Talk:Aber Falls

Rhaeadr-fawr and Rhaeadr-bach

@A.D.Hope, the O.S. is not the authority on place-names. The source you cited or the NP don't use that form. In turn, re-added the other name (which is more critical as it changes with mutation) assuming you just followed what the O.S. uses not what most sources use. Don't default to the O.S. please and better find sources to support your change. Diolch. DankJae 22:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why you're completely disregarding the OS. As the mapping agency for Great Britain it is an authority on place-names, if not the authority. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope, Wikipedia uses WP:COMMONNAMES not WP:OFFICIALNAMES, or it be "Eryri" and "Y Bala". The O.S. themselves state We will not: Be the Authority for Welsh names. DankJae 23:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't follow the OS because its name is in some way official, as I'm aware of the guidelines. I used it because it's a reliable English language source. Where there are discrepancies between the OS and non-topographic sources I'd tend to favour the OS, because as a mapping agency it is reliable when it comes to topography.

Where the OS states it isn't the authority for Welsh names is it not distinguishing its remit from that of the Welsh Language Commissioner? It wouldn't make sense for it to claim that the names on its maps had no authority in general. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

You did not even add a cite for the OS, and is the source you cited NRW or the NP not reliable then? They surely have more influence over readers than a map publisher. While you may have not done it because it is "official" you seem to have chosen it for personal preference for the OS, which I still do not understand. Not sure why it being "topographical" provides more expertise in Welsh place-names or common use over those looking after the falls, promoting the falls, or the government?

The OS states it isn't the authority, so it isn't. Especially when many sources don't follow the OS. If anything, the WLC has more authority and the NP is set to make their own decision which could indeed follow the OS or not. So there's too many "authorities", just use what most sources use, which currently don't match the OS, or add both versions of the name when possible (most common first). DankJae 00:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting the name to be challenged, hance the lack of citation. I would now use one as you have challenged it.

While NRW and the NP are reliable, I would not consider the sources given to be as authoritative as the OS when it comes to the spelling of place names. The names which appear on OS maps have been researched, whereas the NRW and NP pages about the waterfall are primarily for tourist information. Last night I meant 'toponymical' rather than 'topographical' – you'll have to forgive me, it was late.

'Authority' is capitalised in the passage you mention. There isn't a 'Welsh Language Authority' as such, but the Welsh Language Commissioner fulfils a similar role. This leads me to think the OS is clarifying that it is not the authority on the Welsh language in relation to the Welsh Language Measure (2011), which is instead the WLC. It is not stating that the names it gives to places in Wales have no authority, because they do. In its Names Policy it states: There is no national names authority in Great Britain. Instead, the geographical names as portrayed on hard- copy and digital products of the national mapping agency – the Ordnance Survey – are recognised as being the authoritative geographical names of Great Britain.

The WLC has not given the waterfall a standardised name, unfortunately for us, so cannot be used as a source in this case.

None of the above means that we must follow the OS exactly. If there's widespread evidence of a different name or spelling being used then that would tip the balance. What I don't understand is your position, which seems to disregard the OS entirely despite it being an (not the) authority on place names. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Whether a source is authoritative is still a WP:OFFICIALNAMES argument. While prioritising "toponymical" sources still implies trying to correct names rather than represent ones that are used generally. Still believe just using the common Welsh name is best and most WP:NPOV until that the common one changes, or including both here.

Don't agree with your interpretation of the capitalisation of "Authority", and how that disproves them stating they aren't the authority to somehow they are. More likely clarifying the difference between an entity executing authority compared to the general concept of authority as they reference in the next bullet point. Plus makes one question their authority if official sources don't always follow them. Surely the OS delegating some responsibility to the WLC, shows that the OS has questions on their dataset. So while you may view them as authoritative, I on the otherhand have my doubts. Of course neither of us can decide what is right or wrong, hence Wikipedia follows what most sources use, they decide.

I am not saying not to consider the OS at all, but not to give it more priority over as official and ideally other independent secondary sources representing a WP:COMMONNAME. Of course if many sources use the OS version, and usage is split, happy to side with the OS. Yes WLC has not yet made a decision, but with the NP they are making a list, so best at least wait? Any form they decide would surely be the pinnacle of authority if gov, park and OS all agree on a form if arguing based on authority. Rather than pick which official body is worthy and which isn't. DankJae 23:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Given all this boils down to whether or not to use a hyphen I'm quite happy to use the non-hyphenated versions of the names to avoid prolonging the debate. The more important thing is that Rhaeadr Fach is mentioned, because as far as I can tell it isn't otherwise included in the encyclopedia.

On your other points, I'm not making an OFFICIALNAMES argument; WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP are probably the most relevant guideline and policy respectively. We can and should discriminate between different types of source, and in this case a mapping authority carries more weight as a source than a webpage aimed at tourists even if that webpage is published by a reliable authority. If I can use an analogy, when I'm writing an article on a castle I may sometimes check the Cadw website, but if the information on the website contradicted the official guidebook or other academic sources I would side with the latter because they are more authoritative in that instance.

As I said in my last comment, it would not make sense for the OS to declare that its maps are not authoritative for Wales as that would call their usefulness into question. The OS also claims in its names policy that its names are authoritative for Great Britain. The statement you linked to makes more sense in the context of the Welsh Language Measure (2011), as the OS is not the language authority in that regard.

I do see your points, but on this occasion I don't think we're going to agree. If you want to carry on the discussion it might be best to move it to one of our talk pages? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

My simple solution is just wait until the two sources I mention, WLC, and the OS all agree on one form, as they are planning to do. DankJae 17:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

We'll have to see how that shakes out; the article doesn't mention that the OS or NRW are involved, so there might still be a discrepancy. Regardless, given the only issue is the hyphen I'm happy to leave it for now. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)