merits of the arguments rather than past editing history. This, of course, applies to both sides. So many angry words over so small a sentence! --Daduzi ^talk 16:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to weigh in here. I'm not at all familiar with the subject matter, but it sure seems clear to me that several sources refer to Wales as "land of song". Heck, a casual google on "land of song" shows pages and pages of Wales-related content. Maybe others have already used this, but this is a good example, just grabbed randomly from the google results. As others have pointed out, yes, we cannot infer that Wales is more musical than some other nation, but the case for it being known as the "land of song" looks very strong. Friday (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Lloegr = 'Lost lands'?

I'm sorry, but I find this etymology highly dubious. It bears no obvious relation to any Welsh way I can think of of saying 'Lost Lands'. I've heard the claim before, but my impression is that the etymology's just a romantic fiction. Does anyone have reliable evidence (and I mean reliable)? garik 20:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm also very sceptical about this meaning. It has been discussed before, see Talk:Celtic nations and Talk:British Isles (terminology)/archive2. A number of meanings have been suggested for the word "Lloegr" but the only source that has been put forward for the meaning "the lost lands" is Bernard Cornwell, who is a fine writer of fiction but no authority on the meaning of Welsh place names. Rhion 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's very strange it's remained on the page so long. There's obviously some feeling behind keeping it, since it was put back alost immediately after I removed it. However, this etymology remains dubious and I vote for removing it unless a good argument for it can be found - it's like saying Cader Idris means 'Arthur's Seat' just because Susan Cooper liked the idea that it did. It doesn't. garik 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's back again! Removed. Telsa (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And it's not true anyway from any historical point of view. The modern Welsh are descended from a mixture of Romano-Britons and Irish settlers, just like the modern English are descended from a mixture of Romano-Britons and Anglo-Saxon settlers. TharkunColl 08:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The modern Welsh are descendants of the pre-Roman Celts there was no large scale breeding between the Celts and the Romans, the modern English are descended from the invading Angles, Jutes, Saxons and Vikings. And from a historical view it is true Cymru used to cover modern Wales, Cornwall and England so the lands Lloegr refers to are lost lands from a Welsh view point as they were taken from the Welsh by the invaders.--Rhydd Meddwl 20:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Romano-Britons were the Romanised Britons, not the product of British-Roman reproduction. And TharkunColl is right, indigenous English people are directly descended from the original paleolithic inhabitants of Great Britain as are the Celtic peoples of Great Britain.[14] Alun 19:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

But it's irrelevant whether or not England can be considered as 'lost lands'. The point in question is whether or not that's the correct etymology of Lloegr. garik 09:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that no one seems to have tried to connect the name Lloegr to the word llwgr (corrupt, defiled etc) and its derivatives like llygru (pollute, taint). Rather more plausible than 'lost', though almost certainly equally false. garik 16:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The name Lloegr, as Welsh for "England", certainly existed before Sieffre o Fynwy / Geoffrey of Monmouth gave his fevered imagination full vent in the Historia regum Britanniae. His book is a marvellous piece of fiction which incorporates a number of genuinely Welsh myths and traditions, but the parts about Brutus and his three sons, Albanactus, Camber and Locrinus, is pure bunk (with the added political aim of demonstrating the supremacy of the English Crown). You get similar foundation myths in other west European countries (minus Locrinus etc) about Brutus fleeing from Troy to found a kingdom, all dating from the Middle Ages.

The earliest instance of Lloegyr (Lloegr) occurs in the probably early 10th century prophetic poem Armes Prydain. It seems comparatively late as a place name, the nominative plural Lloegrwys, "men of Lloegr", being earlier and more common. Remember that England was divided into kingdoms. The English were sometimes referred to as an entity in early poetry (Saeson, as today) but just as often as Eingl (Angles), Iwys (Wessex-men), etc. Lloegr and Saeson became the norm later when England emerged as a kingdom. As for its origins, some scholars have suggested that it originally referred only to Mercia - at that time a powerful kingdom and for centuries the main foe of the Welsh. It was then applied to the new kingdom of England as a whole (see for instance Rachel Bromwich's edition of Trioedd Ynys Prydain, University of Wales Press, 1987). I don't know where some writers get "the lost land" from; it's a good desciption of England from an early Welsh point of view but has no etymological basis whatsoever (although Geoffrey of Monmouth might disagree!). Enaidmawr 23:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I see this spurious etymology has surfaced again. I've removed it. garik 19:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Welsh alphabet

I've just removed the following: There are 28 letters in the Welsh language and unlike English its vowels are: A,E,I,O,U,W, and Y.

I have two problems with it. First, perhaps least importantly, and certainly most pedantically, a language is not its writing system. There are 28 (?+1) letters in the Welsh alphabet, seven of which represent vowels, although not exclusively. In fact, Welsh has about 13 vowels, at least in the north and not including diphthongs. The second issue is this: what's the point in including the number of letters in the alphabet here? It's already covered in Welsh language and Welsh alphabet. If we have to provide an interesting titbit about the language, let's have something accurate; and what makes the alphabet so special? There are plenty of equally interesting and irrelevant facts about Welsh. Why not mention that Welsh has two grammatical genders, not three natural ones as in English? Or that it's got a system of consonant mutation? Or that it's superficially VSO (the verb normally comes first)? Or that it's got a longer history in Britain than English (and indeed was spoken throughout England at one point)? Or that Tolkien based one of his Elvish languages on it? My vote's for something historical, if anything: like when it became a minority language in Wales. At least that's a bit more relevant to the article as a whole. garik 22:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Got a bit intense about that. I admit it's a long paragraph to discuss a tiny issue, though I stand by my point. garik 23:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The article on the Welsh alphabet seems to have omitted the adopted letter 'k' as is 'kilomedr', 'kilogram', etc.

-- Maelor  13:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted: I've added it. On the other hand, it has very restricted use and is completely redundant - I personally write cilogram. garik 15:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't write "cilo"!!! The abbreviations would be incorrect. The distance from Cardiff to Bangor would then be abbreviated to 300cm, a very short trip!!!! See Hŷd on Welsh Wikipedia

-- Maelor  15:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not in fact a problem - and Welsh Wicipedia is sadly deficient in rather a lot. For a brief, but more authoritative discussion, see pages 21 and 22 of the following: [[15]]. If you look up kilometre in the [Lampeter uni online dictionary] or the [BBC dictionary] (and indeed other Welsh dictionaries) you'll find that cilo- is an accepted alternative. Lampeter doesn't even list variants with K. The point is that, as the first link notes, kg and so on aren't abbreviations, but international symbols (like Pb for lead). garik 17:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Native name

Sion glyn seems very keen on putting "Cymru" as the first name in the infobox. I sympathise with this, but I have to say that since, regrettably, the majority of Welsh people do not speak Welsh, "Wales" is the name used for Wales by the majority of its inhabitants in their native language. This doesn't make "Cymru" any less native, but I think it does make "Wales" the better choice here. Anyone else got a view on this? It seems sensible to discuss the issue here rather than have Sion keep on changing it and someone else keep on reverting. garik 22:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

As he's just said on my talk page, however, "Eire" does come before "Ireland" on the Republic of Ireland article. I have to admit he's got a point (though maybe it's that article that should be changed). Any thoughts? garik 23:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, for the Isle of Man, Ellan Vannin comes first. I'd be inclined to agree with using Cymru here. For an analogy see http://www.wales.gov.uk and see which language they use first - Welsh. I think you could say that Welsh is more native, in origin, to Wales than English. The motto and anthem are also in Welsh. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

