Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
::Multiple previous discussions have concluded that the term "country" is not necessarily synonymous with "sovereign state", and anyway the template covers territories as well as countries. As we all know, the "parts" of the UK each have their own constitutional and other peculiarities - much more so than US states or German ''Länder'' - and so it wouldn't be possible (or, at least, it would be very difficult and contentious) to try and design a new template that accommodated all those peculiarities. [[User:Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle]] ([[User talk:Ghmyrtle|talk]]) 16:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |
::Multiple previous discussions have concluded that the term "country" is not necessarily synonymous with "sovereign state", and anyway the template covers territories as well as countries. As we all know, the "parts" of the UK each have their own constitutional and other peculiarities - much more so than US states or German ''Länder'' - and so it wouldn't be possible (or, at least, it would be very difficult and contentious) to try and design a new template that accommodated all those peculiarities. [[User:Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle]] ([[User talk:Ghmyrtle|talk]]) 16:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
Howdy Owain. I happen to agree with you about Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland & England & therefore personally support your edits. However, you must respect BRD & built a consensus for your proposed changes :) [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |
Howdy Owain <s>. I happen to agree with you about Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland & England & therefore personally support your edits. However</s>, you must respect BRD & built a consensus for your proposed changes :) [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:37, 10 January 2013
Disasters!
Your article name change seems very sensible and less cumbersome. But I see that you have also changed "of" to "in". In fact, it's not in at all, but of the citizens of i.e. anywhere in the world. I suppose it depends what you mean by "in", but I always thought that the previous name was a bit of a misnomer. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- II did ponder of the switch from "of" to "in", but there is no real way of conveying the full meaning without something equally cumbersome like "List of disasters in, or concerning the citizens of, Great Britain and ireland"! Owain (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Yes, it might be tricky. I'm sure we don't really want Great British Disasters, do we? It's not a big issue for me. But given that some article name changes can genearate huge discussions and then even extended RfCs, I suspect this one may draw some comment. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
A Barnstar for You
![]() |
The Pursuivant's Barnstar | |
Ok, so it's more about Heraldry than Vexillology, but you deserve some credit for so eloquently defending the integrity of the Flag Institute. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC) |
Cardiff City
Hi mate, I noticed you changed a few cup final articles to remove the Welsh flag from Cardiff City. In actual fact, Cardiff City is not registered with the Football Association but with the Football Association of Wales. As such, they represent Wales in the FA Cup, as do Swansea, Wrexham, Newport County, Colwyn Bay and Merthyr Tydfil. Therefore, if Cardiff City or any of the others were to win an English competition, they would only be eligible for Europe via special dispensation. It is therefore necessary to add the Welsh flag to these articles to make it clear that Cardiff and the others are Welsh clubs participating in an English competition only by virtue of competing in the English football league system. – PeeJay 12:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I know what you mean, but I don't think that is the purpose of the 'association' parameters. Take a look at 2010 Coupe de France Final for example, where it is used to indicate the league division, not the affiliated governing body. Owain (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- The "association" parameter is meant to indicate which international association a club is affiliated to. I don't think the use at 2010 Coupe de France Final is appropriate, but using it to indicate that Cardiff et al. are Welsh clubs seems sensible to me. – PeeJay 13:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- The only problem is that it doesn't really serve either purpose: It's not indicating the league and because it's not an international cup, it is not needed to indicate the association either. If probably also falls foul of WP:MOSFLAG too. Owain (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's not an international cup, sure, but it does indicate that Cardiff are an exception to the general rule that the FA Cup is for English teams. You are the only person who's seen a problem with it so far. How does it fall foul of WP:MOSFLAG btw? – PeeJay 16:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- All adequately explained in the FA Cup article itself IMO. Flags in infoboxes like that are generally frowned upon as distracting and placing undue weight on one aspect which may have little actual relevance. In the case of the FA Cup it is of trivial relevance as it is explicitly allowed in the rules of the competition. MOSFLAG also states that one should not use 'naked' flags without first explaining what the flag stands for. This pretty much rules them out of use in infoboxes. Owain (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's not an international cup, sure, but it does indicate that Cardiff are an exception to the general rule that the FA Cup is for English teams. You are the only person who's seen a problem with it so far. How does it fall foul of WP:MOSFLAG btw? – PeeJay 16:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- The only problem is that it doesn't really serve either purpose: It's not indicating the league and because it's not an international cup, it is not needed to indicate the association either. If probably also falls foul of WP:MOSFLAG too. Owain (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- The "association" parameter is meant to indicate which international association a club is affiliated to. I don't think the use at 2010 Coupe de France Final is appropriate, but using it to indicate that Cardiff et al. are Welsh clubs seems sensible to me. – PeeJay 13:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Renaming articles on 1974-96 local authority areas
