Talk:Caroline Street (Cardiff)

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cardiff High‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cardiff, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cardiff-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CardiffWikipedia:WikiProject CardiffTemplate:WikiProject CardiffCardiff articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chip or Chippy?[edit]

The source seems to favour 'Chippy Lane' over 'Chip Lane'. Thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Happy New Year to all! Secondly, being but an "incomer" and non-Welsh speaker, I'm not going to get into a debate of Chip v Chippy, or Lane v Alley: I'll just go with the source. Hence Chip Alley seems to be the locals prefered tag from the sources I could find, but no doubt its been debated for a while and will continue to be so. I even thought about adding a section on Chip Lane v Chip Alley! Best Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Chippy Lane" is a very recent name anyway. Post 2000. Before that it was always just "Caroline Street". Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation[edit]

"Riotous"? You could easily apply that description to the whole of Cardiff city centre on Saturday nights, I'm not sure it's something specific to Caroline Street. Without strong sources, I've removed the word from the section heading. The remainder of the paragraph could probably do with re-wording too. Sionk (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline of Brunswick: well loved?[edit]

A description of Caroline of Brunswick, as “the well loved ...” was added back to this article. The edit summary says “It's a reasonable description of her (although not by her husband), and sourceable by anyone who cares to look...”. Well, I looked and am unsure if this is/was generally true. If it is sourceable it should be cited, if only because it has been challenged – per WP:VERIFY. The phrase also contravenes WP:PEACOCK and so, should be re-cast. I have removed the phrase. Please discuss here before re-adding. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From our own Caroline of Brunswick article lead, "She was wildly popular and the new king was despised for his immoral behaviour." This is far from contentious: he was seen as a pointless wastrel, she was seen (as is common for Princesses of Wales) as the loyal wife despite. This was commemorated throughout the kingdom by naming areas after her, not after him. In Brighton his Royal Pavilion (the wastrel's biggest waste) is flanked to this day by one of the many pubs, The Caroline of Brunswick. Your own Google search turns up the literal phrase "well loved" on the first page of results in reference to her. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for discussing this first. I'm sure you know that Wikipedia cannot be cited as a source. Of those sources on the first page of the Google search, the first relates to James and Beatrice Duncan as 'well loved'. The next six and the last are not reliable sources, as they are self-published or blogs. The National Portrait Gallery carries a piece by an author who describes 'The Glories', in the Tudor rooms as 'well loved', not Caroline. 'Well-loved' is used to describe Queen Elizabeth II in the Booklovers.co.uk reference. The part referencing Caroline of Brunswick says “... her name a byword either of veneration or reproach from one end of Europe to the other ...”. The fact that the phrase was removed shows that the phrase was contended, and the Booklovers.co.uk reference confirms this too. I don't think the phrase should be included. If only, as I mention above, because it is contrary to WP:PEACOCK. If other editors disagree and re-instate it, I won't revert. But if it is, it needs a RS citation. Daicaregos (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]