Talk:Wales/Archive 5

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 4

Archive 5

Archive 6 →

1 Info box color options
2 another option
- 2.1 Outer border using original Infobox_Country
3 Narrowed colour border for both Firefox/MSIE
4 Requests for Mediation
5 Cofi
6 the Map
7 "Traditionally a principality"
- 7.1 Change to first parag
8 Holiday homes
9 Change to protected page
10 Welsh Language Act 1993

Info box color options

Here is a less sharp red with a green info box.

Cymru

Wales


Flag	Coat of arms

Motto: Cymru am byth (Welsh)
"Wales Forever"

Anthem: "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau" (Welsh)
"Land of my fathers"

Capital
(and largest city)

Cardiff, Caerdydd
51°29′N, 3°11′W

Constitutional monarchy

Not for me. I prefer the colourless versions. Just my opinion, more welcome. --Jza84 | Talk 01:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This goes against the idea of having ONE standard infobox for all countries. There was a time a few years ago when almost every country had a different looking infobox from page to page and it was a mess. We standardized all infoboxes to have one consistent look; whether a reader is viewing Wales or Belize. If colored background/border is desired it needs to be globally implemented at {{Infobox Country}} and not vary country to country.—MJCdetroit ^(yak) 02:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the points about the Wikipedia is that it evolves. Small changes are made to parts of the ecology, some of these are imitated some die out. The idea that we should stabilise into one standard choice smacks of controlling editors, Sick Stigma and process control. Allowing deviations is the essence of the system. Forcing "global implementation" wold be a nightmare. It does however need to evolve. Allowing some changes and seeing how they work is a good thinkg not a bad thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 06:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

another option

Here is a limish green border with darker green title box

Cymru

Wales


Flag	Coat of arms

Motto: Cymru am byth (Welsh)
"Wales Forever"

Anthem: "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau" (Welsh)
"Land of my fathers"

Capital
(and largest city)

Cardiff, Caerdydd
51°29′N, 3°11′W

Constitutional monarchy

Outer border using original Infobox_Country

16-April-2008: The 2 example infoboxes immediately at right/above show a method using wide, uneven borders (I removed the map sections from those 2 examples to move examples closer together). However, there is yet another method of defining border styles (shown at right below) that does not involve changing Template:Infobox_Country (and diverting effort into tangent debates about infobox standards).

Cymru

Wales


Flag	Coat of arms

Motto: Cymru am byth (Welsh)
"Wales Forever"

Anthem: "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau" (Welsh)
"Land of my fathers"

On high-resolution screens, the original infobox border seems too thin as a separator. In fact, following the logic of graphic dividing lines, the outer border should be thicker than the interior lines to designate that the whole infobox is a collected unit, rather than a stacking of thin-lined boxes. On 800x600 screens, the thin outer border almost seemed acceptable, but on hi-res screens the border seems weakly (too pale) and very much unprofessional from a graphic-design point of view. Note in the newer example (at right), the outer border is thicker than the interior lines, and indicates, quite clearly, that the whole is an integrated collection, not just a stacking of thin-lined boxes. To a reader unfamiliar with wiki-standards for Infobox_Country, the bordered infobox gives the first impression of an integrated whole, rather than a stacking of unrelated advert boxes, as is customary on many other webpages, stacking commercial boxes on the sidebar. Once the end-user customer, the general reader, is considered, then "professional" acquires a whole new meaning, without the mindset trap of seeing infoboxes from the perspective of a wiki-editor (as a "template user"). The typical lack of customer focus is not anyone's fault, but rather the result of years of Wikipedia changes: formerly, WP would track which particular articles were being read by which readers, but collecting that data was stopped, in relation to snooping. Perhaps a voluntary readership poll could be started, where users realize their input is subject to snooping, but volunteering with that prior understanding (that their moves are openly recorded), rather than secretly tracked in a stalking manner (aka illegal search in the USA). Anyway, lacking actual customer/reader surveys, it is important to view wiki-pages on a variety of different screens, at home, office, library, and internet-cafe to realize the wide meaning of "professional" for the appearance within all those venues. Then, the wider border makes sense, on so many levels of professional design. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Any particular reason this thread is here rather than at template talk:Infobox Country, or even MediaWiki talk:Common.css? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Narrowed colour border for both Firefox/MSIE

Cymru

WalesWales


Flag	Coat of arms

10-April-2008: I have narrowed and balanced the width of the colour border/frame by using the new option:

boxstyle = border-width:8px; border-color:#CE4444;

As I had suspected, the uneven width seen on some browsers (such as MS Internet Explorer) concerned several users:

some considered the border as too thick for an infobox;
Firefox browser narrowed borders as too thin;
the discussion spanned several days to collect remarks;
new Template:Infobox_Country_styled finally allows setting the property "border-width" which generates the same width border on multiple browsers; and
article "Ireland" shows an alternate style for comparison showing how other UK articles already have infobox colours.

For those reasons, I have changed to use "boxstyle" for a thinner border that more people would accept. The old style, using the outer HTML <table> tags, was then removed. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Funny thing was on my Firefox browser it was just uneven - looking at it on IE it was super-thick! It's a much better base to work from now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple of questions, if you please:

What value does this bring to the article?
What relevance do the pantones have?
Is this going to be adopted globabally (ie Iraq, USA etc)?
Are you certain that this doesn't distract readers from the text as opposed to compliment it?

--Jza84 | Talk 12:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The relevance is primarily to Wikipedia (through the value of design and visual cachet - which makes a number of people a bit grumpy, I know), rather than specifically to the subject of Wales (though it is red!). As a designer I will tell you that everything is designed to some degree - even with plain things a design decision is made. The idea of "global uniformity" sounds like a 1950's B movie to me (though this is important to design too - though it shouldn't be rigid)! The distraction argument is the only one against it that is important to me personally - I would guess consensus will sort it.

I'm removing the picture so we can see what it looks like without it - what do people think? (Please revert if you wish - I'm not totally against a landscape here - though maybe a smaller picture, or even a small row, might be better than one large picture?)--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't quite answer all my concerns. Plus my BA (first class mind!) was in Art and Design too, for what it's worth. Global uniformity on Wikipedia is a good thing, as the Manual of style says, "consistency promotes professionalism, simplicity and greater cohesion in Wikipedia articles. An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be applied consistently" before continuing that "If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style." This "neon" approach simiply serves to break up the continuity of Wikipedia's formatting rather than add any depth to the article.

My beef? The infobox is now way too vivid and distracting for readers, and if anything, takes value away from what was a proffessionally presented article. Colours should be useful to the reader, not merely decorative. Simillarly, if these are meant to be some kind of "national colours", then not only are the pantones incorrect, but it's the type of thing discouraged by WP:MOSFLAG. --Jza84 | Talk 14:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Standardization is meant to bring consistency and professionalism to our site's design. See WP:MOS. The default infobox style should be used, unless there is a extraordinarily compelling reason to change it (which should be discussed at Template talk:Infobox Country).

The place for experiments in styling, is Portal:Wales. Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Detractors make it sound like the information within the infobox will somehow change, it will not. We are talking about styalistic borders and title headers, not changing information within. Consistancy is important, but not slavish consistancy. Infobox borders and title headers are a good thing as they will liven up a page, draw the reader to it. I have read nothing that says it absolutely has to be the same as others. Slavish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds! Styalistic infoboxes are a very engaging use to bring distinction to a page... not every nation page editors will wish to use it. Chosing the colors of a border and title header is akin to chosing the style of map within the info box, nothing more. It is a styalistic decision. These are good-faith changes to the info box border and title header, and should not be treated as an aberation. And I am sure that some changes in color will occur, but to deny editors these tools is in my opinion undemocratic and counters the spirit of Wikipedia. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 20:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

At what point does consistency become slavish? Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a democracy. I respect these are "good faith changes", but they are not inline with MOS, nor do they add any value to the article. I think I've made my objections clear enough however at this point. --Jza84 | Talk 02:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

United States

Colors for USA: Choosing border colors for the USA would be simple, despite being a very large nation: red, white & blue. School children are met with massive USA flags in American school auditoriums, not quite like NAZI banners, but still oversized flags that flood the scene with red, white & blue. A USA infobox would look like the box at right, and few Americans would complain, for fear of being sideswiped by "Joe sixpack" in a pickup truck shouting, "These colors don't runnnn"... -Wikid77 (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How many editors arguing against this change are needed to convince those in favor of it that it does not have consensus behind it? IMO (and I think others are saying this as well) the overall visual style of the page is destroyed by highlighting the infobox this way. If you want a livelier look, please design your own skin. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed the colouring per WP:BRD. Talk at Template talk:Infobox Country --Jza84 | Talk 00:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored border♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 01:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on what? I object, you're using a forked infobox without holding any discussion. There is no consensus to keep this. --Jza84 | Talk 09:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for Mediation

Your Voice Counts!

