Talk:Ceredigion

Cardigan

Surely this should be under Cardigan? When the name was in use, this was surely the English name for it? john 09:44, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Anyone out there? Cardigan? I mean, I'm all for Welsh names for current Welsh provinces, but is it really conventional in English to call the old province "Ceredigion"? john 00:07, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

http://www.ceredigion.gov.uk/ has no mention of Cardigan as an alternate name.... Morwen 00:14, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that for "Traditional counties" that don't really have any real existence anymore, we should privilege current conventions over historic conventions. "Cardigan" or "Cardiganshire" is almost certainly more likely to be encountered than "Ceredigion" by most English-speakers in books, and so forth. However, from our articles it would appear that the old counties are back, which would mean that Ceredigion is a currently existing unit, in which case I withdraw the suggestion. If it is currently called Ceredigion/Cardigan, as it seems to be, the article should be there. john 04:44, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This entity is a welsh principal area and not an historic County. The article on Cardiganshire should deal exclusively with the historic County; this should deal exclusively with the welsh principal area that is currently calling itself "Ceredigion"; they are not the same entity, and neither aritlce should give such an impression. 80.255

This makes sense to me. john 15:42, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The name "Ceredigion" is the only name of the present modern-day county, and is used in both English and Welsh, There is no official English equivalent. "Cardiganshire" (although the same area as this county) refers to the historic county (1282-1974) and cannot be used as an English form of the word "Ceredigion". Other counties do have Welsh and English spellings (such as Ynys Mon/Anglesey, but Ceredigion is referred to as Ceredigion in both languages. Ceredigion can also be used to refer to the historic kingdom that existed before 1282 (originally ruled by King Ceredig in the 5th century) Edward conquered the principality of Wales in 1282 splitting the area into several counties. Cardigan was one of these counties, its name was an anglicization of the name Ceredigion as it co-incided roughly with the older Welsh kingdom of this name.

There is a town called Cardigan(Aberteifi) which used to be the county town of the old county of Cardiganshire, however, I suspect that this was named after the anglicized name Cardiganshire after the formation of that county due to it being the county town and was originally not connected with the name Ceredigion/Cardigan as the Welsh form of the town's name is Aberteifi (mouth of the river Teifi). Confusingly, this Welsh form of the towns name was used in the Welsh equivalent of the old county (Cardiganshire) as "Sir Aberteifi" (County of Aberteifi) rather than the word Ceredigion which is where the word Cardigan is derived from! --Cap 12:36, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please note that Cardiganshire still exists, as do all traditional counties. This is a common misconception. Trilobite (Talk) 22:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

please explain. --Cap 09:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You talk about Cardiganshire "the historic county (1282-1974)" which is erroneous. Cardiganshire was never abolished. Local government has been reorganised plenty of times over the whole of Britain, but the traditional counties were never abolished, they just ceased to correspond to the areas controlled by local authorities. See Traditional counties of Wales. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:22, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are simultaneously right and wrong, Trilobite. There is much nostalgia in England for the 'traditional counties' of the UK, but in Wales the issue is a little more complicated. The area which roughly corresponds to the current county of Ceredigion was called Ceredigion long before the English forced the name 'Cardiganshire' upon the place, which perhaps explains why the local council voted to rename the county Ceredigion instead of Cardiganshire as soon as they were able to. As such, you normally only get the English referring to the county as 'Cardiganshire' these days. Wikipedia articles should refer to the local name of the place and even English speakers in Wales refer to the county as Ceredigion. As such, Cardiganshire is only a historical entity and should be avoided today.Twrist 11:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• 5th Century Kingdom of Ceredigion
• 1282 County of Cardiganshire (Sir Aberteifi in Welsh (not Ceredigion!))
• 1974 Ceredigion, a region within Dyfed
• 1996-present Ceredigion, a county in Wales

This table suggests there is a single entity which has changed its borders over time. As such it is a gross simplification and plain wrong. What you are actually referring two are three separate things with overlapping timeframes - the kingdom, the county and the local government area. This would be better: Owain (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Kingdom of Ceredigion: 5th c. - 7th c. Incorporated into Seisyllwg, then in 10th c. into Deheubarth. Conquered 1282.
• County of Cardigan: 1282 - present day.
• Local government area: Cardiganshire 1889-1974. Ceredigion district 1974-1996. Ceredigion principal area 1996 - present day.

