Talk:Welsh language

message: This figure of 5,000 native speakers is misleading. If not simply invented, it probably relates to the number of learners who have studied Welsh through the Welsh Language Project. There may be some young children who are close to fluency by attending the recently opened bilingual schools but that is a  guess. The simple fact is that there are no reliable sources because a detailed study has not been carried out. From what I have seen the few remaining fluent Welsh speakers, mainly farmer, died out decades ago. There may be a few elderly people left with a knowledge of the language but that is all. Finally, I question the reliability of the Welsh.com site which is a marketing tool to promote all things Welsh, government sponsored or not. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wales.com, the cited reference, states “Today the province of Chubut, where most Welsh immigrants settled, has a population of 550,000 people. Of these some 50,000 can claim Welsh ancestry and 5,000 speak the Welsh language.”, which seems pretty explicit. i.e. that of the people who live in Chabut, 5,000 speak Welsh. Wales.com is the Welsh Government's website. If you dispute that it is a reliable source, please discuss it at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Until then, I have reverted to the cited number. Daicaregos (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it. The figure in the Infobox is verified by a reference from a reliable source. If you disagree you are welcome to take it to the Reliable sources noticeboard for their opinion. Daicaregos (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welsh speakers in Patagonia 

message: I think we have to be a little careful about reporting the responses to the "main language" question from the 2011 census in England. Census questions are subtle things; "Can you speak Irish?" produces different responses to "Do you speak Irish?" for instance. In this case, there's the odd point that people were asked "What is your main language?" but the glossary of terms (a separate document released after the census had been conducted) defines "main language" as "first or preferred language". This is a problematic definition because "main language" and "first or preferred language" are different things, and it's the first that people were asked about. I'm a native Welsh speaker, and I might even say that Welsh is my preferred language, but I live and work in Philadelphia, and I can hardly say it's my "main language".  I've edited the text to try to make this clear by simply stating the facts, with sources. If people feel it's too much information, I think we should leave out the bit about "first or preferred language", as that seems the part most likely to mislead. The key point to get across is not what ONS thinks "main language" means, but what question people were asked and how many said "Welsh". Garik (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If 'first or preferred language' didn't form part of the question posed it should be left out from this article entirely. Daicaregos (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It should be left in (or put back), as you have written it Garik. Normally I would agree to take it out, but because the glossary, that is freely available online, does define 'main language' in the way it does, it is more likely than not that the average reader having a look at the census results will assume that 'main' means 'first or preferred'. The best way to solve the confusion is not to omit an important part of the online census website (the glossary wording), but to spell it out that the definition is flawed - which is what you did. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence has been re-instated without consensus being reached on the talk page first. I have edited the text slightly to clarify that the ONS's definition was not published as part of the question. In my opinion, only the question should be noted on the article. Readers will form their own opinion as to what was meant by 'main language', in the same way that respondents to the census question had to. Some will consider the the question to have a similar meaning to the ONS's definition; others will not e.g I read it to mean the language you mainly spoke. Including the ONS definition is necessarily on-sided and unbalanced i.e. not neutral. It should be removed entirely. Daicaregos (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

text: I accept your point that the 2011 census question is inherently unreliable. And further, given that it does not provide data on the number of Welsh speakers in England, is not notable. I would be happy to see all reference to the census data on the Welsh language in England removed.  Daicaregos (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Main language" in census 

message: In this massive article there is not one word on the cost to British taxpayers for funding / promoting the Welsh language. There's also no comment on the educational impact of having to learn an additional language local language / not learn a foreign language. No mention of it's impact on attracting non-welsh business. There's also no mention of the number of monolingual welsh speakers.Billyoffland (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: None of that is relevant; that is why it is not mentioned. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly not relevant, considering those were the issues which several news outlets (including the BBC) dwelt on during the recent coverage about the plans to increase spoken Welsh by 2050. They are certainly not criticisms many people like to hear, and maybe lazy criticisms by monoglot English speakers, but they are still arguments and opinoons that exist. Sionk (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also not one word said about the aggressive way the language was suppressed by the English, for example Henry VIII’s Act of Union and later Victorian schoolchildren punished physically for speaking Welsh. Sheps (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think there's not one word about it on the page, you should probably read the page again. Also both your examples get their own pages: Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542 and Welsh Not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias / lack of neutrality