Cymru

WalesWales


Flag	Coat of arms

Greetings Wales community! We need your Voice! We need mediation and impute from the wider community who regularily contribute to articals of Wales interest. At issue is the use of a distinctive border around the country info box, as well title bar. The issue seems to have become a crusade against Wales by certin editors, who have almost never contributed to and practically never visit (by their own admission) the Wales page. I do not tust the motives of the editor, who seems to be stalking my edits and reverting them purposefully. This editor even dismisses the colors of Wales red and green saying that Wales does not have any official colors! (quote: "I imagine that this use of "national colours" (of which Wales has none by custom or tradition)...", Unfortunatly, I must deal with these cyber bullying tactics if I am to contribute here. However, I implore the Wales commmunity to weigh in on the topic of allowing info box borders and title headers. Please submit views on Template talk:Infobox Country and talk:Wales. If the wider Wales community decides not to support a border and title header color in the colors of Wales then I will withdrawal from this position. However, I and other editors do feel it makes the Wales page far more distinctive. Sincerly, David Llewellyn♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 02:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NEW DEVELOPMENTS: JZA84 Has nominated the use of the styalized borders and title headers for deletion!!!! Please have your say here! Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 14

Cofi

The article mentioning Cofi reads as being a language that is a hybrid of Welsh and English. I am only passingly familiar with the term, having been raised bilingually on Anglesey. I would have expected it to be described as a dialect, but the current paragraph does not make that particularly clear.

I also think that it would be a good idea to contrast this 'Anglicised Welsh' dialect with the 'Cambricised English' or Welsh English that is discussed earlier in the section.

Any views? Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Cofi is a dialect of Welsh with little trace of English. It appears to owe much to the dialectical variations of the Lleyn and is perhaps best compared to the neighbouring Bangorau. Cardi would be a better example of a Welsh dialect that has absorbed a number of English words, and very successfully too. Velela (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. On this basis, is it notable enough to be featured on the page? I don't feel that it is accurate to be described as 'not Welsh' and 'not English', either. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

the Map

~~Seeing as Scotland doesen't shade the rest of the UK on their map, should this article do the same? GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)~~

Yes they should be simular. The aritcal is about Wales... not the United Kingdom. However I do not know how to change the map. Drachenfyre (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously (as seen at Scotland), I've since changed my mind. I prefer a map showing Wales within the UK. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should the Wales article show Europe on a second map? Note every other constituent part of the UK doesn't. Or other European regions and provinces such as Leinster, Bavaria etc.

It should just show in the country of the UK. Someone says Wales is seen as independent is Brussels. Ridiculuous. This map should be removed immediately.Wikipéire (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because you call yourself Wikipeire does not give you paternalistic rights over the wikipedia and throwing aroun words like Ridiculous is hardly in the spirit of rational discussion. I said in my comment that Wales (and Scotland) now have their own Parliaments and representation in Brussels. If there are other regions within Europe (such as Catalonia) who acquire similar status then I think they would have similar rights. Leinster is unlikely to, Bavaria might. A European perspective is also less parochial. I like the two maps, and if we have one would prefer the European one. --Snowded (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bavaria doesn't, Catalonia doesn't, Scotland doesn't, England doesn't, Northern Ireland doesn't, andalucia doesn't etc. I made that change because Wikipedia should be consistent and not over glorify one particular area. Can you please justify why Wales should have a European map while every other single geographical and political simliar entities do not have this and only show them within the country. For example Andalucia is a autonomous community of Spain yet it doesn't have it. Only sovereign states have European maps. Why should Wales have it? Do not go on about how Wales is independent as its not, Wales's reprenstation internationally is through the United Kingdom. The map gives the false impression that Wales is independent, I feel it was some Welsh nationalist who put it there. There is no other good reason. There are many reason why it shouldn't be there. If there is a good reason for it remaining then fine, but in accoradance with every other page it should not be there.Wikipéire (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The map makes no claim to any kind about the political status of Wales. All it does is how where Wales is geographically located in the context of Europe and the World. This is useful and highly digestible information. It is not reasonable to assume that every reader knows where the UK is located. Locating Wales within the broader geographical context is useful and serves this article and Wikipedia well. I see no good reason to remove it. This claim that the map somehow "glorifies" Wales or implies it is an independent country is simply not credible. Stop assuming bad faith of other editors - there is zero evidence to support your claim that it was placed there by someone with a Welsh nationalist agenda. Its simply useful. Gwernol 16:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And there is no reason why they (Bavaria, Catalonia etc) shouldn't. I also suggest you stop throwing around accusations of nationalism and making assumptions of bad faith.. The change was discussed before it was made by the active editors on the page. While I think there is a good case to ensure a common template, that template should allow for a degree of variation. Allowing two maps is perfectly reasonable. To have that makes no special claim for Wales, it simply says that the editors on that page think that the second map adds value - I agree with Gwernol here. Your comments on "B class" etc are simply not helpful. Coming in and imposing excessive uniformity will just drive editors away from the page. There are two "votes" here (i) should two maps be allowed and (ii) if only one map which should it be. My vote goes for two maps, but if only one, then positioning Wales in Western Europe makes more sense. I'd suggest Scotland, England etc do the same thing but I don't plan to leap in and attempt to impose that view --Snowded (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is it useful? The 1st map already shows Wales and a large amount of Europe. The 2nd one is completely unnecessary and misleading. What does it do that so useful that the first one doesn't do? It shows North Western Europe and the UK. That is enough. Anything else is overkill. That is why every other similar article (I can name a 100) don't have this pointless second map.

The map is less than two weeks old and should not be there. I don't see consensus for its placement in the first place and in keeping with WikiProject UK geography and WikiProject United Kingdom it should be removed. There's a reason this article is B Class. Unneccesary things like this are holding it back. Looking at Scotland the second map hasn't been even mentioned and its under the GA category currently pushing to get featured. So again why is the Wales article any different from every other article? Wikipéire (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeire, your comment I feel it was some Welsh nationalist who put it there does'nt really help. First off, you have no idea what his/her politics are. Second, so what if they are a Welsh nationalist, are you saying a nationalist can't contribute to this article? If that's the case a fair number of Welsh people would be barred from this page. Oh, and third, I notice on your userpage you mention you are in favour of Scottish Indepedence. Does this mean every time you make an edit to the Scotland article someone can say "I feel it was some Scottish nationalist who put it there?" --Jack forbes (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Wales has sought to represent itself in Europe for a number of years, although not necessarily as a sovereign state. A few snippets from the BBC website [1] [2] [3] [4] show that there has been an 'office' representing Wales since 1991, and that the Assembly Government's activities in Brussels continue. The current Government's One Wales agreement states that We will enhance Wales’s role in key European organisations and networks such as the Committee of the Regions, the Regions with Legislative Power and the Conference of Peripheral & Maritime Regions. Plaid Cymru aim for Wales' full membership within the EU, but of course this has to be discussed carefully to maintain WP:NPOV.

I feel that Wales, as a political entity, seeks to represent itself in Europe, and has done so over a period when three of the four main political parties have been in power in the National Assembly. It is a fact, however, that Wales is not a sovereign state, and is not an independent member of the EU. Regardless of whether the second map is kept or not, I feel that some clarification of Wales' role in Europe should be added to the article.