You've been busy! Just out of interest - and in the absence of any explanatory edit summaries, ahem - what is your reasoning? I can see problems. For example, District of Port Talbot was, so far as I know, never called that by anyone. It was officially called "Borough Council of Afan" (or "Afan Borough Council"), and then "Borough Council of Port Talbot" (or "Port Talbot Borough Council"). I could see the merits of calling the article Port Talbot (district), because it was called Port Talbot and it was a district - but the wording "District of Port Talbot" seems to suggest a formal title which is not one that it ever had. Related arguments apply elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- My rationale is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Boroughs. I think in the case where districts were renamed the title "District of X" is still valid as it was still a district, just perhaps with borough status. Sorry for the terse reply, I'm typing this while on a train! Owain (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. When you recently edited 2011–12 Newport County A.F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lincoln (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Corn Exchange site
Hi Owain. As far as I could establish 'on the coal exchange site' would be more correct than 'adjacent to'. Have a look at the Newport talk page discussion. Happy for amendment if you have other knowledge. Cheers.Pwimageglow (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- The façade in question is definitely that of the Old Post Office, not the Corn Exchange as that had a distinctive clock tower. The new-build office next to it is on the site of the old Corn Exchange. See http://newportpast.com/gallery/photos/php/search.php?search=corn for photographs. Owain (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Copyright-problem.svg/40px-Copyright-problem.svg.png)
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Flag of Glamorgan, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.wikishire.co.uk/wiki/Flag_of_Glamorgan.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Acorn Recruitment has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Has existed for 2 years without any evidence of notability, no coverage in reliable sources
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Valenciano (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
A beer for you!
![]() |
Thank you for your input just now on England and Wales.
Much appreciated. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
- We have an article, Countries of the United Kingdom. I understand why you (Owain) may not like that title - I don't either, especially in relation to Northern Ireland - but I don't see any need to cover that up by using words like "parts" which seem to simply reflect your own POV. If you don't like "countries", try changing the title of that article. Good luck! :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Parts" my reflect my POV but it is also the statutory term! Owain (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
West of England Tavern, Newport
Do you have any sources that shed any light on why it is called the West of England Tavern? I know why you think it's relevant to the Monmouthshire (historic)#Ambiguity over Welsh status text, but without any sources commenting on its name and the reasons for it, it seems difficult to justify the inclusion of the image in the article. Perhaps it was because the inn's owners wanted to pay tribute to the port's trading links with foreign parts (?!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- (TPS) Good to see it get such a good press: [1]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I deliberately placed the picture next to the section on extending closing pubs on a Sunday to Monmouthshire. I haven't attempted to attribute the name to anything as it is notoriously hard to track down the origin of historic pub names. I imagine in 1838 there was no real "Ambiguity over Welsh status" anyway! Owain (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- There must be some books about Newport history that say something about it - it would be interesting to know the background. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, and I probably have most of them! newportpast.com is quite good too, especially their gallery section which is fascinating. Owain (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012–13 Newport County A.F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Braintree (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Merge discussion for Area code 01633
An article that you have been involved in editing, Area code 01633, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Category:Universities and colleges in England etc.
Mais oui! (talk · contribs) has yet again re-added Category:Universities and colleges by country [2]. I'll probably be falsely accused of vandalism (and worse) if I revert him like he alleges here. I welcome your thoughts. Tim! (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- My thoughts are the same as yours and in line with the guidelines! I have removed the offending categorisation. Owain (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Owain, and thank you for your contributions!
An article you worked on Flag of Cumberland, appears to be directly copied from http://www.wikishire.co.uk/wiki/Flag_of_Cumberland. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.
It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Flag of Cumberland if necessary.Template:Z120 MadmanBot (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- When you removed MadmanBot's tag, you said "Wikishire is freely licensed". I've looked but have been unable to find a license or copyright statement of any sort on that site. Could you please point me in the right direction? VernoWhitney (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'd previously blanked this page pending an answer to my question above. Somehow, I don't think you creating a page on that wiki today and creating a sort of ex post facto contract situation with the contributors there now makes the earlier content acceptable here, but I'm going to ask for some further input. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am an administrator there and have contributed to a lot of the articles. I can assure you that the content is freely licensable, it is just that the page stating so didn't exist. Feel free to contact the Wikishire administrators directly and you will get the same response. Owain (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- First,and unrelatedly I'd like to apologize for the rollback on your page a little bit ago. I'm browsing from a phone right now and it's a bit touchy.