It may well be the case that Cardiganshire still exists because it was never officially abolished, fine - but the simple fact is, no-one refers to the place as Cardiganshire! As long as I've lived here, I've never once heard it called Cardiganshire. The important institutions in the county - The National Library of Wales and the University of Wales Aberystwyth and Lampeter all have 'Ceredigion' in their addresses; when you drive into the county, the signs say 'Ceredigion'; The local government, police and law refer to it as Ceredigion. If an obscure piece of law was discovered which stated London was actually called Saestown, in reality, people would still call it London. Perhaps that's a bad example, but my point is that it can be 'officially' called whatever you want - my concern here is that Wikipedia should represent a reality, not would you would like to be a reality. 217.43.204.15 15:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No-one? Have you asked every single person on the planet? I thought not. Since 2000, the Royal Mail have allowed people to put whatever they like in their addresses. What does that prove? When you drive into the county there are no signs marking it at all. The signs you are referring to are the signs put there by the local authority to mark ITS boundaries, not those of the county of Cardigan. It just so happens that because the two are so similar in area there are no separate signs. You will notice however that there ARE county border signs for Merioneth, Brecknock, Radnor and Montgomery. Signing is a local authority responsibility — hence the current mess. Owain (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 pennies' worth to this debate, the notification of Council Tax issued this week says, in very clear text - "Ceredigion County Council is the billing authority for the County of Ceredigion under the Local Government Finance Act 1992". Which would surely suggest that the aforementioned county exists under that name? If not, surely there are legal problems with this Council Tax notification? 81.157.92.20 14:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see what all the fuss is about. As someone who was in born in Ceredigion the 1970s, I remember some people - generally incomers and some older residents - referring to Cardiganshire/Sir Aberteifi, but Ceredigion is now almost universally used. Owain states that the that there are county border signs for Merioneth, Brecknock, Radnor and Montgomery, but they are NOT county border signs - rather the vestiges of the old districts, which followed, as a means of placating local concerns that they would lose their identities within the larger unitary authorities. Note that in the case of Meirionydd - the Welsh version was adopted as name of the district in 1974 - and this is the only version used on signs, not Meirionnydd/Merioneth. Moreover, the boundary signs for Arfon and Dwyfor are still used - both of which were districts formed out of part of the old Caernarfonshire.

desert?

On the understanding that the Ceredigion/Cardiganshire debate is over (see below), please allow me to raise a different issue. Should a Wikipedia article be referring to this county as a desert? I have only ever heard this word used in the phrase 'green desert' when referring to mid Wales - used in the sense that few people live here. For those not familiar with the UK or with Ceredigion, the word desert without clarification is likely to give the wrong impression. I realise that there is a link to another article 'desert of Wales', but I think that a brief clarification should occur within the article. Dalekmikey 16:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Welsh language data

Since the article says that Ceredigion has a very high proportion of Welsh speakers, I have put the 2001 census value in. There may be some readers who will say that 52% is not a "very high" proportion: perhaps it should say a "comparatively high" proportion. Source [NeSS]: 37918÷72884=0.5203 . . . .LinguisticDemographer 23:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"According to the 2001 census the number of Welsh speakers in Wales increased for the first time in 100 years," This isn't true, the number of Welsh speakers continued to rise up to the 1911 census.

School league table

I removed the 'league table' of school results because Estyn doesn't inspect schools annually, so the exam results cited won't necessarily be directly comparable. People may be aware that since 2001, the Assembly Government hasn't published individual school performance information.[1] Information on individual schools is still available in prospectuses and governors’ annual reports, but adding them all together to produce a local league table may violate WP:SYNTH. Pondle (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Ceredigion

---

It is proposed that Cardiganshire be merged into this article. The two articles essentially discuss the same place, which is unchanged apart from minor tweakings of the boundary. Wikipedia policy generally is that, in such cases, there should be a single article, which should include discussion of the changes that have taken place, and that the article should be under the modern name, with redirects from former names. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't specifically object to a merger, but I would ask that you check on exactly how much material is common and whether there is a likelihood of the merged article being unmanageably long. Deb (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd definitely support the merger into Ceredigion for the reasons given above by Skinsmoke. The old county was still called Ceredigion by the Welsh (ok, as well as 'Sir Aberteifi') and the areas match, more or less. Ceredigion also preceded the county of Cardiganshire/Sir Aberteifi. A history of Ceredigion therefore includes the history of Cardiganshire. As for the other details - topography etc - they are shared. Makes sense to have one article and it shouldn't make it much longer than it already is. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose This the is one of the historic names of the county/area/former kingdom; I propose renaming Cardiganshire to Cardiganshire{historic} as example of the counties listed here: Historic counties of Wales. Or do you propose to rename the location here as well? ~Geaugagrrl ^talk 05:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC) For further detail on the name of this part of Wales, read at the top of this talk page. ~Geaugagrrl ^talk 06:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't have separate articles for Caernarvonshire and Carnarvonshire, which are the historic names of Caernarfonshire, nor should we. They are all the same place, and Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear: a single article discussing all three names. Why is Cardiganshire/Ceredigion any different? Skinsmoke (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

