Jump to content

Talk:Oswestry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 213.253.7.254 (talk) at 10:46, 8 January 2020 (→Responses). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Waffle

Something cannot be 'scientific fact' if there is 'no direct evidence' ;) Terrafire 17:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Oswestrians

For the purposes of this section of the article, 'notable' means someone who has a Wikipedia article, e.g. if a link to that person is red rather than blue they will be removed. Terrafire 14:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh name

Skinmeister has removed the Welsh version of the town's name from the opening paragraph and the Infobox. This is mean to be a WP:NPOV encyclopaedia, using pejorative language like "Having it's foreign name in the History section is quite enough" and "What they call it is irrelevant" is hardly NPOV. Oswestry is close to the border, many street names are Welsh, many residents speak Welsh. their is a Welsh chapel there. It seems that Oswestry fulfils the requirement to have the alternative name listed in the standard formats (e.g. Template:Infobox UK place. If anyone has a good reason why the Welsh name should be excluded from the article (other than just not liking the Welsh), then please make the case here. DrFrench 16:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about because it's not in Wales? It's in England, where the only official language is English. And whether my comments are POV or not is irrelevant, as they were in my edit summary and not in the article itself. As such you can not use them as a reason to revert. Skinmeister 10:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In favour of noting the Welsh name please note:

puts it on their maps.
Is this last item not reason enough in itself? Cosnahang 15:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems to be to include it, so back it goes DrFrench 23:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two against one is not consensus, your POV edits have been reverted. 88.106.254.34 16:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And restored. There's plenty of historical and cultural contect to justify it's inclusion. The only dissenter has used pejorative terms such as 'foreign' which demonstrates POV pushing. DrFrench 20:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restored again, and added supporting links from Shropshire Council Libraries service and the official Shropshire Tourism websites. Note that Skinmeister has had numerous blocks for WP:3RR violations, see Skinmeister's talk page.

Oswestry is 5 miles from the border, entirely within England where Welsh is not an official language. By all means, keep the Welsh name in the article, but not right at the start. At first glance, it seems as though it is a place in Wales. I am from Oswestry and do not want my town translated into Welsh in a way that all places in Wales are on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.56.217 (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names within languages of historical significance or spoken nearby usually do go at the very start (see Aachen, Bratislava). And the first sentence of the article reads (after you have yet again stripped the Welsh name out of it) "Oswestry (pronounced /ˈɒzwəstri/) is a town and civil parish in Shropshire, England, close to the Welsh border." As for a potential misunderstanding, I'd have thought that the "in Shropshire, England" part would be clear enough. -- Hoary (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's in England full stop. I will revert your edits every time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shropshire70 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has disputed that it is in Shropshire. Now, what rational argument can you present for moving the Welsh name to what is, for a Wikipedia article, an unusually inconspicuous place? -- Hoary (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's in England, not Wales. It's politically incorrect to put Welsh translations on an English placename as you would a Welsh one. I'm not disputing the town has Welsh links, but 99.9% of all our signs are English only. By keeping the Welsh name in such prominence is far from a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shropshire70 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Political (in)correctness" is of no consequence. The overwhelming majority of signs in Bratislava are in Slovak, and the little city is unambiguously in Slovakia; yet the article on it also gives its names in German and Hungarian near the top -- and nobody (bar a few ethnic fanatics) gets upset about it. Now, you suggest that prominently providing the Welsh name of Oswestry breaches "NPOV". I suppose that this means that it pushes a particular point of view. Which point of view would that be? -- Hoary (talk) 11:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh language has no place in England. Are you Welsh by any chance? See you next Tuesday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.231.15 (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My ancestry, nationality and domicile need be of no more concern to you than yours are to me. You say "Welsh language has no place in England." This very article says "there is a Welsh-speaking church the Seion Church", suggesting that it has a place in Oswestry in particular, let alone England in general. -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take that as a yes then. —Preceding unsigned comment added in two edits by 217.42.231.15 (talk) on 3 September 2010.

