Talk:Wales/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

"Geography of Wales" map

The current map in that section is very poor - crudely drawn, and supposedly a "political" map, which it isn't as it doesn't show any administrative subdivisions, plus a few ill-sorted locations. (Apologies if someone here drew it - I'm sure it's better than I could do, but still not good enough for the article.) Can a better map be found, which shows perhaps some topography and the main towns, but not necessarily the local government areas as they are adequately shown on the larger map? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A new map has now been added. It's a big improvement, and thanks to the IP who did it, but I'd still like to see further changes. Firstly, I don't see why it needs to show principal areas, as they are shown on another map quite adequately. Secondly, in my view a "geographical" map, especially of a topographically complex area like Wales, should show some physical relief and rivers, which this doesn't. Thirdly, it doesn't show some of the most important elements of "human geography" - no towns at all are shown in the Valleys, and no roads (or railways - less important). There are also a few minor errors in the national park boundaries and English coastline, and a typo (Pembrokshire}. If those changes can be made, it would look even better. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've relabelled this new map 'UK National parks', as that is what it graphically represents - they are Snowdonia, Brecon Beacons and the Pembokeshire coast. I agree it could have more - ie the mountain ranges, and perhaps 'areas of natural beauty' (of which Gower was the first in the UK). Mind you - people tend not want to over-promote the Gower, or Pembokeshire for that matter.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Pembokeshire? Pembrokshire? Don't forget the Wye Valley AONB as well - birthplace of British tourism. Also Blaenavon World Heritage Site could be mentioned perhaps? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The Glamorgan Heritage Coast, Lleyn peninsula, Ceredigion, the canals... --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Gosh you lot are awfully demanding :). The image will take shape in the following weeks. As with any drawing it is a process that takes time. I will add the relevant features over time, with the plan being to create a flexible map that can be used on many of the articles relating to Welsh geography or Wales, as such not all the features that one might wish to be included are or will be. However, I've started some subject specific maps over at wikicommons [1] to be used on specific articles, but keep in mind that the Wales article provides an over view of the geography and so too does the map. Now onto the specifics:

1. Areas of natural beauty: I plan to include those on a different maps, as essentially it will lead to a crowding of the map which is only an overview, plus I have to stop at some point otherwise Nature Reserves, SSSIs etc might end up on the map.
2. Boundaries: In regards to England, the coastline is vaguely correct and is not the main focus of the map so I am afraid if you wish for that to be changed then you will have to do so yourself. With the national parks I'll adjust the boundaries when I can find a good map online showing clearer boundaries than the one I have. (If you know of any then please say so)
3. Infrastructure and Valleys: I do plan to add the M4 and a few towns from the Valleys but again the Valleys is a populous area and many towns are candidates for inclusion, so I'll let you lot debate which to include and will look back now and again to see what the consensus is.
4. Physical Characteristics: The main rivers and lakes are being drawn offline and will be added in a week or so, although I will not be making a topographic map as that will result in me basically re-drawing an ordnance survey map and I do not have the time to do so. Again if you have the time please feel free to create a map (an example can be found at Image:Easter Island map-en.svg).
5. Council Areas: These are on there as they help with the accuracy of locating various features (e.g. M4 and places of towns) as the map isn't scaled. In no way is the map meant to replace the green map, and is also to make the map more flexible i.e. on the geography of wales article there is no map of unitary authorities.

After that essay, I'll be checking back now and again and will make notes of an consensus for addition that are reasonable. Hopefully overtime the whole map collect of Wales on wiki will be improved. Have a good day.81.111.119.98 (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - we didn't know if that was the finished product or not, so it's great if you can do some more work. I'll give some thought to concrete proposals that could be added - towns etc. Thanks for all your help. (PS - any reason why you're not registered here?) Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So far as towns are concerned, I'd suggest adding Merthyr Tydfil and Pontypool (largest towns in the Valleys), St. David's (historic importance), Newtown (important centre, gives indication of where boundary runs), and possibly Brecon. For relief, it may be useful just to lightly shade in land above, say, 200 or 250 metres (or 500 or 750 ft.), if that's possible. For rivers, perhaps Severn, Wye, Usk, Tywi, Teifi, Conwy, Dee? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Uk1pnd2000.jpg

The image Image:Uk1pnd2000.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale added to image description page. Daicaregos (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

First Fair Trade Nation

Wales is the first Fair Trade country in the world, is this worth a mention? http://www.fairtradewales.com/news/fair_trade_nation/701 --CelticCymru (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned here (3rd paragraph) already, but the reference would be good. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wales isn't a country, the UK is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.35.194 (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Text about Scotland and Northern Ireland

I recently removed some of the text from this article, because to my mind it was irrelevant to the subject. This was then reverted by User:Daicaregos with the comment "You need to take that to Talk". So here I am. In the Economy section, it reads: "The Bank of England is the central bank, responsible for issuing currency, although banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland also have the right to issue their own banknotes." I see no necessity for the last part of this sentence in an article about Wales. If anything is needed here, perhaps it should say something along the lines of "Banks in Wales do not have the right to issue banknotes". Your thoughts please. Bazonka (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any good reason for the latter part of the sentence to stay, but if people think that something needs to be said (this may go back to the "Wales is/isn't a country" argument), the sentence suggested by Bazonka would in my view be fine, so long as it is referenced which should be a simple matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The curiosity is that the Royal Mint is located in Wales. The Banknote issue is historic and reflects the fact that there are acts of Union for Ireland and Scotland while Wales was conquered. Maybe a slightly more elaborate para would be useful? --Snowded TALK 08:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The different issue of banknotes in the countries of the UK is Notable. For example, if you take it down a level for context: If all the counties of Wales except Blaenau Gwent and Pembrokeshire were able to decide if the pubs in their area could open on Sundays, wouldn't you note that fact in the Blaenau Gwent and Pembrokeshire articles? Or if you take it up a level: if the EU allowed each of its member states to deploy border guards except Poland, Ireland and Spain, you would expect to see those facts noted on the Poland, Ireland and Spain articles. Why would that not be of interest to readers? Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Two factors that may need consideration here: Scottish (and to a lesser extent, Northern Irish) banknotes may not be formally legal tender in Wales (even that may be a thorny issue), but they may well be accepted by people, and so this may be a matter worthy of note. Secondly, when I lived in Bangor 1972-1975 and visited extensively for a few years after that, it was certainly the case that Irish money (pennies, and so on) were readily accepted in shops around Bangor and on Ynys Mon. If that is still the case, and it can be sourced and cited (and it may not be, given that euros are used in Ireland now, and they do not have parity with sterling) then perhaps this may be discussed here as perhaps being worthy of note. I do recall that I saw Manx banknotes offered as payment when I was in Bangor on more than one occasion, and they were refused. Perhaps all this is irrelevant, but it fits in with one way in which the Scottish banknotes matter has cropped up here. May be all it would take is to add "and they may be accepted for payment for goods in Wales", or some such phrase, to the end of the disputed sentence, so long as it can be referenced.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

An interesting issue - my first reaction was that no mention of Scotland and Northern Ireland was necessary, but having thought further, I agree that the fact that Wales has no right to issue its own banknotes is noteworthy. Could I suggest something like, "The Bank of England, created as the central bank for England (including Wales), is now responsible for the currency of the entire United Kingdom (though banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland retain the right to issue their own banknotes.)" Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

How about "The Bank of England, created as the central bank for England (including Wales), is now responsible for the currency of the entire United Kingdom (though banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland retain the right to issue their own banknotes, which may be accepted as payment in Wales, and the Royal Mint, which is responsible for making all coins in the UK is in Wales at Llantrisant.)" It may need a few references.

