Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Archive 1 - up to December 31, 2007 Archive 2

Contents 1 Infobox settlement 2 Landmarks 3 Power and resources 3.1 Proposal 4 Addition of Welsh names to English articles 4.1 Chester 4.1.1 Arguments in favour 4.1.2 Arguments against 4.2 Wirral 4.2.1 Arguments in favour 4.2.2 Arguments against 4.3 Ludlow 4.3.1 Arguments in favour 4.3.2 Arguments against 5 Addition of Welsh names to English articles (2) 5.1 Section break 5.1.1 Cilgwri / Wirral 5.2 EN.wikipedia? 5.3 Aggressive actions by User:217.39.132.9 6 Adding resources 7 United Kingdom, constituent country, both, or what in the lead? 8 References section 9 Toponymy 9.1 Toponymy or Etymology 9.2 complete discussion 10 Archiving 11 English exonyms 12 Settlement distances

[edit] Infobox settlement

Hello again,

Since our last revisions of this, it seems the use of Template:Infobox settlement for local authority areas has taken off to the point of being taken as standard. Although we were unsure of the initial impact of its introduction, I'd be inclined to make a note about now using this for our settlement/local authorities. Sucessful examples of this seem to be Cardiff, London, Manchester, Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale and more. Would there be any objection if I made a note about this?

Unsimillarly, Wormshill (a current FAC) uses the UKCITIES guide, but it being a hamlet, it highlighted the need for an amalgamated Culture and community section. Any objections to a note about this a possibility for small areas and hamlets?? -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If an article used both "infobox UK place" & "Infobox World Heritage Site" which should come first - see ongoing debate (becominh an edit war) on Bath, Somerset & attempt to get some consensus on Talk:Bath, Somerset#Order of Infoboxes - any contributions welcome.— Rod ^talk 15:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would have expected the UK place infobox to be first. The article is about Bath as a place/settlement first and foremost - the WHS status is surely an afternote? I'm not basing this on any kind of policy/guideline (I'm certain none exists!), but would have thought that'd be a common sense approach and would support that standpoint. Other's may disagree however. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to the note being added to the guide for situations similar to those concerning Wormshill, as it may help that part of the FAC obstacle course proceed more smoothly (the FAC interchanges about Wormshill are mostly dominated by a more intransigent issue to do with the tone of delivery of some of the reviewers' comments, I think). Is there any sense in arguing for some guidance on the use of standard versus non-standard county templates as well (given discussions and taking place on Template talk:Cambridgeshire at the moment)? I also agree that the settlement infobox is best placed first if there are more than one. Disappointingly, I see that the two under specific discussion don't show up as having the same width in the case of Bath, Somerset. Oh well.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to put something together now that encompasses these points. Thanks for the input. I'm also (against my own warning of discussing all changes!) going to add a note about including a bite of info on social class in Demography (where citation allows), as this was something which I saw appear in a recent FAC. I don't think it's a contentious addition.

For now (at least) I think it would be wise to avoid the county templates issue. Although I do think the community would be quick to support a standard template style, a note here during the debate at Template:Cambridgeshire could be a conflict of interest on our part I think. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As this seems to be the most active talk page I'd like to pose a request for clarification. I note Template:Infobox Settlement mentioned above, & I normally use Template:Infobox UK place but now Template:Infobox UK district has been added to some of the articles on my watchlist & I'm currently considering Template:Infobox England and Wales civil parish for parishes (which aren't districts & include several villages). I've also seen Template:Infobox Settlement on UK articles & I'm confused (as I suspect others might be) - is there anywhere in the guidelines which say clearly which infobox to use in particular circumstances? I'm particularly after guidance on whether Template:Infobox UK district is appropriate for both unitary authority & non-metropolitan districts - but a pointer to a clear guideline page or inclusion in this guideline would be useful.— Rod ^talk 18:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, pink?? I wasn't aware this existed to be honest!!... It looks as if it was developed with the intention of converting the old faux-infobox tables into a functioning infobox, using a simillar design. I personally don't link the design at all, but don't object to a UK district infobox outright as such.

We have a number of (metropolitan) boroughs and cities that use Template:Infobox Settlement (Birmingham, Trafford, Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, Kingston-upon-Hull being good examples). Perhaps non-metropolitan districts (and boroughs) without city status need something like (the pink has surely got-to-go) this???? -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've marked {{Infobox UK district}} as depreciated, in favour of {{Infobox Settlement}}. MRSC • Talk 19:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm being daft, but does that mean that I should have used {{Infobox Settlement}} on local districts such as Bedford (borough) and Mid Bedfordshire then?--Starrycupz (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not daft at all! Don't worry!... I believe confusion and personal preference are still outstanding matters. Personally (and it is only my opinion) I think we should adopt {{Infobox Settlement}} for local government district of England (at very least). Do you have an opinion on the matter Starrycupz? -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, comparing {{Infobox Settlement}} to other district infoboxes (using Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale as an example), it certainly is more aesthetically pleasing. It looks neater and holds more information without looking cluttered. Unless there are any objections, I'll probably convert the Bedfordshire districts over to it eventually (as well as any other districts I happen to land on, of course).--Starrycupz (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Landmarks

Currently the Landmarks section limits listed buildings to just Grade I /Category A - I think that is rather narrow as many Grade II and Grade II* are also notable and could be mentioned here.

May be we could remove this statement and amend the statement "Notable buildings or architecture." to something like "Notable buildings or architecture, including details of listed buildings."

Keith D (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. This seems to have been my fault. I was trying to say that Grade I/Category A buildings should certainly be mentioned, but other listed buildings are also more than suitable to be included. I'll try to rephrase something accordingly if that's OK? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks. Keith D (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The change looks as though it covers things better now. Thanks for making it. Keith D (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Power and resources

Hello again folks,

I'm here (reluctantly - I asked another user to raise this) to raise a point regarding electricity, water and sewerage. It has been raised as part of a UK settlement WP:GAC that electricity and water supplies (i.e. who provides them and where they come from) as well as how sewage and waste is dealt with, should be discussed within a settlement article.

I believe (though I could be wrong) that this advice comes from WP:CITIES. I just wondered, how do users feel about this going into our articles as standard? If this was to go in, where would be the best place to slot it in (Geography, Governance, Economy or somewhere else?)? I have a completely open mind about this one, so it's upto those with views to put forward any propositions for change really! -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Does not seem to fit in well with the sections you mentioned. It is in a similar vein to the Transport section so may be we should have a separate optional section that covers these items. Could I suggest Services for the heading, unless anyone else has a better idea. Keith D (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It was put that it could be amalgamated with Transport into a new Infrastructure section, though this isn't something I'm keen on myself. I like services, though perhaps it could be a sub-section of Governance (the logic being that these are usually part of a local authority's juristiction), if not somewhere else? The GAC in question was Neilston, where I tried to deal with the suggestion in the last paragraph of the Governance section. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the way you covered health care / hospitals in the Neilston article and this section would be a good place to put that sort of detail. Keith D (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I do think that a small paragraph like that may be all that's needed to satisfy international reviewers. Probably just stating who is in charge of waste management, (refuse and/or sewage), who the Distribution Network Operator for electricity is and which body supplies water. A note on nearest hospitals and any local health care would probably also suffice. If there is anything notable about these services in the area beyond this, I suppose it could be elaborated on like any other topic. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Public Services" cover it all. In which case, I would place it as a sub-section (if it is lengthy) or a paragraph (if otherwise) in the Governance section. I also think it would be worthwhile to clarify that WP:CITIES is not the most appropriate set of guidelines to be using to assess articles about UK Settlements, and that WP:UKCITIES has the same status as WP:CITIES, was derived from WP:CITIES, and is more closely tuned to dealing with the specific issues of settlements in the UK. WE need to do this last point, or else a constant appeal to WP:CITIES will completely undermine the reason and existence of WP:UKCITIES and lead to the end of civilization as we know it confusion over what guidelines to follow. Perhaps a more prominent notice about using WP:UKCITIES on the talk pages of articles submitted to the GA or FA process would help.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a Public services (sub)section seems quite appropriate now I think. Again, I think it need only be 2-to-4 sentences. That is to say:

• A note on which of the United Kingdom water companies supply water.
• A note on which body/authority is responsible for waste management and/or sewerage.
• A note on which company is the Distribution Network Operator for electricity.
• A note on any hospitals, surgeries, or other health centres in the settlement (with the possibility of elaborating where the nearest NHS hospital may be).
• A note on any other notable public services.

Would something like this added to the Governance guidelines resolve this part of issue?

On the matter of WP:CITIES vs WP:UKCITIES, I think you're right that we should be persuing and promoting UKCITIES as the standard for settlements under WP:UKGEO remit. I know UKCITIES was developed in response to CITIES too. Do you have any ideas (DDStretch) on how exactly a more promient notice may work or be displayed? -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If police, fire & ambulance are in the infobox should they be repeated in public services? What about things like refuse services? (or is that what you mean by waste) There may be others which are particularly relevant to an area eg mines or mountain rescue. What about roads maintenance/roadsweeping? Parks & open spaces management? Are we just talking about NHS health centres or private/independent/charity provision as well? this could become massive & difficult!— Rod ^talk 18:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I suppose we could make a point that this should be limited to core services of electricity, waste, water and health?? Would that help? -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note regarding the DNOs do not always go by the wiki article, there DNOs who own the network inside another area for expample Scottish Hydro is the DNO fro Glasgow Harbour even though it is inside Scottish Powers area and there are also independent distribution network operators but that is even more hassle. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Barryob. Again another good point. Is there an online source which we could point to? I had a cursory search but couldn't find anything. I should've also made clear that the request for this public service material came about as part of an objection to completeness - a requirement for good article status. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that you've been unlucky in attracting a reviewer who apparently hasn't read the GA criteria. The requirement is for a broad coverage that covers the major aspects of the topic, not completeness. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite right (!).... That said however, any feedback on if a paragraph on public services should be added or not to UKCITIES? -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

move indent Ofgem is your best bet for sources [1] the reason I know about Glasgow Harbour is that I used to work for Scottish Powers distribution buisness, also seeing as we are including electricity and water why not gas? --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec} I'm in favour of some kind of section on public services, and a similar issue came up recently when we were preparing Middlewich for its GAN; it's got a community facilities section that gives an overview of GP practices, local hospital and so on. My only concern would be to reasonably limit what it was reasonable to expect to be included in that section. I remember a similar issue being raised at Sale's FAN, which resulted in a ridiculous (I thought) sentence or two being added about Sale's water coming from the Lake district. In the case of Trafford, for instance, although the council has the responsibilioty for rubbish collections, it has sub-contracted the work to a private company. And who can say where Stretford's water comes from? It's supplied by United Utilities, but who knows where they get it from from day to day? I guess what I'm saying is that I'm generally in favour of adding a section along these lines, so long as it can be reasonably scoped. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Good source!... I don't see why a mention of Gas (if just a sentence or so) would be bad. I can't seem to find a Gas in the United Kingdom (or equivalent) article, and I'm not sure of the gas infrastructure set-up, so I'm not sure how we'd tackle the issue. Any pointers or ideas?... I think it's becoming clear that though we may be adding something to UKCITIES, we may, conversely, need something about how to limit the content to a reasonable scale. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

OK, after a short 24 hour break and having read what I believe is a consensus for some kind of public service note in UKCITES, I'd like to make the following proposal:

I propose the addition of a new Public services section to be added into the guidelines. Based on what could be written, and looking at WP:USCITY (if you have to hit me don't get the face please), I believe this should be its own seperate section, probably inserted around the same area (underneath?) as Transport. I believe it should have the following:

• A note on which of the United Kingdom water companies supply water.
• A note on which body/authority is responsible for waste management and/or sewerage.
• A note on which company is the Distribution Network Operator for electricity.
• A note on which company is responsible for suppling Gas.^[clarify]
• A note on any hospitals, surgeries, or other health centres in the settlement (with the possibility of elaborating where the nearest NHS hospital may be).
  • A note on which ambulance service operates in the area.
• A note on which of the police forces in the United Kingdom serves the settlement, and if any stations are in the area.
• A note on which fire service in the United Kingdom serves the settlement and if any stations are in the area.
• A note on any other notable public services (e.g. Telecommunications, social housing (if not already discussed elsewhere)).