PS This is not a proposal for a renaming of the article, but instead for merging them into one, which would incorporate the information from both articles (much of which is duplicated) into the new article. Cardiganshire would then redirect to the new combined page at Ceredigion. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So, if this proposed merge goes forward, eliminating a separate article on Cardiganshire, how do you intend to account for the 700 hundred year span of history when this portion of Wales was known as Cardiganshire? In each article specifically related to this time period and local, it shall be noted "formally known as Cardiganshire"? The beginning of the article states, "Cardiganshire (Welsh: Sir Aberteifi) was an ancient county of Wales created in 1282." It is one of the Thirteen Historic Counties of Wales, and as such should remain a distinct and separate article. For reference, listed below are other articles that will help understand how historic counties are documented on Wikipedia:

• Historic counties of Wales
• Historic counties of England
• Historic counties of Scotland

~Geaugagrrl

^talk 18:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think it should be too taxing to incorporate the 5 lines on that 700 year span of history that are at present on the Cardiganshire article, into the Ceredigion article. We might even manage to get the line and a half on the county after 1889, which is under "Government" into it as well! Most of the Cardiganshire article (just over half the page) is actually taken up with describing the geography of the county; something that is equally as relevant to Ceredigion, and largely duplicated on the Ceredigion page. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not entirely correct to refer, as Geaugagrrl does, to "the 700 hundred year span of history when this portion of Wales was known as Cardiganshire". It also continued to be known as Ceredigion in Welsh for the whole of that period (together with Sir Aberteifi for the new county per se, although when the latter name became current I'm not sure - but almost certainly not immediately after the county's creation). If you give me the time I could come up with numerous examples of the name being used by Welsh authors right up to the late 20th century and the creation of the present county (however, many of them are scattered in old books, often without indexes, so I would need an evening or two going through my shelves to do that properly and even then it would only be a sample, of course). The modern county of Ceredigion was not named after the ancient kingdom as such, indeed it did not have to be named after anything as the name 'Ceredigion' has been part of Welsh culture for many centuries. It has been used by the Welsh people for about 1500 years to refer to that part of Wales: by comparison 'Cardiganshire' was just an upstart. All the more reason for merging Cardiganshire into Ceredigion; ancient kingdom, historical region and modern county. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

PS I can supply a selective list of references for the use of 'Ceredigion' as the name for the area spanning the period from the 12th to the 20th century if required (all that's missing so far is one from the 17th century, but I'm sure that can be remedied). Enaidmawr (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Historic counties of Wales I note that Caernarvonshire (noted to the right of the main map) is a redirect to Caernarfonshire. Would there be a problem similarly redirecting of Cardiganshire to Ceredigion? Daicaregos (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The lack of a response indicates there would be no problem at all. Daicaregos (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Support The historical name should be in the text it doesn't justify an article --Snowded ^TALK 17:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Per proposer. Daicaregos (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Support per proposer and for the reasons I've already stated above. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nonsense merge

So I see this 'merger' has been pushed through by three editors in the space of three days! What nonsense. It goes against all policies to have separate articles for separate things even though they happen to geographically overlap. It has totally ignored the debate above that suggested no such merger was possible or desirable. It is not so much a merger as a plain redirect. There has been precisely no merging at all. Owain (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Maps and boundaries

There are two very similar maps on the page. There has been plenty of useful discussion above about the various names and areas. So far we have no references to the differences (if there are any) in the areas covered by the various incarnations. There is just an un sourced assertion in the lead that they are "largely identical". If there are differences, it might then be worthwhile having two maps, or one map with the differences indicated. As it is at present one of the maps seems redundant.SovalValtos (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Cardiganshire