Like that --Snowded TALK 11:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So do I, though it has a lot in brackets! How about split the sentence and refocus slightly? How about "The Bank of England, created as the central bank for England (including Wales), is now responsible for the currency of the entire United Kingdom, with the Royal Mint located in Wales at Llantrisant. Banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland retain the right to issue their own banknotes which may be accepted as payment in Wales as elsewhere in the UK." Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't wait to see your reference to confirm the 'fact' that "the Bank of England was created as the central bank for England (including Wales)". Could we be moving towards the notorious encyclopedia entry 'For Wales: see England.'? Can't see anything wrong with the original wording, personally. It is true, verifiable and it sums the situation up succinctly. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Alt version of Fishiehelper2's text: "...the central bank for the Kingdom of England (which included Wales)..." True, historic, and verifiable. As a general point, I think it is important to give more emphasis to what Wales verifiably is and does, rather than what it isn't and doesn't (which could provide more opportunity for POV additions). Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bank of England has a monopoly on the issue of banknotes in England and Wales, with Scotland and Ireland retaining the right to issue their own notes. Coins are manufactured at the Royal Mint in Llantrissant. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 13:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bank of England is responsible for issuing the UK's banknotes. This fact is not relevant to the Wales article. Through a historical anomaly, banks in Scotland and NI are also allowed to issue banknotes. This fact is relevant to the Scotland and NI articles, but not to the Wales article. The Royal Mint may be located in Wales, but it is a UK institution, not a Welsh institution (in this respect it's a bit like the DVLA which isn't mentioned in the article). That doesn't really warrant an inclusion in the Wales article either (perhaps a footnote). The only text that's really relevant from the paragraph under discussion is: "As with the rest of the United Kingdom, the currency used in Wales is the pound sterling", plus the bit about Welsh designs on coins. Bazonka (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have made the case for it not being relevant. Understanding these sort of differences will help readers understand the wider context of the UK's various countries and the proposal by Ghmyrtle above seems sensible and represents a consensus so far. --Snowded TALK 10:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason it's not relevant is because Wales conforms to the UK norm in terms of banknotes. That Scotland and NI are anomalous has got nothing to do with Wales. Going into detail about who uses what banknotes is analogous to saying "unlike Northern Ireland, Wales is located on the island of Great Britain". These comparisons are relevant to the articles for the anomalous parts of the UK, but not here. Bazonka (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Bazonka but I don't agree. The fact that Wales has a difference here to two of the other countries is at least interesting enough to justify a paragraph. --Snowded TALK 12:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bazonka, you say it is an anomaly that Scotland and N.Ireland issue their own banknotes. I would say it is an anomaly that Wales don't, therefore it should be mentioned in the article. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotland and Ireland's right to issue their own banknotes is not an anomaly. It's historic. Banknote issue in the UK is not automatically tied in with one national identity or the activity of the state like it is in other countries. As I've said before, the Bank of England has a monopoly on the issue of banknotes in England and Wales. That's because 'England and Wales' is considered a single legal entity. That's the anomaly. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk

OK, so if my proposed text is inappropriate, then what is it going to change to? It can't stay as it is because it definately appears to be irrelevant - it needs to focus on the situation in Wales, not on the situation in other parts of the UK. Bazonka (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How about: "The Bank of England, created as the central bank for the Kingdom of England (which included Wales), is responsible for the currency of the entire United Kingdom, with the Royal Mint located in Wales at Llantrisant. Banks in Wales, unlike those in Scotland and Northern Ireland, do not issue their own banknotes." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is, but if it must be changed then I quite liked your paragraph, Ghmyrtle. How about adding Bazonka's original suggestion to Ghmyrtle's. Thus:

"The Bank of England, created as the central bank for the Kingdom of England (which included Wales), is responsible for the currency of the entire United Kingdom, with the Royal Mint located in Wales at Llantrisant. Banks in Wales, unlike those in Scotland and Northern Ireland, do not have the right to issue banknotes." Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

House of Tudor

I was wondering if at some point in the future if someone could mention the House of Tudor in this article (at the moment its just mentioned in the national symbols section). The fact that the welsh House of Tudor were the monarchs of England for over 100 years including one of the most important monarchs in English / British history (Henry VIII) is fairly important and the fact the legal annexation of Wales to England (legal systems) took place whilst a House of Tudor monarch was on the English throne. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Its well covered in History of Wales with other links. At the moment the history section jumps from the Laws in Wales Acts to the modern age. In effect the period in between saw Wales as a part of England and Wales. If this was to change it would need a wider section. My gut feel is to leave it as it is, but open to change. However not just for the House of Tewdwr. --Snowded TALK 09:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Welsh translation for NHS Wales

Although it is not explicitly stated that NHS stands for National Health Service, it is mentioned that it was established in the National Health Service Act 1946, so most readers would make the connection. The Welsh translation for NHS Wales of (Template:Lang-cy) has been reverted to just (Template:Lang-cy), which doesn't seem to add much to a reader's knowledge. Should the translation for National Health Service - which explains how we arrive at the initials - should be given somewhere? Or should only the literal translation of NHS be shown? Discuss. Daicaregos (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense for the whole translation of National Health Service to be stated rather than just the NHS bit. Perhaps add National Health Service Wales (NHS Wales)in English then do the full translation. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe (Template:Lang-cy) would make more sense. As it stands, the NHS Wales/GIG Cymru logo looks like it needs some explanation. If anyone has any other ideas please share them here. Daicaregos (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether adding too much will make it clumsy. Don't forget that anyone wanting more info can look at the main article NHS Wales where this info is given. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's OK as it is - as Hogyn Lleol says, there is a clear link to the main article with the full translation, and, with the greatest respect, the full name is not going to mean a lot to the English speakers on this Wikipedia anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not overly bothered by this (as I knew what it meant anyway), but the argument that a translation isn't going to mean a lot to English speakers could be made for every translation given on Wikipedia (or anywhere) i.e. if they knew what it meant it wouldn't need to be translated. It just looks odd to me, because the logo is given - NHS Wales = GIG Cymru - without explaining how they arrived at 'GIG'. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's 'Gwasanaeth Iechyd Genedlaethol Cymru' no 'Gwladol'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.199.43 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries that could affect whether or not Wales is included in various lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Daicaregos (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Welsh national anthem

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries#List of National Anthems that could affect whether or not the Welsh national anthem is included on List of National Anthems. Editors are invited to participate. Daicaregos (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Island Games

The article includes the following statement

"The Isle of Anglesey/Ynys Môn is a member island of the International Island Games Association. The next Island Games will be held in 2007 on Rhodes (Greece)."

This is clearly now out of date - I can update though possibly it would be better not to put dates of next event (since then we'll not need to update again).

Would anyone mind if I updated it accordingly?

Richardeast (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, go ahead. Agree it's better not to mention next events, as they need updating.--Rhyswynne (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

National symbols to National symbols of Wales (Symbols of Wales)

The text & pictures on the National symbols section should be move to new article called National symbols of Wales (Symbols of Wales) like National symbols of Scotland with a Symbols of Europe template, leaving the main National symbols of Wales on the main Wales article like Scotland#National symbols Mr Taz (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Language status

The statement in the WP:LEDE that 'Welsh and English both have equal status' appears to be at odds with the infobox, which states that Welsh is 'indigenous' and English is 'most widely used'. I feel the infobox is most accurate. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Official status and practical use are completely different things. Equal status would refer to traffic signs, communication with governments etc. The infobox lists the practical use. Arnoutf (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Language status of English is not comparable to Welsh anguage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.7.90 (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of the name Welsh

Looking at the etymology section I see that the translation of Welsh is correctly given as the old Anglo-Saxon word for foreigner. It was though my understanding that another meaning of the name Welsh was slave, which was used at one time for all the natives of that part of Britain conquered by the Angles and Saxons. I realise I may be walking on eggshells here and am prepared to be shot down in flames. I just did a quick google book search and came up with this. Jack forbes (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, even "foreigner" is something of a mistranslation, putting the term in the worst possible light - how dare those Anglo-Saxons call the native Britons foreigners in their own land! Welsh is cognate with a number of words in Germanic languages that all referred to the inhabitants and culture of the Roman Empire - Wallachia and Walloon are good surviving examples. So yes, these peoples were indeed foreign, and specifically they were Romans - as, indeed, were the Britons. See here [2]. I also notice that there's no mention of "slave" anywhere in the etymology. Welsh people may indeed have become slaves in Anglo-Saxon society, but that's not what the name means. ðarkuncoll 22:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Another couple of google book search results here and here. In saying that it seems to me there is no certainty in any of this, and you even think foreigner is a mistranslation. Not sure what you mean when you say the Britons were Roman. Jack forbes (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Britons were Roman, and lamented the collapse of the Roman state. They had been part of Roman civilisation for half a millenium, and spoke a language that was largely Latin in character - as, indeed, is modern Welsh. Whatever the political nuances, such as the pro and anti-Roman factions under Ambrosius and Vortigern, from the point of view of the Anglo-Saxons they were all Romans. ðarkuncoll 00:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The normal phrase is Romano-Celts and it distinguishes Wales/Cornwall/Brittany linguistically and culturally from Scotland/Ireland. As to the reference to slaves I have no idea on that but the dominant reference I have seen is as "foreigner" --Snowded (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Principality (sic) of Wales