With regard to the issue of the map, the most essential detail that I find is missing from the UK map (and present in the EU map) is Wales' location in relation the the world. If the EU map is removed (which I am not convinced it should), I feel that an inset should be added to the UK map to compensate for this. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The solution to this map problem is to change the colour of the Uk to something similar to Wales and distinguisable from the EU ie. similar to map 1. This will remove all potential confusion.Wikipéire (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing has happened with regards to the map yet. If there are no objections shall I change the colour of Wales and the UK?Wikipéire (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that is OK, provided the colours are distinct, if similar. It might be an idea to make a suggestion or two but I think that is a good solution (and we keep the two maps!) --Snowded (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wales Map EU2.png
Location of Wales (red)
in the UK (orange) & the European Union (camel)
Something like this ok?Wikipéire (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with that --Snowded (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Traditionally a principality"

The intro says that Wales is "traditionally a principality", which suggests some doubt or uncertainty about whether it presently is a principality. It sounds as if perhaps it used to be, but now isn't. In fact, the article later says "Wales remains the largest principality in the world", but this is not made clear up front.

Second point: in the context of the introductory paragraph, it reads very much as if "principality" means "principality of the United Kingdom", whereas some sources call it a "principality of England". This is a technicality I guess, but I actually came here looking for clarification on exactly this point.

Perhaps an expert could clarify this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.55.16 (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I have a bit of a problem with this sentance. I have problems with it on two points:

1. Setting aside my own political feelings regarding the legitimacy of the son of the English/British throne calling himself the Prince of Wales, wikipedia's own definition of Principality conflicts with the situation in Wales. The Principality article says:

A principality (or princedom) is a monarchical feudatory or sovereign state, ruled or reigned over by a monarch with the title of prince or princess, or (in the widest sense) a monarch with another title within the generic use of the term prince.

If Wales is a Principlity, then it would mean that the current Prince of Wales (whether we believe he's intitled to call himself that or not!) is the actual ruler of Wales, which certainly isn't the case, whatever your view on the monarchy is. And Wales is also neither a monarchical feudatory (is it?) or sovereign state.

2. Maybe this has more to do with the Prince of Wales article than the Wales one, but I think there should be more done to differentiate between the old native princes and the title created by the British monarchy in 1301 - maybe this needs pointing out in the Wales article, and could possible be what the "historically" bit refers to.

The fact that the Prince of Wales has some sort of role in Wales (although I'm not sure what they are, as it's the Queen that seems to be doing the really important opening of institutions) should be contained somewhere in the Wales article I guess, but describing Wales as a principality so early in the article gives a false impression of it's significance IMHO. --Rhyswynne (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the Welsh Assembly members research department, and John Davies, Wales is traditionally a principality. The Principality of Wales was founded by a Welsh prince and was never officially desolved, rather reorganized with the 16th century Laws of Wales acts. As of 1999 the title Prince of Wales was defined as a life peerage rather then a hereditary title. "Traditionally a principality" answers the historic traditional context, and I have see media outlets refer to the 'principality' often enough... especially Betsan Powys of the BBC Wales chief political editor and blogger, especially during the last Assembly elections. I remember this debate springing up before (and was told no one ever ever refers to Wales as a principality) and then within a week of that debate Betsan Powys said during an interview on a BBC Wales Today newscast something to the effect that 'the electoriate up and down the principality...', and in a few other instances as well. I did not sense any pajoritive connotations there. There does need to be a section that addresses the role of the Prince of Wales within Wales (whatever that is, people still ask the questions, and it needs to be done without prejudice). This is my opionion.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 14:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Matt Lewis' latest edit deals with the above mentioned issues very well - it's much clearer now. Well done that man!--Rhyswynne (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Principality is a formal and academic word, sometimes even 'high brow' - but not one used publically at all, as those in Wales know. It deserves inclusion in the Intro though certainly - and a short explanation of it is useful. Just not at the top.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Change to first parag

After promising it for a while, I've made this edit (spoken a month or so ago - with nobody complaining):

Wales (Welsh: Cymru;^[1] pronounced /ˈkəmrɨ/ (help·info)) is one of the four constituent countries (or 'home nations') that together make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is situated in the west of mainland Britain, with England to its east and the Irish Sea to its west. Wales has a population estimated at three million and is a bilingual country, with English the language spoken by the majority, and Welsh the native tongue.

No one can surely argue that the 'Principality' issue is important enough for the first parag. It's simply not part of every day life (end rarely used these days outside of royal/historical contexts). I favour the full UK title (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the actual home nation articles - and I don't agree that we should be forced into uniformity here if another home nation doesn't use it (the UK is simply too flexible and diverse for such pointless rigidity imo).

Also - Wales can easily be defined by itself, and also as part of the UK. Detailing so many non-Welsh surrounding landmarks in the opening parag is demoting Wales to a mere 'county' status imo!--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I made some other separate edits as I went through the Lead. They needs some citations to back them up ('divergent landscape' - should be easy to find). I added England and Wales to the history paragraph - I basically tried to keep the history together. I've kept the religion/history lines in the paragraph but I favour summarising history as much as possible in the Introduction. I would rather see more culture to balance it out... --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

DEAR GOD! What happened! These opening paragraphs are now so verbose! I cant even look at it! It is now set back by months! its all yours kids, I give up! Wow! I cant be visiting this Wales page again... lol. Economy of language is thrown out the door without care for word count or artical size? I couldnt disagree with these changes more. It was tight before, now it is all over the place. It is now one of the longest opening country intros Ive ever read. It is full of opinion, and with a language syntax that is unencylopedic. It has a blantently Unionist deterministic in sentiment and narration. Wow.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How many times have you just edited your above comment? 15? - certainly the most I've seen for a single comment: click on 'history' and read your own work. And you seem to be calling your fellow editors "kids"? The Introduction is hardly the finished article - and I've worked on information that what was already there - in the manner of Wikipedia editing. If we are going to include all this history in the introduction, how can it not be long? Think about it. If we lose the pre-existing lines on religion/history (which I feel belong, especially as they stand, in the History section) the Intro would actually be the same length as it was before my changes.

Finding it 'unionist' is just foolish I'm afraid. Wales is part of a union (the UK) - it just gives the state of play. I'd try not to get too distracted by unionist/independent thoughts - I know I've shared with you my feelings on a 'full independence' on my talk page, but I don't appreciate you hanging them over my edit like this - I am a weighted and impartial editor. And don't you even think about questioning my 'Welshness' - tread carefully there.

The article size is still 77k (as it was when I edited it) - not long for a country. Too-long articles are meant to be split into sub-articles when they have already been made concise, not deliberately kept within a certain size. When judging if something is concise or not - consider the amount of information imparted, and then try covering the same amount yourself. If you disagree with what I've written, why not improve it? If you can write better prose - then go ahead and do so.

The previous Introduction was controversial, history-heavy, unbalanced thematically, overlapping, a bit too 'academic' (for the Lead - which it still is a little), belittiling to Wales imo, and generally not good enough for a fantastic country. It simply didn't represent the country I know, and actually kept me up when I woke early last night. I was thinking of the Calzaghe fight and Americans giving it a look - I just had to finally jump in and make an edit.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I refer to my prior comment. Its yours Lewis, I wash my hands of it. The intro artical is way too long and verbose, full stop. I do not endorse any of these changes. You should take a look at articals such as Belgium, which was a featured artical, if you wish to see how a concise country page should be written. I did not question your Welshness, but the paragraph reads clearly as though it was a march towards unionism, rather then an artical on Wales itself.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 03:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, I know you care about the page. I wont comment one way or the other any further. We have a differing editorial styles, clearly, and this is the crux of it. Nothing more. I know you have the best interest in the page at heart, I wish you well in editing the page Matt. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - it will get there in the end, but has to go on the road first. I've seen the FA process in action and the content (or lack of), believe it or not, isn't looked at: they look at perfecting the Manual of style stuff. A number of Wikipedia's FA's are thick with misinformation, bias, and some poor prose too.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think think the article needed improving, but the range of these recent changes while having some good elements is I think in part a step backwards. I don;t have time now but will try and work on it over the weekend. We need to reach consensus on some points and too many changes at once makes it difficult for other editors to engage. --Snowded (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Cartainly we were too static to end up in a backwards state. Sometimes things progress after significant movement - having not known where to start, and on a few occasions backing off, I got really bothered by it and just jumped in (sometimes the best way - as the 'be bold' philosophy was no-doubt wisely made to suggest). I've worked on an important Lead before - they are the most important part of the article in my opinion, and sometimes the only part that is read. They can run in many directions before they settle - but they do settle. Alzheimers disease is a good example, and is one I've worked on a lot, and first laid-down in broadly its settled format. Leads can remain one of the poorest part of the article when no one gets to grips with changing them.

