User talk:DankJae/Archives/2023/June

Discussion at ANI

I think you will have seen the notices elsewhere, but discussion from you is referenced in a discussion at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Titus Gold - Civil POV Pushing and Disruptive Editing. Possible Sock Puppetry, so this is just a heads up. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for going around and applying some consistency to the Welsh county infoboxes (among other things). It's boring work but you've made the place look a lot neater! A.D.Hope (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks DankJae 19:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Brecon Beacons

Hi Jae!

I have been a bit bold in merging the Brecon Beacons and National Park articles, but it seemed preferable to a discussion in this case. Neither article was in particularly good shape, and there was a lot of overlap between them — a lot more effort seems to have gone into the name issue than actually improving the text. All in all the split seemed to have caused more problems than it solved, so rather than wait I just made the edit. Overall I think it's an improvement, but I'm sure we'll soon find out as other editors notice.

As a side note, I thought the (Welsh) in infoboxes was just an indicator of which language the name belonged to? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

While quite bold, I understand it and have no strong opinions, although we'll see if others do.

On the last point, I'd argue if the native name is used a sufficiently in English, it becomes more of an English alternative name than exclusively the name used in another language. I believe the tag refers to or more likely gives the reader the impression, that the Welsh name is only used in Welsh, so I'd prefer it just listed as an alternative name. DankJae 17:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense, and I think listing all three names in the infoboxes of Snowdonia and the Brecon Beacons is a good way of conveying that information.

I'm sure you must be annoyed by my tinkering by now, but do you have any thoughts on the lead sentences as they currently stand? My thinking is that "Snowdonia or Eryri is a mountainous region and national park in northwestern Wales" conveys that the area has two names and is both a range and national park without getting too caught up in definitions or trying to cover all the bases. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The wording is not to different from what was before, so no clear issues to me. As Eryri is the Welsh name for the region too, I expect it technically also mean the area to a lesser degree. Ofc, if you still have concerns be free to start a discussion at its talk rather than here.

I don't claim ownership of the article, so I am not here to enforce the status quo on your good faith and largely only minor rewording edits, you are free to be bold! and no strong opinions so not annoyed by it. Although if you do majorly change the context (more than just re-wording) then that may benefit from a discussion, but the lead was just a sentence not a long time ago so any expansion of the lead based on the body is welcomed! (Expanding the article overall is even better!) But it doesn't seem to be any different than what it was before, so it's fine. Happy editing! DankJae 14:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello again! I do appreciate you 'tidying up' after me — I can be more focussed on the text than things like categories, so it's helpful. I will try to be more thorough to save you the bother, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem, I have various geographic articles in Wales, North West England and West Midlands on my watchlist, being somewhat local, so notice them sometimes. Although if you move further into England, that is where my expertise stops :D DankJae 18:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Cornwall

You might want to read Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Guideline. DuncanHill (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Meur ras! @DuncanHill, while an apparent weak consensus, I assume WP:CornwallGuideline (Cornwall, England, United Kingdom/UK) is the consensus? I assume articles such as Truro, St Ives and Cornwall have since fallen foul of this guideline, so should those articles and all the ones I've altered change to the guideline's recommendations?

Just wondering why WP:UKTOWNS makes no mention of it? DankJae 18:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

England

I'm not sure why you want to promote the Englishness of Cornish places and people so much, with no explanation in your edit summaries. "UK" is also "fine", so I'm not sure why the need to change. As a Cornish person, I find this kind of Anglicisation of Cornwall pretty obnoxious, and completely unnecessary. There is no guideline or policy anywhere which requires this kind of change, so I wonder why you are doing it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Dydh da @Bretonbanquet; Per Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Lead, the constituent country is only used. While I have sympathy to Cornish people wishing to assert themselves separate from England, I had noticed IPs removing "England" from multiple articles or describing Cornwall as not part of England, therefore decided to apply the preferred guidance as "United Kingdom" is rarely used on other (settlement) articles in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Ofc, an exception could be discussed for Cornwall, but so far I do not see agreement for it?

While you may perceive this to be an "Anglicisation", unfortunately as of now Cornwall is part of England (so the most anglicisation unfortunately :/). IP edits should not try to hide it. But ofc, if consensus for an exception is made where England (and I guess United Kingdom to an extent) can be removed from Cornish articles then I would welcome such an exception. Meur ras DankJae 17:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There was a consensus at one stage to show both England and the UK in Cornish articles, but hell knows where it is now. Making something appear more English is the very definition of Anglicisation, but that said, I would not advocate removal of England from such articles. I do find the replacement of "UK" with "England" unnecessarily pointy, particularly as "UK" is entirely accurate. But most editors seem to find "UK" redundant: of course they do, because their nationality is not being questioned.