A citation tag has been added to the statement 'Wales is sometimes referred to as a principality, although this has no constitutional basis.' If the 'fact' tag relates to reference being made to Wales as a principality, this is covered by links to the article Countries of the United Kingdom. If, however, the 'fact' tag is questioning whether, or not, there is any constitutional basis for calling Wales a principality, the article Principality of Wales would have been a good place to look. It says that the Principality of Wales 'covered the lands ruled by the Prince of Wales directly and was formally founded in 1216' and that the area was 'Encompassing two-thirds of modern Wales'. That is, modern Wales is not the same as the Principality of Wales and, constitutionally, things have moved on slightly since the 13th century. It is quiite difficult to provide references for something that does not exist (in the UK constitution or otherwise) and, consequently, the onus to provide a reference should be on the editor asserting the opposite i.e. that Wales is ruled directly by the Prince of Wales. I suggest changing the statement to read 'Wales is sometimes referred to as the Principality of Wales, or just the principality, although this has no modern geographical or constitutional basis.' 'Drive-by' tagging does not tend to improve articles. Anyone object to the tag's removal? Daicaregos (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, solution seems fine (PS in my opinion drive by tagging, without talk page discussion opened should almost always be removed as this kind of unclarity of the problem is often there). Arnoutf (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please remove. Linking to the 'Principality of Wales' article within the sentence is a far better solution to allow the reader a better understanding of the subject, rather than a reference tag anyway. FruitMonkey (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. Daicaregos (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Much improved, thanks --Snowded (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh well. So much for my theory that "'Drive-by' tagging does not tend to improve articles." :) Daicaregos (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well at least the drive by tagging does not improve the mood of responding editors. ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

96.4 FM The Wave

The link for this page currently states - The Wave (96.4FM/DAB) - this is not correct and should be changed to 96.4 FM The Wave. Thanks. 86.147.217.37 (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. Daicaregos (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Eisteddfod picture

Perhaps a picture that is a little less gloomy would be better, just a suggestion. Stutley (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wave (radio)

Resolved

The link 96.4 FM The Wave is a redirect. It should now be The Wave (radio). It has been moved many times, but I see this should be the final article name. 86.143.126.109 (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Empty Welsh Literature

I've just visited this page and noticed that the section for Literature in Wales is completely empty. May I ask why this is?

Wales has a very close and wonderful relationship with literature. Poetry structured a different class system in the country based on respect and admiration, not income. Bards were often farmers, ministers, soldiers, teachers...The Eisteddfod, which has been mentioned on the page, is a massive part of celebrating literature in Wales. Dylan Thomas is world renowned, not just for his drinking but for his wonderful collection of poetry and play for voices. From historic and important writers like Aneurin and Taliesin to the Mabinogi, stories and poetry were spoken before being written and were an integral part of Welsh life. Gwyn Thomas, Kate Roberts, Saunders Lewis, Gerallt Lloyd Owen, Eigra Lewis Roberts...the list is endless. It's a pity that this important aspect of Welsh culture is not mentioned on the page. Cymraes11 (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. The literature section has had a tag on it for the last 18 months that says: 'Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.' but no-one seems to have gotten around to it yet. So, if you would like to contribute, please feel free to start the ball rolling. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The page you both looked at is a disambiguation page, not one with any encyclopaedic content. This goes back to a discussion here, the outcome of which was to work on two separate articles, one on Welsh language literature and the other on Welsh literature in English. Both of those articles need further work, and I think that for clarity it might be helpful if the discussion that led to the present situation were flagged up on the disambiguation talk page. Hope this helps. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was looking at this. I assume that Cymraes11 was looking at the same section, which would explain why the query was raised at the Talk:Wales page. Daicaregos (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood (again). Yes, this page does need further work - feel free to draw on the two articles I've mentioned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

See above for overwhelming evidence. Arnoutf (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wales.com

{{editsemiprotected}} Could someone please make the following change on the external links?

The link Wales- World nation has now changed and it should read...

Wales.com (link www.wales.com) - The Offical Gateway to Wales.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leorgill (talk • contribs)

Done Thank you.—C45207 | Talk 09:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Originally a Celtic Nation...??

As of my Jan. 4, 2009, the article reads: "Originally (and traditionally) a Celtic land and one of the Celtic nations,"

However, I have read that: the Celtic language or people arrived in the British Isles only around 2000 BCE, and likewise, (we know by genetics that) most of the ancestors of modern Europeans were likely already living in Europe when the Indo European people and/or language arrived. In other words wasn't Stonehenge built by people earlier than the Celts? Weren't the Picts in Scotland actually possibly non-Celtic? I'm just mentioning that there should be mention that there were likely (or possibly) people in Wales before the Celts (or Celtic language) arrived... Spettro9 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wales as Wales (other than the physical area) is a post Roman construction. I would really dates its formation from the battle of Dyrham which separates Cornwall from Wales and establishes Anglo Saxon hegemony of what became England. History of Wales takes a similar position in the opening paragraph. --Snowded TALK 08:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly think that the sentence in the second para of the intro, which Spettro9 highlights, should be changed. The predominant academic view now, I think, seems to be that, although Wales clearly has a language often called "Celtic", and adopted a culture which is often called "Celtic", these were not necessarily related either to each other or (perhaps) to the central European culture which is also often called "Celtic". It's also true that, since the 18th century or so, Welsh people have often thought of themselves as "Celtic" and this (and links to other countries with undoubtedly related languages) is an important part of modern Welsh culture and identity, and of how Wales is marketed and seen by the outside world. Other articles, such as History of Wales, correctly (in my view), downplay the "Celtic" angle because it is historically dubious, and (again in my view) this article should do the same. The simplest way would be to delete the words "Originally (and traditionally) a Celtic land and one of the Celtic nations", and perhaps add a paragraph of clarification later on, but I'm conscious that this could be a contentious move. I'm also aware that the issue has been raised before by trolls, socks, etc, and this could be no different, but on balance I think there should be a discussion here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've always preferred Brythonic than celtic, although I have seen Romano-celts used. That also distinguishes Wales-Cornwall-Brittany from Scotland-Ireland which is a different language group. However there is a more general problem in that the concepts of Celtic Nations and other aspects (in part a result of Victorian Romanticism) are now common place, citable etc. etc. I think we could get a form of words that reflects this. Recognising the origins, using and referencing Brythonic and then a reference to the use of Celtic in more recent times? --Snowded TALK 09:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree. If a (referenced) sentence or two can be drafted here to cover the post-Romantic use of the "C" word, we can then get rid of the existing words in the intro. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

My partial suggestion would be to rewrite and expand the final two sentences of the "Prehistory" section, along the following lines:

"In common with people living all over Great Britain, over the following centuries the people living in what was to become known as Wales assimilated immigrants, and exchanged ideas of the Bronze Age and Iron Age cultures generally known as "Celtic". The language of Wales and other parts of southern Britain was Brythonic, related historically to the Goidelic or Gaelic languages of Scotland and Ireland, and which is now thought may have long predated the adoption of "Celtic" culture. By the time of the Roman invasion of Britain the area of modern Wales had been divided among the tribes of the Deceangli, Ordovices, Cornovii, Demetae and Silures for centuries."

But I also think that there needs to be a further reference to the romantic idea of the "Celticity" of Wales, as developed by Edward Lhuyd, Iolo Morgannwg and others, which has permeated modern culture. The problem is that the existing article has virtually nothing to say about the period between 1535 and 1900 in Wales, when these ideas developed. Any offers to expand that section (which is also fairly thin at History of Wales)? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That means summarising three chapters of John Davies! It is a weakness though. The revivals, chartism, disestablishment, industrialisation, the cultural gap between North and South not to mention Gladstone and Lloyd George. Major undertaking! I'd like to do it but I have two book deadlines and three articles at the moment so can't I'm afraid, but can review/commnet. --Snowded TALK 17:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wales still is a celtic nation,don't think its a good way it is worded--Victoriusmaximus (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Wales a Country?