How does this stand with you folks? I'm open to tweaks. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be in general agreement to add something like that, but I'm not sure about the last category. In what sense is telecommunications a public service? Aren't all the telcos privately owned? Not sure about social housing either .... and I'm completely confused about gas distribution. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the "company is responsible for suppling Gas" a similar kind of company to E.ON UK (which I knew as Central Networks), or is it just some end-user Gas company that households use to buy and pay money to for their gas consumption? I hope it is the former, in which case, perhaps some note clarifying this is needed? If it is the latter, surely the chaos of having loads of companies who are constantly sending reps to knock on your door, making statements of unknown veracity about how their company can sell gas or electricity to you more cleaply than other companies is going to make sorting out this item extremely tricky or even worthless nowadays.

I don't think the inclusion of the same information in the infobox should in this case count against including it in a section like this (to counteract a point that had already been made in a previous section.) The Infobox was, as far as I understood, just a summary of information that would be expanded on in the text of the article.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this feedback. OK I've removed the telcos and housing stuff. On Gas I'm equally confused. I'm not sure exactly how the infrastructure is set up, and what kind of material is most useful. It was a point raised by Barryob earlier that it may need including.

DDStretch also makes a valid point that the infoboxes are there as a summary, or reference card. Afterall, we do say which district a place is in, what the population is, what country, its name etc etc. I think the addition of the emergency services isn't a bad thing, and allows for elaboration on any local facilities, where previously we had no scope for such things.

Any other issues? -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not from me, other than to suggest that you now "Publish and be damned". :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, covers things that we have discussed. We can always tweak it if there are problems with implementing it. Keith D (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll action this. I'll leave mentions of Gas out until someone can propose what best practice would be. I would also like to include an example version of this section if that's OK(?), so if anyone fancies producing one for their favourite/local settlement, please feel free to give me (or this page) a shout. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping that you were going to do that. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As they say, great minds think alike.... but.... fools seldom differ (!). -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, on putting something together I think which NHS Trust serves the area ought to go in too! I'll add it if there are no objections.... sorry -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added Oldham as an example for Public services. Feel free to make tweaks. I'd still also like to see an example of this section from a rural community (as I think this will need to be dealt rather differently than an urban area like Oldham). Again, if there is anyone willing and able...??? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, from a rural editor's perspective, at Wormshill I think this sort of section has some potential. In a way the services in rural areas are more interesting to a certain extent - e.g no mains drainage so homes have waste water taken away from cesspits in tankers, not on national Transco gas grid etc. but these aspects are only worthwhile where they add significantly to the understanding of the settlement - they emphasise remoteness and isolation perhaps but other parts of the article are capable of doing that. I think we have to consider what people want out of an article. Do they want an almanac of bland information or an interesting treatment of a settlement that brings it to life? Thus my view is that these services only need including where they actually add something to our understanding of the town/village/county. A further example of this might be where in Altrincham the FA process encouraged editors to expand the section on water supplies (which came from the Lake District) due to the unique geography of the area. We all know that towns in the UK are linked to essential services, we shouldn't need to specify all the providers and networks where UpMyStreet or similar can do that job. Dick G (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Whilst accepting part of what you say, I would like to counter other parts by stating that we are not writing this for ourselves. The other people we are writing for may not be from the UK and know nothing of how these things are set up or arranged in the UK, and it could be very likely that they know nothing of the upmystreet site which might contain some of this kind of information. Indeed, it could be that there are people from the UK who are ignorant of how other parts of the UK (or even how their own area) is served for these kinds of services.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think you raise two very important points. The first being as you say that rural settlements would benefit from this type of material as it indicates the remoteness and puts some services and resources into perspective. Being a bit of a city slicker, or townie, this is something I hadn't really considered.

The second important point you make is regarding the potential banality of the subject, particularly for some of the duller (for want of a better word) towns and boroughs. I think that's why an example version helps put the section into perspective on how breif this needs to be. On the flipside though, this new section allows for mentions of recycling programs (as part of waste management), notable sustainable energy programs and things like major power plants or service headquarters. For Oldham, it allows for the elaboration of Louise Joy Brown and the former Workhouses, which I think is great too, and, as you say, brings it to life a little.

I believe I opposed the addition of this type of material for a GAC/FAC sometime last year, but as the reviewer stated, these are fundamental resources and we should be mindful of not assuming that readers, particularly internationals and the impaired (one-and-the-same I hear you say!?), know the basic arrangements for public services. I think I've come round to that point of view.

I suppose the question now is, how does this translate to somewhere like Wormshill? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There are also some important historical facts that could perhaps be more easily included in such a section, such as when electricity/gas first arrived and who provided it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I should say that I actually agree with ddstretch and concede taht I had perhaps not made my point clearly in suggesting we are writing 'for ourselves'. With that in mind, I think the proposal does have value but as a bolt-on to articles where the information really adds to the understanding of the settlement. To the extent there are 'Primary' criteria for UKGeo articles and 'Secondary' criteria, this proposal falls firmly in the latter I'd say. Returning to the "where does that leave Wormshill" point, I'm pretty sure I could add content but would prefer to put it in as an illustration of the nature of the settlement. Since, for example, there is no citeable evidence of when power was introduced or telephones installed (assuming it was part of a wider late 19th century early 20th century programme to instal these services in rural communities) that information currently lacks any historical nexus to the settlement itself. Of course my views are on a very macro level. Much larger settlements will have different concerns although perhaps the context issue is more difficult in such circumstances as its different to know as to what context these services should be attributed... Dick G (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see considerable merit in service data being included for smaller communities where it substantially adds to the understanding of the settlement. The Isles of Scilly are a case in point; regular visitiors always seem to want to know when this small group of islands received mainland electricity, how they deal with sewage and refuse disposal, telecommunications providers etc. etc. because of the intrinsic interest in how the logistics of these are acheived in island communities. Because of this, this information is readily available in (and therefore citable from) the most basic of local tourist guides. It would be a challenge to track down this, particularly historical, information for other communities but, where appropriate to the article, it should be a challenge readily taken up by local editors. Which is a long-winded way of saying 'I agree' : ) --John Gibbard (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Gas equivlent to the DNO is Local Distribution Zone (LDZ) National Grid plc used to own all of them but sold some off [2] --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 02:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of Welsh names to English articles

I've had to revert (twice, in one case, in one evening) the addition of Welsh names to English articles: Chester and Wirral (twice). In the case of Wirral, what I take to be the extraordinary claim was made in reaction on my talk page that Welsh is spoken on the peninsular. I doubt the claim is sustainable except in the case that one might find a number of people who can speak some Welsh who live on the Wirral, but there is no verified sources that record a history of Welsh speaking there. If a source if forthcoming, then, of course, if it is appropriate, then I may have to revise my opinion. Is there a need to spell out a policy about this? I can see that some English articles might usefully have Welsh names added, but these should definitely be argued about individually using appropriate verified references, rather than some vague idea of them perhaps being close to the English-Welsh border. What do others think?  DDStretch  (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Has the law that says you can shoot a Welsh person with a long bow on Sundays been repealed then? The Welsh may have names for all sorts of things, but outside of Wales who gives a damn? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at many of the Welsh articles; they hapily include English and Welsh. FYI Welsh (or a similar Brythonic language) was once spoken across England, Wales and much of Western Europe. Celt is itself a Greek word (Keltoi) fitst used by Herodotus. London sits on a river with a celtic name - Thames. The great Welsh poet (Aneurin) lived in the area of modern Edinburgh. This is not an argument for a wide use of Welsh place-names but an acknowledgment of Welsh links or large Welsh comminities. For example, Ludlow was once the admin capital of Wales and drover routes met at Hereford and Shrewsbury. The bishopric of Chester incorporsted some of Wales. --MJB (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The county of Cheshire, when it was first created, also included two hundreds in Wales: Exestan and Atiscross (see Hundreds of Cheshire.), but this is one example of England encroachments into what is now Wales, not of Wales encroaching into England, which I think would be a stronger point in favour of including Welsh names in articles for places now in England: Tarvin would be a much better example to use, as would, arguably, Crewe, though the connections become quite remote at this point.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional point: The reason why articles about Welsh settlements "happily include English and Welsh" is because English and Welsh are the two official languages of Wales, used by a significant proportion of Wales' population. That isn't the case for England, which is why this point is not really relevant. There may well be other, better artgumen ts in favour of adding Welsh names to some English settlement articles, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I had to revert the addition of a Welsh translation of Greater Manchester myself! I think the crux of the matter here isn't historical perspective, but considering what the mainstream veiw on this is and what other encyclopedias would do. Certainly for 99.9% of England we won't need (dare I say want) Welsh translations in the lead or infobox. Perhaps for a limited amount of places along the border, like Chester, we might want to include Welsh, but I think consensus should be made on a case-by-case basis. My point of view on the matter. -- Jza84 · (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Manchester - silly. Chester - essential. What you want is, of course, unimportant. What I want, no doubt, even less so. Who is this "we"? Being English does not give your, or my, opinion any greater weight. --MJB (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Then can we have a discussion and reach an agreement about which articles should have the Welsh name?. Why is Chester essential, for example? The user who has been adding them has come back to me stating that Wirral used to be Welsh but has not yet produced any kind of evidence for this claim, and I don't think we can use the fact that a forerunner to modern Welsh was once spoken in a place to justify adding its modern Welsh name to an article, otherwise whole swathes of English articles could have then added when their connection was very remote in time and largely forgotten and when there were not even any evidence that settlements to which Welsh names are being attached actually existed at the time. I will direct the user here to continue the discussion. As long as we can reach a position on good, justified grounds, then let us add the Welsh names, I say! But until the evidence and justification is made available at the time of addition or before it, then it is difficult to disentangle a reasoned and justified addition from actions that may just be a mistake, misguided or (in an extreme case) disruptive (I'm not saying that any have been disruptive so far, by the way.) I suggest we need is a list of articles in which people wish to have Welsh names included, together with their justification and reasons against, so we can all see what the situation is and then reach a consensus about them, case by case. Perhaps something like this?

