User talk:DankJae

@DankJae: I am aware of the mantra of 'Be bold'. However, it doesn't always sit well with me, particularly about the above article because of your impressive insertions of the infoboxes. Would you object if I moved the photograph of the river that is above them to below them, to enable visitors to see an uninterrupted sequence of its course from its source to where it joins the Ebbw River? John Desmond (talk) John Desmond (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Be bold can still apply to any amendments you make afterwards. Are you suggesting to remove the infobox image to go back under the infobox? If so, well, it would be nice for the infobox to have an image, can another image fill the infobox instead so the three images can be back together? Usually an infobox has an image, but can't deny there is nothing against omitting an image in the infobox for images to come after it. So will respect any choice you make, but note other editors may still add an image to the infobox as with most articles. DankJae 22:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@DankJae: Thank you very much for your reply, which I've only just read. I'm glad I submitted my comment because I now feel better informed. In answer to your question - yes, I hoped would be possible to remove the image and to insert it below the infobox, provided it was acceptable to you. However, that wouldn't have taken into account your observation about an infobox usually having an image, about which I wasn't previously aware and with which I don't have any problem. I'll try to locate a replacement image - although currently nothing springs to mind. For the record, I was inspired to create a photographic sequence of the course of the river by the article for the Rhymney River, which as you will see doesn't have an infobox. Finally, thank you very much for alerting me to the possibility of an editor adding an image to the infobox - if they can locate one, my response would be good luck to them. John Desmond (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year, DankJae! I hope all your editing in 2026 is interesting and enjoyable, and I look forward to your contributions in whichever discussions we find ourselves both participating in. All the best, A.D.Hope (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC) :)

@A.D.Hope, appreciated. Happy New Year to you too! DankJae 12:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi DankJae, thanks for making the titles of these two articles more specific given modern use of the terms. To clarify, the reason Northern and Southern Powys are preferred names than Powys Fadog and Powys Wenwynwyn is that these realms existed before Madog ap Gruffudd Maelor and Gwenwynwyn ab Owain Cyfeiliog, i.e. it is a bit silly to say Owain Cyfeiliog ruled Powys Wenwynwyn before his son was even born. This makes the present titles more neutral than the later medieval names found in older sources. I’m just clarifying this for future reference, in case there is any further discussion..! Tipcake (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@Tipcake Fair enough, I guess it makes more sense, especially for the southern bit with technically two names under each ruler, in the end my main issue was the lack of clarifier, so will leave it be. While one could follow WP:COMMONNAME strictly, I guess it can vaguely be a "geographic place" to be an exception to use WP:NCPLACE, which allows for historical names for places that no longer exist, so justifiable. There are a few sources using "North(ern) Powys", although also "Vadog" and "Lower Powys"?, as is for "South(ern) Powys" but agree it that is more complete and neutral over the two names "Powys Wenwynwyn" and "Powys Cyfeiliog", although a naming section would clear things up.

Diolch for any other work, always did wonder why Ial was used for the other article. DankJae 22:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@DankJae I must say I have never seen 'Lower' and 'Upper Powys' in any work since the Victorian period, and so one can safely say it is no longer in use. The same thing can be said for Vadog which is an obsolete (anglicised?) spelling of Fadog. Modern academic sources only use Northern/Southern Powys or Powys Fadog/Wenwynwyn, with the former being more common in more recent years. Keep in mind many modern papers on the subject are found in Welsh local history journals which are not found by Wikipedia's tools. I suspect 'Powys Cyfeiliog' was an invention of an earlier editor rather than from a real source as it 1) is not properly spelled, i.e. you would expect to see Powys Gyfeiliog with treiglad meddal and 2) it is imprecise as Cyfeiliog is itself a commote which was a part of the wider area known as Southern Powys. An earlier editor may have been confused by the first ruler of the domain being Owain Cyfeiliog and assumed that Cyfeiliog was the earlier name for his lordship, making the mistake of taking pars pro toto. Again, I'm just explaining things further for future reference. Tipcake (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Moneypenny (company), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moneypenny (company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Moneypenny logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Corporate Joint Committees of Wales indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:LJMU2020Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)