Hang on a second is Wales a Country I thought it was a constituent country not a geographical one? 212.85.5.19 (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• This topic has been brought up numerous times. Please see the above discussions. Hans404 (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

On a lighter note (ho-hum, not again...), if it wasn't "a geographical one" it would be rather hard to find on the map. ;-) Enaidmawr (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wales is a country because it is recognised as part of the United Kingdom; it isn't an independant, sovereign country but it is one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. All the above are all right together because it is a constituent country like I stated but it is also a geographical country because it is one of the countries in the world; if it wasn't a geographical country, it would be either one of those unrecognised, rogue states or one of those micronations which claim to be fully sovereign but only really exists on the internet. Hope I was able to clear this all up. JAU123 (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Libraries

To the best of my knowledge Cardiff Central Library is only of local, rather than national importance. The National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth is of much higher status, a copyright library. Therefore I think only the latter is suitable for illustration on this page. Speaking as a Cardiffian, I find it rather biased to suppose our city library is up there with the NLW just by virtue of our being the capital. Ham 22:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Even though Cardiff Central Library has a small but rather fine collection of Welsh manuscripts - which includes Llyfr Aneirin - it just doesn't compare with our National Library with its magnificent collections and copyright library status. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau

Last time I looked at this article (about two months ago) the country infobox showed Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau as "National Anthem". It has since been amended to "Anthem". Given that Wales is a nation and that it has an anthem (Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau), the logical conclusion seems to be that Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau should be noted as the "National Anthem". I have never heard Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau described as either 'The Anthem' or 'Anthem'. It is always referred to as the 'National Anthem'.

The Wikipedia article Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau begins " "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau" (IPA: [heːn ˈu:laːd vəˈn̥adaɨ], usually translated as "Land of My Fathers", (but literally old country of my fathers) is, by tradition, the national anthem of Wales. " There are numerous other reliable sources of Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau being referred to as the Welsh national anthem.

I propose to change the infobox back to show Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau noted as a national anthem, unless anyone comes up with a strong argument to show that it is not the case. Dai caregos (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

agreed--Snowded (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to leave it for a few days, to give people a chance to come up with objections, if any. Dai caregos (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed that all other countries' national anthems are noted in their infoboxes as "Anthem", with a link piped to the "National Anthem" article, as this one is. Best I leave it then, eh. Dai caregos (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have introduced the UK national anthems into the List of National anthems, giving the reasons why here. Monico is there, Wales is indeed a country (which is not mutually exclusive with 'constituent country') and also a 'nation' besides - and these are 'national anthems'. It has been reverted at the moment, but I see no reason why (the reverter seemed to claim my comment wasn't worth reading as it has been covered before in talk) - so I will place it back now. I put some work into it (and on the National anthem page) - perhaps people here could tell me what they think?

For some reason the actual article title has been changed to "List of anthems by country" - I didn't notice this at all at first as 'List of National anthems' (which I had been typing in) re-directs there! I think the name was changed so it can refer only to the 'official' List of countries (where currently the UK countries are only covered by the 'United Kingdom'). How did Wikipedia allow the List of National anthems (a spin-off of the National anthem page) to be re-titled "List of anthems by country"? It makes no sense! It is a sub-article of the National anthem article, and 'List of National anthems' re-directs there! National anthems are all about national identity, not ISO lists: I've added a little more of that feeling into the National anthem article - perhaps it needs more.--Matt Lewis (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: List of national anthems is now a separate list to the ISO-based List of anthems by country (which it hitherto redirected to), and can now be linked to by any country or nation in the world! It needs a lot of work adding all the non-ISO countries and nations - but it has the UK countries, and it is called List of national anthems. Given the two self-explanatory titles, I think this is a success, and all the countries and individual national anthem articles etc can effectively link to it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

REVISED UPDATE: As far as I can tell, "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau" does not now appear on any list of anthems, national or otherwise. The links given above take you to List of anthems of UN member states, which has no mention of it, or National anthem, which has this little gem:

===For parts of states===

The Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, amongst others, are notionally held to be unions of many "nations" by various definitions. Each of the different nations may have their own "national anthem" and these songs may be officially recognized.

14 of the 15 republics of the Soviet Union had their own official song which was used at events connected to that republic. The Russian republic used the USSR's national anthem. Some republics retained the melodies of those songs after the dissolution of the USSR (see the article National anthems of the Soviet Union and Union Republics).

The United Kingdom's national anthem is "God Save the Queen" but its constituent countries also have their own anthems which have varying degrees of official recognition. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have a number of songs which may be played at occasions such as sports matches and official events. The song usually played for England is "God Save the Queen", though sometimes Jerusalem and Land of Hope and Glory may be played instead. Scotland has relatively recently adopted Flower of Scotland as its unofficial National Anthem, while Wales has sung Mae Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau (Land Of My Fathers) since the 19th century. Northern Ireland too has traditionally used "God Save the Queen" though Londonderry Air is also used.

"Wales has sung Mae Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau (Land Of My Fathers) since the 19th century", which is pretty good going - was it non-stop? No mention of the term "national anthem" and the wording of the intro - notionally held to be unions of many "nations" by various definitions. Each of the different nations may have their own "national anthem" [not my quotation marks] - plus the section heading "parts of states" - clearly downgrades the status of Wales (and others). But my main concern is that our national anthem gets no recognition on a list, unless I've missed it; nothing showed on 'what links here'. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we need so many translations? As the anthem is only ever sung in Welsh, should we not just have the English literal translation and delete the others? What purpose do they serve? I'm not keen on the 'parodies' either. Aren't they just blatantly racist? -- Maelor  20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Welsh coat of arms

Why is there no court of arms for Wales, as we very well know there is one. My question is though, why is there no court of arms for Wales on here, but there are courts of arms for England and Scotland on their articles? Is there a mission on Wikipedia to claim that one nation's arms is better than the other? or is someone on here thinking, only England and Scotland's shield is more worthy of appearence than the shield of the Welsh? Could there possibily be some bias here? Why don't someone put a flat (banner-like) image of Llywelyns four lion arms next to the flag of Wales? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.199.43 (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Presumably you mean coat of arms? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the recent official heraldic device devised for Wales by the College of Arms (and based on Llywelyn's arms) has too much British/royalist symbolism (rose, thistle etc.) and thus is too controversial to put up in the lead. It also seems to be an official declaration that Wales is less of a country those that have a fully-fledged coat of arms (such as mighty Tristan de Cunha), as this is only a "badge". I suggest including the arms of Llywelyn with the caption historic coat of arms, a designation with which I would think it hard to argue. Ham 22:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be in line with both the Scotland and the England articles, which both use an historic royal coat of arms. Any objections? Daicaregos (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The England and Scotland infoboxes use the relevant royal standards - the English one is officially defunct but the Scottish one continues in use.[3] I think that the Royal Badge of Wales, which Ham refers to, is actually the badge of the National Assembly rather than 'Wales' as a whole. There seems to be some confusion regarding its actual status.[4] As regards whether not having a coat of arms makes Wales "less of a country", well neither England nor Northern Ireland have a coat of arms anymore. Pondle (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the standard, then, rather than the shield, if this follows the precedent of England and Scotland. Ham 17:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I meant they both use a royal standard. The Llewelyn standard is also in current use. It is flown at the National Eisteddfod, for example. Daicaregos (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I've added the banner again after it was reverted by User:Jza84 citing WP:BRD. I've left a message on his talk page. Ham 22:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a source that the banner is in any way official, representative of Wales (as opposed to an ancient Royal House), in common use, on par with a coat of arms etc etc? I've never seen it in say, an introduction to Wales—in print or online—or in any educational or children's publication on Wales or the UK, in a textbook, other encyclopedias etc. WP:UNDUE comes to mind, as does the all important WP:V. Probably more suitable for the prose than the infobox. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's treatment of this is at Royal Badge of Wales#Use of the arms of Llywelyn for Wales (declaration: I wrote the section title, but none of the content), where the only relevant citation for our purposes is unfortunately now a broken link. However, the Prince of Wales's arms and banner depicted in this section show that it was adopted (or revived, if you prefer) as the armorial representation of Wales by the British royal family in the 20th century.

