Talk:Glan Conwy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glan Conwy. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 August 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glan Conwy → Llansanffraid Glan Conwy – This is the name of both the settlement and community. Glan Conwy is the name of a place near Betws-y-Coed. There is a Commons category for "Glan Conwy" for the village and "Llansanffraid Glan Conwy" for the community, I think this is because it was thought that Glan Conwy was the name of the village and Llansanffraid Glan Conwy the name of the community, but the village appears to also be Llansanffraid Glan Conwy. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Skinsmoke agrees. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the Commons category by qualifying the community, putting the village at "Llansanffraid Glan Conwy" and turning Glan Conwy into a DAB page. I'm not sure if a DAB page will be needed here as the place called Glan Conwy is lower than an OS settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't have an article on the other Glan Conwy, and if this one is also known by the shorter name too, do we need to use the longer name? I'm of two minds. Andrewa (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The longer name appears to be its complete and formal name, see Stourport-on-Severn for example. I'd note that the Welsh article is at cy:Llansanffraid Glan Conwy anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This may be true but is irrelevant. We don't always use complete names, see His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, PC, ADC, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland (but that's a redlink, so try Charles, Prince of Wales), nor do we always use formal names, see acetylsalicylic acid. Andrewa (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's like the example given at WP:CONCISE of Rhode Island, but "Rhode Island" is the name its nearly always called by sources (both primary and secondary such as maps), while in this case the longer name is more formal and common, as can be seen also from a quick Google Search. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rhode Island is indeed a case of using the shorter name. Stourport is more relevant, but the name doesn't seem to have been discussed except for Talk:Stourport-on-Severn#Town Name which challenged this very point but received no replies. Andrewa (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The point that with Stourport the longer name is used by mainstream sources, but that's not for Rhode Island. There are lots of redirects from short names, see Category:Redirects from short names, if there even was a mention about the place near Betws-y-Coed the a {{redirect}} hat could be used but that doesn't mean this shouldn't be moved, we haven't moved Microsoft Windows to Windows etc. The current name is an informal and incomplete name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Redirects from short names is indeed a large category, but did you notice how many of the entries are covered by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) (and yes, that does blow my Prince Charles example right out of the water) and most of the rest are ammunition types or similar, probably covered by a naming convention of their own either formally or otherwise. I need to think about the Windows example, it does currently redirect but the discussion at Talk:Windows#It SHOULD stay redirecting to Window_(disambiguation) was left unresolved almost nine years ago and still is (well, resolved by silence I guess). Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you go further along the list there are many that aren't covered by NCROY. Similar to Thames and Merthyr for example. The point about Windows is that the Mircosoft shouldn't be moved to the short name even if primary for "Windows". Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The place near Betws-y-Coed appears to be insignificant, such that we'd never have an article for it, and since the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE name for this town is indeed "Glan Conwy", we should just leave it as is.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It raises some interesting issues, see discussion above and below, but IMO a case has not been made. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

It's IMO best for the closer if we just leave the discussion above where it is and continue there in need, but any new threads should start down here, and I would not object to refactoring to leave the survey at the top as is more conventional. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glan_Conwy&oldid=1202307563"