This discussion over a relatively minor change has gotten rather out of hand and I think that certain editors hiding behind a mask of anonymity (I'm looking at you, IP address 217.42.231.15) need to stop being deliberately provocative (and probably should stop deriving all their opinions from the headlines in the Daily Fail, too). Oswestry's history is closely allied to that of Wales due to its' proximity to the border. Get the f*ck over it. The fact that the article on Cardiff is headed Cardiff and not the Welsh version, suggests that the English language is hardly being downtrodden by jackbooted Welsh language police, now is it? Please give up this pathetic attempt to paint the English as victims in some terrifying PC conspiracy. I'm as English as a nice cup of tea with the vicar, but this "English nationalist" bullsh*t infuriates me. The English Defense Losers, Peter Davies and his "English Democrats" can piss off too. Rant over. Famousdog (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's English Nationalism got to do with this? Why can't England have a parliament??? Being an English Nationalist doesn't mean you have to hate the rest of the UK (although some probably do), I'm an English Nationalist living in the Marches and have a great respect for Wales and the other nations of the UK, I in-fact like the Welsh Marches a lot exactly because of the meeting of English and Welsh culture!!!
If England had a parliament nothing would change, Oswestry would still have the same meeting of English and Welsh culture as it has now and has always had, same with all border regions. The English Defence League are more against Muslims than actually in support of devolution for England, there's also a "Welsh Defence League" sister organisation to it as well I'll have you know,the EDL can hardly be represented and held up as a shining example of English Nationalism now can it? For a start most English nationalists don't support any of the nationalist organisations, but simply express their views independently.
Oswestry represents a combination of English and Welsh cultures, I agree with the people here that the use of Welsh and English placenames in the article should reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentynet (talk • contribs) 14:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
217.42.231.15 has not indicated readership of Britain's most depressing tabloid, let alone expressed any sympathy with any group of the extreme right. For that matter, he hasn't expressed any "English nationalism" either. Please keep your speculations about others' motivations and ideology to yourself. -- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boosterism

For all its charms, Oswestry is hardly New York, so adding headings declaring it to be the "3rd largest town in Shropshire" merely emphasise is relative lack of importance, and smacks of boosterism. There's too many headings breaking up what would otherwise be a very concise (and interesting) article. Famousdog 13:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haute Couture Network

What is the relevance of this site to Oswestry? I'm sick of removing links to it. Famousdog 13:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population

The article states that Oswestry's population is 17,181, but the citation provided shows it as 16,660 at the 2001 census and a calculation of 17,161 in 2008 - neither of which matches the figure given. So, I am revising the figure to the 2001 census figure unless anyone else can provide a more up to date accurate figure. Kingbumpkin (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New section

It seems incongruous for the info on the Orthopaedic Hospital to be in the Education section. Does it warrant it's own section or should it be moved to general info at the beginning? Kingbumpkin (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military

As a Shropshire (not Oswestry) resident who recalls Park Hall Camp I question the apparent implication that the camp simply closed as a result of the shooting incident mentioned in the article. Any citation? Surely government defence cuts were a driving factor? It would be factually interesting if someone more knowledgeable could put a precise year to the camp's closure, and if the junior leader training facility was moved elsewhere (would interest wikipedia readers and editors in the next location). Closures of junior leader training camps were usually synonymous with the function being moved to another location, if not abolished.Cloptonson (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious sentence?

The introduction concludes with this sentence (without citation):

Oswestry is also the name given to the place where an Owl makes its nest.