[edit] Chester

[edit] Arguments in favour

• Service centre for a large area of north-east Wales. Barclays Bank in the city centre has a Welsh-language nameplate next to the door. Chester railway station complied with Welsh no-smoking laws, introducing the ban several months before the English ban (as indeed did all stations in the Borderlands served by Arriva Trains Wales). -- Arwel (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• reason 2

[edit] Arguments against

• reason 1
• reason 2

[edit] Wirral

[edit] Arguments in favour

• etc
• etc

[edit] Arguments against

• etc
• etc

[edit] Ludlow

[edit] Arguments in favour

• etc
• etc

[edit] Arguments against

• etc
• etc

We will need some grounds rules, such as, additions must include at least one good, specific, verifiable source as to why they are considered for inclusion. What do people think?  DDStretch  (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoah!!! I am the user who has committed the apparently heinous crime of adding Welsh names to Chester and Wirral - since reverted with, in Wirral's case, a replacement bit of text which I will expand when I get the sources. As for "there is [sic] no verified sources that record a history of Welsh speaking there", what do you think was spoken there before the Anglo-Saxons arrived? Or, for that matter, by many of the 19th century migrants to the docks who came from north Wales? Or by [3], to give one example. I suggest a bit of WP:AGF here. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Until you added some sources, there were no verified sources in the article for the material you added. That sources exist somewhere else, but were not added doesn't really count, as people won't routinely know about them. That you have now been prompted to add some sources shows that challenging the addition was ultimately a good thing, surely? I also think your description of "heinous" is a bit over the top as well, so I don't think it is really helpful to do this, especially since you mention WP:AGF yourself. Let's just discuss the additions in a non-heated way, and reach some consensus. Until you provide the evidence, then the material remains unsupported for the purposes of wikipedia. Could you comment on the proposed process I have suggested for this?  DDStretch  (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What "material remains unsupported"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was clear. My apologies. If someone adds a Welsh name to an article about an English settlement, it constitutes material that is being added. If no justification in the form of supporting evidence in favour of adding the Welsh name is included, then the added material is unsupported. It remains unsupported until the evidence is added. Wikipedia likes material (or facts) to have appropriate verification by the addition of suitable citations. It therefore seems sensible to add the verification at the same time as adding the material (or facts). This will then avoid the material being tagged or removed. You added the Welsh name to Wirral. You didn't include at the same time any supporting evidence for the material you added. So, it was unsupported, and others could only suppose it was capable of being supported. So, it was a "supposed fact" on people's part. Until and unless you added the justification by means of verifiable evidence, it remained unsupported. You say you have now added the evidence in the form of citations acceptable to wikipedia. I have proposed that we try to sort out which English settelement articles should have Welsh names attached to them, so we can reach a consensus about them. Is that a bit clearer?  DDStretch  (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at a map of the Wirral, you will notice that a quater of the Wirral is on the Welsh side of the border. Ever since (I dont know when since?), Anywhere in Wales has been provided with Welsh signs and a Welsh name, and since a quater of the wirral is on the Welsh side of the border, Cilgwri should be provided on the opening sentance.

[edit] Addition of Welsh names to English articles (2)

I have done a quick check on towns and other geographical features in England close to the Welsh border. Two towns - Ross-on-Wye (Rhosan ar Wy) and Ludlow (Llwydlo) - currently have their Welsh names mentioned in the opening sentences of their articles. Several other English towns in similar locational relationships to the border do not - Bristol (Bryste), Gloucester (Caerloyw), Hereford (Henffordd), Shrewsbury (Yr Amwythig), Oswestry (Croesoswallt), Chester (Caer). Although clearly there is merit in striving for consistency, I am extremely relaxed about something like this - if someone wants to add the information, I fail to see that there is a problem. I would certainly not revert information which (1) is patently correct - the names really do exist and are used, most obviously on road signs and some maps, so the citation issue does not really apply - and (2) in my view adds interest to the article. In my view it is more helpful than not to indicate that some people, living close to a particular area, call it by another name - and also helps to avert confusion over road signs etc. - although (as I did for Wirral and Chester, and will now do for Ross and Ludlow) I think it is helpful to link that name to the relevant cy: page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Also Liverpool (Lerpwl) Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As information: The Welsh addition to Ludlow was added on 15 November, 2007 (diff here) by User:MacRusgail; Ross-on-Wye had its Welsh text added on 3 November 2004, though incorrectly (diff here) by User:Pazzer.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(In reply to Ghmyrtle's previous two posts) I take your point, but there is a need to ensure point 1 really does apply: it has not been unknown for sophisticated vandal attempts to fabricate information to make it seem plausible, and providing the evidence by means of a suitable citation can really help avoid all that. It isn't a case of not assuming Good Faith, it is a case of abiding by the principles of wikipedia by expecting sources to be of a certain standard and publically available. It also helps ensure that the material (the Welsh names) will not cause any problems if the articles are submitted for GA or FA status. The fact that the road signs exist does not avoid the problem of citation, since at the moment, we only have, for example, an editor's word that the names appear on road signs, and if this were generally applied, we could always avoid giving any references on the grounds that "the evidence really does exist and can be referred to in books in public libraries which we are not specifying here." Again, this is not failing to assume good faith as such requirements are routine in many areas of study and research, and in encyclopaedias. The additions may well add interest to the articles, but perhaps some guidance of how and where to add the material might help.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I would have thought it is reasonable to assume that if an article exists at cy: then the subject matter of that article exists, without the need for further citation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Some subject matter would certainly be seen to exist, but unless we have some evidence that what it is pointing to is, in fact, the same thing but written in Welsh, then we wouldn't be at all sure, and it is this problem which I have seen exploited in sophisticated vandal attacks in the past. Unfortunately my Welsh has declined to zero since my years spent living in Bangor, Gwynedd, and so I just don't know. Again, I'm not failing to assume good faith here, it is a basic problem of public verifiability, and for us trying to avoid future problems in sny GA or FA process, where the reviewers can pounce on issues like the wrong kind of dash being used, etc, and other such minor issues with ease. An additional point is that wikipedia references themselves are not acceptable in themelves and do not provide sufficient evidence or sufficient verifiability of facts, claims or material. What would be ideal would be an external reliable, publically available secondary source that states, quite clearly, that "X has the Welsh name Y" (or something similar), and that this reference was cited at the time the Welsh names were added. Can you see that this would be helpful in these circumstances?  DDStretch  (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The relevant wikipedia guidelines appear to be [here], and (perhaps more importantly) here. The matter is clearly not without controversy, as can be seen from Talk:Hereford#Request for Consensus: Welsh Name (copied from Shrewsbury but same debate) and Talk:Shrewsbury#Request for Consensus: Welsh Name, both of which seem quite recent. Given that this matter is spreading over a number of pages, I think it is particularly important to deal with the matter here, and so more input should be included.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have particularly strong views on this. I think there are some strong and valid points made here from either side. I was going to say that this isn't limited to Welsh, there being Scots, Gaelic, Cornish and Irish to consider, though those boundaries don't seem to cross administrative ones (so far as I can tell) like Welsh. Intrestingly however, Barrhead in Scotland is in English/Scots language territory, but has a Gaelic name included. I'm wondering if that's the right approach too.

For what it's worth I believe that a proficiency of English, Gaelic and/or Welsh is now essenticial to become a citizen of the UK. On the flipside however (and I may be showing my ignorance here), I would like us to consider the cartographical material avaliable. These Welsh place-names, are they recorded by the Ordnance Survey or some other official body? Are they standardised? Most importantly, are they verifiable?

DDStretch is right eitherway here that this issue does need addressing and codifying someway/somehow. I think some threshold for inclusion (based on consensus), complimenting the guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) would be very helpful for UKCITIES. I have to say also that, I'm most pleased that we have some Wales-specific input here, having requested some with this diff not too long back. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, if not the lead, we might want to consider putting this in the infobox as an alternative, using "|welsh_name=" -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being simplistic here, but I should have thought that the name(s) of a settlement which appear prominently in an article (lead and infobox) should be in the official language of the country concerned. If the official language is English, the lead and infobox should be in English only. If there are more than one official languages, for example, Welsh and English, both languages should be in the lead and in the infobox. The name of the settlement in other languages could appropriately appear in the body of the article, but in my opinion it should not be in the lead or infobox. That makes sense to me and would avoid all the acrimony above. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest, firstly, that articles on English Wikipedia should be given the name normally used locally, regardless of whether they are in England or Wales. So, the articles should be (as they are now) entitled, for example, Chester rather than Caer; Chepstow (which is in Wales, but in an overwhelmingly English-speaking area) rather than Cas-Gwent (its Welsh name); and Conwy (in a more Welsh-speaking area) rather than Conway. Secondly, where the town or feature is in Wales (e.g. Cardiff), or is partly in Wales (e.g. River Severn), the Welsh name should be given in the lead sentence of text and in any infobox, preferably (in my view) being given equal weight at that point (but not at every point in the article text). Thirdly, where the town or feature is not in Wales but where there is an "official" Welsh name (as shown on road signs or on any official UK Government or Welsh Assembly Government list - I haven't tracked one down yet), that should be referred to in the text, but not necessarily in the opening sentence. I think there is a genuine issue in that, for example, some people (visitors and even English-speaking residents) may not know that, say, Bryste, which is a name shown on road signs in Wales (and if you don't believe me I'll walk down the road and take a photo), is the same place as Bristol, and in my view it is a role of Wikipedia to set that out. And that doesn't only apply to road signs - where there is a genuine Welsh name for a place in England (e.g., to return to where we came in, Cilgwri/Wirral), that should be mentioned as well. Personally I think the first sentence of an article is OK for that, but I'm really not prepared to go to the wall over where it is placed, only that it should not be reverted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have found the following in the Welsh Assembly Government's Welsh Language Scheme - [4], section 5.3:- "The signs for which we are responsible (mostly motorway and trunk road signs) will be bilingual. Signs which are in English only at the moment will be made bilingual when they are replaced... Signs containing place names in England will contain the Welsh and English versions of the name." (my emphasis). That only helps if you know which English locations were shown on the signs previously. In my own direct experience I know that there are now signs to Bristol/Bryste and London/Llundain on the M48 at Chepstow (and probably also the M4). I haven't checked the situation around Hereford, Shrewsbury or Chester - perhaps others could? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point I think we need to see if these names recorded (and even standardised) by some body. I'm thinking the Ordnance Survey or a reputable Gazetteer or something simillar. I'm interested to know what kinds of settlements have Welsh names (it seems to be those particularly of Roman heritage), and how many (is it just the major cities or are small towns and villages also included?). Something quantifying how prevailent these are might also help. Without this it's hard to attain verifiability. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Farndon, Cheshire is one such smaller place, and at the moment, a Welsh name is provided in the lead section. I think it is worth stating again that evidence which comes from people stating they know the Welsh name, or that they saw a road sign with it on isn't really acceptable. As Jza84 has said, it needs to be in a published, verified, publically available source. It seems to me that there are 4 main issues involved here:

1. Should Welsh names be included if appropriate?
2. Which articles should have Welsh names added?
3. How are they to be verified and referenced (what are acceptable forms of evidence for them)?
4. Whereabouts in the article should they be given?