True enough. Does Wikipedia have a policy on this? garik 00:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the proper WP way of doing things, but I'd prefer to see "Cymru" first. Tomrawlinson 00:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, as a matter of personal taste, so would I. Still, if there is a proper WP way, then we should obviously follow that. garik 00:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As you all may no i am very keen on having "Cymru" ahead of "Wales" on the info box.I don't have a clue what wikipedia says but most contries have their native name ahead of the english name.Even if it is the English wikipedia. E.X. Spain,Russia,Ireland... So i would very much like to ask if we can change it.S.Britton 03:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Spain and Russia are poor examples: English is an official language in neither of those countries, while it is both official and the language of the majority in Wales. But, as I've said, Ireland (like the Isle of Man) is a very good example and, of course, "Cymru" has a longer history as a native name for Wales. garik 12:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia pages on naming conventions don't seem to give any advice specific to which native name is preferable. The page titled Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) relates really to article titles, so is not enormously helpful. More relevant is the page on Ireland-related articles. This states that "Where the English and Irish names are different [and it seems reasonable to generalise to Wales], and English name remains predominant usage in English, use English name", which would seem to suggest that "Wales" should be the first native name here. The point does relate to places within the Republic of Ireland, however, not to the country itself, and towns and counties are to some extent different beasts. I say let's just wait a day or two to see if anyone feels strongly about and has strong arguments for having "Wales" before "Cymru" and, if not, change it. garik 13:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a United Kingdom article, compare this to other UK articles. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Cornwall all have the English first. Carmarthen is even in a predominantly Welsh-speaking area but uses the English name as this is the English-language wikipedia. Marky-Son 17:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the issue of Carmarthen is a bit of a red herring, since we're not talking about changing the title of the article to "Cymru", only putting that form as the first native name in the infobox - one might compare the articles on Vienna and Austria. As I noted above, towns and countries are different beasts. The point about this being a UK article is a good one, however. Nevertheless, I think a case could be made for treating Wales as a special case, since the official status of Cornish, Irish, Scots and Scots Gaelic is different from that of Welsh. garik 17:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The status of English and Welsh is equal as you know, so this doesn't help the matter, the only thing that seperates the two names is that this is the English-language wikipedia, Cymru comes first on the Welsh-language wikipedia of course. I think the "native name" should be taken with a pinch of salt, while Cymru has more of a case of being the native name of this nation, so does Alba in Scotland. Marky-Son 18:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right: the equality of English and Welsh doesn't help resolve the matter - except that it makes Scotland, Northern Ireland and Cornwall rather different cases. The use of Alba Scotland is a somewhat different case again, however, as Scots Gaelic is more a Highland than a Scottish language - it's never had much currency in Lowland Scotland (whereas Welsh, as we know, spread at one point even beyond what we now call Wales) - So the English (or Scots) form has a greater historical claim to being the native form there. But I agree broadly that on English-language Wikipedia "Wales" may well have a better claim to coming first. garik 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Modified by garik 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

So if it is the English wikipedia should all contries have their English name first? Cymru is the native name and i would think Wales would just be the common name.On most page involving contries this is not hte case so Why should Wales be?Sion 22:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, I disagree that Wales is not a native name for Wales. Would you claim that France is not the native name for France on the basis that it is neither Gaulish nor Latinate? If it is the name the majority of natives use when speaking their native language, then I think it has a very good claim to be one of the native names. What do you mean by 'common name' exactly? garik 00:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's all about how you interpret the word native. English was brought here by other peoples, it has just as much of a case as being a native language in Wales, as it does in England or Scotland, as it was only brought there from overseas. The fact it only became the majority and first language of Wales more recently than in those countries is irrelivant. Over 99% of people that were actually born in Wales speak English fluently, and the majority of them as their first language. Marky-Son 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

…and the celts came from continental Europe, possibly from much further, and replaced the previous inhabitants. It's all a question of how far back you go. The history should not be relevant here. All that matters is whether we consider the majority language, English, to be "native", or instead Welsh, the language that is restricted to, and more strongly identified with, Wales. --Stemonitis 16:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree in principle, except that you seem to imply that one of the two is in some sense 'more native'. I don't think either is. Each has a claim to be a native languages of Wales, and neither claim seems to me to be especially stronger than the other (at least in this context). Whether we put Cymru or Wales first in the infobox depends not on which one is native (because both are), but on whether we choose the one used by the majority or the one that's more locally specific (and has a longer history of use in Wales) - localness/venerability versus present popularity, in other words. garik 17:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC) modified by garik 17:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Coming in late to the conversation... I think the precident set by Repubic of Ireland page should be used here. Cymru should appear first in the Information box, Wales second. It is sylastically pleasing and correct. Is not the Welsh given precidence on street signs and other governmental paperwork followed by the English translations? (I dont know but every sign in a picture I see has Welsh listed first and English second). I am not going to change it as not to start a revert war, but I hope the precidence set already on the Republic of Ireland page is followed here with Cymru listed above Wales. I have reviewed the pages on Isle of Man and Scoland. I am now firmly convinced that Cymru should appear first, Wales second in line with the precident of Ireland and Man. Regrettably, Alba is second to Scotland on that page, but there is more argument that there are more dialect variations there. More Welsh speak Welsh, then Irish speak Irish, or Scots speak Scotish. Drachenfyre 18:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but more Welsh people speak English than any of them. I'm sorry, but I don't see how having Cymru first is more stylistically pleasing; and I'm certainly not clear how it would be more correct. Welsh, I would add, is only given precedence on street signs in those parts of Wales where it is spoken by the majority (e.g. my part of Wales, Gwynedd). The picture of bilingual road markings in the Welsh language article is an example from a less Welsh-speaking part of the country. I'm also not entirely sure what you mean by there being more dialects in Scotland - the point is rather that Gaelic has never been the native language of most lowland Scots. The Republic of Ireland article may perhaps seem a more relevant precedent inasmuch as Welsh and English have equal status in Wales, whereas Gaelic and English do not in Scotland. However, The Republic of Ireland is also clearly different since the constitution explicitly makes Irish the first official language of the republic - this is not the case for either English or Welsh in Wales. Still, I suppose the Isle of Man article remains relevant. garik 18:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Modified by garik 18:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Styalisitically it is more pleasing to see the native name for the country first. I do not subscribe that English is anyway native to Wales. We all know the origions of Welsh as a name. I suppose it is as much as a brand to me. Anyway, when going to the Assembly website http://www.wales.gov.uk/index.htm they place Welsh above all English in their portal. I suspect this is true for all Welsh governmental bodies. I would suggest that the Assembly government is promoting the use of Welsh as the "first" offical language as far as it can, in a simular manner as Dublin is. Anyway, good luck on wrestling with this. My vote is Cymru first, Wales second. Drachenfyre 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I've said, I'd like to see Cymru first as a matter of personal pride, but my own pride isn't really a strong enough argument. And I'm unconvinced by arguments that "Wales" is not also a native name - its original meaning is irrelevant insofar as it's been adopted by the Welsh people themselves when they speak English. And certainly English people no longer mean by 'Welsh' what their distant ancestors meant. I think it's analogous to words like queer and dyke, which have been similarly reclaimed and are now badges of pride. I suppose an important issue is how we define "native". Do we mean 'originating in Wales' or 'preferred by natives'. I'm afraid by the second definition we have to choose "Wales" over "Cymru", at least in English-language Wikipedia. The first definition would certainly exclude "Wales", but is a little problematic even when it comes to "Cymru", which may well have emerged in a different Brythonic-speaking part of Britain. I admit that that latter argument is perhaps unnecessarily subtle, but the point is that to claim "Cymru" as the only native form is rather dubious. garik 19:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How about we have a vote? garik 19:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it does not rise to the level of a cumbersom vote per se. I believe it is a non issue that has risen to the ranks of an issue. After viewing other national sites, I am further convinced of the correct formate. I would fear that the issue would become more politicized and become an invitation to Anglophiles (no disrespect intended) to respond where normally they would have little interest to do so. Out of the last few days, only 6 or so people seem to be concerned on the matter enough to even respond. Most respondents thus far have favored Cymru/Wales rather then Wales/Cymru. I am not myself a resident of Wales, but hope to see the Cymru/Wales format.Drachenfyre 09:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to Drachenfyre: lack of response can as well suggest lack of time or lack of working network connection as lack of interest. I'll put the rest of my comments below, but I think this makes more sense here. Telsa (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a vote would be a good way of demonstrating the consensus; votes aren't so cumbersome. It will be a lot easier in the future to demonstrate that there was support for one way of doing it if there's a clear poll with a clear result than it would be pointing to a discussion. Having said that, I would be neutral in any given vote. --Stemonitis 09:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that anglophiles will take over a vote - certainly that's not my impression so far from comments posted here. If we had a vote, I suggest the following format. Is everyone happy with it? I think a week is fair. It also seems reasonable to restrict this to registered users to avoid people voting lots of times from different addresses (not that anyone here would do that, I'm sure). garik 10:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC) modified by garik 10:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed vote on whether to have "Cymru" or "Wales" as first native name in the infobox:
NB This is not a vote on which of the two forms (Wales and Cymru) might be the "real native 
name for Wales"!  See discussion above.  The question is a very small and specific one: which 
of the two should come first in the infobox in this article.  It is open to registered users 
only.