Is there a basis for including this, if not it can be deleted.Cloptonson (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete it. Sounds like nonsense added at some point and not picked up as vandalism. Argovian (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh name in lead

Is the Welsh name warranted under [1]. See today's edit spat at [2] and the old discussion above. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Roger 8 Roger, it's warranted. The "spat" you mention immediately above is your removal of it, and you've again removed it just today. Why does its presence worry you? ¶ In your summary for your "spat" edit, you wrote: Many French and Chinese people visit too who do not speak English unlike the Welsh. Oswestry in French is "Oswestry", whose pronunciation will be different from that in English but quite predictable. Incidentally, the fr:WP article about it starts: "Oswestry (gallois : Croesoswallt) est une ville du comté anglais de Shropshire, contigüe au pays de Galles." (Note the Welsh.) As for Chinese, I'd be amazed if there were any established name that were not a predictable adjustment of [ˈɒzwəstɹi] into the phonology of the relevant Chinese language, but of course written with hanzi and thereby looking exotic to the monoglot anglophone but of course not to the reader of Chinese. (Incidentally, I can do this for Japanese: /osuwesutoriː/, オスウェストリー; and of course not of encyclopedic importance.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes support Welsh name in lead. Its a border town and both names are used locally Lyndaship (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Phonetically possibly オズウェストリー---Ehrenkater (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've only now noticed this. Yes, good work, Ehrenkater! If I encountered that, it wouldn't surprise me; but on balance I'd guess two スs, not ズ+ス, because of the Japanese tendency to believe spelling over pronunciation. (Witness ミセス over imaginable ミセズ or ミシズ.) There's an additional problem with the romanizing ウェ: Hepburn romanization wasn't designed for this, but "we" seems to be a de facto extension for the purpose. -- Hoary (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I was once in Oswestry on the last day of February, and noticed street vendors selling daffodils for St David's Day, so I have first-hand evidence that the town's culture is partly Welsh!---Ehrenkater (talk) 13:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ehrenkater has reverted the deletions. I'd have waited 24 hours to see if a persuasive counter-argument emerged, and if I'd reverted I'd certainly have done so with an edit summary, but the reversion is good all the same. -- Hoary (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Hoary, you are replying to an almost two year old, and long forgotten, comment by me. My recent change was made because I came across this naming issue again, without remembering the earlier edits. Some quick advice - do not use any wikipedia article as a reference to justify inclusion of detail in another wiki article. Your ability to scribe Japanese is not disputed, but about the question in hand, you seem to be missing the point. There is only one way that the Welsh name can be inserted in the lead, namely: If the subject of the article (Oswestry) is closely associated with a non-English language. Welsh has an association with Oswestry, I agree, but that is not enough. What constitutes closely is up for debate. It's a border town? What is the main language of Wales? English. How many people walking along the high street are speeping Welsh? Virtually none. How many bilingual road signs exist? For how long has the town been undisputedly in England? How many council publications are bilingual? None. And so on...The name is of Welsh origin, agreed. Does that mean the Latin name for London should be in the London lead? How many locals, Welsh people, and linguistically leaning editors with a inbuilt agenda to push, take pleasure in finding the slightest excuse to insert foreign words into this English language article? The Welsh name should be included in this article, I agree, but in the history section, not in the lead or the infobox. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, Roger 8 Roger. I was not using a Wikipedia article to justify anything in a second Wikipedia article, I was merely pointing out something of interest in fr:Oswestry, an article to which I'd have paid no attention if you hadn't brought up the notion of French and Chinese people in Oswestry who couldn't speak English. (I assumed that the ideas expressed by Roger 8 Roger two years ago would resemble those held by Roger 8 Roger now. After all, the context was the same, and each time Roger 8 Roger wanted the Welsh name out of the way.) So, do you want the "debate" that you mention? I might be willing to participate; but first, I'd like you to say just who are the "linguistically leaning editors with a inbuilt agenda to push". As I (i) above used IPA and (ii) have just now been removing junk from the (poor, and terribly titled) linguistics-related article Preposition and postposition, I suspect that I'm one who "leans" linguistically. Do please either (a) reassure me that I'm not, or (b) both confirm that I am and remind me (and anybody interested) of my "inbuilt agenda". Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Oswestry is closely associated with Welsh language and culture, and at the present time, not just historically.
  • Yes, a significant number of people walking along its high street speak Welsh (among themselves, obviously).
  • For example the newsletter of the nearby community of Llansilin (http://www.llansilin.org/newsletter/NL96.pdf) is bilingual, and people from there will visit Oswestry for their shopping etc, as it is their nearest town.
  • If you look at the Ordnance Survey map, you'll see that both names are shown prominently (you can't get a better source), and that many nearby place names (including those on the English side of the border) are Welsh language names.