If the answer to the first point is "no", we all pack up our bags on this issue and go and do something else, but if the answer is "yes", the other questions come into force, and I believe that one can consider each of the questions independently of the others. So far, it seems as if the answer is "yes", and so the other issues can be addressed.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For question 3, I think we should insist on verification of the same standard that we would need if the articles were being considered for GA or FA status. That is, they should be in published sources that can be verified and cited in the usual way citations are made on wikipedia. For question 4, I think a separate paragraph (perhaps in a section dealing with geography or toponymy) needs to be added which discusses any influence or links with Wales, and which then would naturally lead into providing the Welsh name. I do not think the Welsh name should routinely be added to the lead. Of course, the links with Wales should also be referenced and verified in the usual manner. I still think we need to unpack more what the criteria are going to be which we can use to select which articles should be included or not in this. Once we have a short list, we probably should go to those article's talk pages and annoiunce the fact, inviting comments.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Places that have been mentioned (here and elswhere) as candidates for having their Welsh included so far seem to be:

1. Hereford
2. Shrewsbury (also Shropshire recently)
3. Ross-on-Wye
4. Gloucester
5. Worcester (?since it is large, old, and sufficiently close to Gloucester)
6. Ludlow
7. Oswestry
8. Chester
9. Wirral
10. Bristol
11. Liverpool
12. Farndon, Cheshire
13. Birkenhead
14. London

If others could be added (especially ones I've inadvertently omitted), then we could make a decision about each one separately. It may be that some justification for each one should be given for them to be kept on the list, whkich brings us back to the table I suggested a while back (up there somewhere). What do others think?  DDStretch  (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I think this is a good list and good move, but (and it may be a big but here), I think the appropriate local wiki-projects should have much more input, if not the ultimate say (i.e. WP:LONDON have their say about London and WP:BRISTOL for Bristol, WP:CHESHIRE for Chester and so on - where they exist). I think the Welsh inclusionists however have yet to make a stronger case for having the translations, particularly along the lines of verifiability. I would also ask them if this list is an acceptable one and if any consessions need to be made?

On a slightly personal note perhaps, I can't see the addition of Llundain to London lasting very long on the article per consensus, and so we might need to be more realistic here. Certainly England has a Welsh name, but this is the English language Wikipedia, and can see that the addition of "Cy:Lloegr" there would also struggle to last there more than a day or so. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Verifiability is one of the most important aspects of this: if the addition cannot be appropriately verified, then it is legitimately at risk of being removed. As I stated above, what would be an ideal form of verification would be a published source that said quite clearly "X (English name) is known as Y in Welsh." It needs to be this way round (i.e., in English) as we are talking about the English wikipedia. Insisting on that would avoid imposing Welsh names on distant places, such as London, which might otherwise be included if we relied on sub-optimal verification based on road signs. Should I add an invitation for members of the relevant projects to take part in this discussion?  DDStretch  (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Other possibles for consideration (I'm not necessarily advocating their inclusion, let alone a mention in the lead sentence): Somerset/Gwlad yr Haf (visible from S Wales); Forest of Dean/Fforest y Ddena (ditto); Cheshire/Swydd Gaer; Herefordshire/Swydd Henffordd; Gloucestershire/Swydd Gaerlloyw; Devon/Dyfnaint; Cornwall/Cernyw. Worcester is Caerwrangon, by the way. River Avon is Afon Avon of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I will investigate this site - [5] - and its publications further later today or tomorrow (no time now). The Welsh Language Board has responsibility for the Welsh form of placenames, and there may be some useful (official and verifiable) guidance. Certainly some OS maps also use Welsh names in their titles - e.g. Explorer map 266 is "Wirral & Chester/Caer" and OL14 is "Wye Valley & Forest of Dean / Dyffryn Gwy a Fforest y Ddena". The maps themselves only show both names for locations within Wales - e.g Chepstow/Cas-Gwent and Buckley/Bwcle, but not for towns in England and not for some towns in Wales (e.g. Connah's Quay or Devauden, although I know in both those cases Welsh names are shown on road signs. Road signs on major roads, by the way, are the responsibility of WAG in Wales and (I think) Highways Agency in England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This - [6] - is an interesting overview of practice and guidance in Wales, but not directly helpful in the context of the border areas. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems logical to me that, at least for the Shrewsbury article, the Welsh name should be included in the history section, to show its historical usage. Presently the town is not in Wales, and has no future of being included in Wales. The population of the town is overwhelmingly English, therefore what place does a Welsh translation have in the opening introduction of the article? Chester is right on the border, so one would assume it has a closer history to North Wales than Shrewsbury; but still, as a proportion of people who view the article, how many will feel the translation necessary right at the start?

On another note, recently an anon user added a translation for the county of Shropshire. I don't know about concensus for this, but are we really going to start with counties? Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not a historical name, it is used by Welsh speakers visiting Shrewsbury now, eg from the Llanfyllin area which is quite close and majority Welsh-speaking. It could easily be mentioned (why not?) but not necessarily in the lead sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's historical in the sense of its official usage in Shrewsbury. Anyway, I'm not opposing the inclusion of the Welsh name altogether, just in the introduction. Having too many translations just makes the intro look cluttered and is unnecessary. The fact remains it's still not a Welsh town- so why should the Welsh name be put on par with the English one? (i.e. by putting it right at the beginning of the article) Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that any Welsh names should not go in the introductions. Given that a lot of Welsh names for counties have now been mentioned, I wonder if the proponents in favour of adding Welsh names are really in great danger of shooting themselves in the feet by seeming to be asking for too much here. If they are not careful, asking for too much could mean that even the reasonable, more modest requests get a rather unfavourable reaction. Can I suggest an idea that has been slowing forming in my mind since the issue was first discussed in this section. It is concerned with specifying a criterion by which we can judge whether adding a Welsh name would be appropriate or not. Suppose we had to add any Welsh names into a section or subsection called "Links with Wales" (We do not have to have such a section, this section only exists in order to specify a useful rule-of-thumb criterion.) If we would not be able to add such a section with substantive content, possibly about historical links, possibly about present day links, and verified by suitable citations, and which would not be a rather trivial addition, then the Welsh name should certainly not be added to the article. This may not be a sufficient criterion in itself, but it may be a first step for ruling out quite unrealistic additions. I think rather than suggesting additional articles to which Welsh names could be added, the time might be better spent by the proponents of adding Welsh names to justify their addition for the names already suggested, and to find and track down appropriate verification for the Welsh names, in published sources that are and will be cited if the names are added.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this issue getting sufficiently long as to require its own sub-page now?  DDStretch  (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, yes. I do agree that this issue should be approached with Welsh-name proponents having to defend why the Welsh names should be included rather than the other side having to defend why Welsh names should not be included. It should definately be the rule of thumb that unless it is specifically decided so, English articles for English settlements (no matter if they are close to the Welsh border) should have the English name only unless otherwise decided by concensus. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I find this whole discussion becoming increasingly bureaucratic and bizarre. Personally, I also resent being labelled as a "Welsh-name proponent" who is "asking for too much". Asking who, exactly? - no-one here can determine the text, so far as I am aware. The more so-called "rules" that are applied, the less likely there will be any consensus, and that would be unfortunate. In my view, what I suggested was permission to make (i.e. not have reverted) a rather minor improvement to a few articles - not trivial, but, in the overall scheme of things, minor. Regarding verifiability, by the way, most of the names suggested can be found in any online Welsh-English dictionary, of which there are several. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But you are a proponent of adding Welsh names to certain articles, since you clearly are proposing that they should be! So, I used a handy short-form name. I'm sorry of you thought this label somehow insulted you. Also, I apologize if you thought I was saying you were asking for too much. If you go back and re-read what I wrote, you will see that it was not a definitive "labelling" as such, just a suggestion that some might think that putting forward too many names of places fairly remote (in all senses of the word) from Wales might sour people into rejecting reasonable and more modest suggestions. The suggestion that there must be an identifiable "who" is merely logic-chopping, since in the context of wikipedia, it clearly refers to the consensus. Wikipedia works by consensus, and in this specific case, it seems useful to have some means of making clear what we are trying to achieve consensus of, and what is required to achieve consensus. I would have thought you would have wanted that. Additionally, you have actively contributed to increasing the possible list of places that could have Welsh names added to beyond "a few articles" (as you write), and so I think your complaint is a little bit misplaced here, especially since there was no justification provided for the initiall addition of Welsh names to articles about English places. If most of names can be found in any online Welsh-English dictionary, then isn't this what people have been asking for, and so if the dictionaries are reputable, that should suffice or almost suffice for verifiability. Can I finally and gently suggest that highlighting minor spelling and grammatical slips on the part of others (which you have done on more than one occasion) is not helping to maintain a non-inflamed discussion. I must say, I am tiring of the idea that somehow my contributions here are problematical (which you have alleged on more than one occasion) when I am only trying to clarify what in my view is required, and, indeed, trying to help a consensus be reached here. I do not see others objecting. Can I suggest that the continual hinting that my behaviour is somehow misbehaviour is dropped, since it really does not add to the process or the discussion here.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I really can't respond in any way that you would consider helpful. Not wishing to sour anyone, as I said before, I shall move on... Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep this on track; we have an opportunity here to work something out that is useful for the entire editting community. How about we explore the addition of Welsh names of places in England to infoboxes only? This approach to me doesn't seem as "intrusive" and seems more than workable. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that, as I see it, is that people may think that it gives the Welsh name too much prominence, and that also it would not routinely allow a justification of the addition to be included, which would help prevent potential edit wars of it being removed and re-added breaking out. I think this could be partially solved by trying to insist that an addition into the infobox should also include a footnote which explains why the addition of the Welsh name is relevant to the settlement over and above another settlement where it isn't added, but it could get too cumbersome. Additionally, isn't the infobox supposed to be just a summary of what would also be found in the main body of the article? These points, taken together, make me think any addition may be better off in the main body of the article. I do think that any addition (of a Welsh name) really should also be accompanied by a justification (with references) of why it should be included at the very least. Although it could work with the infobox idea, I'm not convinced myself that it would be as straightforward to do this as just including it in the main body. But, I'm just one editor.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just joining in the discussion following a posting on the Welsh Wikipedians Notice Board. There's a Welsh name to most places in England and beyond and they're used on Radio Cymru news items regularly. I think it would be useful to include the Welsh version in some of the articles, particularly towns and villages, but not others if there's no obvious historical link - and anyway a quick glance at interwiki links shows what a language is called in different languages.