I also agree with Stemonitis that it would be good to establish a consensus that can be referred to later. I know a vote may seem cumbersome, but I think the alternative is leaving the question unresolved and the article open to an edit/revert cycle. And I remain unconvinced that other national sites in any way indicate a 'correct format' (i.e. do we follow Ireland or Scotland? The Isle of Man or Cornwall?). garik 10:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, would be happy to abide by the result of a vote, Hogyn Lleol 10:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would not be happy with any outcome other then Cymru/Wales. For this, I will abstain from the vote and absent myself from any further coment on the topic. Drachenfyre 10:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if we agree to vote, remember you're making it more likely that the "anglophiles" will win. garik 10:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So are we having a vote then? I would be happy and would accept the result. Just how long would the voting last?Sion 16:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So far the majority of people seem happy to vote, so I suggest we open voting at midnight tonight (Welsh time). What do you think of my suggestion of a week (so voting would close at midnight on Tuesday 12 December)? That should give everyone a chance to take part. And does everyone approve of restricting the vote to registered users only? garik 16:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I stand on the issues of voting on wikipedia. I know that some Wikipedians dislike it intensely (because we're supposed to work by consensus, not by "our survey said.."). I fear my doubts are more because I invariably lose, and obviously I feel I was right but outvoted :) There are notes on suggested guidelines at WP:VOTE, but since Garik is already working out how long to run in and exactly what the question is, I suspect he has already read them? Telsa (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think in this case, where only two possibilities are evident (nobody has suggested a third) and the two are mutually exclusive, a straw poll is by no means inappropriate. Garik's suggested procedure seems perfectly reasonable, and the poll should not be seen as preventing any future attempts to find a consensus. --Stemonitis 17:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A week is fine by me!Sion 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Telsa: no, I hadn't read WP:VOTE (cue shamefaced look). I agree with WP policy that in general discussion is a far better means of reaching consensus, but I think this is a case where we won't get enormously far just by discussing it! As you say, Stemonitis, the poll wouldn't be binding either. Here's what I suggest: no strict opening or closing date, but if there seems to be a majority by Wednesday in favour of Cymru being first, we adjust the article; if not, we don't. We are at least in the happy position that the question reflects a real dichotomy and that, in the end, the result is of very little consequence. garik 17:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

When you say a majority, do you mean a clear majority, or just a majority of 1 or more? You're right about it no closing date, so that should someone else contribute some other fact or opinion at a later date, this could be reflected in whether the names should be changed or stay the same. Marky-Son 19:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose if it's a very small majority, we just try to reach some consensus. The main purpose of doing the poll is to see if there is a clear preference. I suggest we put all votes together (as I've started here) and keep other comments up here. Does that seem reasonable to everyone? Garik 19:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Other examples would include Quebec, Lesotho, Cyprus and many others. Since this is a non binding straw poll, I shall observe it more closely. Drachenfyre 20:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But let's not forget that the majority of people in Quebec speak French, just as the majority of Cypriots speak Greek. I don't know about Lesotho, but suspect it's a similar situation. In Wales, on the other hand, the majority of people do not speak Welsh.garik 20:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Poll on whether Cymru or Wales should come first in the infobox

• Cymru Anrhega Cymru bacia at 'r Cymraeg. Susie Rawlinson
• Cymru Well i say Cymru is the native language!!! The Welsh language is more native to Wales than English! Plus most contries have their local names first.

So 1 vote for Cymru!!! C'mon CYMRU!!! 1-0 for Cymru.Sion 23:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cymru Hi!i'm fairly new to wikipedia and i was just reading this discusion.If i was a Welshman i think i would perfere to see Cymru as the native name. So i vote for Cymru as well.SB21 01:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cymru Clearly my vote is for Cymru too, for examples given.Drachenfyre 05:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cymru - I'm not sure it's the the right Wikipedia thing to do, but I think almost any Welsh person will find it pleasing to have the Welsh form given precedence. In fact, I'd almost call it "uncontroversial" under the particular circumstances here. Tomrawlinson 19:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wales for reasons already discussed. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marky-Son (talk • contribs) .

• Cymru - there doesn't seem to be much of a controversy. Vashti 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cymru - I'm with those who would like to see the Welsh form given first. Gareth 11:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wales- This is the English Wikipedia, and the name in English is Wales. Astrotrain 11:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wales - I am part-English and part-Welsh and out of deference to all the history between our people's tend to think the Welsh should decide, but in the context of Wikipedia this is a "which language page are we on" issue - in this case the English version - and in English the common usage is "Wales" regardless of history. This is not a poll on the survival of the Welsh people or language. MarkThomas 16:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wales- This is the English Wikipedia, and the name in English is Wales. As a purely secondary point, it is also the name that the vast majority of people from Wales would use. Normalmouth 16:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cymru, though I can see the point of the pro-Wales faction here, I'll have to say that the parallels to Ireland and Man are very strong. —Nightstallion (?) 16:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cymru, Should be the same as ireland and the isle of man! And Cymru is more native. Owaingwyn 16:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the parallel with Ireland out of interest - the name Ireland appears to come first there in all cases. MarkThomas 18:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The parallel is with Republic of Ireland, and most other nations where the native language is given first with the exception, it seems, of Wales and Scotland. After viewing most other countries, the native language tends to appear first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drachenfyre (talk • contribs) 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