Dolig llawen!---Ehrenkater (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, in reply I can assure you that you are not one of the agenda editors I had in mind. In fact, your objectivity is welcoming. You have not, for example, intentionally signed off with a foreign expression merely to give away any hidden agenda. Now, back on track. Let us look at what I believe is the intent of the guideline requirement to be ' closely associated with'. IMO places like Danzig/Gdansk or The Hague/Den Haag or, more specifically, Swansea/Abertawe. Let us compare Oswestry/Croesoswallt with Swansea/Abertawe. Welsh name used at home by more than 5% of the population (yes, that is 5%, not 50%, or even 25% - I am being overly generous) - No/Yes; Welsh name used on all governmental documents: No/Yes; Road signs bilingual: No/yes; Majority of local locality names in Welsh No/Yes....and on we go. If a significant but unquantifiable number of people walking down the high street are speaking Welsh between themselves, so what? Ehrenkater, I suggest you read wp:synthesis. Based on that flawed reasoning the London article should lead with the city's name in numerous foreign languages. You only have to stand in Trafalgar Square to know what I mean. Llansilin is in Wales - do I need to elaborate? Nearby English places with Welsh placenames? I agree - And? OS maps with both spellings? I take your word for that with the only comment being that it is highly likely that OS map transcends the border, and applies to England and Wales, meaning there might be another reason for the Welsh name inclusion. So, sorry, but I am still not convinced that Croesoswallt is closely enough associated with Oswestry to warrant inclusion in the lead. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roger 8 Roger, Ehrenkater signed off with an expression that isn't English. It's Welsh. Whether that makes it "foreign" depends on the context, on where you are, on who you are, and on your own ideology. It was posted late on 25 December (Wikipedia Standard Time) at the end of an amicable message. It means "Merry Christmas!" To me, and I'd guess to most people, it doesn't "give away any hidden agenda". I invite you to assume good faith as you read what your fellow-editors have written. -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I recently added the Welsh name believing it to be a noncontroversial edit. I see I have waded into a wiki war. @Roger 8 Roger:, ultimately Wikipedia is based on consensus, and reading the historic comments here it seems 6 registered users supported including the Welsh name. 3 opposed. I think we need to look to similar cases on Wikipedia too.
Carlisle cites the Scottish Gaelic name Cathair Luail and is indeed even further from the Scottish border (8 miles) than Oswestry is from Wales. For similar comparison, articles on Wicipedia Cymraeg cite the English name for, say, Cas-gwent, (Saesneg: Chepstow) in the title. For regions with near sectarian disputes about languages, say in Antwerp, they use the Dutch, French, and indeed Spanish names in the title. Dutch Wikipedia cites the name as Antwerpen (Frans: Anvers).
Quite simply, nearly every example I look for show a preference for translating names generously in the title. Carlisle for me is the best similar situation not on the England-Wales border and it demonstrates we should use the Welsh name in the intro.
As this debate has persisted for a while, and most editors favour the Welsh name being cited, I think the best way forward would be for those opposed to open a request for comment if they still disagree. --Llemiles (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am wary of using other wiki articles to find out what to do here. There are countless copy-cat articles on wp that repeat a similar error, where each copy each other. This is especially true with things involving mindless data insertion and agenda pushing. Anything to do with languages, especially endangered and minority languages, is a prime example. I think the only guide we should use is what is quoted above from wp's own guidelines - 'closely associated with'. To address your examples, use of