On a slightly different note, I'm sure you're aware that Cornish people do have minority status, and are, in law, as separate from the English as are the Welsh [1], so it's important not to describe people who might have considered themselves Cornish (such as those born in Cornwall) as English, without a reliable source. All Cornish people are British, but not all Cornish people are English, so "British" is almost always accurate, whereas "English" may not be. Gorhemynadow a'n gwella, Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet, I'll try and find that discussion, but I am not disputing including both England and United Kingdom, I am fine with that, happy to re-add United Kingdom on specifically non-settlement articles (as UKGEO directly applies to settlement ones). I specifically targeted those which omitted England entirely, when I noticed an IP edit replacing England for United Kingdom, and as the UKGEO prefers England, so applied that, although again fine with also adding United Kingdom. Understand if it comes a bit pointy, and yes saw UK as a bit redundant and out-of-place compared to all other articles. However, Cornwall political-geographically is part of England (although sympathetic to those wishing otherwise), but ofc when it comes to nationality agree that is it not as clear cut and one can be Cornish and British but not English.

I'll accept my edits to individuals are a bit more messy, I restored the original nationality to revert edits that I assume ignored MOS:ETHNICITY and WP:UKCHANGE by changing it without discussion. But of course if there are individuals where there are sources giving preference for Cornish (or British) over English (or British) and that the original nationality on the article is proven to be incorrect, I fully support putting the correct nationality. I guess I'd agree that when it is unknown if one is Cornish or English (if not both), then British should be applied as the default. Same was kinda agreed on various Welsh biographies where some editors mass changed "British" to "Welsh" without discussion nor reviewed sources. DankJae 18:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That sounds fair. IPs will always drive by and swap between the two on thousands of articles; it's what they do. It's why enforcing uniformity is ultimately impossible. I always found the argument that "UK" is redundant to be an odd one; it's a sovereign nation, yet apparently the only one in the world which could be considered redundant and replaced with a non-independent country. For people who identify as British, it's frustrating to have the name of your country deleted as "redundant". No wonder Americans are perennially confused by it all.

With individuals who clearly identify as a particular nationality, it's straightforward enough to follow the reliable sources. Some editors squirm at "Cornish", but "British" is a fair substitute. "English" is not, for those people. I guess I'd say we should worry less about the original nationality on an article, and more about stating a correct one. Technically, if there's no source for "English" or "Scottish" or whatever, then it should say "British". That's what the passport says, and cannot be incorrect. But enforcing that will earn you enemies. It's a tricky subject. Some editors firmly believe that birthplace dictates which constituent country one identifies with, but there are thousands of examples to the contrary. Mass changes are rarely helpful. It's a shame there aren't more clear-cut guidelines on nationality, as they would really help. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet, tbh I would prefer adding United Kingdom to the home nations, however "Wrexham, Wales, United Kingdom", "London, England, United Kingdom" and "Loch Ness, Scotland, United Kingdom" quickly becomes quite long, which is why I assumed chopping off UK gained support, and matching common speech in some way, the UK nations have their individual pride. And in the end, preferred consistency per consensus than my personal opinion when it comes to locations. Similar applies to US states, "United States" is sometimes cut off in locations.

Agree with stating the correct nationality, I just assumed the article creator hopefully knew most about the article, and with no apparent discussion, and some cases the change being done by an IP, boldly restored the original. But I don't aim to delve too much into nationalities, just followed the edits of an IP, who had been writing Cornwall as not part of England and became concerned and assumed agenda-based editing. I have to check many Welsh biographies but aim for a indepth discussion for each, which is time-consuming. Agree there is no easy solution to nationalities, hence why WP:UKNATIONALS exists, and some may not like British applying to many. I've seen the birth-place argument raised, and amused that it was raised on English/British people born in Wales, but just happen to be "forgot" on Welsh people born in England, and I value the sources argument over "being born in". In the end, nationality indeed cannot be consistent, I do not aim to make it as such. If an individual is sourced/self-describes as Cornish, Welsh, English, Londoner, British, whatever then if sources support that then they should be described as such (ideally following a discussion) IMO.

The biographies where I changed the nationality were reverts of the same IP, at Selina Cooper, John Lobb, Hugh Goldie, and Sir Johnathan Trelawny. I do not aim to mass change all Cornish biographies to English/British or vice versa.

Also is the guideline, in the section below, the consensus for Cornwall? Nos da DankJae 22:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's the guideline, or consensus. You're probably right regarding the reason for "UK" being unpopular in these situations, as it seems long-winded to some. "US" is the usual format for American placenames, and it should be included, but they have similar issues with IPs trawling around removing it or adding it.

Often the original creator will know most about the subject, but sometimes articles are just thrown together simply to get them started, without too much concern for accuracy. I agree that discussions for each are the ideal way to solve problems, but yes, they're very time-consuming. I usually stick to those I feel strongly about. Haha, yes, I've seen many occasions where the birthplace argument is used to claim that the subject is English, but it's amazing how often it's ignored when it doesn't suit people. That's infuriating. Certainly, following the sources can rarely be wrong, particularly if there's an interview or quote from the subject which clarifies it. But sometimes even that isn't sufficient for some people; I recall the case of Idris Elba, who, even though he has clearly stated that he considers himself English, was considered British by some simply because "black people can't be English". Unfortunately Wikipedia attracts such people. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)