I would prefer the shield to be shown instead of the banner as "flag + coat of arms" is easier to comprehend than "flag + other flag", but the latter follows precedent on Scotland and England. Rest assured this design is the coat of arms of Wales. In the museum where I work I can think of a Coronation jigsaw from 1953 where these are the arms of Wales. Dai above also gives the example of the banner flying at the Eisteddfod, although I suppose that could be Owain Glyndwr's very similar banner. Neither royalists nor nationalists find it controversial. And to judge from the opening post in this discussion (even if it was from an anonymous IP), not displaying the arms can seem POV. Ham 19:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, Glyndŵr's standard is flown at the Eisteddfod, rather than Llywelyn's. I agree that a shield would be more appropriate than a standard. Daicaregos (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"The Omen of Prydein The Great", so-called...

I've removed the following [mis]translation of a part of a poem from the Book of Taliesin:

The Saxons at anchor on the sea always

The Cymry venerable until doomsday shall be supreme

They will not seek books nor be covetous of poets

The presage of this isle will be no other than this.

[ from The Omen of Prydein The Great, Book of Taliesin VI ]

No reference given. I'm here rather late in the day to search for the original text, but if the laughably inaccurate translation of the title is anything to go by I rather fancy the quoted text cannot be relied upon either. Armes Prydein Fawr (Middle Welsh: Arymes Prydein Vawr) does not mean "The Omen of Prydein The Great": the usual translation would be 'The Greater Prophecy of Britain' but the poem is usually known simply as Armes Prydain ('The Prophecy of Britain'); the Fawr (mawr 'great') is to dinstinguish it from a shorter prophetic poem on the subject in the same manuscript. "Prydein the Great" sounds like a character, does it not? Sounds like the title of a horror film about a soothsayer. Where did this come from? The Chronicles of Prydain perhaps?! I've no objection to a quote from Armes Prydain but let it be from a decent source and properly referenced, please. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You can bet you wont have many people coming here to argue against you on this...--Frank Fontaine (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Came late to the party ... and no, certainly no argument here. Just created Armes Prydein for the sake of having something rather than nothing, and in a stroke of brilliance did not attempt to include quotations. Cited references, and labeled Skene's version as "said to be an imperfect translation". Would have included a good quotation if I were competent to do so. Probably the article could be improved, as well. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Government and politics

The Government and politics section begins: "The head of state in Wales, a constituent part of the United Kingdom, is the British monarch Queen Elizabeth II, (since 1952)." Wales is not a sovereign state. Consequently, Wales has no head of state. The section's first paragraph needs to be rewritten. I propose something along the lines of:

"Constitutionally, the United Kingdom is de jure a unitary state with one sovereign parliament and government, in Westminster. Referenda held in Wales and Scotland in 1997 chose to establish a limited form of self-government in both countries. In Wales, the consequent process of devolution began with the Government of Wales Act 1998, which created the National Assembly for Wales (Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru). Powers of the Secretary of State for Wales were transferred to the devolved government on July 1st 1999, granting the Assembly responsibility to decide how the Westminster government's budget for devolved areas is spent and administered. Devolved responsibilities include: agriculture; economic development; education; health; housing; industry; local government; social services; tourism; transport; and the Welsh language. The National Assembly is not a sovereign authority and has no primary legislative powers, which the Westminster Government retains, but since the Government of Wales Act 2006 came into effect in 2007, the National Assembly can request powers to pass primary legislation as Assembly Measures on specific issues. The Westminster Parliament could overrule or even abolish the National Assembly for Wales at any time."

Thoughts, amendments or suggestions are welcome. Daicaregos (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it shows the injustice of devolution! Agree its a lot better than the current. --Snowded ^TALK 08:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me apart from the last sentence, where the current wording seems more neutral - "The UK Parliament could, in theory, overrule or even abolish it at any time." WP:NOTCRYSTAL - "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." I've corrected a couple of typos in the redraft above. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No problems with the proposed wording, i agree with Ghmyrtle on the final sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Done. Daicaregos (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We need to clarify the infobox too. Suggest we remove 'Constitutional monarchy', 'Monarch' & 'Prime Minister of the United Kingdom' and insert 'Legislature: Parliament of the United Kingdom' (see the England infobox). Do you think we should keep 'Secretary of State for Wales' (I mean in the infobox, of course :) )? Daicaregos (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

To be more consistent with the England and Scotland boxes, I agree there should be an entry on "Legislature" - which in Wales' case would be Parliament of the United Kingdom, as suggested. But the only anomaly I see in the current Wales "Government" entry is the inclusion of Deputy First Minister, which seems unnecessary. Both the Scotland and England boxes contain the words Constitutional monarchy, Monarch, PM of the UK, and the Scotland box includes Secretary of State, so it would seem inconsistent for the Wales box not to retain those parts. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

the 'UK country pages' do not need to be consistent. They need to be verifiably correct. Is there a source to say that Wales is a constitutional monarchy? I haven't found a source to say what form of government Wales has. I'm pretty sure that Wales has no monarch - any more than say, Yorkshire or Swindon - there is no Queen of Wales. There is a queen of the UK and quite rightly, the monarch is noted on that article, but it should not be noted here. If anyone wanted to know who was the Prime Minister of the UK they could follow the link through (the proposed) Legislature, couldn't they? After all, nothing relating to the EU is in the UK infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, Wales is part of a constitutional monarchy - Monarchy of the United Kingdom - in the same sense as England and Scotland are. Although the pages don't "need to be" consistent, it's unhelpful to readers if they are not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle. It's also worth noting that the Queen has a ceremonial role in respect of devolved government in Wales - formally appointing Welsh ministers and granting Royal Assent to Acts of the Assembly.[5] Pondle (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that the paragraph to which you refer is here: 'The Government of Wales Act 2006, which came into force in May 2007, assigned to The Queen new ceremonial functions of formally appointing Welsh ministers and granting Royal Assent to Acts of the Assembly.' The Government of Wales Act 2006 refers to the queen as 'Her Majesty' throughout. As this is a UK Parliament document I understand this to refer to her in her capacity of Head of State in the United Kingdom (ref here confirms) Neither document says she is Queen/Monarch of Wales. She is noted as Monarch in the Wales infobox. I don't think this is accurate. The queen has a function in the government of Wales. We should agree how that is noted in the infobox and it should be referenced. Daicaregos (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We need a more compelling reason for noting the Prime Minister of the UK in the Wales infobox than that they do it on the England and Scotland pages. It should be there only because it should be there. Daicaregos (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Who are "we", and "they"? The only "we" that I am part of is the global community of those editors who try to put readers' interests (rather than, for example, editors' POVs) first. The issue was discussed for Scotland here. So far as I'm aware, the same arguments apply for Wales (but, in fact, with less force for Wales than for Scotland) - hopefully there is no need to repeat that discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a pompous twat and for what it's worth, I sometimes think that far too much time is spent on these pages seeking consistency when the real world - for reasons of history, and different constitutional and administrative patterns - is simply not consistent. btw, implying that my motives for wanting this article to be accurate are POV led are uncalled for. How about assuming good faith. For someone who claims to be 'part of ... the global community of those editors who try to put readers' interests ... first' you seem unusually keen to have inaccurate information noted in the infobox. Why is that? Further, why were you content to allow a discussion to take place on another page (in which you took part), that you consider affects this article, without notifying editors of/on this page? Daicaregos (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain how "reasons of history, and different constitutional and administrative patterns" would require, in this case, a different solution in Wales to that in Scotland? I certainly agree that we need accurate info in the article, and I'm unclear how a reference to the "PM of the UK" in this article could be "inaccurate". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: There is some information on the UK PM's involvement with Wales here and here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You may think that the Elizabeth II is Queen/Monarch of Wales, as implied by the Wales infobox, but 'we' need to have citations to WP:VERIFY it. I reiterate the point I made above: She is noted as Monarch in the Wales infobox. I don't think this is accurate. The queen has a function in the government of Wales. We should agree how that is noted in the infobox and it should be referenced. Please try to be constructive. Daicaregos (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In relation to Wales, she is the monarch. The fact that she is not designated "Queen of Wales", just as she is not designated "Queen of England" or "Queen of Scotland", is irrelevant because she is "Queen of the UK", of which Wales is part. If you would like to suggest removing the monarch from the England and Scotland articles as well, you are free to try - I'm not suggesting that there is no case to be made on a consistent basis. But there is no case for the treatment in this article to be any different to that in the England and Scotland articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not mind about adding citations or notes under the infobox explaining things, however i strongly oppose the removal of the Prime Minister, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the Secretary of State for Wales. To be more clear we could do what is done for the Prime Minister in the info box and put Monarch of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion it's sufficient to only mention Wales' relation to the rest of the UK in the main body of the article and this is not essential information for the infobox. If it's consistency that bothers people, infoboxes for US States, and Germany's Landers do not contain the relevant head of state or what form of government that coutry has. I'd say having the First Minister and Secretary of State (with possible a short explanation along the lines of "answerable to the UK Government" or similar by it). Having the title 'Monarch' and Constitutional Monarchy' implies the there is a Welsh Monarchy.--Rhyswynne (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The position of the US states and German lander is quite different - there is a well-established consensus here that they are not countries, and Wales is. The UK monarchy has a clear constitutional role in Wales, set out here - "The Government of Wales Act 2006, which came into force in May 2007, assigned to The Queen new ceremonial functions of formally appointing Welsh ministers and granting Royal Assent to Acts of the Assembly. In addition, the Assembly staff are members of Her Majesty's Home Civil Service. The Queen holds audiences from time to time with the First Minister to keep abreast of business in Wales. However, the formal advice on which Her Majesty acts in relation to Wales is provided by her UK ministers." So, there is a clear basis for retaining a reference to the monarchy in the infobox, but I've no problem with it being in a form such as "Monarch (of the United Kingdom)". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Its fine for states just to list their local leaders, but as we are dealing with countries that are part of another country it is vital that as much information is provided in the info box covering those running wales.