the Scottish Gaelic name in the lead for Carlisle is far less justified than using the Welsh name for Oswestry. What possible 'close association' does Carlisle have with Scottish Gaelic? It is an example of a poorly constructed article by, I suggest, local amateur historians looking to find every conceivable excuse to mark Carlisle out as something 'special and different'. Proximity to the border is irrelevant. Only 'closely associated with' counts. And for Cas gwan, so should the Welsh wiki show the English name: the vast majority of people in Chepstow speak English so the close association with is self evident. As for Antwerp, Flemish/Dutch is native. French being heavily spoken in Belgium as well as being official makes it, to me, closely associated with Antwerp. I am not so sure about Spanish; the connection being attempted is probably due to the very strong historic link that only ended around 450 years (Spanish Netherlands). I agree there is a preference for translating names generously in other articles, but as mentioned above, that does not make it correct. I agree that consensus will be our guide, but consensus absolutely does not mean a simple majority. Rather than use the 6-3 majority for using the Welsh name I think we should see that as a (whopping) third of those expressing a view do not what to have the Welsh name at the start, meaning there is no consensus. Additionally, I have tried to give reasons why the Welsh name is not closely associated with the town but it seems that none of those wanting the Welsh name included have given any reason of merit. Most reasons seem to boil down to 'it should be included because it is close to Wales'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with above. Inclusion not warranted.SovalValtos (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed you take all of my examples and seem to think they are either not applicable or erroneous. It's quite a body showing a consensus and I note you are yet to offer an alternative consensus.
There are few black and white answers on Wikipedia. 'Close association' from MOS:FORLANG is advised, but its practical meaning comes from editors in the form of the settled consensus. In the case of Carlisle, clearly thousands of page viewers have accepted the article in its current form and recognise the translation has some value. Look at Crewe too, a Welsh border town in similar circumstances.
None of the Talk pages on the articles I cite, Crewe, Carlisle, Chepstow, Antwerp, show any opposition to using the translation in the title. This is the first article where I've seen this happen. If we follow that consensus on Wikipedia for applying MOS:FORLANG then the Welsh name should be shown here too. Your view is against the Wikipedia consensus not with it, unless you can show evidence from other articles to the contrary.
Clearly one or two users here feel passionately about this issue but we have to open this up to the wider (hopefully non British) Wikipedia community to get a more diverse range of views. Please see the next heading below.--Llemiles (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Llemiles for arranging this AfC. I regret any offense caused following your earlier post: that was not my intention. Your interpretation of what constitutes 'consensus' is an interesting one that had not occurred to me before. It will be interesting to see other editors' opinions. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't propose to spend any more time on this, but just to pick up on a few points:
  • I take your point about Japanese believing spelling rather than pronunciation. In my defence, I did qualify my suggestion :)
  • Crewe is not a border town and there is a much weaker case for including the Welsh version of the name, just as one wouldn't expect to see Caerloyw or Bryste in the English Wikipedia. Amwythig is debatable. A more interesting case is Chester, which is definitely a border city, but where any Welsh culture is overwhelmed by a much larger English population.
  • London is totally non-comparable.---Ehrenkater (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people - former MPs