• Cymru, Native languages come first --Barry^talk 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cymru Hogyn Lleol 17:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cymru - for reasons already given. Pili-pala 17:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cymru - Cymru yn gyntaf bob tro! Rhys Meredydd 14:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cymru - The native language appears first in such infoboxes in the English Wiki. Siswrn 21:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Note - this is not a question of which language is "native", merely in which order the two should be listed. --Stemonitis 09:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments on above poll

• This poll is dumb - It needs to be "Wales" no matter what the outcome of this poll is. English is the most spoken language in Wales, so English goes first. Period. You cannot opt out of the right way to do things with a poll. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk  18:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm very surprised by both the tone of your comments here and also the way you go against basic format for a poll. People do have a valid case, because for example both the Isle of Man and Republic of Ireland pages give their native language name first. I'm surprised because I would have thought as an admin you would use more polite language. MarkThomas 19:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a big majority for Cymru then! Sion 14:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So far, yes. But I think we said we'd wait a week. garik 14:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh,sorry. I thought you said it closed yesterday if there was a clear majority Sion 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's OK. What I suggested was that we leave it a week to give everyone a chance to see we're doing a poll. Then, if a clear majority's developed by Wednesday, we edit accordingly (or not). A couple of people clearly have a problem with holding a poll at all (but then they seem to come from opposite sides of the issue, and most other people seem happy with the idea), but as no one seems opposed to waiting a week, I think it's only fair to do so. garik 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

But why are we changing the paramaters after the close out date without prior notice? With respect, this decision now seems capricious and disengenuious.Drachenfyre 22:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What parameters are we changing? Which decision? Didn't we always plan to wait a week? garik 22:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"if there seems to be a majority by Wednesday in favour of Cymru being first, we adjust the article; if not, we don't." and . "The main purpose of doing the poll is to see if there is a clear preference" This was what everyone understood as you cut and pasted other peoples previous statements. Was this not the intension? Drachenfyre 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I thought we'd decided next Wednesday:

so voting would close at midnight on Tuesday 12 December

After all, Sion said a week was fine by him - and it's hardly been a week. I admit, there certainly does seem to be a clear preference so far, and I doubt it'll change by next Wednesday, but it just seems fairer not to change the article before we said we would. garik 22:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"So far the majority of people seem happy to vote, so I suggest we open voting at midnight tonight (Welsh time). What do you think of my suggestion of a week (so voting would close at midnight on Tuesday 12 December)? That should give everyone a chance to take part. And does everyone approve of restricting the vote to registered users only"

This is what changed the context and why even Sion above understood the poll to end on Wed when a clear trend presented itself. Your origional idea of a vote was scraped in favor of a non-binding poll with the close out date of Weds. Sion wrote "Oh,sorry. I thought you said it closed yesterday if there was a clear majority."

I really do not wish to be ... confrontational here. Drachenfyre 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nor do I! Anyway, I think I see what the problem is. My apologies. I don't think I made myself very clear at all. When I said 'if there's a clear majority by Wednesday [13 December]', I meant 'by Wednesday' in the sense of 'come Wednesday' rather than 'at any point before Wednesday', and I thought this was what people had agreed with. I saw the non-bindingness not so much in the lack of a definite "judgement day" as in the fact that it was just a simple way to resolve the situation until a better way came along. I don't know why I chose such an ambiguous word as 'by'. Sorry. Well, anyway, if everyone thought that's what we were doing, then we should probably make the necessary edit now. I thought it best to avoid editing till Wednesday to avoid having to change the article every time the vote swung in the opposite direction, but there's not much sign of that yet at any rate. garik 23:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Scotland

If "Cymru" should be first in the infobox, why is "Scotland" first in the Scotland page? Is it because English is the majority language of Scotland? If so, then there is no case here for "Cymru", since English is overwhelmingly the majority language in Wales. Or is this connected to the concept of "native-ness" - in which case, why isn't for example Australia in one of the aboriginal languages and England in Anglo-Saxon? I think my point is that this discussion is motivated by concepts such as nationalism and indigenous rights and is therefore POV in Wikipedia terms - therefore it should stay as is. Also, the case cited above of Republic of Ireland having the Irish word first on English Wikipedia is also probably a case of POV and wrong, and so is France showing Republique Francais first. Sheesh, this is an even bigger mess than I thought! MarkThomas 09:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think these points have already been discussed above, but I'll summarise the important issues here. The first name in the infobox is described as the "native name", so this is clearly right in the case of France. In the case of the Republic of Ireland, both English and Irish are official languages, but the latter is described in the constitution as the "first" language of the Republic. Whether or not that reflects reality, it's a very strong case for putting the Irish name first. Scotland is a little different from both Wales and Ireland: although Scottish Gaelic was at one point spoken over the majority of the territory now known as Scotland, it was certainly never the only language of Scotland - English has as ancient a claim to nativeness in Scotland as it has in England, and it has long been the language of the majority; it is a simplification, but, I think, a fair one, to say that Gaelic is a language of the highlands, while Scots English is a language of the lowlands. I would add that Gaelic is only accorded respect in Scotland, not equal status with English. Wales is somewhat different again. At the start of the 19th century, Welsh was not only spoken by the vast majority of the people of Wales, for most of them it was the only language (compare Ireland): English was still essentially a foreign tongue - though of course this is no longer the case. It was over the last couple of centuries that the decline happened. Welsh also has equal status with English in Wales. In other words, there seems to be a case for both Welsh and English being seen as native languages of Wales. The only question, and it's not even a very important one, is which to put first in the infobox here. Do we go by modern popularity or historical significance? There doesn't seem an obvious correct answer (although advocates of both sides claim otherwise). A poll seems as good a way as any to resolve the issue. garik 09:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't understand your point about Anglo-Saxon btw. How is Old English more native to England than modern English? garik 09:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's about the logical basis of your argument Garik. You use phrases like "foreign" language to denote English in Wales, yet English came to Wales in the 8th and 9th centuries - so I was highlighting the absurdity of such a position. English is the majority language of Wales. The legalistic basis you imply, for example in the case of Eire, has never applied until recently in Wales - historically it never had an "official" language other than perhaps in certain courts - and the recent establishment of official Welsh has been as joint-equal with English. So the position is similar to French and English in Canada and not at all like Eire, where the government has legislated that Gael is official. Therefore this whole discussion is based on false premises and is in fact motivated by nationalist sentiment, which has no place in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. The only real question is what the average reader of English-language Wikipedia needs and I would suggest that Cymru first in this context is slightly, but only slightly, confusing. MarkThomas 10:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

True, English has been in Wales a very long time - but it was still foreign to the vast majority of speakers until just over 200 years ago. That was my point - but I agree that "foreign" was a poor choice of word - in some ways it's comparable with the case of Welsh in Wales now, although I suspect that there was more a sense then of English not belonging to Wales. I agree with you that English is the majority language in Wales - I made the same point myself above. I also agree with you that Wales is different from Eire and the status of Welsh different from Irish Gaelic. I've made that point above too. It's why I said that "Wales if a different case again" - it's different from both Ireland and Scotland. Furthermore, I think that the case for "Eire" coming first is probably stronger than the case for "Cymru" coming first. I disagree, however, that the discussion is based on false premises. My argument, which I shall restate, is that both Welsh and English have some claim to be considered native to Wales - the claims may differ, but I don't think one is a great deal stronger than the other. They are both native languages of Wales. In other words, I agree that Canada is a good analogy -unfortunately, Canada is the same in French and English, so that article can't be a model for this. For simple physical reasons, one of the two native languages has to come before the other in the infobox, even if we have both on the same line (which I would not be against). Now, I agree that we should think of the reader, but I don't see how having "Cymru" first would be even slightly confusing. I just don't see that either Cymru or Wales has a much better case than the other for coming first. If you can see a way of having neither first, that would be great. garik 10:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC) modified by garik 10:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if we don't want to give one precedence over the other, let's simply put them alphabetically! Hogyn Lleol 10:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)  ;-)

