Talk:Wales

I personally think the first line "Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." should be changed to "Wales is a constituent country that is part of the United Kingdom". I understand that a constituent country is just a type of country, although when someone hears the word country they wouldn't think of a constituent country. I do think that the first line of the article is linked well considering "country" leads to the actual page of the constituent countries that make up the United Kingdom, although I think it'd be better to call Wales a constituent country, as not only is it more specific but it is also the correct name that it should be given.

Wales shouldn't be called just a country, as it is already part of a country (United Kingdom). To any typical person it wouldn't make much sense for four countries to be part of one country, that'd more be a continent.

It doesn't hurt anyone to call it a constituent country as it doesn't change the meaning of the first line, nor does it change the truth, rather, it's even more correct, stating the type of country Wales actually is.

Wordings like these tend to lead people to mistakes, causing many people to just call nations such as Wales "a country inside a country" without actually knowing the difference between the status of Wales and the status of another country such as Russia. They are not the same thing, so they shouldn't be called the same thing. (Note: I am copy and pasting this across the talk pages of all the constituent countries that make up the United Kingdom to try and get it changed)

Thank you, Setergh (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs most sources don't describe it as a "constituent country" but just as "country". The link used to Countries of the United Kingdom can hopefully explain the difference. DankJae 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that's fair enough, thank you for showing it. Setergh (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Or see the lengthy debate above! We really don't need to re-litigate this. KJP1 (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we most certainly do need to re-litigate this because the Northern Ireland article refers to it as "a part of the United Kingdom". The same should apply for the Wales article. Both Wales and Northern Ireland have been referred to with various terms and due to the apparent controversy over which term to use as demonstrated by the "lengthy debate" on this talk page, it ought to be resolved in the same manner as the Northern Ireland article in order to ensure that there is fair consistensy of language. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

No we don't, sources don't describe Wales, Scotland or England as merely a "part" but as a "country". "part" is not a status, and can equally apply to cities, counties or towns, they're all "part" of the UK. NI uses it because sources disagree over one term and it is contentious, but if anything it is more likely for consistency to describe NI as a country rather than the other three as "parts".

What other terms has Wales been described as in contemporary sources? It is most commonly described as a "country" (of/in the UK), and that isn't contentious. The only other is "principality", which is inapplicable and out-of-date. The lengthy debate above is over "country" vs "constituent country", specifying the meaning of "country", which also applies to Scotland and England (see their archive talks), not exclusively Wales. Would Scotland and England be described as a "part" too?

If anything, you're proposing to remove "country", that is a hard no without evidence of the contrary. DankJae 23:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Alhough I agree that referring to both Wales and Northern Ireland as "parts" would be preferable to the status quo, I do not wish for "the other three" to be described as "parts"; just Wales.

I myself have always referred to England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland as "countries" but not Wales. I have heard the terms "principality", "region", and "province" thrown around but personally I've never called it a "country".

I know this to be the case for many other people, but personal opinions and experiences aside, if a contemporary source to is required to prove that the term for Wales is contentious then I shall now endeavour to find that evidence and then continue to propose for this change to be made in as impartial and rule-abiding a manner as possible. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Still do not know why Wales is being singled out, I've always heard it described as a "country", as concluded at Talk:Wales/Archive country poll. Never "region" or "province", which if anything may imply it is part of England, which it isn't. A personal view that Wales isn't a country does not override a majority of sources that use that term for it.

Note, not just "a contemporary source" is needed but evidence that most sources don't use country (and for "part", use that or don't use any one term) to override the existing evidence that most use "country". Just saying I find it unlikely that sources have since all ditched "country" for describing Wales in the context of a personal disagreement with such use, and once again NI is the exception as it is a relatively recent creation. DankJae 08:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the 10 months' delay between the previous discussion and this resurrected one simply shows a need to be contentious rather than a need to solve a problem. Don't feed them. Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

My only intention here is to try to solve a problem. I had nothing to do with the previous discussion and I don't have any "need to be contentious" if that's what you're implying. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that Northern Ireland is much more of a country than Wales and that it is debatable to suggest that Wales is an entirely separate entity. But again, regardless of our personal opinions, what should matter is that the Wales and Northern Ireland articles are treated consistently. Many sources might call Northern Ireland by one term or another, but it is still called a "part" in the Wikipedia article. The same should apply to Wales due to the contention surrounding its status (the contemporary sources for which I am currently researching). If any country is "being singled out" here I'd say that it's Northern Ireland, not Wales. It's the only one being called a "part" of the UK, and the only justification you can offer for this exception is something to do with its age (despite Wales in its current form not being that much older). Heck, even Yorkshire is called an "area". What I'm saying is that there seems to be quite a problematic inconsistency here with how this is being dealt with, resulting in the wording making it seem as though Wikipedia is taking sides. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

What you "would argue" is irrelevant. That's WP:OR. What the Northern Ireland article says is irrelevant. That's WP:OTHERCONTENT. The only issue for this article is what WP:RS primarily call Wales and the WP:CONSENSUS about that. That's been already been highlighted in this thread. There's nothing further to discuss. DeCausa (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

As I said earlier, "regardless of our personal opinions, what should matter is that the Wales and Northern Ireland articles are treated consistently". And I believe that there is a great deal more to be discussed about how Wales should be called which has not already been highlighted in this thread, so I shall continue to work on finding reliable sources to prove the lack of consensus and push for a change in terminology. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Should we add the title of Prince preceding the First Minister to show the ceremonial head of Wales, the Prince of Wales, in the infobox? GucciNuzayer (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure Eluned Morgan would consider herself a prince. The Prince of Wales is someone entirely different. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Morgan is a Baroness?