@Cwmhiraeth:. Was it intentional to talk extensively about Cardiganshire with "Cardiganshire had a substantial population in the early modern period but this declined during the nineteenth century as wider social and economic developments affected all aspects of Cardiganshire life. Traditional industries were in decline, agriculture was in decline and it was becoming increasingly difficult for a still-rising population to earn a living within their native parishes and communities. By the first half of the twentieth century, falling livestock prices and greater world competition made farming unprofitable and many residents of Ceredigion moved to other parts of South Wales, where there were better employment opportunities, and many more emigrated to the United States, Canada, Patagonia and Australia.[11] Another factor was that the great landed estates of the county, which for so long had dominated the politics of the county, were in many cases heavily in debt. This second factor contributed to the loss of landowner influence in the politics of the county, a trend that became very apparent at the first elections to the Cardiganshire County Council in 1889.[20" ? It's a different county today.

I would expect the landmarks section to have some prose sections summarising them here rather than a bulleted list. Also I thought there might be mention of sport and education. Isn't fishing worth mentioning in the economy? I always though some of those towns on that coast were fishing ones.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld:The source used Cardiganshire so I did likewise. You could say that the term "Ceredigion" is political, a determination to revert to a previously used Welsh name in an effort to retain the "Welshness" of the county. I suppose I should be consistent and call the county Cardiganshire up till 1996 and Ceredigion thereafter. I could expand the local landmarks into a prose section. Education and sport would be difficult; I've mentioned the universities and the schools differ little from those in other parts of Wales; I don't think there are any Ceredigion sporting teams at county level. Fishing nowadays is a leisure activity and not a commercial one I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that it's relevant to history before 1996. What about subdivisions? Communities/parishes? Usually county articles have a sub structure like that and identify them. For sport I was thinking of something like I added to Vale of Glamorgan (though I've not finished sourcing and continuing with it and that article yet). Find the main towns and what teams are in them and try to compile something half decent for sport. Doesn't need much, but I think a basic good article on a county should try to outline things like sport and education, even if brief.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I will work along the lines you suggest tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That looks fine. I think all it needs now is to flesh out the landmarks section with a summary of the most notable buildings and nuke the bulleted list, add some pretty images to that section and this will be looking good enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ceredigion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 12:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Will do this shortly. JAGUAR  12:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "The county is mainly rural with large parts being hill or mountain land" - how about hilly? Feel free to ignore this if you don't like it

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• The third paragraph of the lead is lacking links. Try linking silver, zinc, or EU

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• "More recently, the population has started rising again as elderly people move into the county for a peaceful retirement" - not sure if 'peaceful retirement' sounds informal to use here, I would just rephrase to for retirement

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• "where Rugby, Northampton and London were important destinations" - link Rugby, Warwickshire and Northampton

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Cardiganshire had a substantial population in the early modern period" - why the use of 'Cardiganshire' now? I've seen Ceredigion been used throughout the rest of the article

The word "Ceredigion" refers to a historic kingdom and to the present county (since 1996). At all other times, the county was known as Cardiganshire. I have edited the article to tried to rationalise this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Another factor was that the great landed estates of the county, which for so long had dominated the politics of the count" - I don't understand this

Rephrased to clarify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• "the British Government realised" - I don't think 'government' needs to be capitalised

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• "The River Teifi is a renowned salmon fishing river" - link River Teifi

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• "A bus service known as "Bwcabus" operates in the south of the county offering customised transport to rural dwellers" - 'dwellers' refer to people, so "transporting to people" sounds a bit wrong. Should this be either dwellings (rural houses) or transport for rural dwellers?

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ref 14 redirects to the main page

Not sure about this, which reference do you mean? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The toolserver picked up that ref 14 was a redirect, but I've checked it myself and it should be OK. Might be an error on the toolserver's part. JAGUAR  14:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• DAB links OK

Nor this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation links. I check for them in every review, and didn't find any here JAGUAR  14:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Excellent work with this article! I enjoyed reading it. I found a couple of things that confused me, but once all of the above are clarified then this should be good to go. JAGUAR  12:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them, with all of the issues clarified this looks good to go now. JAGUAR  14:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources for article expansion

More historical info available at the EB articles linked, although note that they seem to give the wrong actors for the Battle of Crug Mawr. — LlywelynII 15:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Note also that, contra the source previously in the article, Seisyllwg wasn't a name that Ceredigion adopted in the 7th century but a later name given to it by Welsh historians/genealogists. It remained known as Ceredigion at the time. — LlywelynII 16:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Dyfed