Incidentally, Wikipedia recommends four paragraphs for the Lead, and nothing says they can't be long ones - they just need to broadly and fairly address the most notable elements of the subject. I think the 'extra' (5th if we are counting) Principality paragraph is worth having at the end - I was against it mentioned at top of the Lead, as you know. I've had trouble with finding some citations, and always had a feeling that I'll find better wording myself in certain places after re-reading it a few times. Regarding the amount I did - after addressing some points I then needed to rearrange the whole thing - the paragraphs are certainly more thematically balanced now, imo. Regarding your time, I think it's best to make sure you edit when you have the time, otherwise things tend to drag on. I particularly have this philosophy with Wikipedia now, as my own time is about half of what it was when I first commented on this page - and I'm not likely to get it back unfortunately. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I also object to the word "traditionally": it's an emotive, ambiguous word, basically asserting an "it is but it isn't" kind of approach. It should be removed. As for the rest, I'm admiring the points made by Matt Lewis here, and these seem to be broadly what I'd go for (although we must stick to four paragraphs, no more). --Jza84 | Talk 11:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As soon as the protection is lifted Home nation needs to go, such a silly term to describe Wales --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my original query about the phrase "traditionally a principality", I'm very impressed by all the activity! The one point I'd make is that the wording "Wales is sometimes referred to as a Principality" still seems rather vague. I expected the question to have a definite constitutional "yes it is" or "no it isn't" answer, rather than a "well it might be, sometimes it's called that" one. Perhaps the status of "principality" is not such a well-defined thing as I thought it was. (Although, there are some definite "it is a principality" statements both in this article ["Wales remains the largest principality in the world"] and at Principality ["Currently the largest principality in the world is Wales in the United Kingdom"] which, being picky, don't sit totally at ease with the "sometimes referred to" statement.) Thanks anyway, and sorry to be so pedantic. Matt 19:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.12.199 (talk)

I'll keep thinking about it but it's an awkward one. Wales can be a country, nation and 'Principality' (and all 3 together). Nobody, however, refers to it un-formally as a Principality: to the people of Britain, Wales is simply the country called Wales. The UK actually has no constitution: it has a lot ancient statutes, and many of those that are to do with royalty are ignored today! I personally loath the "Prince of Wales" 'courtesy title' - but I live with it as people use it. Principality is only occasionally bandied formally, never colloquially in conversation. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Holiday homes

I seem to remember around the 80's or 90's there was a number of holiday homes owned by English people that were burned down due to the high house prices which the locals could'nt afford. If my memory serves me right it was actually a Welshman who told me this, and also the news was'nt getting much press coverage for fear it could escalate. Is there anyone who could enlighten me more on this story, if indeed it's true. --Jack forbes (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference you need is to Meibion Glyndwr --Snowded (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, short article but interesting to find out something I heard years ago was true. --Jack forbes (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)\

Change to protected page

I hope no one will disagree with the following suggested amendment to a recent change that's 'stuck' with this protection.

Line in the Introduction as it is:

The Edwardian conquest in the Thirteen Century ended Welsh independence and in 1532, Wales was merged into the English legal system. In the 18th century the Welsh Methodist revival transformed Welsh society.[3] A distinctive Welsh polity

Proposed version:

The Edwardian conquest in the Thirteen Century ended Welsh independence and in 1532, Wales was annexed to the English legal system with creation of the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542. In the 18th century the Welsh Methodist revival transformed Welsh society.[3] Distinctive Welsh politics

The above is a simple compromise (for mine and the article's sake) I trust can be included. Less is a lot worse than more here regarding Wales' history with England - this, to me, makes us look English - England and Wales is the term people refer to, even for this period in history. I'm not best pleased the article has been protected - couldn't the warring editors be addressed instead? Sorry to be harsh, but why should the article suffer? Not to mention editors currently working on it like me. I don't think my above amendment is specifically related to the edit war. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not done Looks like it has consensus, so restore the tag once you've worked out exactly what you want to say :D Happy‑melon 11:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with that wording --Snowded (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to make a change, but perhaps someone can explain why the date 1532 is mentioned if the Acts in question were not introduced until 1535? Also, wouldn't "annexed to the English legal system by the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542" be better? "With creation of the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542" is ungrammatical. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you make the edit with the Snowded's 1532 date (that is on the page without explanation already)? You can make it read better if you like. I feel a bit like I'm being teacher-lead here! I favour another line here that mentions the Tudors too (it simply needs more information if this history is given) but this must be worked out between us when the page in unprotected. This edit is a quick compromise. The problem is that the page was locked when we were editing the Introduction! I'm not willing to sort out a compromise on this line while the page is locked and watched over - I find it embarrassing and too frustrating. I'll put up my favoured line in Talk when I see the page is in working order again - I don't want to see it remain locked if we disagree, so I'm holding back until the language disagreement that you locked the page over is sorted out. Unfortunately, I can't agree with your decision to lock: what if the consensus you want to see on the language issue isn't reached? We can't lock articles whenever 2 editors disagree! This is why we have the 3RR process - to stop the 'edit war' while keeping the article alive for people to edit. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The actual dates are the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542 which annexed Wales (good point Bencherlite) and the previous Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284 which confirmed the Colonisation of Wales by Edward 1. --Snowded (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Welsh Language Act 1993

For some reason which I cannot understand Wikipeire is trying to argue that Welsh is not an official language within Wales. I think the above act clearly establishes that it is. I have moved the discussion here, in the hope that s/he will engage in discussion rather than arbitrary change and frequent reversions. --Snowded (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That is for use the public sector. From the page itself:

Basically the Act did three things:

set up the Welsh Language Board, answerable to the Secretary of State for Wales, with the duty of promoting the use of Welsh and ensuring compliance with the other provisions. gave Welsh speakers the right to speak Welsh in court proceedings obliged all organisations in the public sector providing services to the public in Wales to treat Welsh and English on an equal basis

Where does it says it made it the official language? There is no piece of legislation that makes Welsh official. The Uk constitution recognizes it as a regional language like Scots, gaelic etc. Look at the Scotland page for an example on how it should be.Wikipéire (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As you will have noticed, I have fully-protected the article on the Wrong Version to stop the edit-warring getting even more out of hand, lest 3RR blocks start getting handed out. Any other admin may feel free to revert to semi-protection (if still appropriate) if there is a measure of agreement here before the protection expires. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Read this Welsh article: http://www.newswales.co.uk/?section=Politics&F=1&id=11172 It calls for a new language act in order to make Welsh an official language. So this completely disproves your notion that the 93 act somehow made the language offical.Wikipéire (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reference to this "UK Constitution" that you are talking about and its statements about regional languages. As far as I am aware (and as I advised you early on) the UK does not have a written constitution. The only current reference to the welsh language is the above named act. The newspaper article you reference does not load on my browser. In any event you have to establish your constitution argument - I look forward to you finding it and making history

if welsh and english are legally to be treated in the same way in all of the institutions of state within wales then it is perverse to argue that it is not an official language (this sounds like your Republic of Ireland amendments - a political position not one of fact. Also please use the talk page - it should not be necessary to get you to three reversions in order to persuade you to both engaging in discussions --Snowded (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2008(UTC)

Here is the text of the article below just for you. It says in it that Welsh is not an official language and the current 93 act does not make it so. Its a Welsh page so don't accuse it of being biased!

Welsh language a must, say Lib Dems 22/4/2007

ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS

Eleanor Burnham AM, speaking on Equality Day today (Sunday) says that until Welsh is officially recognised alongside English as an official language of Wales, with statutory language rights for Welsh speakers, Wales cannot be considered a truly bi-lingual nation.

Ms Burnham, Welsh Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for the Welsh Language and Assembly Member for North Wales, said: “Equal rights are a defining factor of a fair, modern and democratic society and yet Wales is still behind the times when it comes to enshrining our bi-lingual culture in law.

“The Welsh Liberal Democrats are committed to putting Welsh and English on an equal footing. We want to see Welsh established as an official language of Wales, as well as English, recognizing the role Welsh now plays in people’s everyday lives.

“We also want to enshrine individual rights for Welsh language speakers which would ensure they get equal treatment when accessing public services, giving people in Wales the right to correspond with public bodies in Welsh if and when they choose to.