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Welsh language. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922140142/http://wales.gov.uk/newsroom/welshlanguage/2011/110211welshlang/?lang=en to http://wales.gov.uk/newsroom/welshlanguage/2011/110211welshlang/?lang=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071004225315/http://www.bwrdd-yr-iaith.org.uk/cynnwys.php?pID=217&langID=2 to http://www.bwrdd-yr-iaith.org.uk/cynnwys.php?langID=2&pID=217
*Added  tag to http://www.welshforadults.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925054244/http://www.bwrdd-yr-iaith.org.uk/cynnwys.php?pID=241&langID=2&nID=640 to http://www.bwrdd-yr-iaith.org.uk/cynnwys.php?pID=241&langID=2&nID=640
*Added  tag to http://www.byig-wlb.org.uk/English/publications/Publications/The%20Vitality%20of%20Welsh%20A%20Statistical%20Balance%20Sheet%20August%202010.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Welsh language. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120427211017/http://linguistics.uoregon.edu/files/admin/file/Course_Documents/Survey_Methods/Survey%20Reports/Welsh%20Survey%20%26%20Report%2004.pdf to http://linguistics.uoregon.edu/files/admin/file/Course_Documents/Survey_Methods/Survey%20Reports/Welsh%20Survey%20%26%20Report%2004.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161005105133/http://www.ysgolglanclwyd.co.uk/welcome to http://www.ysgolglanclwyd.co.uk/welcome
*Added  tag to http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/communications_index_ew/the_welsh_language.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I find it ironic that references from Welsh news articles are forbidden in the Welsh language section of Wiki.. "Tidied, c/e, re-entered references with better structure, reduced cites-5 is too many and they should be in English" what if there are no other references to a topic in the English language? does it make the article invalid? what about history pages that source latin, French, Spanish, German books? are they invalid? I can agree to have supplied too many references, but the argument over not using references from other languages seems silly to me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 14:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not "forbidden".  However, this is the English-language Wikipedia, not Wicipedia Cymraeg.   Here, WP:NONENG says: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance."  So, English-language sources are preferred, but not required.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

text: I made that edit summary. If there were no citations in English then Welsh would do, but there were citations in English, plenty of them, so they should be used first. When I reduced the citations (that all said the same thing) from five to three, I removed first the non English citation and second, a slightly less than top quality local newspaper. Even three citations is probably too many for such an uncontested sub-article. Also, lest we forget, the topic was no less about the English language (loss of 100% Westminster primacy) as it was about Welsh. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: usage of welsh news references

message: The infobox claims 1,500-5,000 native speakers in Argentina. The lead claims the same. These claims need to be removed. First, what is a native speaker? Although no clear definition exists, we can rely on the definition given by WP.  The template guidelines mean that a native language and an L1 language are the same, so we can assume that as a fact here. It is not directly stated but unambiguously intended - read the template guide and the L1 article to see the connection. Next, look at the sources given. None of them claim L1 (or L2) speakers, just 'speakers'. These is not good enough to use as RSs because they are open to interpretation, meaning the claim of native speakers is not supported. This is why I will delete the statements and the references given - because the claim cannot be amended to reflect the sources. It is disappointing that these misleading weasel claims about a large community of L1 speakers in Argentina still exists. More justice to the Welsh language would be given by detailed and accurate analysis of the revitalisation efforts currently going on in Argentina, and the dying out of true L1 speakers during the 20th century, rather than constantly hammering the L1 line. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your removal of citations and estimated numbers of speakers and Argentina and England. By all means discuss it here, but claiming there are no speakers of Welsh in Argentina or England is highly controversial, to say the least! Large numbers of native Welsh speakers move to live or work in England, by nature of jobs and education opportunities etc. and (admittedly anecdotally but for illustration) I met an elderly lady from Chubut last year who'd learnt Welsh from her mother, spent her savings flying to South Wales for a holiday and was distressed that she couldn't find any Welsh speakers. Clearly the Welsh speakers of Chubut aren't learning Welsh as an eccentric hobby. Sionk (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