@Roger 8 Roger, Gareth Griffith-Jones, and LlywelynII: My understanding is that the county of Cardiganshire was abolished in 1974 when it was combined with Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire to form the county of Dyfed. At this time it became the local government district of Ceredigion. In 1996, Dyfed ceased to exist and the original counties were restored for administrative purposes. If you agree with me that these facts are correct, the article and lead can be adjusted. I do not intend to do this myself without approval because Roger 8 Roger will probably revert me again if I do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: The historic county was never abolished, and never can be because it is an historic area. It's use for local government administration was ended in 1974. The 19997 changes were further changes to local administration, including naming a new administrative area Ceredigion. This is the same name as the Welsh name used for the historic county of Cardingshire. Perhaps this debate should be about what Ceredigion this article is dealing with otherwise further confusion will arise. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The matter of historic counties, ceremonial counties and geographic counties, quite apart from the change of name from Cardiganshire to Ceredigion is quite confusing. The exact scope of the article should perhaps be clarified. If you think the History section is wrong at present, it should be corrected, and then a summary added to the lead. Let's see what the others have to say. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is confusing. What compounds that confusion is that the average person (and WP editors?) treats historic counties and administrative areas called counties as variations of the same thing. This problem is enormous and I am concerned that wikipedia articles about counties everywhere have never properly dealt with this. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It might be better to have an article at Cardiganshire rather than the current redirect. This could deal with all issues relating to the history of the historic county, its status as an historic county, the retained ceremonial roles associated with the historic county (Lord Lieutenant etc ) together with a link in the opening sentence to the current adminstrative county. My recollection was that the historic county and the administrative county did have some minor variations introduced in 1974 around Cardigan town and possibly around Newcastle Emlyn or Llandyssul area where the boundary departs from the strict line of the River Teifi, but I have no sources to substantiate this. If this division was adopted , then most of the material would stay in the article about the administrative county as it deals with the current entity that most people recognise as Ceredigion. This would be an easily defended fork as the administrative and historic entities are quite distinct and can be recognisably so.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   01:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

In spite of minor boundary changes, modern Ceredigion is essentially a resumption of the old Cardiganshire. It was incorporated in Dyfed for only 22 years, during which time it was thought of as a "traditional" county. It is a cultural entity as well as an administrative unit. Don't let the name change mislead you, in recent decades many Welsh places have changed from Anglicised names to Welsh names. Are you proposing separate articles Carnarvonshire and Caernarfonshire? We don't have a different articles for Germany every time its borders changed. There should be one article, which should describe the modern Ceredigion and the history of Ceredigion and Cardiganshire. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

No, its nothing to do with the name change. I lived in Cardiganshire/ Dyfed/ Ceredigion during the 1974 reorganisation and know the context well. This is all about the status of the relevant entities. So, no, I have no wish to restore the anglisized names of Welsh counties or to argue the minutiae of boundary changes. Historic counties are separate and different entities from administrative counties. All I am proposing is that we reflect that difference in our article structure, and if one of those differences is a minor boundary difference, then that is of low importance but an interesting note nonethless.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   05:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I was arguing against the suggestion that we have different articles for Cardiganshire and Ceredigion. As far as I have looked, this has not been done for other British or Irish counties. There is not enough material to justify splitting the article of grounds of size, and surely we can resolve any dispute about how to present its history. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I support Cwmhiraeth's reversal – which instigated the discussion – and agree with Velella's comments above. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  14:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this a dispute about the facts, or their presentation? I think these facts relating to local government are:

• 1889-1974: County of Cardiganshire, Cardiganshire County Council
• 1974-1996: Ceridigion local government district, part of the new county of Dyfed, Dyfed County Council
• 1996-present: Unitary authority of Ceridigion, Ceredigion County Council