“A new Welsh Language Act would make these equal language rights a reality and with the Welsh Assembly’s new law-making powers after May, the Welsh Liberal Democrats will be able to bring equality to both the languages of Wales.”Wikipéire (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a LIberal Democrat taking a position for reasons I do not understand, given the rights of the existing act. Either way a newpaper article is not authority. I await with interest your finding the UK constitution and its statements on language (and to others getting involved, I get on a sleeper train from Scotland in a half an hours time) --Snowded (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A Welsh newspaper article saying its not an official language means a lot more than your opinion that you "think" the 93 act makes it official. I've done my bit showing why its not official. Instead of me going on, can you provide any reputable text to back your point of view?Wikipéire (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Its a political statement around an election. Its an opinion - fine, there will be others. I have quoted the act and arguments around that. Please deal with the argument. I note you are running away from dealing with your claims on the UK constitution .... --Snowded (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion? Are you saying this is about which opinion is right? Wikipedia is about facts. Surely if this mentioned that its not official then the current legislation couldn't possibly contracdict it? You have basically said theres no fact whether or ont Welsh is an official language or not. You didn't quote the act. I outlined the points of it and how it shows that Welsh is not the official language because of the act but rather for a bit of public sector use. You have not made any points whatsoever on why its official. Where does it say in the 93 act that its official? If you have that I will admit I'm wrong. If not then well...my facts and sources are right.Wikipéire (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You quote a press article not a fact. Back up your earlier statements about the constitution and I will take you seriously —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 21:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A Welsh article surely wouldn't make such a huge blunder about its own language? You don't have to take me seriously, its the facts that you have to respect. And judging by your responses you have no facts whatsoever on why Welsh is an official language. I have dispelled every reason you have given so far. You have not said anything to back up your opinion. Unless you come up with something surely this discussion will be over. I can't keep on saying the same stuff over and over.Wikipéire (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Bwrdd yr Iaith [5] and the BBC [6] beg to differ Welshleprechaun. Looking at Wikpéire's previous edits to Wales, the seem to patronise it unfoundedly claiming that Wales has no anthem etc. (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not patronising Wales. I merely said that the anthem is not official. Looking at Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau it says "by tradition the National anthem of Wales". By tradition doesn't mean official. Same is with Scotland and England they do not have official anthems. There is an official anthem of the UK though. Why is Wales different?

Anyway back to the point. The bbc Source states that Welsh was the official language of the Kingdom of Wales in the 13th century!!! Not exactly relevent to today as Wales merged with England to become a different country. The bwrdd-yr-iaith.org.uk source refers to the 1942 Courts Act which allowed Welsh to be used in court. Again nothing about it being an official language!Wikipéire (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wales did not merge it was conquered. You are failing to address the substantive issue about what constitutes an "official" language. If used in the courts etc. then it is. You have not produced a statement from your mythical UK constitution which says that it is not. So we are working on the evidence. I cite the courts, education, use in the Welsh Assembly, signage etc. I will deal with the political issue on a new Welsh Language Act in a later comment. --Snowded (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you care to take another look, the Bwrdd yr Iaith says:...the language would not be used as an official language again until after the passing of the 1942 Welsh Courts Act – four hundred years later. It is now very much after 1942, hence used today officially. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And if Welsh was made official in court by presumably an official then surely that makes the Welsh language official. It sounds pretty reasonable to me. --Jack forbes (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

it says that but it doesn't say why its official. Its putting it all on the 1942 Welsh Courts Act. You should be refering to that rather than something put together on a Welsh language weppage. The 1942 Welsh Courts Act was put out to allow Welsh to be spoken in court. eg. by a lawyer, defandant etc. Nowhere is the languages official status brought into play. For that reason the source doesn't really say anything really. You need to quote some legislation to prove that it is. The 93 act doesn't say its official, either does the 42 courts act. They deal with matters about the language but nothing about it being the official language of Wales.Wikipéire (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well perhaps Wikipeire can help bring an end to the dispute by finding a source clearly stating that Welsh is not an official language Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well there's this article: http://www.newswales.co.uk/?section=Politics&F=1&id=11172 It mentions the fact that Welsh is not the official language and that a new language act needs to be in place to make it so. It was written in 2007 so it is new.

I acknowledge thats probably not good enough but my proof is that there is no legislation saying it is the official language. How can one prove something that doesn't exist with actual legislation? You can only prove what is. Why would there be a source saying 'Welsh is not the official language of Wales'? If it was the official language there would be something official that says it is the official language. However there is not. It is not up to me to end the dispute. It is up to the people saying it is the official language to back down and realise there is nothing supporting the claim.Wikipéire (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

These people saying it is the official language who should back down are in the same position as you in that they also believe they are right. It is therefore up to everyone to end disputes. If everyone thought like you did, there wouldn't be an end to the dispute so please adopt a more appropriate attitude towards the matter. Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at this official language second paragraph. --Jack forbes ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't source Wikipedia as a reference. In this case the editor has clearly mis interpreted the act. The act allowed the use of Welsh in court with a days notice or something. Nothing about the official status!!!But after reading it, I was led me to this webpage: http://www.welshlanguageact.org/ It's the official Welsh language act web page. Notice it says "We call on the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure a New Welsh Language Act that will provide official status for the language". This page is a proper site not some random editor mis intrepreting an act. Someone on the Wikiproject Welsh page should probably change that. Is my source which says Welsh does not have official status proof enough?Wikipéire (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: The fact that Welsh isn't official is all over this website: http://www.welshlanguageact.org/?t=4 I think this web site would know if Welsh was official or not(!) Clearly its not. Can the protection be removed now?Wikipéire (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The webpage also demands that welsh be allowed in court. I think we have already established this for quite some time. How reliable is this website? --Jack forbes (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Wikipeire, on this matter.

Firstly, in regard to Jack Forbes, the article you direct attention to has no references of any kind to support the statement in the second paragraph. Further the Welsh Language Act 1967 article has a link [7] which calls for a new Act to make Welsh an official language. Hence ruling the comment on the official language article void.
Secondly The Welsh Language Act 1999 [8] has no mention of making Welsh an official language and only gives it equality in the public sphere, along with use in court procedures and sets up the Welsh Language Board.
Finally, the official opposition in the Assembly have as one of their policies to make Welsh an official language (would seem rather odd if this status had already been granted). [9]

AlexD (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I confess to being no expert on this. It just seemed commonsense if it was spoken in courts. I have no more argument for you but I think you should wait for others to chip in before changing anything. :) --Jack forbes (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought about this over night as there seemed a contradiction between the campaign for equality and the Welsh Language Act. However I think I now understand the difference. I language can be official but not equal. So in South Africa there are 14 languages all with legal status but they are not equal. There can be no doubt that the Welsh Language Act gives Welsh official status as a language. If you can insist that a langauge is used in the courts, the educational system etc then it is obviously an official language. So the form which has stood for over a year should be left in place.

I note that Wikipéire has yet to provide any back up or justification for his/her reference to the authority of a UK constitution in respect of language - if this is not forthcoming would s/he have the decency to withdraw it.--Snowded (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Welsh Language Act does not give official status to Welsh. Please read my points above, I have included a link to the Welsh Language Act so please go and read it and kindly point out where it states that Welsh will be an official language (the constitutional justification you ask for, along with the conservatives wishing to get and act to make Welsh an official language). Secondly as I have mentioned below Welsh is included in the EU charter for Regional and Minority Languages which seeks to protect those languages that do not have official status. Please also provide references as all we are getting at the moment is conjecture. AlexD (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Further evidence that Welsh is not an Official Language.

