Talk:Wales

Constituent country

I personally think the first line "Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." should be changed to "Wales is a constituent country that is part of the United Kingdom". I understand that a constituent country is just a type of country, although when someone hears the word country they wouldn't think of a constituent country. I do think that the first line of the article is linked well considering "country" leads to the actual page of the constituent countries that make up the United Kingdom, although I think it'd be better to call Wales a constituent country, as not only is it more specific but it is also the correct name that it should be given.

Wales shouldn't be called just a country, as it is already part of a country (United Kingdom). To any typical person it wouldn't make much sense for four countries to be part of one country, that'd more be a continent.

It doesn't hurt anyone to call it a constituent country as it doesn't change the meaning of the first line, nor does it change the truth, rather, it's even more correct, stating the type of country Wales actually is.

Wordings like these tend to lead people to mistakes, causing many people to just call nations such as Wales "a country inside a country" without actually knowing the difference between the status of Wales and the status of another country such as Russia. They are not the same thing, so they shouldn't be called the same thing. (Note: I am copy and pasting this across the talk pages of all the constituent countries that make up the United Kingdom to try and get it changed)

Thank you, Setergh (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs most sources don't describe it as a "constituent country" but just as "country". The link used to Countries of the United Kingdom can hopefully explain the difference. DankJae 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that's fair enough, thank you for showing it. Setergh (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Or see the lengthy debate above! We really don't need to re-litigate this. KJP1 (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we most certainly do need to re-litigate this because the Northern Ireland article refers to it as "a part of the United Kingdom". The same should apply for the Wales article. Both Wales and Northern Ireland have been referred to with various terms and due to the apparent controversy over which term to use as demonstrated by the "lengthy debate" on this talk page, it ought to be resolved in the same manner as the Northern Ireland article in order to ensure that there is fair consistensy of language. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

No we don't, sources don't describe Wales, Scotland or England as merely a "part" but as a "country". "part" is not a status, and can equally apply to cities, counties or towns, they're all "part" of the UK. NI uses it because sources disagree over one term and it is contentious, but if anything it is more likely for consistency to describe NI as a country rather than the other three as "parts".

What other terms has Wales been described as in contemporary sources? It is most commonly described as a "country" (of/in the UK), and that isn't contentious. The only other is "principality", which is inapplicable and out-of-date. The lengthy debate above is over "country" vs "constituent country", specifying the meaning of "country", which also applies to Scotland and England (see their archive talks), not exclusively Wales. Would Scotland and England be described as a "part" too?

If anything, you're proposing to remove "country", that is a hard no without evidence of the contrary. DankJae 23:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Alhough I agree that referring to both Wales and Northern Ireland as "parts" would be preferable to the status quo, I do not wish for "the other three" to be described as "parts"; just Wales.

I myself have always referred to England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland as "countries" but not Wales. I have heard the terms "principality", "region", and "province" thrown around but personally I've never called it a "country".

I know this to be the case for many other people, but personal opinions and experiences aside, if a contemporary source to is required to prove that the term for Wales is contentious then I shall now endeavour to find that evidence and then continue to propose for this change to be made in as impartial and rule-abiding a manner as possible. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Still do not know why Wales is being singled out, I've always heard it described as a "country", as concluded at Talk:Wales/Archive country poll. Never "region" or "province", which if anything may imply it is part of England, which it isn't. A personal view that Wales isn't a country does not override a majority of sources that use that term for it.

Note, not just "a contemporary source" is needed but evidence that most sources don't use country (and for "part", use that or don't use any one term) to override the existing evidence that most use "country". Just saying I find it unlikely that sources have since all ditched "country" for describing Wales in the context of a personal disagreement with such use, and once again NI is the exception as it is a relatively recent creation. DankJae 08:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the 10 months' delay between the previous discussion and this resurrected one simply shows a need to be contentious rather than a need to solve a problem. Don't feed them. Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

My only intention here is to try to solve a problem. I had nothing to do with the previous discussion and I don't have any "need to be contentious" if that's what you're implying. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that Northern Ireland is much more of a country than Wales and that it is debatable to suggest that Wales is an entirely separate entity. But again, regardless of our personal opinions, what should matter is that the Wales and Northern Ireland articles are treated consistently. Many sources might call Northern Ireland by one term or another, but it is still called a "part" in the Wikipedia article. The same should apply to Wales due to the contention surrounding its status (the contemporary sources for which I am currently researching). If any country is "being singled out" here I'd say that it's Northern Ireland, not Wales. It's the only one being called a "part" of the UK, and the only justification you can offer for this exception is something to do with its age (despite Wales in its current form not being that much older). Heck, even Yorkshire is called an "area". What I'm saying is that there seems to be quite a problematic inconsistency here with how this is being dealt with, resulting in the wording making it seem as though Wikipedia is taking sides. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

What you "would argue" is irrelevant. That's WP:OR. What the Northern Ireland article says is irrelevant. That's WP:OTHERCONTENT. The only issue for this article is what WP:RS primarily call Wales and the WP:CONSENSUS about that. That's been already been highlighted in this thread. There's nothing further to discuss. DeCausa (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

As I said earlier, "regardless of our personal opinions, what should matter is that the Wales and Northern Ireland articles are treated consistently". And I believe that there is a great deal more to be discussed about how Wales should be called which has not already been highlighted in this thread, so I shall continue to work on finding reliable sources to prove the lack of consensus and push for a change in terminology. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

An useful suggestion

Shall we write "an" before <eu>, <ew> and <u>-words that is begun with /ɪʊ/ in Wales-related articles? The Welsh differentiate you (/juː/), yew (/jɪʊ/) and ewe(/ɪʊ/). 2409:8A55:3969:3370:D0DB:AE9D:5155:CCDB (talk) 08:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Treason of the Blue Books/Bilingual Education

The history section includes this comment; "... the period also saw the publication of a report on education that became known as the Treachery of the Blue Books. The report ... led to a requirement for bilingual education."

I think that it is a bit inaccurate or at least misleading. The Blue Books said that schools were being largely conducted in English. This was because of the preferences of Welsh parents and the Welsh social elite. The Blue Books was one of various reports to conclude this system wasn't effective at teaching English because solely Welsh-speaking children couldn't understand their lessons. This eventually led to the government in London beginning to encourage some use of Welsh in schools to help children learn English towards the end of the 19th century and about 40 years after the Blue Books.

Johnes, Martin (2024). Welsh Not: Elementary Education and the Anglicisation of Nineteenth-Century Wales (PDF). University of Wales Press. ISBN 9781837721818. Llewee (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

References

Caerphilly castle

The UKs 2nd largest medieval castle ~2026-33213-61 (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

As our article states, in the opening paragraph of the lead. KJP1 (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

costal = coastal

Protected article so cant change it.~2026-32542-29 (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Changed, best, CMD (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Population in intro incorrect

The population in 2021 in the census link provided in the summary is 3.1 million, not 3.2 million as stated in the text GalwayBogger (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Quite right, thanks. I amended. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2026 (UTC)