@Roger 8 Roger: do you challenge this? If not then please clarify you reasons for this revert. If the summary in the lead conflicts with the body of the article then we should fix the incorrect text, not delete the correct text. I agree that the main text is confusing, mainly because it is split between the Local government section and the last paragraph of the History section. These should be combined, and the organisation of the sections of the articles should probably be improved. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a dispute about both in my opinion. Your list about LGA is fine but that is exactly what it is about Local Government. The article called Ceredigion deals with the current LGA, the historic county, the earlier 1974-96 LGA, and anything else with a loose connection to the word Ceredigion. Your list gives the strong impression that the historic county of Cardiganshire ended in 1889 and was replaced by a new County of Cardiganshire. That is not correct. A new County of Cardiganshire (for admin purposes) was created to take over the local govt admin that the earlier historic county had dealt with, and that new local govt area was very similar, but different from, the area of the historic county. This fact, plus the use of the term 'county' for the new LGA has caused so much confusion. Solution here? I really am not sure because the confusion on wikipedia is so deep seated throughout the UK. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Is your point that "county" is both a cultural entity and a local government territory, that this county existed as a cultural entity before 1889 and from 1974 to 1996, and that the article should reflect this? I am basically in agreement with this point. Local government issues should be covered in Cardiganshire County Council, Dyfed County Council and Ceredigion County Council, with summaries here. Unfortunately, Dyfed County Council redirects to Dyfed, which has only a brief section on the council.

Can we identify any non-government institutions associated with the county? There was a Ceredigion Cricket Club in 1897 but I have found no evidence of it being sufficiently notable. The Ceredigion Methodist Circuit might qualify.

I notice that Historic counties of Wales says that Cardiganshire (Sir Aberteifi or Ceredigion) originated in 1282, following King Edward I's conquest. It does not appear to give a source, but the first place I'd look is John Davies, A History of Wales, ISBN 0-14-028475-3 Verbcatcher (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"the name was anglicised to Cardigan and then Cardiganshire"

The above line in the lead references EB1878 for "Cardigan" and EB1911 for "Cardiganshire". The problem with this is that EB1878 omits the "shire" from "Xshire" in its articles where X is a town (e.g. Worcester, York). Whereas EB1911 doesn't. Neither are much use as references in this way. According to the Cardigan article, "Cardigan" is an Anglicisation of "Ceredigion", but it doesn't follow that that Anglicisation had to be applied to the whole county unqualified. More than likely, the name "Cardigan" for the county was of the form "County of Cardigan", as was the case for counties in the medieval era. Can we change that line in the lead to something like "Known for centuries in English as Cardiganshire, it began to be administered as a county in 1282"? --Inops (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I suspect it is unclear whether the English name Cardigan was first applied to the town or to the county (or the area). The name Cardiganshire could be derived from the English name of the town, or it could have been introduced for disambiguation between a town and a county that had the same name. I agree that the 1878 and 1911 editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica are poor sources for this. I support Inops' proposed text. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

No objections, so I've changed the line to my suggestion. --Inops (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Info box image

I rather agree User:Gareth Griffith-Jones that one simple image in the info-box would be of benefit. The rural nature of the county is mentioned in several sections although there are also cultural aspects and buildings of interest. Might some image similar to [2] suit. The combination of foreground coastal material and then farming and mountains is what I have in mind. It would help if it were a large file.SovalValtos (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your support.Yes, I like your example. We must wait for responses from others. Cheers!
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

So do I like the example. Be bold. Cheers, both. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I have added the image, Melindwr, Eglwys Fach to the Info' box.
In my opinion, we don't need a "caption".—do you both agree?
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the addition for now, and that it does not need a caption. I due course a better single image may be uploaded or found but this is better than the previous collage.SovalValtos (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I quite agree.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, both. I deleted the Carmarthenshire montage, BTW. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I noticed. You beat me to it.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Name

I cannot see how including English approximations of a Welsh name is reasonable when they are potentially limitless. If you take 10 English speakers unfamiliar with the name 'Ceredigion' and ask them to describe it phonetically, you may very well end up with 10 approximations. The Welsh pronunciation is standard and consistent. Even if some of the more common English approximations are sourced, it doesn't change the above. This is simply giving weight to a whim based on it being published. At the very least, I believe that it would be advantageous to note that they are approximations and only exist (imperfectly) in relation to the standard Welsh name. English speakers from Ceredigion, or those settled there, use the Welsh pronunciation, after all. 2A00:23EE:1940:1DA5:259F:3258:4982:3C2C (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