text: They are only OR based on your rather pedantic reading of the sources.  This seems to be part of a pattern of edits from you on articles concerning the different nations of the UK -----Snowded TALK 10:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Maybe it is a problem that needs addressing with the wording, or available headings, of "Infobox language". But if, as Roger 8 Roger states, there is no clear definition of 'native speaker', then it's a bit churlish of them to impose their own interpretation. By their own argument they'd need to remove the statistics cited from the UK census about speakers in Wales, because we've no idea if these are first language speakers, or people that have learnt/improved the language in later life. Perhaps to (a) retain useful sourced information (b) clarify what it represents, someone could add footnotes. Sionk (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Most people would not make the 'fine' distinctions that Roger 8 Roger is playing with here.   Speakers, native speakers etc.   If I grew up with welsh to the age of 4/5 then moved away but relearnt it on return am I a first or second lanmguage speaker?   I'm happy to remove 'native' and simply report the number in the sources if there is ambiguity - but I think this is pedantic nonsense -----Snowded TALK 03:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

text: We use the best available sources, therefore if a lengthy news article by Wales' major national news outlet says the numbers of Welsh speakers in Patagonia are believed to be between 1,500 and 5,000, then it means exactly what it says. It's just semantics to say that if something is believed to be true then it isn't true. Sionk (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

text: You are being over pedantic - the source is good enough for the current content-----Snowded TALK 07:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing non-supported misleading claims

message: Please stop vandalising the page by spamming "WELSH LANGUAGE IS DYING". You are in fact making the Welsh language die even faster by dis-encouraging potential learners of the language from accessing resources about the language. --BlobcatsAreCool (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The person responsible for this nonsense (Fifawill12) has already been blocked. I also reported the IP that they were using, so this shouldn't be a problem anymore. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop your vandalism. 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Speak Welsh. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 12:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speak Welsh listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: To my mind, the long-standing text places Welsh as a Brittonic language in a family with Kernow and Bretton.  Within that family, it can also be termed Western Brittonic but that is a less rich description and links to a very weak and uninformative article.  Making the Western point later in the article is fine.  -----Snowded TALK 19:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. c.f. English, a Germanic language. Yes, it is west Germanic,but most people would refer to it as Germanic and a more detailed description says West Germanic. The same applies here. It is Brittonic and  the West Brittonic point is made later. Sirfurboy (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I too agree. The IP in question is also active on the Cornish article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

text: You mean 'Kernowek' or 'Kernewek', not 'Kernow' ;-). And it's 'Breton'. I agree the Western Brittonic article is pretty crappy, as is the SW Brittonic article. Perhaps the Breton and Cornish Languages should be described as Brittonic Languages initially also, with a link to Southwestern Brittonic later. Tewdar (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