"Speaking on BBC Wales' Politics Show, Mr Pugh also rejected a call by Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Language Society - at a rally in Aberystwyth over the weekend - for the language to have official status." [10]

"Plaid Cymru assembly leader Ieuan Wyn Jones has called for a new Welsh Language Act at a rally attended by up to 300 people in mid Wales. Mr Jones said Welsh should have official status and also called for a language commissioner to be appointed."[11]

"We therefore need a new Welsh Language Act which will give the Welsh language full offical status so that it is completely equal to the English language in Wales, and incorporates the linguistic rights of Welsh speakers." [12]

"I believe Welsh should be given official language status and we should have an independent language commissioner. Bizarrely under existing legislation, Welsh does not have official language status with English. " [13] AlexD (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok so now we start to get there. We have one set of arguments from Wikipéire that seek to reduce material relating to Wales (language the anthem etc. Then we have another set from people wanting increased rights for the Welsh Language. OK I painted enough signs green in my youth, I support the welsh language, but this is the Wikipedia. We need an objective position, not a political one. The fact that some people want more status is not an argument against the original entry which has stood for a year. --Snowded (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Can the protection be removed now?", asks Wikipéire. As the admin who imposed the protection, I don't yet see consensus or compromise, and lifting the protection is likely to lead to a resumption of the edit war. Perhaps discussion of the best wording of Wales#Languages will be useful, not just whether the infobox should say "officlal", "de facto", "regional language" or something else. What makes a language "official", for instance? That might help clarify the discussion. "First, define your terms", as my old English teacher used to remind us when we were about to tackle an essay. (What makes English the "official" language of England, incidentally? Just wondering...) Bencherlite ^Talk 00:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is no official language act for the UK and English is taken as de facto. In terms of how to classify the status of Welsh, the European Council classes it as a territorial language, with Welsh listed under its Charter for regional and minority languages [14] [15], thusly it might be best to classify in a similar manner. AlexD (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is no official language for the UK, but tha English is is the state's official language, but in the country/territory/region/county of Wales (please delete as applicable depending on you POV - as plenty seem to be displaying here), if the 1993 Act states that both languages are equal, then they are both de-facto official languages. The fact that an individual as the right to use Welsh in courts and when dealing with the public sector means it does have an official status, while not being an official language. I think it should be kept as it was before the recent edits. --Rhyswynne (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Act only states that they should be treated equal in the public sphere when "appropriate under the circumstances and reasonably practicable" and places no requirement on the private sector. In terms of de facto the use of the Welsh language is governed by a law so it is de jure, further if it was de facto then it would not be included in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages as the charter only deals with non official languages. I do agree that the language has a quasi-status in that it has a official status in courts and public bodies to an extent, while not actually being an official language. AlexD (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Political groups wishing to "make Welsh an official language" are seeking to make Welsh an official language in all aspects of Welsh life. I personally feel that they are using the above phrase as it is more 'scandalous' and makes a better political slogan (as compared to, say, "make Welsh official in all the other walks of life as well": it just doesn't roll off the tongue as well). It could also be argued that saying "make it official" curries favour with those that feel that it does not currently have (sufficient) official recognition.

I see it as an indisputable fact that the role of the Welsh language is not legally defined (or guaranteed) in all proceedings in Wales. I also see it as a fact that its status is defined and guaranteed in several significant aspects of life, including the right to conduct legal proceedings in Welsh, and the right to communicate with public bodies in Welsh. There is a long-standing provision of Welsh-medium education, and also that Welsh must be taught as a language throughout compulsory secondary education [16].

From this, I form a summary that while Welsh is not a fully official language of all aspects of Wales, it is an official language in some. So it is an official langauge. (The article should still qualify this statement)

In comparing the position of languages in Wales with languages in Canada (see Official bilingualism in Canada), I see many parallels. Both are legally required to provide for both languages in government proceedings (at the federal level in Canada), and in courts. They both support the development of the minority languages, funded by government. I would even go as far as saying that Welsh is more defined as an official language than French is in many parts of anglophonic Canada. Ontario, for example, only has legislation guaranteeing the right to use French with government bodies in areas where there is a 'high' concentration of francophones, whereas such guarantees for Welsh apply to the entire county of Wales.

So, as I see it, the official status of English and Welsh in Wales is comparable to that of English and French in Canada. If you agree with my conclusions here, then surely either both countries have two 'official' languages each, or neither does? Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see with your comparison is that the Canadian situation "places obligations on private actors in Canadian society to provide access to goods or services in both official languages (such as the requirement that food products be labeled in both English and French)", which extends the requirement to the private sector which is not what the Welsh Language Act 1993 does. Further from what the article says there is no get out clause and it is a right for the Canadians, whereas under the Welsh Language Act if a public body deems it not "appropriate under the circumstances and [not] reasonably practicable" then they do not have to provide anything in Welsh.

Personally, my view is that the Welsh language is semi-official in that there is a requirement for the Government and other public bodies to promote and treat Welsh equally with regards to English, but this is not tantamount to an official language as there is a get out clause and there is no statutory requirement for the private sector along with the fact that it is classed as a regional and minority language by a treaty. AlexD (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So how about this as a compromise. We leave the established statement that Welsh is an officlal language, but include a new section in the article which contains a lot of the above data in what has become an intelligent debate and acts as a qualifier. --Snowded (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No. AlexD and myself has given many reasons why its not an official language so saying that it is would be misleading to say the least. So the edits to the infobox should stand. I agree that a section explaining how the language is used would be a good idea. Saying things like Welsh can be used in court and the public sector if asked for by an individual would be an interesting point for the reader.Wikipéire (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How about phrasing it along the lines of 'the Welsh language has official recognition by public bodies', if we cannot agree on the definition of an "official" language?

Ok. I'm not sure what you mean by phrase as its an infobox we're talking about. How about we keep it with the new edit but there can be a asterisks or whatever beside Welsh with a note at the bottom of the infobox saying Welsh is recognized to be used in the courts? That way both sides have what they want.Wikipéire (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaving the info box as is (without the new edit), but with an asterisk which then leads to a wider discussion describing the situation wold make sense. I don't think it is remotely misleading to say that a language is official if it is used in all aspects of government. At the moment there is no concensus or majority for either position. So taking your idea of the asterisk with an explanation, while keeping the official label seems reasonable. I am not happy about it, but better than a reversion war --Snowded (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh no. We have proved with numerous sources why it is not the official language. You are using your own opinion to change an act that allows Welsh to be used on court on request because its a recognized regional language in the UK to suddenly saying that makes it an official language of Wales! There are numerous places on the Welsh Lnaguage Act itself where it says Welsh is not an official language which are shown above. The basis behind your argument is you going from A to B without any logic or reason. With the sources I have given they have clearly stated word for word that Welsh is not the official language of Wales. So therefore if we are compromising the fact that it is not official should take the paramount position as of my edit and the asterisk can be used to display your position. Once you provide us all with actual legislation that says Welsh is the official language of Wales then the your edit can come into play.Wikipéire (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you want a compromise? Look, for a start I am defending a position which has been in place for over a year, I am not proposing an edit I am defending a current position. You are quoting opinions that argue that Welsh is not an official language, none of those are authoritative documents (you have persistently refused to deal with your UK constitutional claim). The only authoritative document in play is the Act, which establishes a series of rights and obligations which make Welsh an official language (not necessarily the same level as English but that is not the question). I repeat - you have provided no authoritative source, you have provided evidence of a political position that can be explained in a note. In my opinion the suggest that the status quo prevails with a note to explain some of the issues is a reasonable compromise. Overall the opinions here are balanced - there is no clear consensus so I suggest we start trying to find solutions. Oh and you might want to quote to justify your statement that the ACT says that Welsh is not an official language. --Snowded (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just had a look over at the Scotland article which might offer a suitable solution for all. In their infobox they have Official Language as English (De Facto) and then underneath a section entitled 'Recognized regional languages' as Galic and Scots. If all agree could we adopt this for the infobox and also include a section on what has turned out to be quite an interesting issue? AlexD (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If we were to follow the above suggestion, I would prefer Official languages: English, Other languages: Welsh, with of course a footnote describing the current legal status in a bit more detail. I find describing Welsh, in relation to Wales, as a regional language to be inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansbaradigeidfran (talk • contribs) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's perfectly acceptable to me. I agree 'regional' probably isn't the best word.Wikipéire (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur, seems a suitable compromise. AlexD (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary of current position The established position for some time has been that Welsh and English are listed as official languages This was changed recently along with other changes to the status of the Welsh National Anthem I reverted those at which point Wikipiere enters with three revertions refusing engagement in the talk page until forced by an administratior

There has now been a series of exchanges and we have:

For the status quo (Wales and England are official languages): Myself quoting Welsh Language Act, Welshleprechaun (quoting Bwrdd yr Iaith as authority), Jack Forbes referencing the general statement in Wikipedia defining an official language, Rhyswynne referencing the courts, Ansbaradigeidfran comparing with the position on French and English in Canada

For the recent change Wikipiere and AlexD quoting various documents from political parties and others seeking increased status for the Welsh Language. Wikipiere has also argued that the English Constitution supports him but has not provided any citation

So at the moment it is 5-2 in favour of the status quo although Asbaradigeidfan has indicated he might accept a compromise in which Wales is listed as another language.