True, that would be one solution! As would putting the majority language first. Or the one with a longer history of being the majority language in Wales. Or the one that the reader's more likely to know. Or the one that's more specific to Wales. Or the one the head of state uses. Or the one that wasn't originally a foreign name for Wales. Still, it's good to remember how insignificant this question really is:) - not a reason not to discuss it, I might add:) garik 10:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Stylistic editing

There should be an empty line space between Cymru and Wales. As on the Republic of Ireland page and others, there is a space between the native name and English name. Further question, should we not add the " Tywysogaeth / Principality of " before the names as well? It is officially a principality after all. Drachenfyre 22:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what's going on with the spacing. It doesn't seem to be something that can be changed. Anyone know? Not everyone likes the full "Principality" business, but I suppose it is the official name, so you should probably go ahead and add it. garik 23:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It does seem rather to be falling out of use, though; for reference, Britannica doesn't seem to have anything other than (very) historical references. Where is it defined as the "offical name" anyway? Vashti 23:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I'm only assuming it is. It may well not be. garik 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am leaning towards Wales as a legally described Principality because the Treaty of Montgomery formally establishes a political entity recognized by other states as a "Principality of Wales." Though later Statutes would redefine the borders, first to restrict them with the Statute of Ruddlan in 1284 (limiting the principality of Llywelyn II after a war, and releasing Welsh lords from direct feality to him), it would be seen to actually expand the principality with the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542 to actually include formerly Marcher lordships. Additionally, while the title "Prince of Wales" always returns to the crown and has to be conferred again to the male heir of the UK monarch, the area administered by the council of Wales (usually seated at Ludlow). The initial intention of the Laws of Wales acts were to completly annex Wales formally into the English kingdom, but the very presence of a newly defined administrative area for the Council of Wales I would say means that the principality of Wales was a fact, even with the title was merged again with the crown. One could view the present Assembly of Wales as a kind of continuation of the Council of Wales for all intentens and purposes (though more responsable to the Welsh people directly). Given this, and the lack of any repudiation of the legal status of Principality of Wales, I would say it continues to be such, as established in 1262.Drachenfyre 07:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A little further up, Arwel says that the Local Government Act 1972 defined the territory of Wales. I've not been able to get a copy of the act, but would suggest that if that act legally defines "Wales" as an entity, then that is where the official title is defined. It may well be simply "Wales".

Given that Wales *was* legally merged with England for centuries after the definition of the Principality, I would urge people to look at modern laws and to consider historical laws to be just that. Vashti 18:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wales/Cymru

There still seems to be doubt above about the rational basis of flipping the common name order in the infobox from Wales / Cymru to Cymru / Wales, so I ask passing editors to revert until a proper basis is established. The common practice on Wikipedia appears to be either:

(1) Official language - passed as a law in the given country. In Wales/Cymru, English and Welsh are currently jointly official, so no help there.

Welsh is given priority in all malings, and government websites, ect. Weve already cited examples.Drachenfyre 14:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if true, not relevant here - this is the English-language variant of Wikipedia. MarkThomas 11:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(2) Dominant language - in modern Wales, overwhelming majority speak English as first langauge, so that argues for the status quo.

and in the south of the country. Additionally, we took the modle from Ireland and Mann. There is already precidence.Drachenfyre 14:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The "south of the country" is where more than 75% of the population live. And the Isle of Man is not a good precedent - really that page is wrongly formatted, and should be changed. MarkThomas 11:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(3) Tradition and history - English has been widespread in Wales since the 8th century, but originally Wales spoke an earlier form of Cymraeg, so this slightly tilts in favour of Cymru, but this precedent does not get much support from other Wikipedia country pages.

gods your so wrong here! Widespread sine the 8th century! This is the most ignorant statement I have heard! Please study the developement of both English and Welsh and where they were spoken in Wales.Drachenfyre 14:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps from Texas or wherever it is you live you have a perspective we don't. The Anglo-saxon speaking "English" widely spread into the Eastern part of what is now South Wales from around 850 partly by conquest and partly just through population spread. The Normans speaking presumably norman french and early english/middle english spread through conquest and population spread all the way to Pembroke in the 11th and 12th centuries. Certainly by 1300 the majority language of Wales was not Welsh. Putting your obvious trolling to one side. MarkThomas 11:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(4) Nationalist pride - the majority of "pro" votes above for the change have been based on support for the Welsh nationalist viewpoint. However Plaid are a minority party in Wales, so not much help here.

this is not the forum to discuss politics. Those that responded have an interest here yes, but it does not follow that they are "nationalistic" as you say. Drachenfyre 14:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So when people were busy recruiting for this poll on other people's talk pages saying things like "hey, there's a hot issue of Welsh pride at stake on the Talk:Wales page, come over quickly and vote", there was no nationalism involved? MarkThomas 11:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Overall I would say logical WP verdict is on the side of the status quo. Any other logical arguments, not ones based on pro-Cymraeg sentiment, worthy though that is? Thanks. MarkThomas 13:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your tone is very patronizing to those that took the time to post comments here. Drachenfyre 14:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm slightly worried at your dismissal of many people's honest opinions as mere nationalism, and at your equation of Welsh nationalism with Plaid Cymru support, neither of which seems to follow logically. But to return to the main point, there is a fifth argument that you have omitted, namely that of hassle. If having "Wales" before "Cymru" is going to lead to resentment or confusion or repeated discussions of why it's that way round, then it might just be easier to put "Cymru" first. It really isn't worth spending much time and effort over. It hardly matters at all, so if one solution ensures peace, then why not simply choose that one? If I were asked to choose, I'd probably have "Wales" first, but the majority seems to prefer another solution, and there's nothing wrong with their solution. --Stemonitis 13:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark, you cant dismiss what everyone has thus discussed just because you want to. I am changing it back, as it was already discussed. Drachenfyre 14:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly by 1300 the majority language of Wales was not Welsh

I find this claim very odd. I agree that English and Norman French were spoken in Wales at this date, but mainly among the gentry; certainly Welsh remained the main language of the majority of the population, and for a very long time. Even in 1750, the sole language of parish church services in over 80 per cent of Wales was Welsh (and we can assume that English-speaking landowners in some parts may have imposed English on a predominantly Welsh-speaking flock)(Davies 1993: 34; cf. Davies 1992: 286-7). By the start of the 19th century, the proportion of Welsh speakers in Wales was around 80% and the vast majority of them spoke only Welsh (Davies 1993: 54). It was over that century that industrialisation brought massive changes. By 1891, 54.4% claimed knowledge of Welsh and 69.7% of English. Of these, 30.4% were monoglot Welsh, 45.5% monoglot English and 24.1% bilingual (Jenkins 1999: 11). Note that it was not until the 18th Century that even the gentry became monolingual (Davies 1992: 225) - Owain Glyndŵr, after all, came from the Marches. Davies (1992: 225-6) also notes that a big problem from the time of the Act of Union, which made Welsh the sole language for public office and the courts, was that the majority of Welsh people did not speak English.