text: So I changed the Cornish and Breton articles so that they are Southwestern Brittonic languages (hover mouse over each word). Perhaps you could use a similar format for Welsh, replacing Southwestern with Western. The best of both worlds perhaps! Or not. I'll let the Welsh experts decide. Tewdar (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I disagree. I looked at what you did with Cornish and feel you can argue either way on that one, because there are two Southwest Brittonic languages (Cornish and Breton). To me,  that is too much detail up front, but it is not wrong because there exist, in usage, two example languages in the category. In Welsh, however, it is unnecessary. Welsh is the only extant Western Brittonic dialect. Cumbric was probably Western Brittonic but the language does not exist today and we don't have enough evidence to say anything significant about it. Welsh therefore is the only Western Brittonic language, and so to say it is "a western Brittonic language" suggests a subcategory that just does not exist, seperately from Welsh itself. That is not to say it is uninteresting that it is closely related to Cumbric, Cornish and Breton, but that is meat for later sections. It does not belong in the front summary, where really all the Brittonic languages should just say that they are Brittonic. Sirfurboy (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, I will not be changing the Welsh language article. Perhaps I will change the Cornish and Breton articles in line with your suggestion. The Southwestern dialect of Brittonic is very similar to the Western dialect anyway, so I don't really care about that very much. But, 'it was like that when I got here'. Plus, other languages (such as English) are described in this manner. So perhaps I won't change the Cornish or Breton articles after all. It is a shame that Wikipedia does not have a convention on this. Or does it? A cursory glance seems to suggest that most of the language articles give a subgroup, rather than a language family, in the introduction. Tewdar (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but Brittonic is already a sub group of the Celtic language family. As with all languages, we run into the problem of when a dialect even becomes a separate language. If Gwynedd had an army and a navy, Gog would be a language. :) Sirfurboy (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much look forward to the day when both Gwynedd and Kernow each have their own army and navy. Tewdar (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western or not? 

message: found a very good source that discusses the etymology of Welsh and updated the history. However, I made some minor tweaks based on what the source actually says. Also the URL does not work for that ref although I have a copy of the paper. Not sure if the URL is just temporarily down - may need to fix it. I also cited the actual relevant pages. In the same section, Garik expanded other information and introduced four new sources, one after another. My reference that he removed actually refers to all this information in a single source, so I have put my source back under the WP:OVERCITE policy. I am not precious about my source, so if one of the four deleted sources will work on its own, feel free to put that back. However the information is parenthetical, so one source should do.
The new information about etymology of Cymraeg needs a source too. I expect I can find one shortly. Additionally, removal of the south Wales pronunciation here means we do not mention that pronunciation at all. Not sure if it is notable enough to go in the lead or not. I will leave that for others, but just flagging that Garik removed it from here. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Much appreciated. Also, apologies over the missing reference for Cymraeg. I'd gone to find one and become diverted from my course. (The perils of having children...) On the South Wales pronunciation: This feels the wrong place to include it. I'm not completely sure where the right place is though (unless we include it in the lede, which might clutter it). It's also worth adding that there's variation in South Wales accents too, though that's becoming reduced over time. Finally, I removed the word "foreigners" again; I understand the draw, but I think it's the wrong word. Depending on how it's interpreted, it's in danger of either being redundant (in the sense that, of course the Roman and Celtic inhabitants of the Empire were foreign to the Germanic peoples) or being too broad (in the sense that it's not clear the term was used of other foreigners, even if they happened to live in Rome. We also don't want to subtly reinforce the long-standing misconception that wealh was a word for generic foreigner. Garik (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree this is not the place for the southern pronunciation. I don't think it necessarily needs to go anywhere, but another editor may feel differently and the lead would probably be the place, unless they added a section about the dialect differences of Welsh. Regarding "foreigners," that is fine. I don't think it is a big deal. The cited paper on page 82 supports your rendering if we go with Katherine Miller's refinement of the semantic trajectory of the word. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and Etymology 