I also note that AlexD and Wikipiere have started to engage in discussion on this page recently following the controversy over changes in the information box, while most of the "other side" are long standing contributors the page.

On the basis of that I think the position is pretty clear. The obvious compromise, based on the discussions and strength of contributions to this discussion is to keep the status quo, but make a note of the issues relating to the status of Welsh, current controversies etc.

In respect of recent exchanges the position in Scotland is very different, there is not Equivalent of the Welsh Language Act in Scotland (I make no comment on this absence) --Snowded (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh My God are you serious? Haha What you have just typed is absolute rubbish. It's like propoganda trying to swing something.

Please try and maintain a civilised standard of debate, if you don't understand something ask, don;t throw insults. --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok lets debunk this step by step. 1. You did not quote the Welsh Language Act. You misquoted it. Tell me again where it says in the act that Welsh is the official language of Wales? As in not you claiming it does somehow does but where is the sentence saying it does? And which bit of Bwrdd yr Iaith are you talking about? Surely not the 1942 Welsh Courts Act bit. That actually just allows Welsh to be used in court if requested. How that makes it the offcial language of a country I never know. Thirdly you can't quote wikipedia. Unsourced statements are bound to be wrong. It quotes the Welsh Language Act 1967 which gives some rights to use the Welsh language in court similar again to the 1942 act. Where the line saying its the official language? Its not there. You are trying to pull something out of a hat. How can you compare Canada with Wales. I am half Canadian so I know its a joke to compare the two. Firstly Canada is a sovereign state with its own constitution. Wales is not. How the fact the way their languages are set out is beyond me.

If you note the previous exchanges there are many official languages which would fail the test of there having to be formal document stating their status. The convention on official languages is not determined by whether something is a sovereign state or note. When Canada was a dominion it still had two official languages. --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For the recent change Wikipiere and AlexD quoting various documents from political parties and others seeking increased status for the Welsh Language. Wikipiere has also argued that the English Constitution supports him but has not provided any citation

English constitution? Now you are just making stuff up. How does England a constitute conutry of the UK have a consitution exactly? We quoted political parties did we? Rather than you making something up?

I fully agree that the concept of an English constitution is a nonsense - YOU raised it early on in this debate and has failed to back it up and now you deny it? Are you taking part in a debate or simply saying whatever you think needs to be said at any stage to get a result? The material below indicates that there is an active debate and it should be covered in the article. The argument is a simple one - if a language has official status in the courts, education and government then it is official. People may want more status, they may argue that the criterial for being official is different but that is the debate. You may disagree with my position but at least try and engage with it --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Speaking on BBC Wales' Politics Show, Mr Pugh also rejected a call by Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Language Society - at a rally in Aberystwyth over the weekend - for the language to have official status." [17]

"Plaid Cymru assembly leader Ieuan Wyn Jones has called for a new Welsh Language Act at a rally attended by up to 300 people in mid Wales. Mr Jones said Welsh should have official status and also called for a language commissioner to be appointed."[18]

Finally the mystical Welsh Language Act which you claim says it makes Welsh the official language of Wales. Well here is the website of said act. http://welshlanguageact.org/

And I quote "We call on the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure a New Welsh Language Act that will provide official status and for the language"

That is five sources which refer to different acts which says these acts do not make 'Welsh the official language of Wales'.

As I said, a political position --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please Snowded where in the Language Act does it say 'with this Welsh is the official language of Wales'? The fact of the matter is you have zero credible sources saying why Welsh is the official language.Wikipéire (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In which case, if that is the criteria, many other languages will have to cease being official (I suspect this includes English in England). --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My own view: If the Official language has been stable for a year because it is correct according ot the link. Wikpiere is simply wrong to say we cannot use the Infobox "Official language:" link because we cannot quote Wikipedia in an argument. The criteria we are looking for is simply in the link! Wikipedia has clearly defined what an "official language" is in Wikipedia terms - and lets face it - it is hardly a stone-carved phrase! Wikipedia has wisely made it less rigid than some countries' various legal situations might have it (and things can be flexible and vary a lot in the UK, esp regarding nationality).

I notice Wikipiere is Canadian, and people are here from all over. Everyone is as entitled as anyone else to edit of course, but I thought people might like to know some of my own Welsh-language experience living in Cardiff:

I was born in Cardiff and have been based here nearly all of my 37 years. As long as I personally remember all the public information printed by the councils/governments in Wales was bilingual. Often you get two large booklets sent in the post and you simply discard the ones you don’t want. The Yellow Pages and the telephone book are bilingual. The health information you pick up in surgeries is bilingual - everything like that is bilingual. It costs us a fortune but we do it. Certain jobs in Cardiff can demand bilingual workers. All traffic signs are bilingual. Croeso i Gymru - welcome to Wales: we use two languages. Everyone knows that Welsh is getting more popular as the economy improves - for a number of reasons. Welsh speaking schools are on the increase. Assembly members use it as a selling factor. Whether English is "defacto" (as Labour calls it) or "official", or Welsh is "official" or "should-be-official" (you can find them all on the web) - they are all rhetorical party lines - they (and we) all want to see more of it. Wikipedia has its own label for Welsh - an official language. It's even on the sub-article List of official languages, next to English. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to go over all the evidence again as that is tedious and I doubt many have read the links to start with so would ultimately be a waste of time. There is no debate about the requirement for the use of Welsh in government and public business but that does not make Welsh an official language, as there is no requirement for the Private sector to treat Welsh as it does English.

Please read my whole comment and please sign your own. Is this a comment on my above comment? - you haven't addressed my main point. By WIKIPEIDAS standards it IS an OFFICIAL LANGUAGE!!! Wikipedia is the only standard that matters in a Wikipdia Info box!!! (9by the way - some jobs have to be in Welsh - it is a law that this can be requested on the application.)) --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

and that is the heart of the disagreement, I and others think the requirement in Government, and for private citizens in respect of their interactions with Government is decisive. Private Industry can do what it wants (as an English company can in say France). --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note of caution, just because something has gone unchallenged on wikipedia for a year does not mean that it is true due to the lack of challenges, otherwise by that logic everything that was first written on wikipedia would still be here.

Very true, but when there is no consensus (and a majority against change), and the active editors on the site in general agree it is an argument. --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, I answered the rhetorical question I posed: I hardly need to be cautioned! I am removing my first line to encourage peole to read what I have written. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To make my definition clear, to me an official language is one that is defined in law as such or is de facto, thusly my arguments are based on whether there is a legal de jure or de facto official status for Welsh. (please click on the links and read what each means)

This is your definition - not Wikipedias (the only one that matters in the infor box). --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you take that position then you will have to be very busy on other country pages having this same argument. In many cases a de factor position would suffice, However in this case we also have a de Jure position in respect of interactions between citizens and the state. --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Are people willing to accept the compromise of putting Welsh as 'Other Recognized Language' as mentioned above? AlexD (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced, I think it reduces the status of welsh (as other amendments relating to the language did). I do not think the article should support a nationalist position, but neither should it be a Unionist one. --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A member of my family lived in Anglesey some ten years ago. She's Scottish but found it necessary to learn Welsh in order to get a part-time sales job in the area. English was a "nice to have" but Welsh was a "must have". Like AlexD says, there is no requirement for the private sector to treat English as it does Welsh. If AlexD's logic proves that Welsh is not an official language in Cardiff, then it surely proves that English is not an official language in Anglesey. Or perhaps there is something wrong with his argument. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is on a different scale, we are talking about the whole of Wales and on a whole Welsh is not the principal language (hence why I don't accept it as de facto). Off course there are regional variations within Wales, for instance where I was brought up and live your more likely to hear English yet if you travel 5 minutes to the West Welsh is the main language. However, this article is about Wales and not Anglesey nor the geographic variation in the usage of the Welsh language as these are impertinent, but rather (or at least in my case) about whether Welsh is accepted legally as an official language or not. As yet I have seen no evidence to support the claim that Welsh is either de jure nor de facto official! AlexD (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Anglesey has significance, please don't dismiss it. The presence of Welsh as a first language in many areas of Wales is one of the reasons for the Welsh Language Act. --Snowded (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder. French is not the principal language of Canada as a whole either, yet it is undoubtedly official. The fact is that assuming that your reasoning above is correct, I can use you what you just said to support the claim that English is not an official language of Wales. Thus I could say:

Of course there are regional variations within Wales, for instance where you were brought up and live, one is more likely to hear English yet if one travels 5 minutes to the West, Welsh is the main language. However, this article is about Wales and not Anglesey nor the geographic variation in the usage of the English language as these are irrelevant, but rather (or at least in my case) about whether English is accepted legally as an official language or not. As yet I have seen no evidence to support the claim that English is either de jure nor de facto official!