- I am an administrator there and have contributed to a lot of the articles. I can assure you that the content is freely licensable, it is just that the page stating so didn't exist. Feel free to contact the Wikishire administrators directly and you will get the same response. Owain (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'd previously blanked this page pending an answer to my question above. Somehow, I don't think you creating a page on that wiki today and creating a sort of ex post facto contract situation with the contributors there now makes the earlier content acceptable here, but I'm going to ask for some further input. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Now back to the point at hand, I don't doubt the intent to make it freely licensable before now, I just question whether adjusting the terms of use now can actually affect the copyright status of material already contributed there by other editors before there was such a notice. I could be wrong, of cour I se. I've asked for more opinions at WT:CP. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your temporal point, and can see how it could be a problem. However, I know the editors in question personally and their intention is obviously to get the information about the flag's registration out in the public domain as quickly as possible. Their vehicle is Wikishire and as that site grows and develops there will obviously be questions as to its policies and its articles' copyright status. The collaborative nature of Wikis does tend to imply free licensing, but I concede that this may need spelling out, even if it is retrospective. Owain (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Now back to the point at hand, I don't doubt the intent to make it freely licensable before now, I just question whether adjusting the terms of use now can actually affect the copyright status of material already contributed there by other editors before there was such a notice. I could be wrong, of cour I se. I've asked for more opinions at WT:CP. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Valley Lines
Just in case you missed it, please see Template talk:Cardiff, Newport and the Valleys railway stations#Sources for Valley Lines. Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 16:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Wales
Just curious about your series of edits (including this, which removed “elements not specific to Wales”) to infoboxes. Why did you leave the parameters: Monarch; Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; and Legislature (UK Parliament)? Anyone who didn't know better would think you were trying to make a point. Daicaregos (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Feel free to remove them yourself, you've been following Talk:Northern Ireland yourself. Owain (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Those parameters (Monarch; Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; and Legislature (UK Parliament)) are not currently being discussed at Talk:Northern Ireland. I can only assume you are referring to the discussion about .ie, which has yet to achieve a consensus. As you are aware of this too, why did you make those changes without either having participated in the discussion, or before its conclusion? Nevertheless, you appear to have avoided answering my initial question. What was your rationale for deleting elements not specific to Wales, yet allowing the parameters: Monarch; Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; and Legislature (UK Parliament) to remain, none of which are specific to Wales? Daicaregos (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- The .ie discussion was going around in circles. I was bold. There is no agenda on my part, and as I've already stated, feel free to remove any additional parameters that are non-specific to the different parts of the UK. This is a collaboratively-edited project after all. Owain (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Those parameters (Monarch; Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; and Legislature (UK Parliament)) are not currently being discussed at Talk:Northern Ireland. I can only assume you are referring to the discussion about .ie, which has yet to achieve a consensus. As you are aware of this too, why did you make those changes without either having participated in the discussion, or before its conclusion? Nevertheless, you appear to have avoided answering my initial question. What was your rationale for deleting elements not specific to Wales, yet allowing the parameters: Monarch; Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; and Legislature (UK Parliament) to remain, none of which are specific to Wales? Daicaregos (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be editing articles on the basis that you think that Template:Infobox country should not be used for the countries of the United Kingdom, because they are not sovereign states. If that's the case, it would be probably be better to start a discussion on a central talk page like the one for that template, rather than making bold but somewhat provocative edits on individual articles. In the mean time, I'll revert your edits if it hasn't been done already. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Per Ghmyrtle's comment if you feel strongly about this then raise the subject on one talk page or a central area. WP:BRD is pretty clear and this foes look a bit like an attempt to influence the debate on Northern Ireland ----Snowded TALK 15:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
You are right, it's the use of Template:Infobox country that has caused this mess because editors feel the need to fill in every field. The Regions of France, States of Germany, &c. all have their own infoboxes, so why can't the Parts of the UK? Owain (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- In part 'cause they are countries ----Snowded TALK 16:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Multiple previous discussions have concluded that the term "country" is not necessarily synonymous with "sovereign state", and anyway the template covers territories as well as countries. As we all know, the "parts" of the UK each have their own constitutional and other peculiarities - much more so than US states or German Länder - and so it wouldn't be possible (or, at least, it would be very difficult and contentious) to try and design a new template that accommodated all those peculiarities. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Howdy Owain . I happen to agree with you about Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland & England & therefore personally support your edits. However, you must respect BRD & built a consensus for your proposed changes :) GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)