References: Davies, Janet (1993) The Welsh Language; Cardiff: University of Wales Press; Davies, John (1992) Hanes Cymru. London: Penguin Books; Jenkins, Geraint H. (1999) ‘The historical background to the 1891 census’ in Parry, Gwenfair and Williams, Mari H. (1999) (Eds) The Welsh Language and the 1891 Census. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. 1-30). garik 11:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary: Wales/Cymru

OK, one or two editors have dismissed the points I made on the grounds that (a) I'm patronising - irrelevant and also not true, (b) that there was a majority vote - informal polls on Wikipedia are not binding and (c) it doesn't matter anyway - but if it doesn't matter anyway, why such a discussion over it? It does matter, because it's the eye-catching thing people see and it's as important as the lead section. Just to summarise the arguments again, there is no precedent elsewhere in Wikipedia for doing this, it's in the English language version, it's not logical on the grounds of official language or majority language and in fact on linguistic and political criteria it should be English first. What we have here is anti-British POV surfacing and as that's the case, we should retain objectivity and adopt the status quo.

I ask other passing editors to assist in counter-reverting what it appears will inevitably follow given the active POVery we are getting here. Thanks. MarkThomas 10:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we've got to be careful of the "this is English-language Wikipedia" argument. After all, the "native name" in most infoboxes here is not in English. However, I agree that given a choice between two names, both with a reasonable claim to be considered native, there is an argument for choosing the one that's in the same language as the article. However, I don't believe this is a matter of Wikipedia policy - the English-first principle does not extend to native names for obvious reasons. In other words, the "English Wikipedia" argument is more a reason to choose one form in the absence of any other good reason to choose one over the other. In Ireland, for example, I think the "first language of the Republic" argument is more of a clincher.

I think there's far more substance to the argument that the majority of Welsh people have English as their native language - see my first comment above (though I am confused by your "by 1300" claim - see above). On the other hand, I think that there are arguments in favour of "Cymru" as well. It seems to me that the chief ones are historical: that in origin "Cymru" was the name the Welsh gave to themselves, while "Wales" was an outsider's name. Second, that in the history of Wales, Welsh has been the native language of the majority of its population for a greater time than English has (see my response to the "by 1300" claim above).

Now, I agree that these are not clinchers either, but I think they lead us to the statement that while "Wales" can be seen as "more native" in a modern context, "Cymru" can be seen as "more native" in a historical sense. In other words, Wales has two native languages, and the name for the country is different in each. Do we choose the one with the greater modern claim to be primary, or the one with the greater historical claim to be primary? Of course, the historical claim ignores that English has been spoken as a first language by native Welsh people for a very very long time; but the modern claim ignores that a large number of English-mother-tongue Welsh people would see Cymru as "more native" in some sense.

I accept absolutely that polls are non-binding and, at times, troublesome. But I think that there's a case for both Wales and Cymru here; I was hoping, in suggesting a poll, to avoid a cycle of edits and reverts. Sadly it hasn't succeeded in that. But let's be civil about this and not accuse pro-Cymru people of being anti-British. Who knows, some might be, but we certainly can't assume so based on their preference for one name over another. And let's not accuse each other of being patronising either - regardless of whether this might be true or not, it is inflammatory. garik 12:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a much more rational approach Garik. If I may pick you up on one small thing though, I note in your linguistic history of Wales piece above that you refer to Owain Glyndŵr - of course, he was Anglo-Welsh, spoke English as his first language and studied law at the Inns of Court in London! Just to get a little perspective on this. :-) I really hold nothing against the Welsh nationalist argument and support the rights and progress of the Welsh language. I am half-Welsh myself. I just think though that the key name at the top of the page needs to be "Wales" as this is a world En-language cyclopedia and not just a local tool - within Britain, and especially within Wales, I would agree that Cymru is fine. I just worry that we are mis-conveying something important to the average international reader. On the other hand, I suppose they might also be intrigued. MarkThomas 13:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted to Cymry/Wales, as one person unhappy with the poll results (which established a consensis) decided to take it upon himself to change it himself.Drachenfyre 13:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I really wish we could decide this properly here before getting back into an edit/revert cycle.... Mark: a fair point about Glyndŵr. What I was really getting at was that even the gentry were not monolingual English speakers; but yes, there is an unfortunate tendency to assume that Glyndŵr, and other historical Welsh figures, had minimal contact with England and, when speaking their language, probably spat on the ground in disdain:) With regard to the article, I think the important key name in the article is the one at the top left - the title, in other words - and that certainly must remain in English. I'm not convinced most people even pay all that much attention to the infobox. If they do, I'm inclined to think that they're more likely to be intrigued than confused. For this reason, I would argue that it's not terribly important which comes first. I know that some international readers may assume, seeing "Cymru" comes first, that most Welsh people speak Welsh, but that'll be corrected if they read on. What do people think about having both names on one line? That might strengthen the point that both are native. On the other hand, it would make it more difficult to indicate which language each is in - unless we put that underneath. garik 13:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean, do we really have to repost the arguments from above? The standard for as many countries as I can find is that the native language comes first. Garik you make a point about which is the "more native language". I and other posters here have come to a consensis reguarding which we feel is the most native of languages, yet this is not good enough for display? And with the attidude of the one admin I wouldn't trust his position at all, he certinly does not engender respect or neutrality at all. The posters, as you reread, were not enflamed by overt patriotism, they read the arguments and posted accordingly. Its funny that I am now in a position of attempting to defend the poll. I am still against a formal vote and would prefer consensis. But when it was "not binding", I understood this as to mean that we would reopen the debate on this page before a revert war again took place. Drachenfyre 14:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record: when you say there's a consensus regardng which people feel is the more native language, are you referring to the poll? Because I don't think the poll asked which was the "more native" of the two forms. It asked merely which people would prefer to see first in the infobox, which is not the same. But I agree that the debate is much better reopened before a revert war starts. garik 18:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Garik's point is a good one, namely that most users will put emphasis on the article name (Wales) rather than what's in the info box. Unfortunately, it's impossible to put Cymru/Wales on equal status in the info box - whether one above the other, or one beside the other, one must come first. I'll suggest what I've said before - if we're going to ignore the poll, why not put the names alphabetically? Hogyn Lleol 14:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not averse to listing it as alphabetically, as the result would be the same. However, as I read the Welsh Assembly pages, where it does list that Welsh and English are given equal status in Wales, the Cymreag version has always been given first as the option to read by. The precident has already been established by the local governments and administration. As the posters of the poll already did make their comments known, I am not wishing to ignore the poll. We should honor the results of the poll, and if someone wishes to call for further debate we can continue to discuss it. Drachenfyre 14:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hogyn Lleol: even if they were next to each other, one would have to come first. I just thought that that might make the point that they're both native languages (and that e.g. Wales is not just a translation of the "real native name") clearer. I also agree that putting things alphabetically is generally a good solution to this kind of problem. The only difficulty is that it won't be obvious that that is why "Cymru" comes first - international readers may still assume that "Wales" isn't native. But, as I said above, I think the chances for confusion are pretty low in reality. I also agree that there is a certain precedent provided by government websites, though I suspect that counter examples could easily be found (e.g. English coming first on roadsigns and the like in the most populated parts of Wales - if not most of Wales). I suspect in any case that the Assembly adopted the alphabetic solution themselves. How about both on the same line in alphabetical order? garik 14:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Drachenfyre, please stop reverting until this is settled! It isn't. Your argument that native language comes first is based on a false premise. I believe you are considering countries like France, Germany, etc? In these cases, the name at the top is the official name of that country in the dominant language. In this case, that is incontrovertibly Wales. Will revert back unless you can come up with something better - you are also trading close to 3RR. MarkThomas 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR covers multiple reversions within 24 hours, so Drachenfyre could still change the article a couple of times without being blocked for it. However, any statement that someone "will revert back" demonstrates a disregard for at least the spirit of that policy. I would suggest that nobody edits those four words until there is clear consensus (ideally not determined by the participants) for change. It seems to me that several people have jumped the gun on this issue. I haven't seen a consensus yet. We all know by now that this is controversial, so no changes can be considered as having the consensus. Even if not approaching WP:3RR, this is rapidly approaching WP:LAME! --Stemonitis 16:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