Now it would be absurd to believe that the above line of argument proves that English is not an official language in Wales, and by analogy it is absurd to believe that the same argument can prove that Welsh is not an official language in Wales. Other arguments might well be used but not that one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have said I am coming from this from a legal aspect, and the law's territorial extent is WALES not individual counties or places where people live, that is why Anglesy is not important nor where I live. To be de facto (in principal) Welsh would have to be treated like English all the way through Wales i.e. all businesses across Wales would publish in Welsh and English as well as the Public Sector, at the moment only the Public sector is doing so as it is obliged by law (de jure), this is why I have said that Welsh has a quasi or semi-official status previously. If you think that Welsh has official status please provide the evidence, I have taken the time to post links and also provide quotations for you to assess, whereas all that has been provided as a counter to what I say is either that it has been on wikipedia for a year or a link to an unreferenced article, so please list your sources! AlexD (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Alex, I have also put considerable effort into responding to this. I have addressed all the points above (as have others) several times. If I have a legal right to use a language in my transactions with the state then it is an official language, and evidence for that has been provided, it has official status. You are trying to argue a much wider test which I don't think English could pass in England. You are repeating arguments (and I am repeating counters). If there are no new arguments then I think the consensus is that the original wording stands and we should work on a new section which expresses the wider issues on language. Its time to move on, --Snowded (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is time to move on and the arguments are becoming circular. This is a complex area an a highly emotive one but at the end of the day wikipedia is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia is based on evidence. As I have stated I am happy to accept a compromise and previously one was in motion. The test that I am using has two parts

Is Welsh the principal language in the Whole of Wales (i.e. has 50% or more of people using it)
Is Welsh defined in Law as an official Language

These are the only two means of having an official language the first being de facto (which is what English passes in England and so is an official language) the second being by law, if one of these is shown then I will concede and retract my argument, however neither have been. I have listed my evidence below and am placing a call for comment on the top of the page in an attempt to draw to a close, if you could provide your evidence below also then that should help with a speedy resolution. AlexD (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are your criteria, the first is agreed. The second is a question of whether the law makes it official. I have and continue to content that the right to use Welsh in legal and other contexts means that it is official. Whether the act uses the exact phrase is not important and I cant see why you think it is. Overall I agree that we should do far more for the language, and I agree with the proposals on commissioners and increasing status. However none of that detracts from the central position. I have a legal right to use Welsh in all aspects of the government of Wales; Welsh is therefore an official language. I really think a good section on this would help. The evidence relates to your criteria (and its useful) but it requires acceptance of your limitation of the use of the "word" official. --Snowded (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Having had a quick look through the Welsh language act 1993 I can hardly believe they have managed to avoid the word official (as far as I can see). For all intents and purposes it is official! Does anyone actually argue against the fact that officially you are allowed to speak and have a case heard in court in the Welsh language. Now, where are these courts, yep, there in Wales. So surely it follows if Welsh is official in court in Wales then the Welsh language is official! It does seem to me that the way the act is worded owes more to politics rather than making it clear and concise. --Jack forbes (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any sources to show that English is an official language in the UK? If not then Welsh is, in Wales, as official as English, but that there are active campaigns to broaden the use of Welsh. Perhaps the "official" label can be left blank, and other labels used for both English and Welsh? Dan Beale-Cocks 08:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

English is the de facto official language of the UK, Scotland, Wales and England. Welsh is not and cannot be a de facto official language because only 21.7% of Welsh people can actually speak Welsh. I am only writing on this talk page now as think your idea of leaving out the word official could be the solution to all this.78.16.152.66 (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If 21% of a population speak a language then it is clearly not a MAJORITY language, but that does not prevent it being an official one, particularly when the right to use it is enshrined in law. If you want to argue from majorities then the most of the 11 Official languages in South Africa have to go. The argument here is that is de facto an official language (21% speak, it is the native tongue in significant areas) and de Jure (an act of Parliament gives people a right to use it in their interactions with Government --Snowded (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You do know what de facto means right? It can only be applied to one language. 99.9% of Wales speak English so it is the de facto official language. 21.7% means it is a minority and is nowhere near being a de fact official language. Youe de jure claim is what this is all about. Some are saying the 93 act makes it official while other say it does not. Anyway what about the removing the word official and just make it languages? What are your opinions on that? I see it as the solution.78.16.152.66 (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find your definition of de facto is not strictly true, as shown in the louisiana article which states that both English and French are de facto. Only 4.8% of the population speak French. --Jack forbes (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say de facto. I quote "While the state has no declared "official language," its law recognizes both English and French." Again French is recognized but not official as in Welsh's case. I quote: A de facto standard is a standard (formal or informal) that has achieved a dominant position, or by enforcement, or market dominance. This can only apply to one language in both cases in is neither Welsh or French.

Again as a compromise what about just removing the word official and saying Languages: Welsh, English.78.16.152.66 (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hate to be argumentative, but if you check the info box you will see De facto: English and French. Also check this [21]. As for your compromise, I have no problem with it. --Jack forbes (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement for de facto to be restricted to one language, it is reasonable to say that de facto Welsh and English are official languages as they are used in education, the courts and in other transactions. As it happens it is also de jure given the act which confers official status. If a language is in active use by a significant proportion of a population, taught in all schools and that language has legal status then it is official. To say anything else is a nonsense. If you want to say "Languages: English and Welsh" I might live with that, but its not accurate. In that case Italian is as well. The reality (and only a couple of people disagree with this) is that Welsh and English are official languages, and English is the majority language. Its perverse to say anything else --Snowded (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say. You are right to say "Language: English and Welsh" is not quite the proper thing. What I will say though is that they must both be categorised together, whether that's official language or not. As you say there is no doubt that Welsh is official. --Jack forbes (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That link's information is actually taken straight from Wikipedia.

Anyway glad to see you agree to the compromise. What about the others? Do you agree to the compromise that DanBealeCocks suggested? Let's ignore the argument for the moment and just see if this compromise can reach a consensus.78.16.152.66 (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2008

(UTC)

I would support that but lets wait and see what the mediator on this issue says. I have a feeling a compromise won't be necessary.Wikipéire (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Jack is saying that Welsh is an official language. However a compromise position is to list Languages as Welsh and English with neither specified as official. I am not sure why a compromise is necessary however with limited support for the "not an official language" position. --Snowded (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the infobox to National Languages: Welsh, English. The infobox parameters don't allow for just 'languages' to appear so national seemed the best option. If there's a problem with this let me know.Wikipéire (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

not an agreement to a change but an invitation to others to contribute. The position at the moment is roughly a 4:1 majority for official so unless a substantial body of people think a change necessary I am for the status quo which I think is established by the discussion. If a number of those who argued for official want to revise their position I will go with the flow, but only if they do --Snowded (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get the 4:1 from (??) but it doesn't really matter, its quality of argument not numbers. I am currently working on an edit to the language bit if the Wales article to reflect on the complicated nature of its officialness or not.Wikipéire (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to the edit as I think a section in the article on the subject is necessary and I look forward to your contribution there. At the moment the argument rests on interpretation of what constitutes official and the various evidence is now outline. When I last counted 7 editors argued for official, 2 against then another entered for, hence 4:1 --Snowded (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am supporting it being unnofficial. Gozitancrabz (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are a real delight! One minute you say Support: For the reasons given by Snowded. then you delete it and put in the above. Damascus Road experience? Its probably over anyway. I think Wikipeire has done a reasonable job on the edit and removing official but leaving both languages with equal status can be lived with --Snowded (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

Hidden category: Articles including recorded pronunciations

Talk:Wales/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Info box color options

another option

Outer border using original Infobox_Country

Narrowed colour border for both Firefox/MSIE

Requests for Mediation

Cofi

the Map

"Traditionally a principality"

Change to first parag

Holiday homes

Change to protected page

Welsh Language Act 1993

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search