I would beware of listing former MPs for Oswestry (a county divisional seat of Shropshire aka West Shropshire until 1918) among the Notable people lists, confining it only to those recordedly known to have lived in the town or the rural outskirts. William Bridgeman, later 1st Viscount, was not born/brought up in and did not live in the vicinity; his country seat, Leigh Manor, near Minsterley (opposite side of River Severn), was in the constituency (which extended to just outside the west edge of Shrewsbury) until 1918.Cloptonson (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the use of Welsh

For this article, should the introduction include the translated name Caer OgyrfanTemplate:Lang-cy?

There has been a long dispute here raised by some who feel Caer Ogyrfan. "Template:Lang-cy" (the Welsh name for Oswestry) should not be used in the introduction. Among registered users I believe there is a consensus for including the Welsh name, however the arguments go back to 2010 and the matter has not been settled formally.

Pinging to previously interested editors @Hoary: @Kentynet: @Shropshire70: @DrFrench: @Skinmeister: @Ehrenkater: @Cosnahang:

You may wish to respond below with voting • For or • Against. Please be respectful, assume WP:GOODFAITH, and remember this is WP:NOTVOTE but a way to find a consensus.

Llemiles (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Who is it that has made the request? Was it you User:Llemiles as the request seems to be unsigned? Whomsoever it is please could you explain what you mean by 'a small consensus for' as it is a term that I have not come across before.SovalValtos (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies yes I submitted the request. The word small was used incorrectly. It should read ‘consensus’. But for the request for comment, my statement above is irrelevant. At hand is the question stated above. Thanks. Llemiles (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it the issue was whether the Welsh name Croesoswallt was to be included in the lead of the article (not "Caer Ogyrfan", which is a name for "Old Oswestry", a hillfort outside the town).
I think that some of the comments about the name Croesoswallt being little used are a bit disingenuous. It's not perhaps something that you would come across in everyday English speech locally, but the fact of the matter is that the use of Croesoswallt has a strong precedent: it appears in many Welsh language texts back into the 19th century (used instead of, rather than alongside, "Oswestry") and is still often used if people refer to the town in Welsh (there are still a fair number of Welsh speakers locally, particularly in the villages west of the town). More to the point if you are driving towards the town from Wales, e.g. on the A483, you will see the name Croesoswallt used on most road signs, which are these days bilingual. In short Croesoswallt is fairly well recognised as an alternative name for the town so I'm not sure why one or two people have put up such resistance to it.Svejk74 (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I should add to the above that the form Croesoswald was recorded as early as 1254 (Owen, Place-names of Flintshire, p.21) so it probably has a long continuous use alongside the English name; it's not a modern creation.Svejk74 (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that it would possible or even desireable to include the Welsh name in a Toponymy section as in WP:Settlement but without such sourced material no justification for including in the lede/lead summary.SovalValtos (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided one source, above, noting use alongside the English name: also Gelling, (1990), Place-names of Shropshire, 1, p.230, both respected place name scholars; for more recent historic use see e.g. Dugdale's New British Traveller, 1819, which states that the town "is, by the Welch, called Croes Oswallt", etc etc. As for contemporary use there are numerous examples, e.g. use in the neighbouring authority of Wrexham's Welsh language materials as a translation of "Oswestry"; by the BBC as a translation of "Oswestry"; etc etc. It is a more than academic issue here as the town still has a relatively high proportion of Welsh speakers (it retains a Welsh language Methodist church) and acts as the market town for an area which still has a number of Welsh speakers.Svejk74 (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Llemiles I find it muddling that you have been editing your own input, including the text of the original RFC in this edit [3] after other editors have already responded to your original version. Is it even allowed to change RFC wording once issued? At least it would seem good practice to comply with WP:TPG by using strike-through WP:Redact. Describing a significant change of subject [4] as 'corrected spelling' in the edit summary is not helpful IMHO.SovalValtos (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"after other editors have already responded to your original version". Nope, I responded to an RFC on the term Croesoswalt (as amended above) as that was, quite clearly, what was intended given the context of the discussion a bit higher up this page.Svejk74 (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SovalValtos:. I fully admit the quality of my contributions has been poor in recent weeks as I've been rather busy. I was editing on my mobile in a free moment, in order to swiftly facilitate this discussion, but acknowledge I should have been striking through