Talk:Newport, Wales/Archive 2

message: __TOC__
*Archive 1
----
Comment by 91.108.161.186) transferred from the article:
*Sir Anthony Hopkins (actor) : needs corroborating as there is no mention in the Anthony Hopkins of an association with Newport
Gareth 09:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAICR his parents owned a pub in Caerleon. Owain (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

message: Could someone please move the map in the top infobox to the centre...? Marky-Son 17:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Why is Newport only rated high, when places such as the county boroughs/unitary authorities of Conwy and Monmouthshire are rated top, when they only came into existance in 1996? Marky-Son 21:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance scale 

message: Is the city in fact a county borough with city status? Laurel Bush 11:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  County borough with city status? 

message: "Newport City is in fact the capital of the Sanc Kingdom in the popular futurist anime series Gundam Wing." An IP editor added this, but without a source and there's nothing in the Gundam Wing article to back it up either.  If in fact it isn't nonsense, please find a source before adding it back in  - that is, assuming that it really is a fact of encyclopaedic quality as opposed to a random piece of trivia, which is what it looks like at the moment. BencherliteTalk 01:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if that is true, it ahs nothing to do with this Newport and should be on the Newport (disambiguation) page. Marky-Son 11:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would make more sense - I was wondering why on earth Newport would be chosen as the capital city for the Sanc Kingdom! BencherliteTalk 11:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed sentence from article 

message: This article states that Hugh, Earl of Stafford issued the first charter in 1385, but the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica states that the first charter was issued by Hugh le Despenser in 1323. Which is it? Owain (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was living in Newport in 1985 and the borough council (as was) were busy celebrating 600 years since their first charter. If there was a 1323 charter they didn't know about it! Lozleader 09:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you can believe Wikipedia, Newport City Council states that the 1323 charter granted "liberties" to the burgesses, while the 1385 one gave them self government. So the borough/city council traces its origins from the 1385 one. The council websites and literature such as  don't seem to mention the first charter. 09:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of first charter

message: I typed "Newport" into the search box and it went straight to the article regarding Newport in South-East Wales. I am curious to know why it didn't go to a disambiguation page, as I thought it would. After all, there is another Newport in West Wales, even if we discount the many others that exist. The Baroness of Morden (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it would needlessly complicate Wikipedia, see discussion on archive page above. Do you suggest we do the same thing with every other place name that exists more than once, even if one of them is a only a tiny village? This would of course apply to just about every major British city. 82.5.216.227 (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't "suggest" anything. As I said, I am curious to know why. Well, I was. Aren't you meant to be nice to the new people, rather than be unnecessarily sarcastic? As for Newport News, if I was looking for that I think I would actually type in "Newport News", not "Newport". The Baroness of Morden (talk) 11:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If there is more than one primary interpretation of "Newport", then it should get bumped in favour of the dab page, however, it would appear that when people are looking for "Newport", they're probably looking for this one, rather than those in Ceredigion, Isle of Wight, and Essex.  Hopefully, not many will be looking for Newport News in Virginia, but if they are, they should be pointed there from the dab page.  90.203.45.214 (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  there's a Newport Beach in the states too, Florida I think, that comes up a lot on google searches Pbhj (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Since no objections were raised, I've changed the dab link to include a link to Newport, Rhode Island. Cheers, Rai-me 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding the disambiguation. The Baroness of Morden (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: The dab link now reads: This article is about the city of Newport in the United Kingdom. For the city in Rhode Island, United States, see Newport, Rhode Island. For other uses, see Newport (disambiguation). However, is "the United Kingdom" really needed in place of "Wales"? Wales is much more specific, as there are 10 other Newports in England and 1 in Scotland, let alone 1 other Newport in Wales (grant it, these places are towns and villages and not cities, but it still seems more confusing than it has to be). If the Plymouth and Worcester dab links use "England", I see no reason why this page shouldn't use "Wales." Comments? Cheers, Rai-me 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As no objections were raised, I have changed it back to "Wales". Cheers, Rai-me 00:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted it to be consistent with itself. You can't have one place name with a sub-national disambiguation (Wales) and then have the other with a national one (United States). Owain (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we should remove "United States" and change it back to "Wales". Rai-me 01:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hace changed it to read "This article is about the city of Newport in Wales. For the city in Rhode Island, see Newport, Rhode Island. For other uses, see Newport (disambiguation)." There are now no inconsistencies. Cheers, Rai-me 05:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. In the international context we should disambiguate by using the country name, not a subdivision of it. If it was a disambiguation inside a single country then fair enough, but your solution is clearly sub-optimal. Owain (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: (un-indent) I disagree; using internationally recognized subdivisions of countries is not in any way sub-optimal. Hatnotes should be short and clear, not overly precise. Both Wales and and Rhode Island do not need further clarification, and are suitable to use in place of the UK and the US in dab links. Also, as I stated before, "in the United Kingdom" is not overly clear, because there are several Newports in the UK; clarifying "Wales" is more specific, which is what hatnotes aim to be. Finally, as I stated above, almost all cities in England that disambiguate to American cities of the same name use the This article is about the city in England. For the city in Massachusetts, see ... method, and this article should be consistent. IMO, it is your solution that is sub-optimal. But can we get a third opinion on this matter? Rai-me 01:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Responding to the request for a third opinion.  Wales is much clearer than the United Kingdom and seems comparable with Rhode Island in such a brief note. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input. I will change it to read "Wales" and "Rhode Island" rather than "the United Kingdom" and "Rhode Island, United States". Cheers, Rai-me 00:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have said as this is an international publication that it should be UK as that is going to be most recognised, the unfamiliar might even think it were New South Wales, Australia (you never know!). You could always annoy the welsh nationalists and put England, as that's actually historically the country it's located in rather than the administrative region. Pbhj (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Newport disambiguation page