We go with what reliable sources say. Please stop removing cited material. This is the English-language Wikipedia, so referenced material giving English pronunciations is perfectly proper. DuncanHill (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You seem unhappy even when the English pronunciations are kept but follow the Welsh pronunciation of which they are approximations. There is a standard and consistent Welsh name; the English pronunciations are approximations of that name. That is not a novel interpretation, but how it is. Surely it makes sense for the approximations to follow the Welsh pronunciation they are dependent on? 2A00:23EE:1940:1DA5:259F:3258:4982:3C2C (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Read MOS:DUALPRON. English comes first. FutureFlowsLoveYou (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Golwg unllygeidiog yw golwg yr uniaith. 2A00:23EE:1940:1DA5:259F:3258:4982:3C2C (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Yoshi24517 you reverted an IP with edsum "unexplained content removal",[3] but the IP did leave an edsum (although unhelpfully it was in Welsh). The edsum argues that as there is no standard English pronunciation of the word, Ceredigion, that the respell guff is unnecessary. They then explain they are in favour of the removal and think others in Wales would be too. Now I don't wholly agree with the IP, but I do think all that respell stuff is unnecessary, and they have a point about not needing a suggested standard English pronunciation. It looked like a good edit to me. Would anyone like to argue the opposite? If not, I propose to remove the information myself. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

This is an English language version. Putting an edit summary in Welsh is just showing off and is extremely rude. For the purposes of the English language wikipedia there was no explanation for the content renewal. If the previous editor wants to make changes they can justify them in English. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, edsums should be in English. But that is not an argument to keep three different pronunciations. It is a Welsh word, and explaining how it is pronounced in Welsh is enough. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

No it isn't. You have to justify removing cited material. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

So as explained above, having three pronunciations described, all differing only in the pronunciation of a couple of vowels, and two of them merely representing usage in two localities, is unnecessary. The IP said that and I agree. To unpack that a little more - the dictionaries are citing usage, which is what dictionaries do. They are tertiary and not secondary sources, and in this case they express (based on some unspecified criteria) an assessment that this is how people in the UK and the US tend to pronounce the word. The IP makes the point that there is no UK or US standard, and that is correct. there isn't. If kɛrəˈdɪɡiən is heard in England, it certainly isn't heard in Wales, here it is always, in my experience, kɛrɛˈdɪɡjɔn. Thus kɛrəˈdɪɡiən is not a UK usage. Rather it is likely to be an English usage.

It is not good encyclopaedic information to tell a reader, in the lead, how to mispronounce a Welsh word like an Englishman (or with an American accent). At best this merits some discussion in the main about variations in pronunciation. The fact of all those references in the first line of the lead shows that this information does not meet MOS:LEAD (not a summary of anything in the main text) and is not written with respect of MOS:LEADCITE.

Finally, the IP did (rather unhelpfully - in Welsh) justified the removal. I haven't removed it yet, but see no reason not too soon. This discussion is justification. Having made that justification, the burden of gaining conensus is on those wishing to include disputed content, regardless of whether there are citations, per WP:ONUS. This is because, as in this case, information can be cited but not due on a page. Editor consensus is required for the inclusion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

So far we've had dogmatic statements by you and, possibly, if they were comprehensible, by the IP editor. What you haven't produced is a reliable source for your assertations. On the other hand we do have sourced information for the existing content, even if you don't like it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

So far we have an argument for removal and no argument for retention. It should not be in the lead, per MOS:LEAD, it is sourced to tertiary sources that only relate usage (that's what dictionaries do), and it is a Welsh word with a regular Welsh pronunciation. If there are a range of pronunciations in other countries, and if those are notable, they can be discussed in the main, but the lead is a summary of the main and that discussion does not exist there. Before simply reverting to the IP's edit, per WP:ONUS, I asked if there were reasons to retain three different pronunciations in the opening sentence. The fact a dictionary is cited is not a reason. The question is why we have an English and American version. Why not Indian or Chinese? Why not German or French? What use is it to a reader to be told the wrong pronunciation before they are told the right one? That is what I am trying to tease out. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Creating straw men is not helpful to the discussion. The reason we have anglophone versions is because this is the English Wikipedia. If you want to move the pronunciation from the lead to the appropriate section, that's fine. If you want to change it you will have to find reliable sources to justify it. Claiming that "everybody says it that way" (whatever "that" is) is not adequate. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not a straw man. As some 250 million people speak English in India, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to bias our article towards the UK/US. Fewer people speak English well in China, but it is still in the millions. It is unconscious bias to select between just two English variants. You could make a case for a UK pronunciation, as the place is in the UK, but then, the place is in Wales, and yet for some reason we list the actual Welsh pronunciation of this Welsh word last! What are the secondary sources that justify us mentioning kɛrəˈdɪɡiən at all? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)