my edits. However it is clear all respondents here are discussing the word Croesowallt, so I think the essence of my edit still remains valid. I have added strikethroughs. Llemiles (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For. It's clear to anyone familiar with the place that "Croesoswallt" is its Welsh name and there are plenty of references to support that. It doesn't matter how long it has been its name, it is its name now. Deb (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against, though the town's strong connections to Wales and the existence of a Welsh name/community is clearly of note and can be covered in the body of the article. But Oswestry is in England, so there's no reason to include it's Welsh name in the opening sentence. It's not the native language or name. Sionk (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The Welsh name is widely used in the local area (albeit the Welsh part of the local area). Why should we give English names for Welsh towns but not Welsh names for English ones? Lyndaship (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is the English language Wikipedia? Sionk (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current WP guidelines on geographical names suggest that foreign-language alternatives can go in the lead where "used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place" - note in this case the group in question still lives there. You might have a point if there was a specific Welsh name for, say, Lincoln, but in this case it's a town 5 miles from the border, with its own Welsh speaking community, and which was also the market town for strongly Welsh speaking districts such as Llansilin (44% Welsh speaking as late as the early 90s; still over 20%).Svejk74 (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a link to that guidance? I can't find it. Thanks. Sionk (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) Svejk74 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Svejk74:. I would have to say that guidance appears to settle this RfC. I had not known about it, but your quote does quite resolutely answer the RfC. Hope that is considered when the RfC closes and the closer makes a decision. Llemiles (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against I've had my say above. Because this is the English wikipedia and 80% of Wales is momoglot English? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for reasons noted above, if it wasn't clear: long historic use; provable current use; notable Welsh-speaking community in town and surrounding parishes down to present day (it's only five miles from the border, not that language necessarily observes a line on a map anyway); all supported with references, where arguments presented against have been largely specious (e.g. red herrings about Japanese visitors, groundless assumptions this is some sort of nationalist issue, etc). I would add that Croesoswallt appears to have been maintained in the lead of the article largely without controversy since at least 2005 until its recent removal. Svejk74 (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against the current version of the RFC is "For this article, should the introduction include the translated name Template:Lang-cy?" having been changed from the original "The question: in the case of this town, should the introduction of the article include the translated name Template:Lang-cy?". The question is specifically about the lead, not inclusion in a Toponymy or other section. So far there is nothing sourced for Croesoswallt anywhere in the article. MOS:INTRO is useful as is MOS:FORLANG If a time were to come when there was sourced material for Croesoswallt in the body, my response to a similar request might then be Neutral. Meanwhile patience for a few days in receiving more comments and replies to questions asked above may be rewarded and if no consensus, then there is plenty of scope to improve the article before the subject is raised again.SovalValtos (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"So far there is nothing sourced for Croesoswallt anywhere in the article" - you will note I have provided 5 sources above, just for starters. I note that those arguing that the name is little used have failed to provide any sourced evidence whatsoever. Svejk74 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Svejk74, this is not about which Welsh version is correct so please stay on topic. It is also not about reliable sources: it is about how closely associated the/a Welsh name is with the town, and that is a matter of opinion, not a reliable source counting game. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you're warning me to stay on topic.