Shrewsbury, Hereford, Oswestry, Ludlow and Ross-on-Wye. The Welsh name to appear quite early in the article, as they are close to the border and have quite strong links with Wales within comparatively recent history (last 200 years). Ross on Wye (and possibly Ludlow) is actually of Welsh origin (Rhos means 'moor')

London and Edinburgh. These possibly date back to Roman times and are still used today, but the language spoken in that area then might have been Brythonic and not Welsh, so you could argue having the present day Welsh name is irrelevant anyway, but might be worth mentioning in a history section.

Chester and Bristol. Chester is even closer to the Welsh border, but I don't see the fact that many north Walians go shopping here a good reason for inclusion. Same could be said about Calais and shoppers from south east England (although there's no English spelling - so poor example!)

I don't see the fact that place names appear on road signs is nor here or there. What if a new Welsh Language Act came in that meant that all information in Cardiff Airport had to be bilingual, and the place names on all the departure boards had to be bilingual where a Welsh name exists? If there were flights to Jerusalem (Caersalem), Rome (Rhufain) etc, are we going to have these added to their respective articles?--Rhyswynne (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We all seem to agree on the approach, if not the emphasis. For my own part (I added Henfordd to the Hereford entry) it is the beauty if the Welsh language which often promotes the inclusion of its names, but I accept there are practical reasons for not doing so where the town has little connection with the Welsh language and culture. I agree with having a limited list. (Many Welshmen settled in Oxford but I will not add Rhydychan to its entry.)

Perhaps we could profit from developing a list of Welsh town names?

What we certainly need is a decision! Howard Alexander (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

UKCITIES currently suggests that toponymic information be added into the article. What about adding the Welsh name - where a consensus exists to do so - to this section, and/or the infobox? -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding the Welsh names to the toponymy sectiion was something I suggested earlier in these discussions, so I would support that. I'm still not sure about the infobox, and my feeling is that it would give too much prominence. By adding the name to a toponymy section, it would be much more easy to provide a justification (including suitable verification by means of references) (a) why the Welsh name is particularly relevant for this settelement (i.e., why it is a notable feature), and (b) what its name actually is (with suitable verification.) The need to verify both is, in my opinion, central, and we need to have a source for the name, because in one example already given (Ross-on-Wye) a Welsh had been added in the past, but it was not the correct name. There are enough outline reasons in the above discussions which provide the "why" for some of the settlements suggested so far: Ludlow, and so on (drover routes), Birkenhead (hosted Wales' National Eisteddfod in 1917, though that remains unverified in the Birkenhead article, which I suggest should be verified to avoid future problems if Birkenhead tries for GA or FA status). All we need is to ensure that those reasons can be verified. I entirely agree with Rhyswynne on the unsuitability of using road signs as verificatory tools (as I've also said before). I was going to use a similar example of which would include 伦敦 in the article for London, but if one looks at the article, it already does have that name, indirectly if one follows the link to the (Simplified) Chinese wikipedia.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see a reference for the Eisteddfod in Birkenhead has just been added, and so that can be verified now.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Any likelyhood of us reaching a consensus with this? I don't think it is likely at this stage for UKCITIES to mention anything about this, and so would urge that contributors work out a consensus on an article-by-article basis. I (and I think DDStretch) personally think that this material warrents inclusion in the Toponymy section (and in a limited amount of cases, in the lead and/or infobox), but without something being codified here I would be recluctant to add anything. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cilgwri / Wirral

(I'm moving this discussion here from my talk page, as otherwise it gets spread out over a large num ber of pages and ends up just going round in a number of circles  DDStretch  (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC))...

The wirral is an area in England where Welsh is spoken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting the Welsh name? The area is close to Wales, was once Welsh, now contains Welsh speakers, and within the recent past (19th/20th century) was largely populated by migrants from Wales (hence the Birkenhead eisteddfod). It is also mentioned, as Cilgwri, in Welsh legends - see [7]. Including the Welsh name adds a point of interest to the article, so what's the problem? If I can find a source, I'll try and add an explanation of why the Welsh name bears no etymological relationship to the English name. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Talk:Wirral Peninsula. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've directed it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Addition of Welsh names to English articles  DDStretch  (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The area was a area of Welsh speaking minorities, nothing said was 'made-up'. And if they spoke Welsh or not, The area is still right next to Wales, has been historically part of Wales, and a quater of the Wirral still remains on the Welsh side of the border 80.192.246.56 (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment to it is the same one which I have now repeated many times. It is that unless there are citations which verify (a) the specific claims, and (b) provide justifications as to why in these specific cases the additions should be made, then nothing has been provided that I consider merits inclusion on the English wikipedia given the requirements for GA and FA status which we should be moving all articles towards. I note that the claims made in the latest message left for me on my talk page merely repeat a number already made, with no attempt to justify them by providing the references which seem entirely reasonable requirements for an encyclopaedia.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. This isn't an anti-Welsh issue, it's a fairly simple request for verification. Surely there is a source which could resolve this issue? -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EN.wikipedia?

Last time I checked, this was the English language Wikipedia. If the Welsh-language name is relevant to the etymology of the English-language name, or indeed any other particular section of an article, then by all means include it in the relevant section as a reference. If, on the other hand, the Welsh-language name has no significance other than being the name for a place in an alternative language, then it has no place in this English-language encyclopaedia (other than as an interwiki link). Waggers (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aggressive actions by User:217.39.132.9

I'm slightly reluctant to return to this, but a number of mentions of the Welsh names of towns and villages have been reverted without discussion by User:217.39.132.9, and there is still a need for consensus. My own view remains that Welsh names can add interest to an article, and it doesn't detract from an article in any way to include them. But, given the hostility that has been expressed to my point of view, I reluctantly agree with Waggers that if a Welsh name is only of interest in terms of history or etymology, it would best be placed in that section. I also agree that most Welsh speakers would look first at cy: rather than here. But there is also the outstanding unresolved issue that, at the very least, we should also recognise that (1) it is Welsh Assembly Government official policy that road signs within Wales which point to English towns should in future be bilingual and refer to the Welsh name as identified by the Welsh Language Board, and that (2) this could confuse non-Welsh speakers if it is not explained properly. In my view, that leads to the position that placenames like Caer should be mentioned in these pages. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The requirements of wikipedia has always been that things should be adequately sourced and referenced. I do NOT agree with actions of that IP user, and note that the IP address had previously been blocked for edit-warring on Hereford and Shrewsbury. However, that said, most of the removals made by the user were of unsupported and unverified claims that certain words were the Welsh names for settlements. Any user is free to remove such information, and one cannot ask for one's contributions to be left alone (as you asked for in the previous discussions.) However, in this case, I do not agree with his actions. If you can provide evidence of (a) the correct form of the Welsh name, and (b) why it should be added to a particular article (both of these being properly verified by adequate references), then I see no reason why it should not be added to an appropriate section. An appropriate section would in my opinion, neither be the lead nor the infobox unless the reasoning and the arguments were extremely persuasive. If you care to read Cheshire#Toponymy you will see how I tried, a few days ago, to bring in the Welsh name for the county in a form I thought might approach acceptability to many. It is interesting that this potentially disruptive IP user did not notice or see it and revert the additions. I was intending to use it, and another case for Farndon I had yet to do, as an example of the kind of edit which included the Welsh name that I thought would be acceptable. I got delayed by other matters and had not yet finished it.

On the matter of your claim about hostility: Robust debate against your position was not, I maintain, hostility towards it, and it is a great failing of many people on wikipedia to mislabel and misconstrue robust debate as such. Indeed, if you are levelling that accusation against me (which seems a fairly reasonable assumption), then I would argue that you are misconstruing as hostlity repeated calls for appropriate verification to back up the additions you were suggesting. The fact that the calls for evidence were often ignored meant some repetition in a slightly more assertive way was called for, as is quite normal in similar situations.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

But would you seek to "verify" in an article that, for example, a small furry animal is called a "mouse", by finding evidence for using the word? No - to do that you would look in an appropriate dictionary. The fact is that "Caer" is the name used for Chester by Welsh speakers, "Llundain" is the name for London, and so on. In some cases, these are names used on public road signs and maps - in those cases, it is clearly evident both to Welsh and non-Welsh speakers that the names exist and are used - in my view they do not need "verifying" in the way you describe. In other cases, I accept that the names might only exist in Welsh-language documents and so, in English articles, are of interest only, but could still be worth mentioning - as you have done for Cheshire and I have done for Wirral. However, on Cheshire, I think that rather than stating "For this and other reasons, the Welsh name for Cheshire (Swydd Gaerlleon) is sometimes used within Wales and by Welsh speakers", it would in my view be better and less open to debate to state, simply, "The Welsh name for Cheshire (Swydd Gaerlleon) is sometimes used within Wales and by Welsh speakers", with, in that case, the verification as you have done. (In some places, incidentally - this might apply in the Ross-on-Wye case, I'm not sure - there is more than one Welsh name for a town or village, because the "ancient" name differs from that now used colloquially; in those cases, the "official" Welsh name is that determined by the Welsh Language Board.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is quite reasonable to request a dictionary verification for a Welsh word when it is used in the English wikipedia. As I commented before, Ross-on-Wye had a Welsh name added, but it turned out it was the incorrect one. The small check of a dictionary would avoid that kinds of problem at a stroke. and is no big deal. If one is trying to find verification for facts and claims about Welsh names and wnhy they might be important, it seems useful to check to make sure one has the name correct, and if one does that, it is hardly any extra work to make use of the check with a reference. In the example you gave, you have missed out the crucial aspect that makes a reference to a dictionary worthwhile - the fact that the word being verified is in a language other than English here. Now, if one were writing about a small furry animal called a mouse, and commented that the Welsh word for mouse was Llygoden, then it seems much more reasonable to expect that one should verify this by a suitable citation. I disagree with your re-wording of the section in Chester, as your suggested rewording could justify adding the Welsh name to any town in England, since there will almost always be some Welsh speakers, some undoubtably within Wales, who will use that word, and it is the special reasons why that place should be singled out to have the Welsh word added, and not others, which is the important aspect here.

