![]() | Welsh Lost Lands was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 9 January 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into EnglandâWales border. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from EnglandâWales border appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 November 2008, and was viewed approximately 3,872 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Debate copied from
User talk:PeeJay2K3 and
User talk:Ghmyrtle:
I know what the guidance
WP:BOLDTITLE says. The problem is that, without a bold title in the lead paragraph, the article looks odd, unfinished and scrappy. You may not agree, but 99% at least of articles have that bold title. In my view, the best solution (contrary to guidance) is to have the words closest to the title emboldened, as in my original draft. The second best version is my last draft, to revise the paragraph so that it contains the actual words of the title, emboldened, and in my view reads almost as well as the original. Your version, reverting to the original wording but with no words emboldened, in my view reads fine but just looks bad.
Ghmyrtle (
talk) 11:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
On the basis of the above discussion I've (tentatively? boldly!) changed it back to my Plan B wording, which uses the precise words of the article title even if it's not quite the flowing prose that we should aim for. Hope that's OK at least for the time being, to get it through the DYK process (assuming it's otherwise acceptable to the arbiters of that process). Ghmyrtle ( talk) 23:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I had not appreciated that the article was so recently created when I added to it yesterday, and hope my addition has not harmed what the creator was intending. This is a very much more satisfactory article than Welsh Marches, which is trying to deal with several different topics and doing none of them well. Now we have got this article, can we between us take action to prune the other down? I do not suggest merging because doing so would spoil this fairly well-written article. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I like the wording in the actual section on Monmouthshire, which explains the problem; but the wording in the intro and elsewhere should probably be sharpened a tad. Since the border can be reasonably held to have passed west of Monmouthshire in the nineteenth century, saying it is essentially unchanged is a bit of an oversimplification.
This may not be worth an edit war with the Gwent Retrieval Squad; but it would be nice if the reader saw a somewhat stronger hint of complications ahead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the following text from the article:
Known by the Welsh as the Welsh-English Border, and by the English as the English-Welsh Border, the Walesâ England border........... is commonly referred to as "the borders". British author Chris Roberts notes that "it is a linguistic curiosity that in the UK the internal boundary regions between England and Wales (and England and Scotland) are referred to as 'the Borders' rather than 'the border'. He reasons that such is because there are two borders: a Welsh-English border for the Welsh, and an English-Welsh border for the English.
The reference for this "information" is Chris Roberts, Heavy Words Lightly Thrown: The Reason Behind Rhyme, Thorndike Press,2006 ( ISBNÂ 0-7862-8517-6). Now, I'm sure he may have had a reason for writing that, but the problem is that it's total bollocks. The Scottish borders are called "The Borders", but I've never heard the Welsh border called that - "The Marches" perhaps. I know a reference was provided for the "information", and I know I shouldn't revert things simply because (I think) they are untrue, but I couldn't help myself on this occasion. Does anyone else think it helps the article to keep a reference to this alleged "linguistic curiosity" in there? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 16:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
@ Ghmyrtle:, @ Peterkingiron:: I ended up here because I was reviewing this edit by the same now blocked editor who added the above material from the same book by Chris Roberts. It was a strange edit because Roberts is not writing on law, so would not be the best WP:RS, and the WP:RS that was there from better legal sources was deleted in the same edit. I also noticed that Chris Roberts (author) was red suggesting it had been deleted, which is correct, having gone through two WP:AfDs: 1st with non-consenus, same editor vigorously defending it and then second kills it, even though we have this on NPR about the same book, which actually makes it sound like a "good read". I wondered if the now blocked editor was plugging the book, or just reading it and adding information from it as refs to our articles. It is hard to me to decipher whether the unhelpful edits are the result of the editor's poor judgment (or questionable purpose) or whether the book itself was shoddy scholarship (or both). (I saw one comment claiming it was self-published). Regardless of the cause(s), the same book is found in a number of our articles [1], and I am concerned that if these uses of the work as refs are questionable if that would also apply to other uses of the same book. If the purpose was to plug the book--it worked on me, as I do want to see for myself if it is as good as it sounds. Curious if either of you have any thoughts on it? I think I will post on WP:RS/N -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I think this article could do with a map of the current border. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.122.12 ( talk) 10:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
As that request - over seven years (!!) ago - led to no action, I think we should make a new request for a map at WP:GL/MAP. In my view, a map needs to show the whole length of the border, with equal detail on both sides; some topographical detail (relief, rivers), major settlements, major transport routes (rail, road); and administrative divisions (council areas). What do others think? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
If that is too complex, something similar to this - File:Anglo-Scottish.border.modern.png - would perhaps suffice. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 13:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Although this article explains where the line is, it does not explain why the border is "there"? For instance there are two huge salients on both sides of the border near Chirk (Wales) and Oswestry (England). Or for instance Churchstoke (English name) is in a salient formed by Powys. Yet only â mile to the west there is an isthmus that has England, to the West and Wales to the East! ( here).