I thought reliable sources are exactly what Wikipedia is about. They certainly provide more evidence of close association than the "opinion" of individuals who may not even know the town well in the first place! If it's just down to a case of "opinion", I've known the town for 30 years and more and can confirm that the Welsh name is both well-known and regularly used. The sources back that up.Svejk74 (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how else to phrase this but I will try. If reliable sources say "the Welsh name is closely associated with the town" and that statement is not taken out of context and means exactly what it says (to be determined by us) then you may have a point. But it is unlikely that will happen. A long line of facts confirmed by reliable sources such as the number of residents who know of the Welsh name, is not relevant because it does not confirm the towns close association with the Welsh name. (Many Londoners will know the Latin name for London is Londinium but that does not mean we should insert it in the lead.) Reliable sources confirm statements of fact. Some things are not measurable as facts and are opinion. Hence why we need to avoid so many words on wp that are opinion based. The level of association of the Welsh name here is an example of an indeterminable fact. Any editors opinion about that can be swayed by facts from RSs but that is all. The RSs themselves will not make the final call. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support inclusion in lede, if the name is sourced within the article. It's standard practice to include the names of places in languages that have a strong connection to that place: see for example Bruges or Hondarribia. – Uanfala (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I'm not too fussed, though having lived in Shropshire for many years (not too long ago) I can't say there are many Welsh speakers living in Oswestry, if - frankly - any at all these days. You might get some visitors, eg to the shops/the market, who speak Welsh, and some of them may even live on the English side of the border in nearby parishes. But the town is, as far as I am aware, 100% English speaking... save for some of the more-recent Eastern European immigrants! Could we keep it to just Oswestry in the first paragraph, with the Welsh name in a paragraph further down the lede? Sumorsǣte (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least one, possibly two, Welsh church congregations in the town still. There are a higher number of speakers (higher than the Welsh national average in fact) 10 minutes away in Llansilin and surrounding areas though! Having said that I think a mention lower down in the lead (perhaps noting its relationship to the meaning of treo in the English name in its now lost sense of "cross") and in the infobox could also work effectively.Svejk74 (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I was supportive of this inclusion from the outset, based on good practice illustrated on:
  • Carlisle (cites the Scottish Gaelic name Cathair Luail despite being in England with little current spoken Gaelic)
  • Crewe (also in England further away from the border)
  • Wicipedia Cymraeg citing English names widely
  • Antwerp using Dutch, French, and Spanish names
  • Dutch Wikipedia citing similarly for Antwerp
My conclusion from the above was that Wikipedia editors feel foreign languages should be referenced liberally in most introductions. Names of almost any relevance (no matter how small) appear to be included, and in nearly all talk pages these inclusions are not controversial. Respondents here have not demonstrated how inclusion of a foreign name is disruptive, confusing, nor detracting from the quality of the article.
However it is the content of WP:NCGN cited above by Svejk74 which I feel is most important. Had I seen that, I would not have opened a RfC. He quotes that page as stating that foreign-language alternatives can go in the lead where "used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place". As far as I can tell, that directly answers the question with a clear guideline for these scenarios, and one which matches the settled consensus on pages like Carlisle, Crewe, Antwerp, and so on. As a result, I feel this RfC is redundant and should close with the inclusion of Croesowallt as per WP:NCGN.Llemiles (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion so far has been constructive and ongoing. To cancel this RfC now would, in my opinion, be irresponsible, if not disruptive. I addressed most of your points earlier Llemiles, but you have raised another one from which you have drawn a personal, and I believe, incorrect conclusion - foreign-language alternatives can go in the lead where "used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place". This does not contradict the guidelines of 'closely associated with' one jot. It simply addresses the problem of editors taking a rigid stance on the use of foreign names in an English language article. A good example would be the need to insert Danzig in the article on Gdansk. Germans expelled post war but the cities entire history until only 70 years ago was heavily German based. Konigsburg/Kalingrad is a similar example. You are saying that because foreign names can be used if other peoples used to live there then foreign names must be used. That is a wrong conclusion. The conclusion that should be drawn is that foreign names used by previous occupants can be used if that foreign name is 'closely associated with' the town. That then brings us back to where we started. Having one or two of churches conducting services in Welsh is nowhere near establishing a close association with Oswestry of its Welsh name. Spend a couple of hours walking around Southwark and see how many non-English religious services you come across. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is surprising that no one has challenged the use of the Welsh name in the introduction to the Crewe article. On that article, like this Oswestry one, the Welsh name should not take such a prominent place in the lede - perhaps there should be a standardising for such towns near the Welsh border, where the Welsh name is mentioned but further down the lede/in another section? 213.253.7.254 (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oswestry&oldid=934774184"