On the original matter, I see that the anonymous IP user seems to be engaging on a rather tedious and potentially disruptive edit war now.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we will continue to take different views - but hopefully not that different. On Cheshire, I think it is a matter of wording - your wording seems to imply that some people call the area Swydd Gaerlleon because of its proximity and history, which seems to me to be simply incorrect - they call it Swydd Gaerlleon because they speak a different language, and it is relevant to include the reference because of its proximity and history. By the way, I certainly never meant to "ask for [my] contributions to be left alone" in any general sense - what I meant was that, in my view, there was no adequate case made for that particular reversion. As a general point I tend personally towards including interesting information in articles, rather than taking a prescriptive attitude to what is "relevant" - we are in a grey area here as to what is "appropriate" for Wikipedia articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Haven't had a chance to comment until now, and this is in haste, but here we go. On the specific matter of verification, a number of Wikipedians have copies of or library access to the massive Welsh Academy English-Welsh Dictionary (Geiriadur yr Academi), and it is not hard to look up placenames in it. I also have a couple of books about placenames, but unlike GyA, they don't include Welsh placenames in England. Boo. Generally, I think it's clearly worth including the names when they illustrate something in the article. But then I would include the origin of the (English) placename (where known) for every single article anyway. Without explanation, I'm less sure. For example, at a first glance (dangerous, I know :)) Henffordd looks like "old road". It would be fascinating to know what this refers to - one of the Roman roads, an Iron Age road, something not so old, what? But without knowing for sure, we get stuff like the current Hereford article, full of "is said to come", "if this is the case", "it suggests" for the English name. I delete this kind of stuff anyway, although I'm leaving that in Hereford so that people can see what I am talking about for now. Similarly, I don't see that a bald "aka Lerpwl" adds much to Liverpool. If it was linked to the mention of Welsh-origin population in History of Liverpool#20th century, then it would be much more useful: something like "such was the importance of the town to north Wales that it developed its own name in Welsh" would explain why the factoid was relevant. But without that, it doesn't really add much. Hmm. Not sure how helpful a contribution this is overall, really. Oh, but I will cheerfully look up names in the Academy dictionary if anyone wants confirmation. Hope that helps. Telsa (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As one or two of you may have noted, this IP has been given a short break from editing in which he (I always think of these people as male) may wish to reconsider his actions.

Actually it was me who gave the break, while wearing my admin hat. While wearing my editor hat, I tend to sympathize with the side advocating inclusivity in this sort of thing. Dunkirk is not British and English is there merely a foreign language (and presumably also a language of a tiny minority); yet fr:Dunkerque starts by providing the names Dunkirk, Duynkercke and Dünkirchen, which seems right. Rio de Janeiro has a name that means "River of January", a fact that is explained. Argentina has long had an English-speaking minority, and the British have long had a certain percentage of linguistic cranks (as well as simple xenophobes); I would not be at all surprised if somebody had once produced a proudly gringo map of the Americas marked with "River of January", "City of the Angels", and so forth; such naming might be worth a footnote but it certainly would not merit mention in an opening paragraph or infobox.

I quote from the inclusive side: Thirdly, where the town or feature is not in Wales but where there is an "official" Welsh name [...], that should be referred to in the text, but not necessarily in the opening sentence. [... Some] people (visitors and even English-speaking residents) may not know that, say, Bryste, which is a name shown on road signs in Wales [...], is the same place as Bristol, and in my view it is a role of Wikipedia to set that out. Well, maybe. But I'd start by going over not necessarily in the opening sentence with a highlighter. I'm neither a speaker of Welsh nor in Wales, but "OR" makes me suspicious of a lot of "Welsh" placenames. I'd want to know if (for example) Bryste is to Bristol (a) as French/English "Milan" is to Milano, or (b) as pseudo-English "City of the Angels" is to Los Angeles. Is it (i) the normal name for the city in Welsh conversation, or is it (ii) an archaism (cf "Muscovy"), or is it even (iii) a curiosity recently dreamt up by somebody prodded by a committee to come up with a Welsh name? Of course infoboxes do not make it easy to express such simple notions as "in Welsh, XXX usually retains its English name but is sometimes called YYY". -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Bryste, for example, is the historic, colloquial, and official (as determined by the Welsh Language Board and accepted by the Welsh Assembly Government) Welsh name for Bristol - see earlier posts - and shown as such on "official" road signs and in WAG literature. But, as I stated before, I am not suggesting that it should be mentioned in the opening sentence or infobox, and I don't even think Bristol is a particularly good example - Chester/Caer and Hereford/Henffordd are better examples because they are, in part, service centres for a Welsh-speaking population. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Assuming this can be verified, I'm still concerned on how we intend to take this forwards. I've suggested we use the Toponymy section, and it seems the most sensible option to me (and others it seems) - how about we try something in draft? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Re verification, most of the placenames discussed so far can be confirmed at this Welsh-English dictionary, compiled by the University of Wales, Lampeter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear and concerned about the scope of this suggestion. I can see a case for stating Chester's Welsh name somewhere in its article, but not for London, even though they both apparently have official Welsh names. And what about gaelic names for places in England like Berwick, close to the Scottish border? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that one difference between the Welsh and Scottish situations is that it is official government policy to use bilingual road signs across Wales, but in Scotland only in or near to the Gaelic-speaking areas, which do not include Berwick. As another indication of appropriate border towns/areas where the Welsh name should be included, the Ordnance Survey Landranger maps include the following bilingual names in their map titles : Chester/Caer, Shrewsbury/Amwythig, Oswestry/Croesoswallt, Ludlow/Llwydlo, Gloucester/Caerloyw, Forest of Dean/Fforest y Dena. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded by the fact that there are or aren't bilingual road signs in Wales. That may an important point in a Welsh wiki, but this is the English wiki. There may well be signs to Londres in Calais, I don't remember, I haven't been there for quite a while. But whether there are or aren't, I wouldn't expect to see what London was called in French in its article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I thought we were trying to set some sort of objective criteria for inclusion of the Welsh name or not, and inclusion on official government-approved signs is one such criterion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

But those signs are in Wales, not England. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but most people in Wales speak English and would use this Wikipedia not the Welsh one. The point (a point) is to make clear to people seeing signs to "Chester" and "Caer", for example, that they refer to the same place. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not buying that. You've already said that the signs are bilingual, so that will be obvious anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not obvious at all. If you saw a sign saying (one name under the other) - Chester Caer Shrewsbury Amwythig - (a hypothetical example, I know) would you think it meant two places or four? But I'm not being sidelined into an argument that roadsigns are the only or even the major factor. The fact is that, to people in Wales for whom English is their first language, these places have two names, and the articles currently only refer to one name. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Reading through again what Ghmyrtle said above, I think that may be the answer. If a town is substantially offering services to a Welsh-speaking population, then wherever that fact is mentioned is where the Welsh name ought to be introduced. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And Cornish/Scots/Irish of course! :) -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I already jumped into that fire with my comment about gaelic. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me there are two questions:

• Is the Welsh name likely to be of some utility to an English-speaking reader?
  • For this a reasonable rule of thumb is in WP:NCGN: Is it used 10% of the time in English discussions of the place?
  • But there may be other reasons, like etymology. Flintshire (historic) could probably use a mention and translation of Fflint.
• Is this utility adequately served by the interwiki link (as Welsh for London can be found by clicking on the link to cy:Llundain, carefully masked as Cymraeg)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding resources

Is someone able to add a link to www.westsussex.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/business/economic-information/ward-profiles as a resource in the table for West Sussex articles? I can't work out how to do it (which is probably a good thing!) Tafkam (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. The resources are transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/Resources. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom, constituent country, both, or what in the lead?

I've noticed a large amount of edits over the past two days which are replacing the use of United Kingdom in the lead sections of Cheshire settlements with England. This may be happening in other counties and in non-settlement articles as well. Some of these are being reverted, and there is a possible danger of edit-wars breaking out if the long-running intractable debates on Talk:England are anything to go by.

I see that the guidelines say one should use constituent country in the lead, and on that basis, I reinstated one article so that it uses England, but I thought that it would be best to raise the issue here for debate before any other action. I hesitate to raise it, as it may prove contentious, but perhaps comments from others would help here?

I think that if we assume that United Kingdom is less preferred to Scotland and Wales on Scottish and Welsh articles (respectively) there is something to be said for being consistent and using England in the articles I have noticed. (I'm omitting Northern Ireland as being specially contentious here.) I think having both England and United Kingdom will often be clumsy. I have no strong feelings in favour of any sensible solution, except that I have a slight preference for United Kingdom myself in the cases I have seen, but think we should try to be consistent with the guidelines, and that over-rides my own preference. Any comments?  DDStretch  (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

From memory, I believe that, in the earlier days of Wikipedia, the consensus was formed to use the home nations in lead sections. That's not to say the UK can't be mentioned, just that the home nations should be the first "locator". I'm pro-UK, but looking at how other encyclopedias and atlases etc tackle this, I'm inclined to agree that the right consensus was formed. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; as I said, I'm inclined to go with the guidelines and forget my own slight preference for United Kingdom, for reasons you state.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest using the form X is in the East (or other region) of England in the United Kingdom where this is possible. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like that. Plus there's the problem of "X is in the Metropolitan Borough of Y, in Z (county), in Region of England, England, in the United Kingdom." A little too listy I think. Besides, this is a consensus that has widespread usage already throughout the UK. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The country is the United Kingdom. I am not aware of any consensus that stipulates we must use England. Chrisieboy (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, as you haven't been here that long. But the guidelines in WP:UKCITIES might give you a clue about the matter.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been around quite long enough. I have to say DDStretch, reading this and your other posts, I do not appreciate your tone. Please do not take that attitude with me. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting that you have not been around long enough to know about all the issues which were discussed when they were, however, (as I have not been). This is all I was suggesting. I'm sorry and apologise if you took exception to my message. However, I wrote it and did not speak it, and so I gently suggest that any comment about "tone" would seem to be what you imagine my way of speaking it would have been if I had spoken it, rather than what it actually was when I wrote it. I'm also not sure you mean by my "other posts", but can I suggest that bringing up past postings of people (if this is what you are alluding to) is rarely helpful nor conducive to working together.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines use England in the examples given, but I cannot find any discussion forming a consensus. A very few contributors appear to be taking things into their own hands, editing guidelines without any clear consensus, then enforcing them on the rest of the community. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting bad faith, and ownership? Who are these people? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the above comment is made in good faith? Chrisieboy (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. You didn't answer so I assume there was none to be made. I would recommend (again) you concentrate on contributors not content. I think Malleus's comment's speak volumes. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The consensus can only be between those who take the trouble to comment, not the community at large. Wikipedia has the common convention that no comment equals no opinion, which seems the only practical approach in this environment, don't you agree? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References section

Can we alter the advice given about References? The reason I ask is that an editor is paying close attention to Great Sankey at the moment, and is flagging up lots of individual claims as being unsourced. I've dealt with a lot of them, but one thing that has happened is that sections have been re-jigged in a way that I think is unhelpful: I know many people use an overall "Notes and References" section which has sub-sections dealing with "Notes" and then "Bibliography". This is useful as it allows one to structure references better when one wishes to refer to different pages from a book in different places in the article: one places a short ref to the book with page numbers as a footnote which appears in the Notes section, and the full book reference then appears in the Bibliography section. It makes sense to have these grouped together under a common section, and I know that quite few articles have achieved GA and FA status by doing this. However, the zealous tagger for Great Sankey reverted the changes I made and has them a separate sections. I wonder if we can amend the References section in the guidelines to mention this useful formatting style?