If adding "Prince of Wales: William. Probably not, the Prince isn't involved in the administration of (specifically) Wales like the King is, as the title (like William's many others) are merely symbolic. DankJae 08:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, she was gazetted! But probably not needed in the infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

On the PoW question, not Morgan's barony, no. He has absolutely no constitutional role in Welsh governance, and I don’t know what is meant by the “ceremonial head”? Charles does have a role, as monarch, and is there as such. KJP1 (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

TL;DR: This version pertains . Scroll to the History section. I am asking for feedback on this version.

We had a discussion all the way back in April 2023 about the history section on this page that has become overlong and bloated. The issue is that there has been a high degree of WP:COPYWITHIN copy and pasting of history between various Welsh history articles. We duplicate the same things over and over (but sometimes subtly changed in contradictory ways) but we have a framework of history articles that is actually very good, and would allow us to do this better through parent and child articles.

The structure is as follows:

• Wales
  • History of Wales
  1. Archaeology of Wales
  2. Prehistoric Wales
  3. Wales in the Roman era
  4. Wales in the Middle Ages
     1. Wales in the Early Middle Ages
     2. Wales in the High Middle Ages
     3. Wales in the Late Middle Ages
  5. Industrial Revolution in Wales
  6. Economic history of Wales
  7. Modern history of Wales
  8. Wales in the World Wars

So History of Wales expands Wales and Prehistoric Wales expands the history page and so on. Each links to the respective child articles, and all that is required in the parent articles is a suitable summary at that level. So someone coming to the Wales article only needs a very general overview of the history, because if the history is what they really want to delve into, they can follow the links.

Add to that the fact that this Good Article is getting bloated and overlong, and that is the context in which I set out to write a summary of the history with a 1000 word limit (we agreed 500 words was too short).

I am not quick! But I have just made a demonstration edit of my second proposed version of this in this version of the page . I immediately self reverted this rather large deletion and replacement so I can get some feedback. There is no intention that these 1000 words be set in stone as the final word on the matter. The question is whether we agree it is good enough now to effect the changeover and then normal editing may proceed to further enhance the piece. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's very good, reads well and is pitched at the right level - actually it's captured at a level that you rarely see get right in country articles. I do have some question marks over the odd sentence here and there. But that's detail. All in all a big improvement. DeCausa (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Second the above. It's an excellent summation. Many thanks indeed. My "vote" would be to make the switch, and then editors can come in with amendments/additions/citations etc., hopefully avoiding the tendency to bloat that we've seen before. KJP1 (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It's impressive. Procedurally, looking at the framework of history articles, a lot of the information and sources currently at Wales#History are not at History of Wales. A bit of merging down may help the neglected history article. However, Sirfurboy, your new version seems to be a rewrite from at least some new sources. Was that due to ease, or was it due to dismissing some of the current sources/text as poor? If so that would help us learn what not to merge. CMD (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all.

• DeCausa, yes, certainly very happy to see changes made to the text as appropriate. Indeed, I can already see a few missing wikilinks and perhaps occasional recasting required!
• CMD, yes, merging down would be in order. Certainly there is no intention that any information be lost - just that it be placed at the right level. Regarding the sources, I wrote the text and then sourced it. Often I referred to books I have available, and there is no prejudice against any of the other book authors. All look good. Sources I do think we should avoid are things like BBC history (e.g. this one ). We use these a lot, it seems. The BBC history pages are very good, but they are tertiary sources with incumbent issues of using such. This magazine is good, but we can do better than relying on their summary, so I prefer books to magazines and websites (which are also often tertiary). And, of course, papers in the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion are both old and often primary sources. I avoided those. Not sure if there were any other primary sources, but a history at this level should not require any.
  Thanks again. I'll wait just a little longer in case anyone raises an objection, and then will make the change.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

If the issue with the current text is sources not being optimal rather than sources being genuinely poor, that sounds like something that should be refined through more detailed editing and a merge down should be fine. Perhaps hold off updating until the existing text is merged down, I may have some time this weekend. CMD (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, okay. I'll wait for that. Should be able to help too. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I think all the content from here is now present at History of Wales. While there was some overlap and clearly previously copied text one way or the other, I would say the majority covered completely different topics, suggesting the editing of the two has been mostly unrelated and that the merge was sorely needed. Hopefully a shift to summary style here helps consolidate further edits into the main article.

I did assume for the copying that both were well-sourced with proper text-source integrity. Having read through both, I do doubt that is true (maintenance another challenge of the very long section that is currently here), but I'm pretty confident the problem was not exacerbated by the shift/merges, and only might have come up in a couple of times from the Early Middle Ages: 383–1000 subsection (which was Post-Roman here) to the Late middle ages: 1283–1542 subsection. There were a couple of points where the text seemed to at least in parts contradict in a way that the current text could not be merged, for those I copied the text here over as hidden messages. CMD (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for carrying out that work, and all the time you spent on it. There is more to do on History of Wales, as you point out, but that preserves and merges the content. I'll now go ahead and change over to the new version here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

And done. The change has temporarily created 3 citation errors, but Anomiebot should come along and fix those shortly. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Shall we write "an" before <eu>, <ew> and <u>-words that is begun with /ɪʊ/ in Wales-related articles? The Welsh differentiate you (/juː/), yew (/jɪʊ/) and ewe(/ɪʊ/). 2409:8A55:3969:3370:D0DB:AE9D:5155:CCDB (talk) 08:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)