Talk:Welsh devolution: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:55, 28 April 2023

Latest revision as of 03:27, 25 February 2024

(11 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 26:

| collapse =

}}

{{WikiProject Walesbanner shell|class=B |importance1=High

{{WikiProject Wales

| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes

| importance = Top

| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes

}}

| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes

{{WikiProject Celts|importance=Top}}

| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes

{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|b6=yes|importance=midMid}}

| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes}}

}}

{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|b6=yes|importance=mid}}

== Roman history is not relevant to [[devolution]] ==

Line 105:

:::::::::::Nevertheless I actually think it all sits well with a reader and I have made a summary of proposed further devolution on this article to replace the content I moved over. The move seems to address any concern about too much devolution proposals in this article

:::::::::::Pinging @[[User:DankJae|DankJae]] and @[[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy]] [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 20:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::Perhaps take it back to draft for now? [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 22:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Appreciate the sensible suggestion, but it doesn't seem like it needs to be draftified as it looks. As long as there is no opposition to this bold split after having a look at both pages as they stand? [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 21:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Overall neutral on the split, while it would be greater long term to have it all in one article, the pre-existing section did give excess weight to proposals, and I believe more detail can be added to the proposals which would overload this article, so don't mind it, and am fine with it. '''[[User:DankJae|<span style="color: black">Dank</span>]][[User talk:DankJae|<span style="color: red">Jae</span>]]''' 23:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

== Correct Welsh name ==

Line 113 ⟶ 116:

::"Datganoli i Gymru" = "Devolution to Wales" or "Devolution for Wales"; "Datganoli Cymru" = "Devolution of Wales"

::Both correct. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 13:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

== Interesting article for insight additions ==

Some suggestions as to why the majority in the '98 referendum was relatively narrow: https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2021-07-20/worries-language-mafia-almost-cost-victory-in-welsh-devolution-referendum [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 02:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

:It's a news report which picks up on one comment from one person and makes a headline out of it. We don't want pages that are following newspapers. There must surely be much better secondary sources analysing that referendum. What can we learn from them? [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 08:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

::Just thought it might add a bit more depth and variety to the understanding of the factors influencing the referendum. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 01:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

:::Might also be a valuable addition to [[1997 Welsh devolution referendum]] [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 01:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

== Update needed: Constitutional Commission ==

https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2024-01/independent-commission-on-the-constitutional-future-of-wales-final-report.pdf

There are various secondary sources to look at in the news, all published today. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 17:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)