It's more fascinating when the irregular line of the border is examined more closely. It's often drawn straight from coast-to-coast but it isn't. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.66.217 ( talk) 14:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
This town appears only to be in Wales. Another, similarly-named, place is in England and the two settlements are contiguous. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 ( talk) 18:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian ( talk) 12:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
WalesâEngland border â EnglandâWales border â Though not codified in a policy or guideline, convention is pretty clear that border articles should be named alphabetically, as this is the most neutral way to avoid warring over favoritism. See, for example, this RM and the members of Category:Borders by country. BDD ( talk) 18:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
In this edit, User:Daicaregos described an unsourced but uncontentious statement as "nonsense". However, in many cases, towns and villages in Wales were founded as Anglo-Norman settlements; there is no evidence that their unpopulated locations had Welsh names previously. Prestatyn was originally an English village called Preston; Caergwrle was originally an English village called Corley; etc. Those specific examples are referenced from Hywel Wyn Owen's Place-names of Wales. I haven't reverted the edit because I haven't yet found a source for the general statement - but, it is certainly not "nonsense" to state that some places in Wales had English names before they had Welsh names. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 11:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on EnglandâWales border. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of EnglandâWales border's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "BBC2017-09-15":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⥠20:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
It states that some non-Brythonic language was spoken in Lloegyr - what is the evidence for this? Roryharrow ( talk) 05:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm making this section but there is a massive problem being that I don't know if these exclaves were present before the acts made during or sometime after I don't know anybody who knows this. Where there changes to the border in the later 16th and 17th century?
the welsh bicknor wiki states that it was still in Herefordshire in the later 16th and early 17th century I don't see how that could be true and if it is that opens up the question on weather other areas had changes that I don't know of does anybody here know anyone who can help me with this Editor account 2222 ( talk) 14:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Welsh Lost Lands was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 9 January 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into EnglandâWales border. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from EnglandâWales border appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 November 2008, and was viewed approximately 3,872 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Debate copied from
User talk:PeeJay2K3 and
User talk:Ghmyrtle:
I know what the guidance
WP:BOLDTITLE says. The problem is that, without a bold title in the lead paragraph, the article looks odd, unfinished and scrappy. You may not agree, but 99% at least of articles have that bold title. In my view, the best solution (contrary to guidance) is to have the words closest to the title emboldened, as in my original draft. The second best version is my last draft, to revise the paragraph so that it contains the actual words of the title, emboldened, and in my view reads almost as well as the original. Your version, reverting to the original wording but with no words emboldened, in my view reads fine but just looks bad.
Ghmyrtle (
talk) 11:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
On the basis of the above discussion I've (tentatively? boldly!) changed it back to my Plan B wording, which uses the precise words of the article title even if it's not quite the flowing prose that we should aim for. Hope that's OK at least for the time being, to get it through the DYK process (assuming it's otherwise acceptable to the arbiters of that process). Ghmyrtle ( talk) 23:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I had not appreciated that the article was so recently created when I added to it yesterday, and hope my addition has not harmed what the creator was intending. This is a very much more satisfactory article than Welsh Marches, which is trying to deal with several different topics and doing none of them well. Now we have got this article, can we between us take action to prune the other down? I do not suggest merging because doing so would spoil this fairly well-written article. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I like the wording in the actual section on Monmouthshire, which explains the problem; but the wording in the intro and elsewhere should probably be sharpened a tad. Since the border can be reasonably held to have passed west of Monmouthshire in the nineteenth century, saying it is essentially unchanged is a bit of an oversimplification.
This may not be worth an edit war with the Gwent Retrieval Squad; but it would be nice if the reader saw a somewhat stronger hint of complications ahead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the following text from the article:
Known by the Welsh as the Welsh-English Border, and by the English as the English-Welsh Border, the Walesâ England border........... is commonly referred to as "the borders". British author Chris Roberts notes that "it is a linguistic curiosity that in the UK the internal boundary regions between England and Wales (and England and Scotland) are referred to as 'the Borders' rather than 'the border'. He reasons that such is because there are two borders: a Welsh-English border for the Welsh, and an English-Welsh border for the English.