WHOA! You, Mark, are the one who changed it after it was already polled and agreed upon. You are the one who aggressively choose to set aside the consensis. I reverted YOUR precipitous reversions! Instead of coming back to the talk page to reach further discussion, you took it upon yourself to change it! I welcome further discussion. You are the hawkish one who is challenging what was already agreed upon and settled by this past Wed. Drachenfyre 16:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, I think we could all do with calming down. Further discussion, as you say Drachenfyre, is good. I think Stemonitis has a very good perspective on things. Let's try to avoid being lame:)garik 16:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The first name should undoubtedly be "Cymru". - Francis Tyers · 14:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? Don't just post unargued categorical statements! It seems far from proved to me that it should be Cymru first, that implies that Cymraeg is the native language, but in fact legally it's joint Cymraeg/English and by population of speakers it's English. It is only Cymraeg by a very remote historical basis. The view that it goes first is in my opinion connected to the ongoing (and very worthy, but nevertheless POV) battle to identify Wales as belonging to Cymraeg speakers. Perhaps it should be alternated? MarkThomas 08:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think inventing motives for editors who disagree with your own POV is particularly helpful. There are arguments to be made for both versions. Rhion 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree there are arguments for both, but it is an argument, and for the time being at least, that means not high-handedly changing the status quo without comment, as with the last change. Also no invention as to motives is needed when they are so obvious. Really, come clean! This is a POV-ist debate and that's why I'm against changing it. All the facts as far as reasonable Wikipedia practise is concerned are on the Wales-first side. The rest is all just bias. I personally don't disagree with that bias but it's not how Wikipedia is run - there need to be rational criteria. MarkThomas 12:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Are all the facts as far as reasonable Wikipedia practice is concerned on the Wales-first side? I'm not sure there is a Wikipedia policy on the order of native names for countries. After all, the English-first policy obviously doesn't apply in this case. To me it seems to be a choice between the native name with the greater historical claim to coming first or the one with the greater modern majority. I don't know that Wikipedia has a preference for either of those criteria, both of which seem rational enough to me. If it does, fair enough, but could you direct us to a statement of such a policy? garik 14:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to add that although I (and no doubt a fair number of others) are watching this continuing "discussion" without actually entering into it, this does not mean that I do not feel quite strongly about the issue, but feel even more strongly that it should be resolved a.s.a.p. Hogyn Lleol 17:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed it needs resolving, and I personally would be happier accepting Cymru >> Wales if it was based on well-argued criteria, but much of what I've seen so far in favour of that very clearly arises from Welsh nationalist POV thinly dressed up. Part of the problem though seems to be the tagnames in the infobox - these can say "common name" as well as "native name" for example, it's just the history of page edits here that have it as "native name". I would accept alphabetical as justification if it was clear-cut. I think the "native name" is "Cymru", but the "common name" is Wales. This is really just common sense - the well-known international name is "Wales", absolutely regardless of what it is in Cymraeg. The constant accusations against me for this obvious statement simply point to how POVist the debate really is to (some of) them. MarkThomas 17:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Archived

I've archived some of the old material to make space, since it looks like the CYMRU/WALES (or WALES/CYMRU) contoversy is going to run and run. I've also removed the "unsourced" tag, since talk pages do not require sources.Rhion 18:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Good move, Rhion. Apologies for my lack of knowledge here, but where can we access the archived stuff? garik 18:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Just click on "Archive 1" near the top of this page, just above the Contents box. Rhion 19:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I missed that for some reason. garik 19:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

How convienent that someone vandalized the page in order to present a reason to revert, dismissing the consensis that was already achived. As it is.... I am truely no longer to concern myself on this matter. Can we truely believe there is honest debate here? When those unhappy with the poll results and with the paramaters set chooses to change everything? And no one else does anything to prevent this? I wish I could say something positive about this expierence, but there hasnt been any at all. This has been a disgusting display Drachenfyre 21:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Could we lay off with the subtle (or not so..) insinuations here, please? The Wales page is vandalised very regularly, so there is no call to look for deep conspiracy. "Can we truly believe there is honest debate?" "there hasn't been any[thing positive] at all"? "disgusting display"? This talk page is becoming unpleasant to read. We are talking about which way round two words should be. Telsa (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and furthermore I see Drachenfyre has once again high-handedly reverted the status quo on a disputed item on the spurious grounds that straw polls are binding; they are no such thing of course. I don't want to incur 3RR so would be grateful if passing editors could counter-revert any further changes reverting it back to Cymru-first, as this is clearly wrong given that the majority language of Wales is English and not Cymraeg as claimed. Thanks a lot. MarkThomas 15:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark, you have been the only one reverting it back since you decided the consensis was not to your own liking. The straw poll was not binding except in its attempt to illistrate the direction which most editors here felt the display name should read. Paramaters were understood and followed, and you decided, instead of furthering the debate here, to unilaterially change the formate because you, yourself, was unconvinced by others arguments. Instead, pointing to some sinister political plot to underhand English. That is not my position and was patronizing that you choose instead to continue a edit war and undermine the consensis we all engaged in origionally. Drachenfyre 16:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you accept the poll was not binding, why do you and others cite it as justification for the reverts in your comment lines? Sadly, consensus is not the only guidance on Wikipedia. The majority can be wrong! However, I think pretty clearly what we have here is a case of a particularly vocal minority of pro-Welsh language supporters. Nothing wrong with them, but they shouldn't be allowed to influence the accurate presentation of this page to the casual Wikipedia user, who will be confused by Cymru/Wales, thinking that Cymru is the official name, which it isn't. The UK government always refer to it as Wales. MarkThomas 16:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Except for when the Queen or Prince of Wales are speaking in Welsh, which they have done! Even the Official British Monarchy website offers a Welsh translation,.... is this not speaking directly to the Welsh-speaking Welsh as well as to the English-speaking Welsh? Is this not examples of U.K. "officialdom" using Welsh as an official means of communication not good enough for you? Couple this too with the trend for the Welsh Assembly to favor Welsh on their internet site, in the Senedd (the offical name for the Assembly building in both languages), and other venues and you have a clear direction and template: Cymru/Wales. Guidence which, while recognizing both languages as official, favor the eldest native language to the junior language. In a simular capacity and mannor as has occured officially in the Irish Republic and Isle of Mann. This is what is patronizing in some of your statements.Drachenfyre 16:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Land stats

Since I see some of the content of the Welsh food article migrating here (there does seem to be an awful lot of cutting and pasting that goes on between the Wales and Welsh-related articles, and it makes correcting things very difficult), I'll just drop the reference for the land use in, in case anyone needs it for reference: Agricultural statistics from the Welsh assembly, 2004. --Telsa 07:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't just cut and paste from the Welsh food article. But I do agree that the land use information seems out of place. I try not to delete things unless it's irrelevant though and so I didn't edit that information out.--Sir Edgar 08:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I stuck the land use stuff in originally because all there was was a sentence saying "Welsh food is made from local ingredients". It didn't actually say what local ingredients they might be. So I thought it might be worth mentioning that we have a lot of land used for farming. (And that it's not just sheep :)) It would be very cool if someone with more knowledge expanded that over in the Geography of Wales article. --Telsa 11:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Wales's?