Whilst i strongly support the monarch, the prime minister and the secretary of state remaining in the info box, I can see the problems with the government type there just being listed as constitutonal monarchy. If it was possible to point out that its the UK thats the constitutional monarchy and a devolved Welsh assembly, with the Scotalnd article saying devolved Parliament etc, then id be ok with something like that but it would need agreement on all the articles, and how to handle Englands article would be difficult. No change at all is better than radically altering just one of the articles though, so its all change or none for me. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the question of consistency with Scotland and England, I can't see any difficulty with having the {{leader_title1}} field in the Infobox reading [[British monarchy|Monarch (of the United Kingdom)]]. The {{government_type}} field could perhaps read something like [[Welsh Assembly|Partly devolved administration]] within [[Constitutional monarchy|Constitutional monarchy (of the United Kingdom)]] Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Would be difficult to get agreement on the different articles but i do like the sound of something along those lines, made a copy of it here so i could see what it looked like, doesnt take up too much space yet makes things clearer i think, if wording could be agreed on. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks to me like a good solution, though personally I see no need for the "Deputy First Minister" line. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is coming to some sort of conclusion, so I hesitate to introduce something else, but why not create a new infobox specifically tailored to the four constituent countries rather than trying to shoehorn everything into a template designed for something else? -Rrius (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If one could be made that would be great, although i can imagine huge struggles on what should or should not be included in such a infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would try, but I don't think I'm qualified. If someone who actually knows what they're doing is reading this, here are some suggestions:

• We need the UK information in one section, and the devolved administration in the other. The UK one should have an optional parameter for the Secretary of State (since there isn't one for England), and one way or another, the devolved section should be in some sort of if statement (also because there isn't one for England). The key is to have two clearly divided sections, one UK, and one devolved. The solution for England might be to briefly note the presence of regional government, but any solution should be decided there.
• The maps could also be changed to ones that just show the country within the UK.
• The currency and internet tld could be removed.
• The patron saint should be moved toward the top near the symbols.
• Instead of a coat of arms or badge or whatever, the second symbol at the top could be "traditional standard" or "traditional arms". Both the flag and standard/arms parameters should be optional because neither is used at Northern Ireland.

-Rrius (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I sense that, if a different template were to be developed here, it would only add to the arguments of those who consider that Wales is something other than a "country". In my view we should stick to the existing template, but use clear wording, as at User:BritishWatcher/Box (see above). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at BritishWatcher's mock-up, the explanation bit look fine, although I'd suggest the following tweak:

[[British monarchy|Monarch (of the United Kingdom)]]. The {{government_type}} field could perhaps read something like [[Welsh Assembly|Partly devolved administration]] within [[Constitutional monarchy]] of the [[United Kingdom]].

This then informs reader that Wales is part of a Monarchy and the UK, and if any one wants to know who the monarch is or who is head of the UK, then they can simply click on the link for that information.

Re, Rrius' proposal for a new type of infobox, it sounds like a good idea, but there are a lot of anomalies among the 4 constutient countires. Scotland has its own currency of sort, England has never had a Secretary of State, and the ones for Wales and Scotland could either dissapear or be merged if the Conservatives win the next election. --Rhyswynne (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher's infobox looks good, albeit a bit crammed. How about: [[British monarchy|Monarch (of the UK)]] and [[Constitutional monarchy]] of the [[United Kingdom|UK]]? Also, the PM should not be included. After the Assembly, LCOs are approved by the Secretary of State for Wales, both Houses of Parliament, and then the Queen. The PM has no direct involvement in governing Wales - that is what the SoS is for. Further, a line needs to include 'Legislature: Parliament of the United Kingdom and National Assembly for Wales' Daicaregos (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ive made some of the changes suggested, others can make further changes to it if they want. I do oppose removing the Prime Minister, however the order doesnt really make sense to have the monarch of the UK then go onto the devolved administration then back to the UK. For that reason i would like to have seen - Monarch, PM, SOS, FM, DFM however i understand that ordering might be controversial so perhaps the reverse order is more acceptable? FM, DFM, SOS, PM, Monarch? If the FM was at the top maybe we wouldnt need the "(Head of National Assembly for Wales)" which takes up alot of space. As its a coalition there is a clear need for keeping the DFM. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) NB link to proposed infobox content is: User:BritishWatcher/Box. Daicaregos (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You've made some valid points, BritishWatcher, particularly highlighting the reason the Deputy First Minister for Wales is noted. Reversing the order is an excellent idea. That should allow us the space to include the translation for the First Minister: [[First Minister for Wales|First Minister]] ({{lang|cy|Prif Weinidog}}) However, I still do not understand the rationale for including the UK PM. Daicaregos (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, much as my republican ideals would remove the Queen, she is the head of state, and the assembly powers are held through her not the PM of the UK --Snowded ^TALK 12:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The PM of the UK does have responsibilities over Wales, for those matters which are not devolved; he has authority over the SoS for Wales. [6][7]- "The Assembly has the power to take decisions on a range of economic, educational, health, planning, transport and tourism issues in Wales. Other matters are decided by departments based in Whitehall." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The UK prime minister certainly has authority over many matters relating to Wales. I can understand the reasons (despite disagreeing) for removing both the PM / Queen as they are (of the UK), but it really does not make sense to me that we would remove the PM and keep the Queen. As far as im aware (although i may be wrong) the defence / national security of Wales is not handled through the Wales office and Secretary of State for Wales is it? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The queen has a function in the government of Wales in the way that the UK PM doesn't. The function of the Secretary of State for Wales is spelt out here, which begins: "The Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for ensuring the smooth working of the devolution settlement in Wales. He represents Welsh interests within the UK Government and represents the UK Government in Wales." Daicaregos (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Who's responsible for sending Welsh troops to Afghanistan if not the PM? The powers of the Assembly are limited, and all those functions not devolved are the responsibility of the UK Cabinet, chaired and led by the PM of the UK, and implemented for Wales by the SoS. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well strictly they are UK troops not Welsh troops, but I agree its problematic with powers not devolved. However those things are covered on the UK article. Maybe a single note (the new template idea)?--Snowded ^TALK 14:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm with BW on this. The revised template, retaining both the Queen and PM of the UK, looks OK to me, given that both of them (like it or not) do in fact retain authority over aspects of government in Wales. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The position of noting the UK PM in the Wales infobox would appear to be less POV if those same editors were arguing for noting the role of the EU in the UK infobox. The UK PM has authority over Wales in matters relating the UK. Similarly, the EU have responsibility over the UK in matters relating to Europe. As it is, we are showing the governance of Wales here, not the governance of the UK. The Prime Minister’s Office confirm that the Secretary of State for Wales "represents the UK Government in Wales" and I believe them. Good as BritishWatcher's infobox is, it does not accuately reflect the governance of Wales, which is (like it or not) what we (should be) striving to achieve on this article. Daicaregos (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I think its important the Secretary of State is listed as he does represent Wales in the UK cabinet / the UK government in Wales, and whilst he is responsible for UK legislation relating to Wales he is not the only one responsible for reserved matters. The Prime Ministers most important job is defending the United Kingdom and her territories, he does not pass on instructions to the British military in Wales via the Secretary of State for Wales (As far as i know). If we do not list the PM, then with the exception of Her Majesty there is nobody responsible for the defence of Wales which is just not politically true.. the Prime Minister is clearly responsible.