message: I think that "Newport" should be located here. However, I think we should consider putting a hatnote dab link in place to Newport, Rhode Island, similar to the dab links to Worcester, Massachusetts and Plymouth, Massachusetts at Worcester and Plymouth. Newport, RI, while certainly not as notable as this Newport, is very historically significant, a major travel destination, the home of the U.S. Naval War College, and the home of the International Tennis Hall of Fame, among many other things. Also, a Google search for "Newport" brings up quite a few hits for Newport, RI. Would any user be opposed to adding a dab link to the city on this page? For example, This article is about the city of Newport in Wales. For the city in Rhode Island, USA, see Newport, Rhode Island. For other uses, see Newport (disambiguation). Cheers, Rai-me 05:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no objections were raised, I've changed the dab link to include a link to Newport, Rhode Island. Cheers, Rai-me 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding the disambiguation. The Baroness of Morden (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: The dab link now reads: This article is about the city of Newport in the United Kingdom. For the city in Rhode Island, United States, see Newport, Rhode Island. For other uses, see Newport (disambiguation). However, is "the United Kingdom" really needed in place of "Wales"? Wales is much more specific, as there are 10 other Newports in England and 1 in Scotland, let alone 1 other Newport in Wales (grant it, these places are towns and villages and not cities, but it still seems more confusing than it has to be). If the Plymouth and Worcester dab links use "England", I see no reason why this page shouldn't use "Wales." Comments? Cheers, Rai-me 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As no objections were raised, I have changed it back to "Wales". Cheers, Rai-me 00:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted it to be consistent with itself. You can't have one place name with a sub-national disambiguation (Wales) and then have the other with a national one (United States). Owain (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we should remove "United States" and change it back to "Wales". Rai-me 01:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hace changed it to read "This article is about the city of Newport in Wales. For the city in Rhode Island, see Newport, Rhode Island. For other uses, see Newport (disambiguation)." There are now no inconsistencies. Cheers, Rai-me 05:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. In the international context we should disambiguate by using the country name, not a subdivision of it. If it was a disambiguation inside a single country then fair enough, but your solution is clearly sub-optimal. Owain (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: (un-indent) I disagree; using internationally recognized subdivisions of countries is not in any way sub-optimal. Hatnotes should be short and clear, not overly precise. Both Wales and and Rhode Island do not need further clarification, and are suitable to use in place of the UK and the US in dab links. Also, as I stated before, "in the United Kingdom" is not overly clear, because there are several Newports in the UK; clarifying "Wales" is more specific, which is what hatnotes aim to be. Finally, as I stated above, almost all cities in England that disambiguate to American cities of the same name use the This article is about the city in England. For the city in Massachusetts, see ... method, and this article should be consistent. IMO, it is your solution that is sub-optimal. But can we get a third opinion on this matter? Rai-me 01:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Responding to the request for a third opinion.  Wales is much clearer than the United Kingdom and seems comparable with Rhode Island in such a brief note. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input. I will change it to read "Wales" and "Rhode Island" rather than "the United Kingdom" and "Rhode Island, United States". Cheers, Rai-me 00:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have said as this is an international publication that it should be UK as that is going to be most recognised, the unfamiliar might even think it were New South Wales, Australia (you never know!). You could always annoy the welsh nationalists and put England, as that's actually historically the country it's located in rather than the administrative region. Pbhj (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hatnote