(ps: This discussion page is very long; should it be archived?)  DDStretch  (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this page should be archived yes. It is, as you say, very long. Please let me take a look at Great Sankey and I'll try to respond back shortly. I'm not too hot on this particular topic. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toponymy

The guidance implies using the word "Toponymy" for a section on the origin of a place name. In my view this is (1) misleading, as "toponymy" refers to the study of place names not an explanation of a particular name (just as you would not title a section "economics" when it deals with a place's economy); and (2) not widely understood by most readers anyway. In my view it would be better to use the heading "Origins of the name" (or "..place name"). This has arisen recently at Liscard. What does the team think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the desire to find a more clear name for the section. Would "Place-name origins" be better, the same, or worse than the one you suggested? It would fit in with one of the societies that might contribute references to the section: the English Place-Name Society which produces some good stuff, but is limited to England.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies to all concerned to those that find the word 'Toponymy' unacceptable. Upon adding it to the article, I had the distinct feeling that it might not sit well - and it hasn't, so fair enough. I was under the apparently misguided belief that it was a UK Geography guideline. There appears to be some variation on what has been used in place/area name articles, such as Wirral Peninsula: toponymy, etymology, name origin, etc. Sorry, but we all make mistakes... and even mistakes in Ancient Greek!! Snowy 1973 (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not the only one: I thought it was in the guidelines as a title for a section/sub-section, too until I went and re-read them just now! I also don't particularly care for the term. May be it was there in an earlier version?  DDStretch  (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Toponymy sits well with the other sections: Geography is the study of the earth and its features, inhabitants, and phenomena, History is the study of the past, Demography is the study of population, so on and so forth. "Origins of the name" is rather clumsy in my view. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My strong opinion has always been not to have an opening subsection called Toponynmy, Etymology, Origins of the name or any other such thing; simply to start off the Geography History section with a history of the place name. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now that is the best solution of all, I think.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean Geography or History? I've always thought History was best as it allows elaboration as to its first settlement (I think Manchester is quite good at this), and who named it so, rather than as a bite of information about how the territory lies. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're quite right. I meant History. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I need to pay more attention (my excuse: I am very tired): I glossed over "Geography" and took it to be history, as it was mentioned shortly afterwards.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There will be cases where the discussion of the place name would not best sit at the start of the History section - for instance, at Chepstow the logic of the History section would be to refer first to the Iron Age and Roman history of the place, and then the Welsh name which became the Norman name, before the origins of the current English name which wasn't established until about the 12th century. Similar situations would apply elsewhere. Without a separate "Origins of the name" section, there would be a danger of either dealing with the name out of place (eg at the start of the History section), or losing it somewhere in the middle. Perhaps the guidance should say that normally discussion of the place name would be best at the start of the History section, but in some cases (especially if the place has, or has had, more than one name) it might be better in a separate sub-section, for clarity? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

...also, in the case of towns in Wales (at least - see earlier discussion!), there is the question of where any reference to the modern Welsh name, where significantly different to the Old Welsh name (eg Chepstow again) would fit - another good reason for a separate (but brief) place name section in some cases. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Those sound like good suggestions to me. I could make some amendments to encompass these, but, would there be any objections? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestions for exceptions, and I certainly wouldn't object to amendments being made.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have only just come here having seen an edit to Cardiff to change Etymology to Toponymy. Toponymy means "the study of place names" while Etymology means "the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history". The section in question is about Etymology not Toponymy. Not only that the latter word is obscure and not in common use. I can see no consensus for it above so have changed it--Snowded (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Geography is the study of places, History is the study of the past, Demography is the study of population(s) etc. Toponymy is the correct use of the word, and sits perfectly well with the others. Please discuss changes before making them; several FAs use the pre-Snowded version as a guideline. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you made the change. Toponymy is "the study of place names".... "and their origins". Etymology is a wider term, but an erroneous one in geography. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Very happy to discuss it here, but please leave Cardiff alone until it is resolved! I have stated my reasons above and quoted the dictionary definitions. I have seen arguments elsewhere that Etymology is too obscure and should be replaced with something like "origin of name". I think that is dumbing down too much, but Toponymy is both obscure and carries less meaning. --Snowded (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a perfectly understood term by me! Do you have any evidence of its obscurity? What dictionary definitions are you alluding too? What do you mean by the term "carries less meaning"? These (sub-)sections discuss toponyms - it makes sense to give it a scholarly, and accurate heading. It's a term used in Britannica, and throughout the internet. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary is my Apple widget - I will check others later. I am sure it is obvious to some, but I think a quick vox pop would get a higher recognition for the E word that the T word. The heading is accurate with E by the way. For the moment I have to dash to give a lecture but will return to this later. Also lets see what other people say, and also editors on the pages in question who would not naturally spend time on a template. --Snowded (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie... --Jza84 |  Talk  00:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toponymy or Etymology

OK I have now had some time to look into it and make the following points

• Looking at the discussion above only Jza84 supported Topology, Ghmyrtle and Snowy disagree others make no comment. I can't see when it was changed on the template but Etymology is used on all the country and city pages I edit so this seems like a major change being proposed here with very few editors involved when they should have been alerted before a change was made
• Going on dictionary definitions, as Ghmyrtle pointed out, topology means the study of place names, not their origin. The OED only mentions the word as a derivative. Websters on line defines it as "the place-names of a region or language or especially the etymological study of them". The section here is about the origin of the word - it is correct to say etymology, it is incorrect to say topology
• toponymy is not in the average vocabulary of even educated people, it is a specialist term. I did an experiment today in Singapore with 100 people - all the products of an elite education system, scholars who have been sent to major universities in the UK and the US to study (everything from PPE to Physics), nearly all with first class honours or equivalent. All in their first six months as civil servants after graduating. 7 people had heard of toponymy, only one person could define it. All had heard of etymology and most could define it.

I think this is case closed to be honest - but is there a counter? What do other people think? --Snowded (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I had never heard of the word 'Toponymy' until now, and I dare say the vast majority of people are in the same boat. I've just done a quick trawl through a number of city articles, and where discussing the origin of the town's name (for example, London), the word Etymology has always been used. I feel Toponymy is just too obscure a word to be of any use on Wikipedia. Bettia ^(talk) 08:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I just point out that topology is an obscure word! It's toponymy we're here to discuss!... A couple of errors in the above: Etymology is the history of words, not necessarily their meaning, corruptions, derivations, contractions, archaisms, exonyms and so on. Etymology is a tool used within toponymy. This is probably another one of those instances where people think, say, Scotland is a nation, when the word "nation" means a group of people, not a division of land; etymology has a specific meaning, and its use here is sub-standard English. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My mistake on the heading (topology not toponymy) - its corrected, I was copying from the OED as I went (too obscure to remember the spelling for a partial dyslexic such as me). Apologies for that. I don't think the dictionary definitions above support your view. It is fairly self-evident that etymology would be used in toponymy as a study of place names would require a study of their linguistic origins. Here the heading is about the origins of the name itself, not the study of names in general. So I think you are clearly wrong to say it is sub-standard English.

That aside all the various country and other pages use the E word not the T word, so you are making a very big proposition here and I can't see the support for it. The obscurity point is also very clear, but even if it was well known it would not be appropriate. --Snowded (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you haven't cited a single source. Everything I've said is supported by third-party material. Just read this for an explanation. I get the impression you won't let this drop, but don't blame me that this is the reality of the term; one which has a specific scholarly meaning. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, seems to me that you are pushing this one - I don't see any other support for what is a major change. I also think you were pushing it making the change given the lack of consensus on this page where you were in a minority of one. I have gone to three dictionaries and supplied their definitions, and my interpretation matches that of at least one other editor. The current norm is very clearly for the E word. Country articles Wales, Italy, USA, China, Australia, Chile, Egypt to just take a few all use the E word. As far as I can see Cardiff (until I reversed it) and York (I left that due to discussion) are the only ones using the T word, and that as a result of your edit. Can you point to any? OK I can accept we can all have our pet words, I get upset about the misuse of ontology for example, but the harsh reality here is that you are attempting a major change on current practice in Wikipedia and also one that goes against the dictionary definitions. I don't see the case. --Snowded (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't cited your sources (!). What is your understanding of this?... you want examples that use the correct "T word", well, sure: Toponymy of Mexico is a good one. There's also British toponymy. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  13:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on this is getting silly. You are not addressing the arguments (i) use in Wikipedia (citations given), (ii) Dictionary definitions (citations given) and (iii) obscurity. You cite two articles about Toponymy - well its no wonder they use the word its what the article is about! We are talking here about country and city articles and the section relating to origin of the name: the dictionary definition of etymology. Your Britannica reference starts "study of place-names, based on etymological, historical, and geographical information.". Great agree with that, matches the dictionary definition. Is is the etymological aspect of toponymy that we are talking about here, so etymology is the right word. OK now (and remember you are an admin) I have addressed your points, you have not addressed mine. --Snowded (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes this is getting silly. You asked for in house examples - I gave them (please re-read it)! I asked for your sources - you gave the result of a private test you did for topology in Singapore!? I asked for your dictionary definition - you gave none. I asked for evidence this is obscure - you gave none. I asked for your understanding of Britannica - you misunderstood it, Now you're asking me to address points that don't exist (please re-read your thread - there isn't a question in there)? "Etymology" is just as obscure as "Toponymy", it has a more specific meaning, and is pandering to those people who don't understand scholarly English thereby making Wikipedia less accurate and damaging its image and integrity.

Can you please read the following carefully, as I'm about to raise important queries again to gauge understanding: What is your understanding of this? Why does Toponymy of Mexico exist? What is your definition of toponymy and do you think it is an incorrect term to use? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You gave two examples which were not cities or countries, but articles about toponymy in specific countries. I would imagine that those articles exist to describe the subjects in their name. My understanding of the Britannica article is that is describes the subject of toponymy and does so accurately. I referenced Websters and the OED with quotes. My Singapore example was one I had a chance to test on the day this subject was raised. My point is that the word is not being used correctly in this context not that it does not exist. The section heading in question relates not to the study of the name, but the linguistic origin of the name (the etymological aspect of toponymy). --Snowded (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so "Toponymy" is correct terminology, that we seem to agree on. I still disagree with your take on how etymology works however. Cardiff includes exonyms as well as folk etymology; the material is derived from toponymic evidence, not etymology. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

NO WE DO NOT AGREE. I agree that Toponymy is a valid word which means the study of place names. The heading we are talking about describes the origins of a word and that is Etymology. --Snowded (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It may not be too helpful to give just country articles that use etymology (or related words) rather than toponymy (or related words), since there are places which are not countries, and they have articles on wikipedia. If one is into the numbers games with this (and I don't think it is yet useful to be), then entering "toponymy" into the search field and then pressing "search" rather than "go" is illuminating, showing numerous examples of places which have portions of text discussing the toponymy of a place. It also crops up in numerous articles about place names (such as English Place-Name Society) I think if one wishes to make an argument based on numbers, one has to consider the numbers associated with both terms as used on wikipedia. I don't care for "toponymy" myself, but this is a mere personal opinion, and I think the precise word, used correctly, is a good choice, both as improving the validity of articles (which comes about by attention to good reliable sources as verifiers), as well as having an educational role in informing people of the standard, correct, technical term that should be used. However, I'm just one person with possibly a minority view on this.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I share these sentiments. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We should not be, quote, "pandering to those people who don't understand scholarly English..." What??!! Pardon me, but that's one of the reasons I got involved with this, to make information available to all, not just those who have a command of "scholarly English", whatever that may be - presumably a code for academic pedantry. "Toponymy" is not acceptable in my view, as it is obscure, meaningless to most of the people who access this site, and in my view incorrect as it means the study of placenames. "Etymology" is slightly better as it is more widely understood, but still not clear to many. I say again, what is wrong with "Origin of the name" ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