Shouldn't it be Wales' instead? Aranherunar 16:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a question of personal taste, but I would also prefer Wales'. --Stemonitis 16:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Whereas I prefer Wales's! But yes, it is a matter of taste. The pattern I follow, which seems sensible to me, is to write apostrophe s when it's pronounced and just apostrophe when it's not. So I write "Achilles' heel" for [ə.'kɪ.liːz.hiːl] (I certainly don't say [ə.'kɪ.liː.zɪz.hiːl]), but "the boss's dog" for [ðə.'bɒ.sɪz.dɒg], ([ðə.'bɒs.dɒg] is something quite different). Because I call Snowdon ['weɪl.zɪz.'haɪ.əst.piːk], not ['weɪlz.'haɪ.əst.piːk], I write it "Wales's highest peak." garik 15:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone who lives within sight of ['weɪlz.'haɪ.əst.piːk], that is what I call it. Mrs Trellis 09:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's very interesting! I can't say I grew up in sight of it, but it was only a few miles up the road. It really is a matter of taste... I assume you spell it with just apostrophe then? How do you pronounce and spell the equivalent of 'the dog that belongs to the boss'? garik 10:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess in general I would go for

The boss's dog (the dog owned by the boss) but

James Allen's Girls' School (the school belonging to the girls) and

Mrs Jones' garden -(the garden owned by Mrs Jones)

Mrs Trellis 10:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to chip in on the discussion, the manual of style is pretty ambivalent about the subject: "Possessives of singular nouns ending in s may be formed with or without an additional s. Either form is generally acceptable within Wikipedia. However, if either form is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with "Achilles' heel" and "Jesus' tears"." Basically, unless Wales' is much more common than Wales's the current format should probably be kept. --Daduzi ^talk 08:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

According to my grammatical references, the s' thing is based on the sound of the word - very difficult to automate! A soft s doesn't require an 's; a hard s does. So Charles', Wales'; but the boss's. Vashti 16:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I've never heard that version before! There doesn't seem to be any obvious logic behind it (except that most words ending in [z] are plurals, which certainly don't take 's). I think we're going to keep coming back to the point that it's a matter of taste, or of which books we've read. garik 17:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hard and soft ? I take it that Vashti means voiced and unvoiced. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume so. It's an old idea that unvoiced consonants are hard and voiced ones soft - it's preserved with regard to Welsh in the term 'soft mutation' and more generally in linguistics in the terms lenition and fortition. garik 22:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This reads as confused

There is a distinct division in attitude within Wales with regards to other areas within the 
principality. This can be seen both in a north/south divide and an east/west divide. This divide is  
sometimes attributed to South or East Wales being more culturally diverse or Angliscised than the 
North. (there is a common term which calls them both "the Little England beyond England.", sometimes 
deemed offensive by Welsh nationalists).

I can't quite work out that first sentence: what are the "other areas within the principality"? Other than what? Wales? But Wales is the principality. I've rephrased it, though perhaps not entirely well.

I'm also a little unsure about 'the Little England beyond England'. Pembrokeshire, for historical reasons (Flemish settlers being put there centuries ago) has long been known as "Little England beyond Wales", but I've never heard of "Little England beyond England", so I've revised it further and made a reference to Pembrokeshire. My apologies if "Little England beyond England" is more current than I've given it credit for. garik 14:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My English father, in his late 60s, refers to Pembrokeshire as "little England beyond Wales". He has pre-war tourist material that refers to it that way, and tends to use it to smack down my comments that there are Welsh-speaking areas in West Wales! I believe it's an old term that has fallen out of use. Vashti 16:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think you read what I wrote though! I'm very familiar with Pembrokeshire being called "little England beyond Wales"; it's South and East Wales being called "Little England beyond England" (as was claimed by one editor) that I've never heard! garik 17:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Cawl

I recently found out i am half welsh so i wanted to try welsh food one thing lead to another and I made cawl. Anyway it turned out very thick with no broth this is a sily question but is it supposed to be like that?

As with any stew it depends how much liquid you add and how much flour you use to thicken it. Whenever I've had it it was brothy enough though. garik 11:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm....

South Wales has strong links with its Celtic cousins in Cornwall, Ireland, Brittany 
and even Gallicia in North-West Spain, as all are within a few hours sailing reach. This "Celtic 
comradeship" was forged during the era of the "Celtic Church", when Celtic Saints from Wales would 
sail to Cornwall, Ireland and Brittany; another link is that all the Celtic lands share the same 
Celtic languages.

I'm not very sure about this at all (and I've removed it). It may be interesting that the Celtic Church established (or strengthened) links between Wales, Cornwall, Ireland and Brittany - perhaps worth mentioning somewhere - but do these links have much significance today, beyond modern concepts of Celtic brotherhood? And why South Wales in particular? Ireland at least is close to North Wales, and if geographical proximity is important (which I assume is the reason for putting this paragraph in the geography section), why not mention the enormously important cultural, historical, economic (etc.) links with England, or Scotland. North Wales, for example. has very close links with Merseyside. And many non-Celtic parts of the continent are only a few hours' sailing away. Moreover, all the Celtic lands do not share "the same Celtic languages" - each one has a different Celtic language, and Galicia has none at all now. garik 14:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree Garik. I was tempted to delete it as soon as it appeared last night but decided to leave it there for others to comment on! Every comment you make above also occurred to me. It's simply a vague paragraph, much of which is already expended upon in other articles.

-- Maelor  15:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

There was some vandalism on this page from the IP address 62.49.179.186. I wasn't sure why the image size of the flag was reduced, so I reverted to when the image was larger. Not following this article, I'm not sure which was the best version to revert to, so I apologise if I've removed anything I shouldn't have. Blowski 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The change to the image size is hardly vandalism, but I'm not sure why it was done. I don't think you've done any harm, Blowski. --Stemonitis 14:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wales has its own Tartan Colours??

Hello People, I went into a shop the other day and found that Wales has National and Family Tartan Colours. I think we need to teach foreign people that even though the Scottish people (I love the Scots) use Tartan more than us, we need to educate the world that Scotland is not the only Celtic Nation that uses Tartan, how about us Welsh/Irish or the Cornish? I think the link to "St Davids Tartan" should be added here. Anyone agree? Amlder20 16:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Scotland has a very healthy textile industry which is constantly inventing new tartans for markets which don't have them. The Scottish tartan industry recently noticed that Welsh people were not spending enough money on tartan goods and deduced that this was because there was no such thing as a Welsh tartan. Like the canny Scots they are, they quickly set about creating some tartans for Wales, just as they had previously done for Ireland. Expect to see tartans for other market segments nations very soon. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwll-llantysiliogogogoch Does anyone know what this means? Osborne 11:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

See the article, but don't rely on the recording it links to for pronouncing it! garik 11:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This is actually the name of a small welsh village in anglsey.

You probably won't care, but in Wales we use to decide how welsh you were by seeing if you could pronounce the name. I remember my mother teaching it to me.