message: All discussions from pre-2017 have been archived at Talk:Welsh language/Archive 6. The next archive should be Talk:Welsh language/Archive 7. This has been done due to nothing being added to discussions - in some cases since 2008! This will hopefully start new discussions on how to improve the article. – Dyolf87 (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 6 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Welch language. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 10#Welch language until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Welch language" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: File:Map o ieithoedd Cymru (A map of the languages of Wales) - 1750.svg|1750
File:Map o ieithoedd Cymru (A map of the languages of Wales) - 1800.svg|1800
File:Map o ieithoedd Cymru (A map of the languages of Wales) - 1850.svg|1850
File:Map o ieithoedd Cymru (A map of the languages of Wales) - 1900.svg|1900
Hi . In your reverts you said "inclusion is doubtful" . What has led you to this perspective that made you revert the maps? What are your concerns?  Maps are based on Pryce's research, and each map is heavily referenced on what scholarship they draw from at their pages on wiki commons. I have also included academic sources that explain his methodology. Pryce is a respected scholar who did much research on the Welsh language and his data has been continuously republished by scholarship of the years, including reproductions of his maps (which i have also included links too).Resnjari (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's wait and see what others think.Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , i can wait, but the material is heavily sourced to reliable scholarship. Anyone wishing to follow up data on the map can just go to the wiki commons and visit the pages of the maps and can see where the source material comes from for themselves in the extensive descriptions i have given for each. Still, omitting the maps for reasons of "The maps are pointless."  or "inclusion is doubtful"  does not say much about what your objections and concerns are. Please elaborate by what you meant, so i understand your perspective. Also these maps have been accepted in Welsh Wikipedia. In general maps are added to wiki articles if they expand knowledge of the topic. These maps show the status of Welsh over a 150 period and are important to the topic by providing visual images of the data based on reliable scholarship. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopaedic and truly historic maps worthy of Pryce.  Llywelyn2000 (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, everybody. My background is oriented towards material culture studies - I'm not a linguist. My view comes mostly from an anthropological perspective, papers which I've read about the preservation of the Welsh language and an understanding of how reliable bibliography functions on wikipedia. I'm also a strong supporter of the preservation of endangered languages. I think that the maps are sourced, but I'm interested to learn more about the perspective of . Maybe there's a WP:SYSTEMIC issue which external observers haven't noticed, but a native Welsh person can explain to us. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Academic works on the Welsh language, nearly always mention Pryce's work as a starting point. He is a giant in the field and unavoidable for people doing research on the topic. He looked at church records spanning 150 year period whereby clergy wrote about the language use of parishioners and changes over time, and from that Pryce compiled his maps in the late 20th century. He meets wiki criteria of WP:RELIABLE and WP:SECONDARY. Each map that i uploaded is well sourced on their respective wiki commons page. I added the maps to this article because they are about the Welsh language. They deal with the critical 150 year period when Welsh was mainly a monolingual language for its speakers and covered most of Wales, to one becoming confined to the north west and south west, after massive changes due to the schooling system and industrialisation. Respectfully  , I hope WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not prefigure as a rationale for the omission of maps from the article, as that goes against the spirit of what Wikipedia is about as an encyclopedia project. I hope you can elaborate on your reasons for reverting, as i am engaging in good faith. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no good reason to exclude these maps from the article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither do I, however, I'm interested in learning more about the perspective of Gareth Griffith-Jones.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , i still have no idea why the maps were reverted.  could you please elaborate your reasons for not wanting the maps in the article, so we all can have an idea here of your perspective. I ask because i do not want to engage in trivial edit wars when i place back the maps in a few days time if the discussion remains as it is, and goes nowhere beyond the support shown by editors who have respectfully engaged in the talkpage. Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Cool! Glad its resolved . Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think these maps are accurate unless I'm misinterpreting them. The last Welsh speakers in eastern parts of Monmouthshire died out around 1900, meaning that in 1750 these communities were almost certainly Welsh speaking. In 1892 there are reports of Welsh still being understood by people in Herefordshire. And in areas like Cwmyoy and Llanthony, Welsh speakers could still be found in 1892. In fact in Llanthony most over 50 could still speak the language. If anything, the map portraying 1750 is inaccurate for Monmouthshire. Would like to know others' opinions on this too incase I'm mistaken. LeviWay (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language maps 

