Talk:South Wales

message: Why have I changed Breconshire to Powys ? For the very simple reason that Wikipedia is about providing information to everyone and anuone and for the very great majority of the world the divisions of Wales are the current administrative boundaries and not the old ceremonial counties. Can you please provide a justification as to why I should promote counties that have no meaning to most people living in 2006 ? The ceremonial counties aren't even on any modern maps ! Velela 09:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the qualification altogether as it is completely unnecessary. The article itself was describing what many people think the divisions of Wales really are - i.e. north Wales, south Wales, west Wales, &c. Do you honestly believe that people looking for an article on Rhymney would use the qualification that it is "in Caerphilly"? Of course they wouldn't, they'd probably just say that it is in "South Wales". There are many overlapping geographies and it just so happens that the current administrative geogrpahy is one of the worst. What sensible geographic system would have divisions that range in size from 5,196 km² to 111 km²? Some of which are named after towns, despite being vastly bigger, some are named after other well-known divisions but with a completely different area, e.g. Monmouthshire, Denbighshire. The administrative geography exists, but to use it as the only general-purpose geography is confusing to say the least. Owain (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Breconshire]]

message: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=514778&in_page_id=1770
do you think this is notable enough to add in? 74.140.225.97 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source, so should not be reporting "news" anyway. And I certainly don't think Wikipedia should go down the tabloid path of linking multiple tragedies into one interconnected "news event". There are guidelines about how to report suicide responsibly (which include not going into detail about the means). I don't believe that much of the recent reporting in the UK press adheres to any of it. A more useful and encyclopaedic approach would be to expand Wikipedia's articles about suicide, particularly Epidemiology and methodology of suicide, where there is no discussion of the different types of "clusters" and the possible explanations and associations for such clusters. There is research available on factors that are thought to affect suicide rates, for example, and we are conspicuously lacking in that. Once that is done, it might possibly be appropriate to mention Bridgend. However, I think that if you look at the statistics, Bridgend (whether the town itself or the area -- and note that most of the papers are talking about the town but giving the figures for a wider area) may not in fact have the highest rate of suicide in Wales . So no, tabloid-fuelled "suicide town" speculations have no place in Wikipedia. Telsa (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 16 suicides in two months

message: 1. I've heard people mention South West England as a region, but south west UK is rarely used
2. It's quite possible that the population density is highest, but is it really the richest?  I'd have thought areas like Bath or Bristol, or the Cotswalds (assuming they fall within this so-called region) would be wealthier.--Rhyswynne (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "most densely populated and richest region in the South West of the U.K."

message: My source, www.genuki.org.uk/big/Britain.html, states that Glamorgan is not a shire.
76.102.31.185 (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is (or was) a historic county, and was sometimes known by the English as Glamorganshire, though the more historically correct term Glamorgan tended to supersede it during the 20th century.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counties included 

message: The picture does not indicate the whole of South Wales. It should be changed to fit the needs of this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.245.97 (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to change the caption to something like "South Wales as widely understood..", until I realised that it probably derived from this site of official statistics - where, however, it is shown as South East Wales, which is what the current caption now shows.  The area to the west, which is often called "West Wales", is captioned "South West Wales" on that site.  So, I'll leave it as it is in this article.  The area shown excludes Swansea, which most people would probably consider to be in South Wales.  What we probably need is a better map (say, with some relief, transport, towns and cities), with a fuzzy boundary as clearly it is not an area which has a standard definition.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly with Ghmyrtle - ideally, we need a new map but in the meantime let's either label the existing map as per the apparent source, or remove it entirely. Pondle (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree - it's even worse than the "West Wales" map.  Out with it! Deb (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Map removed.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Picture 

message: The section: 'Famous industrialised areas in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries' begins with: Merthyr Tydfil, after which this: "(Tydfil the Martyr)" is in brackets. It isn't a translation from the Welsh, as "Merthyr Tydfil" is the English version of the Welsh name of the town. It can only be a shortened etymology, I guess. Should this be here? After all, if we were to mention Leicester, or Guildford, or Birmingham etc., etc.. we wouldn't explain what it meant in modern English, would we? Thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have now changed it to show the Welsh version of the name - anyone wanting to know more about the town including the origin of the name can - and surely would - go to the page devoted entirely to it. Geopersona (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation? 

message: In some ways it is pointless to attempt to define a northern border to South Wales since the concept has such seeming fluidity. In any case if one (or more) versions of a border are described then they need to be on the basis of published material as per usual WP guidelines otherwise it simply amounts to speculation on the part of editors. The current text which suggests that either the A40 or A465 might define that border leaves out parts of NW Monmouthshire and the Black Mountains which hardly seems satisfactory - I am loath to suggest an alternative though - it would simply be my own personal preference (which might change from one year to the next)! cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest that the Heads of the Valleys is indeed quite a strong boundary in the popular consciousness of South Wales - that article says "It approximately follows the southern boundary of the Brecon Beacons National Park". But we are told that the Brecon Beacons "is a mountain range in South Wales". There's a bit of a no-man's land between Brecon and Builth. But both Brecon and Talgarth are properly placed in Mid Wales. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: (e/c)  The area is not formally defined, so there is no "border" or "edge".  Common usage suggests the term usually refers to former Glamorgan and Gwent/Monmouthshire.  I don't like the idea that the A40 or A465 mark an edge.  I doubt if we can find sources, but personally I'd rewrite the last sentence of the lead along the lines of: "Areas to the north of the Brecon Beacons and Black Mountains are generally considered part of Mid Wales" - and leave it as undefined as that suggests.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel more comfortable with Ghmyrtle's suggestion. Martinevans123: I agree that the HOV is a strong boundary but only so far as the eastern and central parts of the South Wales valleys/the coalfield are concerned - not for South Wales per se. cheers Geopersona (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't actually a suggestion - just a subjective note on local views. The HOV does obviously follow local geography. But Wiki puts both Brecon and Talgarth in "mid Wales". I wholly agree with Ghm, it's all a bit vague. Monmouthshire and Glamorganshire would certainly be South Wales counties, And Breconshire, as was, certainly Mid. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give my wording a whirl and see if anyone objects or tags it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern edge?