To you it may perhaps be obscure and mean "study of placenames" (pardon me, but what do you think they study if not the root?), but to specialists, this is the correct word to use. What's your take [this Ghmyrtle? What's wrong with "origin of the name", well, it's clumsy, and not very great use of English sorry, pedantry or no pedantry. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

-- see also this. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If a change of title were on the cards, I would prefer it to be "Place-name origins", as it seems a better phrase, and it also fits in more with the societies that are concerned with such matters in England and Scotland (there doesn't, surprisingly, seem to be an obvious corresponding society for Wales, which probably just illustrates my ignorance of Welsh matters.) I think I mentioned this in an earlier message some time ago (up there somewhere.)  DDStretch  (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone saw "Origin of the name" they would know what it meant. If they saw "Toponymy", in many cases, they would need to look up another article to find its definition. Obviously, an article on "Toponymy" would define it. "To specialists" it may be the best word to use (though personally, I'd dispute that). But, by and large, Wikipedia does not provide information for specialists - it provides accessible, verifiable, consensus information to everyone else. That's why it exists. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. You didn't respond to my points about, but you raise an interesting point: verifiability. What part of "Toponymy" isn't verifiable? As for accessbility, well, there's the Simple English Wikipedia for less scholarly language. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

While I accept that Toponymy is the more correct word for the origin of a place name, I have never been happy to have a subsection with that name, and I have never used it myself. Toponomy/etymology sections are often quite short anyway, and don't really justify any heading. Just start off the History ssection with a discussion of the toponymy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That does work for articles like Neilston, where the history section is short, but for larger articles, like Manchester, it doesn't always work. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it does; it doesn't matter that there are other subsection headers later in the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems to me that there are three fundamental arguments here, and if any one of them stands the change to toponomy from etymology falls.

• It is the wrong word, it means the study of place names, the section concerned is the origin of the place name, a subset of toponomy for which the correct name is etymology. If you look at Toponymy of Mexico cited by Jza84 you will see a subheading etymology which corresponds with the current use in country articles.
• The word is obscure and not widely known (check the comments here for evidence of that but it would be easy to gather more.
• The majority use as a section title to describe the name of a thing is etymology. If this is to be seriously put forward then it also has to be argued on the country template page, and page editors need to be made aware or you will spark multiple edit wars without good cause.

--Snowded (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Essentially I agree with Snowded. WP:TONE states that articles "should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining understandable to the educated layman." I doubt if most "educated lay(persons)" would readily understand the word "toponymy" without recourse to checking it first. Personally, I don't find "Origins of the name" (words of no more than 3 syllables) clumsy at all - "Toponymy" is a word which even I had to check a while ago, and in my view should be a word to avoid. Certainly it should not be included in good practice guidance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] complete discussion

As far as I can see there is not a sufficient body of support for changing the dominant use of etymology to toponomy. There is some feeling for "Origins of the name". Can I suggest that the template is changed to permit either etymology or, for editors on pages who feel strongly, the simpler "Origins of the name"? --Snowded (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've refrained from discussion to allow for a short breather (on my part), and for alternative suggestions to develop. Having slept on this issue, how about a compromise? What about the recommendation for "Toponymy" or "Etymology" as a heading, where appropriate? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have found this discussion to be rather strange. What the guideline says is that the History section should contain "A note on the toponymy of the settlement." Why is it thought necessary to give that (usually) very small subsection any heading at all? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How about this "This history section should include the origin of the name. This may be titled as etymology or toponymy if appropriate". I still think that toponymy is too obscure and also an incorrect use of the term, but we need a compromise here as its taking too much time. --Snowded (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded. The issue arose because Jza84 at Cardiff changed Etymology to Toponymy, quote, "as per WP:UKCITIES" - all that's been suggested is to make sure that unnecessary and contentious edits like that don't happen again, or at least can't be claimed to be justified by reference to the guidelines. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not bad. I'd prefer: "The history section should contain a note on the origin of the name. If there is sufficient material to justify a subsection header, then it may be titled as etymology or toponymy." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MF. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, are you all sure what you're getting yourselves into here? Agreeing with me will win you no friends you know. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Agreed and actioned, now why can't the various UK/Irish pages be as easy .... --Snowded (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I've started up a manual archiving scheme and archived all inactive discussions up to January 2008. If I've made any mistakes in this, please retrieve the relevant discussions from the archive and place back in here. (I note that when one edits the entire page, it still suggests the page needs archiving, however!)  DDStretch  (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English exonyms

I have made some revised suggestions at User:Ghmyrtle/Sandbox 2. I am conscious that this may not give as much rigour as some might like - though personally I tend towards flexibility rather than rigidity of approach - and also that it tends to focus on the Wales/England issue, which has been my main concern and has generated many words on many talk pages. I haven't changed Jza84's suggested usage table, simply because I'm undecided how useful it would be (although I'm very grateful for the stimulus it has offered). All comments and thoughts welcome. I'm copying this message to various pages, but I suggest that further discussion should be coordinated at the WP:UKCITIES talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I broadly agree with your changes and think some of the explanations and background hit the spot. Just a couple of thing we might want to restore or talk over are:

• I liked the use of presentation "examples". They don't have to go back in that table, but I do think they are helpful.
• I think we should make the distinction of using "British" or "Anglo-Celtic" languages only as recognised, official languages. The "Southall" image caption was intended to restrict (for want of a better word) non-recognised languages.

I think we're still lacking in terms of providing links to support the verifiability of exonyms, but that's something we can work on. I'd be interested to hear DDStretch's views too. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I disagree about the Southall example. I think it is very important that readers are aware of the status of non-indigenous languages/scripts in areas such as Southall where they are supported and recognised by official policy. In my view that should include local authority policy or that of statutory service providers - obviously not in every case where a placename has alternative forms, but not just restricting it to central government policy. But I'm aware that this could be seen as a separate issue. Someone also needs to do some more investigation of the position in Scotland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, local authorities don't and can't legislate on languages, nor do they record official place names. They can provide translators, but can't designate languages as recognised and/or official (even Cornwall County Council) .If that's your reason for wishing to keep that point, then it's redundant in this case. I agree however that the Scottish languages are still lacking some elaboration (I myself haven't stayed there for over 20 years so I'm rusty). --Jza84 |  Talk  12:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "official". Local government is "government", by definition. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, but they are still unable to designate languages as "recognised". They can provide services in other languages per the needs of the local authority's populace, but this has no bearing on place names. Simillarly, however, names in other languages are usually mere transliterations, rather than exonyms; Southall's name in Bangla, for example, is Southall. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I accept all that, but I'm not sure how it justifies whether or not a photo showing other scripts in which a place's name is written should or shouldn't be shown in an article. In my view it is of widespread interest that Southall's name is written locally in Gurmukhi script by a statutory service provider, and it would be valuable to illustrate that in the article itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I think I may have misunderstood you then. What I was thinking is that you were advocating the inclusion of non-recognised language names in the lead, infobox and/or toponymy section. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No - sorry for the confusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If the use of such signs was unusual, I guess it could be notable enough to have a photo—possibly in a culture section, landmark section, or possibly in a demography section (though this last section seems mostly to be one for presenting figures.) However, if many places have similar signs or are getting many similar signs, it may be becoming too commonplace to be notable. On the other hand, the text may make a verified claim about the multi-cultural and/or multi-ethnic nature of a place or settlement. In which case, a photo of a representative sign, whilst not notable to use by itself, could be one (unusual) part of the verification for the claims written in the text about the multi-ethnic and/or multi-cultural nature of the place. In other words, they might be best thought of as having just a supportive role to other claims or facts in an article, rather than important in themselves.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you!! Does this mean we're getting close to a consensus on this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We're certainly much closer than we were. Probably best to continue this thread under DDStretch's point below. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me to comment. I broadly think the suggestions are all right. My main point is that commonsense is not always a course of action that will guarantee an article can pass Wikipedia's GA or FA requirements, or which all or the majority of editors on wikipedia will make use of. So, where the sentence reads "users should use an element of commonsense and be flexible towards their inclusion.", I would put something more to the effect that what might be obvious to some will not be to others (including reviewers for GA and FA status), and so it may be prudent to always include justification and verification by means of suitable references. I don't see that this really should be resisted, as it will certainly add valuable content to an article by providing more solid foundations to an article. In an earlier discussion, it was suggested that articles within the remit of certain projects may have differing policies about whether to include Welsh names in the lead or not. I think this should be resisted, as it brings too much of ownership baggage to the discussion, and gives too much prominence to the idiosyncracies of editors at the expense of the content of the articles. We should have a uniform treatment of all English places close to the border, I think. I finally think may some additional dictionaries could be added (and the in-text external links present in various places should be converted into fully-fledged references, though this is a quibble.)  DDStretch  (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this. I'm happy for you (ddstretch) to try out some edits in my sandbox, on wording which would meet your concerns. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again folks. Just wondered where we were upto with this? I've also been made aware of a great source about toponyms here (a United Nations publication!) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent source - should help re the Scottish position. "The UK consists of four constituent parts" ....hmm. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a phrase I've seen elsewhere if I'm honest! I've made a couple of additions to reflect this source at User:Jza84/Sandbox. Are there any outstanding matters at this stage? I'm still worried we haven't addressed the Anglo-Welsh border issue as well as we could. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to me making this "semi"-live, by uploading my sandbox version to main space? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was diverted and haven't attended to this for a few days. I've added a small bit of text along the lines I mentioned above, clarifying that verification is likely to be required if articles are submitted for GA or FA review. I hope it is consistent with the rest of the text. I also checked the online dictionaries and added text descriptors to the ones that were just numbers. One of them points to a dead link, and so I've removed it. I hope all that is all right, and, if so, I would make it semi-official.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me, though someone needs to address the Scottish issue at some point - it seems inconsistent to me that Berwick has the Scots Gaelic name in the lead but Oswestry (for example) doesn't have the Welsh name. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, this is an argument to trim Berwick-upon-Tweed, not to add to Oswestry; the only reason I haven't is that the article claims that there have been two Gaelic forms, a mildly useful warning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me there are two questions:

• Is the Welsh name likely to be of some utility to an English-speaking reader?
  • For this a reasonable rule of thumb is in WP:NCGN: Is it used 10% of the time in English discussions of the place?
  • But there may be other reasons, like etymology. Flintshire (historic) could probably use a mention and translation of Fflint.
• Is this utility adequately served by the interwiki link (as Welsh for London can be found by clicking on the link to cy:Llundain, carefully masked as Cymraeg)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Settlement distances

This site is quite useful for calculating distances between postcode areas (and therefore towns). Much simpler than the currently recommended one (GENUK&I). Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll add this to the resources guide! Thanks. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)