message: I want to suggest that this part of the introduction:
be changed to just this: 
There is just too much detail about the various surveys of the number of speakers. An introduction should just give a summary of the topic, I can't think of any other language article that gives so much attention to speaker surveys. (Additionally "This suggests that there was a decrease" does not seem to fit, surely the number is within margin of error.) 
– Thjarkur (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of speakers in intro 

message: Does the diacritic ^ (as seen on ŵ and ŷ) have its own Welsh language name? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: While doing a web search to try to find the answer to to this question (without success), I found a reference that says that Welsh also uses diaeresis (e.g., . So may I broaden the question to ask for the Welsh name for this diacritic too, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Thank you. I wanted this to make  a self-sufficient article but, because I didn't have any sources, it promptly got reverted to a redirect to caret (which it isn't, but that is the WP:Common name in the US...). If I am to have another go, I will need a citation for those names, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the circumflex diacritic have a Welsh name? 

message: Why is there no mention that the British government suppressed and prevented the use of Welsh in schools and thereby contributed to near extinction of the language? Here is an article that partially deals with the issue:  Welsh Not. This should be addressed in the history section and also mentioned in the summary.  MythicalAlien (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though there is a secton under "In education" about the Welsh Not. Maybe some sort of (sourced) explanation about the language's near-extinction needs adding to the woefully short "Modern Welsh" section, which states it was almost driven to extinction, but not why or how. Like similar language articles, this one's heavily biased towards recent events. Sionk (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I too agree that Welsh Not should be given greater coverage. "near extinction" is a bit rich though. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Genocide 

message: - there is currently no mention within the article of non-White Welsh people and how they interact with and feel about the way the Welsh language is implemented in Wales. The irony is this is exactly the pattern of bias highlighted in the report! (Considering Plaid Cymru’s *dismal* record on dealing with ethnic minority issues within Wales, this is hardly a surprise). It may be uncomfortable for some White Welsh people to here, but it needs to be addressed! 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:5948:DC5B:70B7:C3A4 (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, not a political rally. What do you want to happen? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this article is about the language from a strictly linguistic point of view, and doesn't cover the sociology of the language community, it's probably the wrong place for this. Apart from that, you need to be very careful of that source. But the relationship between language and ethnicity in Wales is a real encyclopedic question. Look for some academic research on it. I suspect that there are non-white Welsh speakers. I also suspect that non-whites in Wales are more likely to have sympathy for the Welsh-language community as they have a shared experience of being a minority. But if there is evidence that some of them feel excluded, let's see it. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, there are many non-white Welsh speakers, and a similar percentage of Wales-born non-white people speak Welsh to the percentage of white Wales-born people . Sionk (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Welsh language as a tool of white supremacism. 

message: The article went from 4 to 7 footer templates in the last couple of days. I have pulled out a couple. As per the guidelines, there should be an editor discussion about which templates are best for the article.
The article is about the Welsh languages which is one of the languages of the UK. Yes, it is also clearly about Welsh linguistics andWelsh language and languages of Wales, but there is a lot of overlap in these. Also is Wales topics then deemed too broad? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe  and  should be the same single template as brought up at its talk as most similar templates usually have only one of the two, not both. Unsure of , comparing to other templates "Languages of" (click the grey banner), they usually literally just list the languages (maybe some do dialects), therefore the UK one can work fine enough. No idea on , that's been added as a default really when there is no other template. Therefore it could be reduced to 5? At the same time  can be used to collapse templates. DankJae 15:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Boldly merged  and , so there is one less template. DankJae 16:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Think this is sensible Titus Gold (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Clutter 

message: AuH2ORepublican, to underscore the point Roger 8 Roger made in their edit summary, note that the Patagonian Welsh article itself has been tagged for ten years for a lack of citations. I might run through it myself this week and source what I can and remove the rest. In any event, it isn't clear that there's an active dialect. If all the speakers are learning it in school, absent evidence to the contrary, I expect that it's from standard Welsh materials. Largoplazo (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patagonian Welsh again