The European Union is also different, the United Kingdom parliament and Her Majestys Government have complete sovereignty over the United Kingdom despite us being a member of the EU. Its true we have legilsation or directives coming to us from the EU, but they do not and never will have the authority to implement it, that is done by the British government. In truth apart from the legal obligation which risks us getting kicked out of the EU or fined if we dont do what we agreed (EU countries always break the rules anyway), it is no different to the British government agreeing to something at the United Nations or one of the climate change meetings and then coming back home to put that agreed plan into action. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Off topic, but for example that would change if the UK joined the Eurozone (something i hope we dont do) as we would not have complete sovereignty over our monetary policy which would be decided by the European Central Bank and not the Bank of England / British Government. The ECB agrees a policy like interest rates and implements it Europe wide, thats not how the EU operates where things are decided and passed on to national governments for implementation. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Defense is a UK wide issue as is finance (although some of us you will be appalled to hear think it would be a lot better if both of those were handled at a European level). The point here is that we need a note to the effect that in the case of Wales and Scotland certain powers are devolved, others are not. Given that the PM etc are listed on the UK page I think a single line reference to that would make more sense. Including the Welsh Secretary does make sense--Snowded ^TALK 17:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I support notes under the info box explaining things, i just cant support the removal of the PM when hes clearly still incharge of important UK matters like defence and the economy that impact on Wales which isnt covered by the Secretary of State for Wales. Im going to put up a second box on the page with the different order, what do people think of it (leaving aside the PM issue). BritishWatcher (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

@BritishWatcher: No-one disputes that the UK PM is in charge of important UK matters like defence and the economy that impact on Wales. But that is the point - they are UK matters. There is no Welsh military - it is the British Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force - all UK forces. There is no Welsh currency - we aren't even represented on the coinage, for god's sake. This page is about Wales - not the UK.

@Snowded: Do you have a suggestion as to what the note should say? Daicaregos (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I put forward the same argument at the Scotland talk page a while ago. As Dai says, this page is about Wales, not the UK. I got nowhere on the Scotland article, getting no consensus to remove the PM. I still don't understand the reasoning behind the PM in the infobox. Jack forbes (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been following this from a comfortable distance until now rather than contributing as the basis of the arguments is all very deja vu, but perhaps I could suggest something now? I agree with Dai's comment as noted by Jack forbes above, that "this page is about Wales, not the UK". I suggest that in place of Mrs Windsor and G.B. we have 'Constitutional status: [[Countries of the United Kingdom|Country (within the UK)]]', which could be followed, if deemed neccessary, by 'Sovereign state: [[United Kingdom]]', although it could be argued that the mention of UK in the first line and the link contained in it is enough. Much as I dislike the office, there is a strong case for retaining the line for the Secretary of State as he represents the UK government in Wales. I also agree that having a uniform infobox format for the three countries of Britain and the territory known as Northern Ireland is impractical, for a number of reasons. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it will be possible to get agreement on this matter, and i will strongly oppose any change at all to the infobox if its tied with a removal of either the Prime Minister or the Monarch. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right as we all have entrenched views. I'm not exactly a fan of the polity called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as you'll have noticed, but my attempt at a compromise includes a reference to the UK and a link to an article about Wales' position within that polity. Surely the niceties of the constitutional situation are best explained in the Wales article itself? Enaidmawr (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Has there ever been a request for comment on this subject? I really should know as I've been involved one way or another with most of these type of discussions. I do believe my brain has turned to mush. (damn you IKEA!) Jack forbes (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Enaidmawr's compromise sounds good to me. (@ Jack forbes: usually they were on another page) Daicaregos (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to me. The Queen has a clear and unequivocal role in Wales - she appoints the WAG ministers, grants Royal Assent to Acts of the Assembly, employs the Assembly staff, etc. As a matter of neutral fact, there is no reason not to mention her by name in the infobox. (I really don't care about the order in which the names are put, by the way. Also by the way, unlike BW, I'm a staunch republican - but my views, like his and like those of every other editor, are of absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the purpose of presenting unbiased and clear information to readers on the position as it actually is.) The position of PM of the UK may be slightly more equivocal - but it is the case that many of the functions of government in Wales are in fact the responsibility of the UK government, and that is led by the PM. Not to set that out in the infobox would be likely to mislead, given that the very purpose of having an infobox is to summarise info in the article in a way which is consistent between different countries, whether or not they are fully sovereign states. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So, do you have a (realistic) compromise then, Ghmyrtle? Daicaregos (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Gordon Brown from all 4 infoboxes, but keep the Queen. It sure would be easier if England would have its own 'first minister'. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

⬅Enaidmawr compromise but keep Mrs Windsor? --Snowded ^TALK 22:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing the prime minister but keeping the monarch is not a compromise, we cant pick and choose which part of how Wales is governed we wish to display to people. As i said before i can understand the arguments for removing both the Queen / PM although i oppose that, but it just doesnt make sense to only remove one of the two. Both have authority / powers over Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom and there for need to be listed. Either both should go because they are "of the UK" or they need to both remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I don't "compromise" on matters of fact where readers might be misled - from that point of view I think more information is almost always better than less. In my view both the Queen and the PM of the UK should be mentioned by name in the infobox, as exercising direct powers over Wales - but I really don't care very much about what words of explanation are given in the box or in footnotes, or what order they are listed in, or what font size is used, or in what terms they are both described. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the Canadian provinces or territories articles have 'Stephen Harper' in their infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not relevant - they're not "countries" so this infobox doesn't apply to them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Canadian provinces, American, German, Australian states are very different. We are dealing with articles on countries that are part of another country. It took how many years before it was accepted on wikipedia for Wales to be described as a country in the first sentence??? The removal of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from the infobox, despite the fact he is directly responsible for the defence and national security of Wales among many other things is a serious alteration with no clear benefits. Infobox is meant to provide as much information as possible, by puttin OF the UK for the Queen / PM we do away with any confusion.

Relevant. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales (no matter what ya call 'em) are sub-divisions of the UK (just like Alberta, Manitoba etc, are sub-divisions of Canada). GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Good grief! E, S, W, NI are not, not, not, not, "sub-divisions" of the UK - Administrative geography of the United Kingdom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the changes proposed (reordering, placing the FM at the top of the list, adding Partly devolved administration, adding (of the UK) to the Queen etc) are all positive and useful changes. We shouldnt keep the status quo because we all disagree on the PM issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find any kind of compromise won't work. There are those who will stick to their opinion that the PM should remain in the infobox. I don't see the point of a compromise when it is obvious that the PM should not be included. I really wish this discussion could be broadcast to a much wider audience. Request for comment hardly brings in a flood of new editors. Jack forbes (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with every word - apart from one "not". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

lol - not Daicaregos (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That is part of the reason a purpose-built infobox would be good. It could separate the UK-wide figures from the devolved government folks. Because it would be for use at all four articles, any consensus would be reached by people interested in each of the four articles, a somewhat wider audience, but about as much wider as you're going to get. -Rrius (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the PM. I think he serves to represent the Cabinet on as a whole on UK- and England-and-Wales-wide issues. Policing decisions are made by the Home Secretary. Court administration, legal aid, and detention policy are made by the the Justice Secretary. The list goes on. Ultimately, the PM's ability to sack them, or the Welsh Secretary, gives him a measure of control over all those policy areas. As such, he makes sense as a sort of symbol representing the entire UK government.

