Talk:First Minister of Wales

message: :Image:Rhodri Morgan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Rhodri Morgan.jpg

message: The way this section is currently presented it looks as though Morgan formally resigned and was reappointed numerous times, including when he took on coalition partners midway into a term - did this happen this way? Timrollpickering (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of First Ministers 

message: I don't think this is a major issue, but should we move this to "of Wales" per this  --Snowded TALK  08:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, the title is "First Minister of Wales", not "for Wales" Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Indeed, move it to First Minister of Wales. How it got to be FM for Wales, eludes me. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Don't bother getting up, I moved the artice to its proper name First Minister of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

text: The opposition to my change from of to for (at Wales) by 2 editors, seemed quite clear cut. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was reliably sourced, whereas the change you made was not. The question was highlighted here for discussion prior to a page move. I have presented RS evidence that several forms are in current or past use. There may well be others. If you have any evidence, please provide it. Daicaregos (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is the correct title? First Minister of Wales or First Minister for Wales? This article can't be at both titles. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I say, in my opinion the roles are "First Minister" and "Deputy First Minister". But the page name will still need to be disambiguated, even if my opinion turns out to be correct, and everyone agrees. Daicaregos (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a way: First Minister (Wales) & Deputy First Minister (Wales). GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We should not invent things.  The reference I found is the WAG site and it says very explicity that "of" was adopted in the Act.  First Minister would make sense in any information box or otherwise where the context is clear.--Snowded TALK  21:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Ignoring the normal GoodDay nonsense below.  The balance of the sources is "of" and that one I reference at the start is very explicit.  I think the title is "of" and in general we we should follow use in the sources for each entry.  --Snowded TALK  22:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's use First Minister of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ya did it again" --Snowded TALK  22:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That the 2006 Act uses "First Minister" is quite compelling. However, I am happy to use "First Minister of Wales" as the page title and, unless there are any objections, would also be happy to use "First Minister" (with a pipelink, where necessary) when naming the position in other articles, as suggested above. Daicaregos (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pipe-linking on Welsh political articles 'only'? GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggestion made above was "First Minister would make sense in any information box or otherwise where the context is clear." Daicaregos (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, [First Minister of Wales|First Minister] in the Welsh infobox, is certainly acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a bit premature to change the Wales article you known, ideally one should wait a day or so to make sure we have a consensus.  Might as well leave it now but like the page move it is best to get agreement first.  --Snowded TALK  07:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Daicaregos (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya's wanna change it back? go ahead. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? I have agreed that we may as well leave it at this page title now, despite it having been prematurely moved in a fit of childish petulance. Daicaregos (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved it back, since a child originally moved it without further discussion. A minor's actions are supposed to be scrutinized more on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Now your move back is against consensus. Please stop pissing about. This isn't a kid's game. Daicaregos (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

text: For God's sake GoodDay just think before you react and stop playing stupid games.  If you had had too much to drink then confess now and we can all forgive you but I can't think of any other reason for this level of stupidity --Snowded TALK  21:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Totally irrelevant. We should rely on reliable sources rather than opinion. Kittybrewster  ☎ 21:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when did GoodDay offer anything other than opinion? --Snowded TALK  22:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't comment on the contributor. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop scattering random opinions without research or thought and we won't need to --Snowded TALK  22:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya did it again. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible move 

message: Would it not be better for the opening paragraph to outline the role of the post? Questions of terminology could be addressed as a sub-section after the lede itself.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I'm not sure how important the terminology changes are to be honest, although the official web sites make a feature of pointing out the change --Snowded TALK  11:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it around a little, partly to update it.  Better, or not?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better --Snowded TALK  12:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Would it be alright to move this article to First Minister (Wales)? GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible article change 

message: Moved relevant content to this page, in a similar manner to how the Uk prime minister pages are arranged. Titus Gold (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved some content to [[List of first ministers of Wales]]