The reference for this "information" is Chris Roberts, Heavy Words Lightly Thrown: The Reason Behind Rhyme, Thorndike Press,2006 ( ISBNÂ 0-7862-8517-6). Now, I'm sure he may have had a reason for writing that, but the problem is that it's total bollocks. The Scottish borders are called "The Borders", but I've never heard the Welsh border called that - "The Marches" perhaps. I know a reference was provided for the "information", and I know I shouldn't revert things simply because (I think) they are untrue, but I couldn't help myself on this occasion. Does anyone else think it helps the article to keep a reference to this alleged "linguistic curiosity" in there? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 16:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
@ Ghmyrtle:, @ Peterkingiron:: I ended up here because I was reviewing this edit by the same now blocked editor who added the above material from the same book by Chris Roberts. It was a strange edit because Roberts is not writing on law, so would not be the best WP:RS, and the WP:RS that was there from better legal sources was deleted in the same edit. I also noticed that Chris Roberts (author) was red suggesting it had been deleted, which is correct, having gone through two WP:AfDs: 1st with non-consenus, same editor vigorously defending it and then second kills it, even though we have this on NPR about the same book, which actually makes it sound like a "good read". I wondered if the now blocked editor was plugging the book, or just reading it and adding information from it as refs to our articles. It is hard to me to decipher whether the unhelpful edits are the result of the editor's poor judgment (or questionable purpose) or whether the book itself was shoddy scholarship (or both). (I saw one comment claiming it was self-published). Regardless of the cause(s), the same book is found in a number of our articles [1], and I am concerned that if these uses of the work as refs are questionable if that would also apply to other uses of the same book. If the purpose was to plug the book--it worked on me, as I do want to see for myself if it is as good as it sounds. Curious if either of you have any thoughts on it? I think I will post on WP:RS/N -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I think this article could do with a map of the current border. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.122.12 ( talk) 10:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
As that request - over seven years (!!) ago - led to no action, I think we should make a new request for a map at WP:GL/MAP. In my view, a map needs to show the whole length of the border, with equal detail on both sides; some topographical detail (relief, rivers), major settlements, major transport routes (rail, road); and administrative divisions (council areas). What do others think? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
If that is too complex, something similar to this - File:Anglo-Scottish.border.modern.png - would perhaps suffice. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 13:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Although this article explains where the line is, it does not explain why the border is "there"? For instance there are two huge salients on both sides of the border near Chirk (Wales) and Oswestry (England). Or for instance Churchstoke (English name) is in a salient formed by Powys. Yet only â mile to the west there is an isthmus that has England, to the West and Wales to the East! ( here).
It's more fascinating when the irregular line of the border is examined more closely. It's often drawn straight from coast-to-coast but it isn't. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.66.217 ( talk) 14:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
This town appears only to be in Wales. Another, similarly-named, place is in England and the two settlements are contiguous. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 ( talk) 18:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian ( talk) 12:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
WalesâEngland border â EnglandâWales border â Though not codified in a policy or guideline, convention is pretty clear that border articles should be named alphabetically, as this is the most neutral way to avoid warring over favoritism. See, for example, this RM and the members of Category:Borders by country. BDD ( talk) 18:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
In this edit, User:Daicaregos described an unsourced but uncontentious statement as "nonsense". However, in many cases, towns and villages in Wales were founded as Anglo-Norman settlements; there is no evidence that their unpopulated locations had Welsh names previously. Prestatyn was originally an English village called Preston; Caergwrle was originally an English village called Corley; etc. Those specific examples are referenced from Hywel Wyn Owen's Place-names of Wales. I haven't reverted the edit because I haven't yet found a source for the general statement - but, it is certainly not "nonsense" to state that some places in Wales had English names before they had Welsh names. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 11:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on EnglandâWales border. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of EnglandâWales border's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "BBC2017-09-15":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⥠20:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
It states that some non-Brythonic language was spoken in Lloegyr - what is the evidence for this? Roryharrow ( talk) 05:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm making this section but there is a massive problem being that I don't know if these exclaves were present before the acts made during or sometime after I don't know anybody who knows this. Where there changes to the border in the later 16th and 17th century?
the welsh bicknor wiki states that it was still in Herefordshire in the later 16th and early 17th century I don't see how that could be true and if it is that opens up the question on weather other areas had changes that I don't know of does anybody here know anyone who can help me with this Editor account 2222 ( talk) 14:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)