Also, to address a couple of points made above about currency, Scotland may have its own banknotes, but it does not have its own currency. The infoboxes for all four constituent countries say "pound sterling", but since none has responsibility for currency, there is no reason to show it in an infobox specific to the constituent countries. Also, to Ghmyrtle, the point was not to make a Wales-only infobox, but a constituent countries infobox, just as there are specific infoboxes for U.S. states, Canadian provinces, German lander, Australian states, Swiss cantons, and Chinese provinces. Whether someone considers Wales a country or not would be irrelevant as Wales is clearly a geographical and administrative subdivision of the United Kingdom. There would be no reason to display "Constituent Country" or "Subdivision" in the infobox, so as I see it, the whole discussion is averted. -Rrius (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

My only point on that is that it might appear to some that "countries" which could not be accommodated within a "country" infobox, but required a new "constituent country of the UK" infobox to be set up, might perhaps not actually be "countries" at all. Which would be a suggestion which I would oppose, as, I would guess, would several other editors here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose that too. Well said Ghmyrtle. Daicaregos (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would and, like both of you, have opposed that suggestion as well. All the same, an infobox would be useful to address the particular concerns that have been discussed repeatedly here and at Scotland and NI. -Rrius (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been shown (above) that it is the Secretary of State for Wales who 'serves to represent the Cabinet on as a whole on UK- and England-and-Wales-wide issues'. The PM of the UK represents UK, not Welsh, issues. Daicaregos (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

..and is responsible for decisions on them, covering Wales as elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The PM of the UK is responsible for decisions on Manchester (etc) for issues not devolved to Manchester. Do you propose to include him there? Daicaregos (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If the "settlement" infobox had a field for "PM", then yes. But, obviously, it doesn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I trust you'll be amending the template then. Daicaregos (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Why? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Welsh Secretary represents the Cabinet, in a sense, to Wales. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about representing the UK government for the reader. Also, the relationship between a city and a country is different than the one between the larger, encompassing state like the UK and an entity like Wales. As a side note, the editors responsible for the Manchester infobox felt it necessary to explicitly note both the sovereign state and constituent country. -Rrius (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be because it is part of the settlement template. In the Wales infobox we will be including 'Legislature', which will note UK Parliament and National Assembly of Wales (see BritishWatcher's mock-up). Daicaregos (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A fortiori, I should think. Thank you. -Rrius (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence tells us Wales is part of the United Kingdom. No danger there of anyone thinking it's a sovereign country. Why do you think the exclusion of the PM in the infobox would confuse those poor souls who read this article? Jack forbes (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The infobox is meant to list the people responsible for governing Wales. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, of all the people in the list has the most important "governing" job for Wales because he is responsible for the defence and national security of Wales. That is NOT handled via the secretary of state for Wales. It seems crazy we would remove the most powerful political position. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the opening sentence of the Victoria, Australia article. Victoria' is a state located in the southeastern corner of Australia. Quite clear that it's a state of Australia and no need for the PM in the infobox. The first sentence of the Wales article makes it clear that it's a country which is part of the United Kingdom. You couldn't get confused over that, quite clear. The PM is in this infobox. Why? If you say it's because Wales is called a country then quite frankly it makes no sense. If you say it's because the PM has control over such things as defence then why is there no need for the Aussie PM to be included in that infobox? Like I said, there is no reason to have him there other than because some people just want him to be there. Jack forbes (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the fact we are dealing with countries within a country DOES make a big difference for me, we need clear and detailed information on this matter in the infobox and in the introduction. It is for you to make the case that the PM should be removed, i have yet to hear any reason why it should be removed that could not apply to the Queen as well, which is why as i said before.. i can understand people saying the monarch / PM should be removed because they are not "of Wales" but "Of the UK", but it makes no sense to just remove the PM.

Also if the PM can not be listed here, please explain what we do on the England article if that follows this pattern. Whilst ofcourse Brown has more powers over England than over Wales, where do we draw the line? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

While the infobox need not encapsulate the whole of the article, it should serve as a summary, and not create false impressions, such as overstating the political autonomy of Wales. -Rrius (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Point out to me where it would create false impressions of political autonomy if the PM where not there. Do you think the Victoria, Australia infobox creates a false impression? Do readers thing the state of Victoria have their own defence policy for example? Jack forbes (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the Australian states, US states or Canadian Provinces use the country template? also look at the maps they use in their info box. They are of the province / state within the country, where as Wales has a map just like the United Kingdom. Should we change the map? Also USA, Canada and Australia are not in the same boat as the UK where we have England which has NO devolved government, there for who can we list there? If we can list the PM there why cant we list him here? Where do we draw the line? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

e/c Luton hasn't control over its defence. The PM of the UK isn't noted in the infobox. Is it overstating the political autonomy of Luton? Daicaregos (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Monaco is 'independent' and yet all matters relating to its defence are directly controlled by the French government: the French PM and President don't appear in the Monaco infobox. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wales and Scotland are not 'independent' or autonomous. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Not as such, but they are historical and actual countries with devolved governments. All this really proves is that it's difficult to find an exact parallel as the situation of the three countries of Britain (not to mention that bit of Ireland within the UK) are unique. Of those three countries, Wales and Scotland are in a very similar situation and any new infobox could be designed for those two countries, with room for minor differences. England and NI are a different matter. The former is a country but has no devolved government - although the view from Scotland and Wales might be that there is little difference between the UK government as such and what it is in effect and might become, i.e. the Government of England - and NI is a territory not a country, even if New Labour have tried to con people with this "constituent countries" nonsense by including NI, contrary to history and political reality (hey, Gerry Adams and David Trimble, is Northern Ireland a country and are the people of said territory a nation?). Let's work something out here and for Scotland, regardless of the situation in England and NI. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I cant change my opinion on this matter even if everyone else disagrees with me and it is implemented anyway. There is no reason why the Prime Minister / Monarch should not be displayed in the info box aslong as its clearly presented, (something we dont do at the moment because it just says monarch and should say (of the UK)). Which is why we should try sorting out the other changes to the infobox and then come back to the PM question after if people really want to dig it up again.. but i oppose any change at all to the infobox if it results in or involves the removal of the PM or Monarch. Anyway ive had enough of this issue tonight, night. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing those who strongly defend the right for Wales, Scotland etc to be described as countries now wish for them to be treated like a city or a simple state / province. The situation with the Countries within the United Kingdom, is not as common / basic as a federal system where there are provinces or states. Also, does any city of the United Kingdom use the country template? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's because this article is being treated as something less than a state/province. You continually argue the point that it's because Wales is a country or that it has no authority over it's defence. I've explained why those points are meaningless as an argument to include the PM. I guess there are too many people who just want him there so he will be. Jack forbes (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Simple state"? US states are actual sovereign entities. While only fringe secessionists would refer to his state as "my country" these days, it was not true from Independence through the American Civil War and beyond. The defence argument is not terribly convincing to me, either. To me, the whole of the point is that while Wales is immutable culturally, as a nation, its political separateness is wholly a creature of UK statute. US and Australian states and Canadian provinces are all protected by their federal constitutions from obliteration by the federal legislature, as are their areas of legislative competence. Wales has no such protection. It could be eliminated tomorrow, and its legislative competence is wholly at the mercy of statute and statutory instruments. -Rrius (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that US states are actually more sovereign than the countries of the United Kingdom. When i said basic / simple i just meant more easily understandable and common. Whilst the UK may not be the only example, "Countries within a country" is pretty rare. The ability for the Welsh assembly to be suspended / completely abolished by the UK government led by the PM is ofcourse another important reason why he should be listed yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no "more sovereign" about it. You are either sovereign or not. In the US, the people are ultimately sovereign, but transferred that sovereignty to (or that sovereignty is exercised by) their particular state and the United States. Thus, the right of, say New Mexico, to act is directly derived from the people. The same is true of the United States. In the United Kingdom, the Queen is sovereign, and she exercises that sovereignty in right of the United Kingdom, and nothing smaller. The Welsh government gets its power from Parliament and UK ministers, not the Queen. By contrast, the Queen exercises sovereignty in the Canada as the Queen in right of Canada and, for example, the Queen in right of Prince Edward Island. -Rrius (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thought I would leave a minor comment as an outside, Canadian editor with a strong interest in Canadian constitutional history. I think you cannot compare the UK setup with the Canada, Australia, or the US. My reasons echo Rrius, but expressed a little differently. Essentially, the three other countries have constitutions that specifically seperated the powers and juridictions of their federal aspect vs. their provincial/state aspect. It's a constitutional division of powers rather than the UK's decision to devolve their legislative powers. Unlike the Canadian, Australian, and US governments, the UK government could technically decide not to devolve their powers anymore and govern Wales directly. (It would be an incredibly stupid idea, and would probably cause mass riots, but that's besides the point.) Really, I'm not making comment about how to structure the Infobox for Wales, etc. My only comment is that I think the comparison with other provinces/states is misguided, and the UK-countries infobox situation should be figured out independently of what is done with those other articles. Singularity42 (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Can some on please clean all this text up? Having it all spread out is irritating.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)