Category talk:Celtic crosses in Wales

This category needs to be divided into old and new. I suggest:

• Category:Medieval and pre-Medieval Celtic crosses in Wales
• Category:Post Medieval Celtic crosses in Wales.

If there's no other suggestion, Ill move on with it in a week. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism of Category - "Wales is a country"

Conserning your good faith edit here: on what do you base your argument that "Wales is not a country"? It is a country, as you will see in all reliable sources; there's a list of them on the English Wikipedia here. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: Practically the supplement "by country" of the main term of a category is synonymous for "by state". In so to say every of the "by country"-categories you will find a listing of states only. In Germany fore example there are sixteen federal entities like Bavaria, North Rhine-Westphalia or Brandenburg, in Austria nine like Tyrol or Carinthia, you as well can label as countries as Wales. I've never seen in one of the categories "by country" a listing of one of these countries. "Construction sites in Carynthia" is embedded in "Construction sites in Austria" and this is embedded in "Construction sites by country". There by the way also is listed "Construction sites in the United Kingdom" and in this category there are the listings of Construction sites in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland and - surprise - "Construction sites in Wales". Seems like some people in Wales have another view of categorization than you.

Sorry, I don't want to hurt your Welsh pride and admit, Wales is a country, but perhaps you can admit, that my correction of categorization of "Celtic crosses in Wales" is no vandalism but the normal way.

Greetings from Germany --Im Fokus (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I will answer your points in the order given.

1. You say that "Practically the supplement "by country" of the main term of a category is synonymous for "by state"." I say - no! There are no policies on Commons which state this. If I'm incorrect please say so. The words are very different -just open a dictionary - and your understanding of these two terms are incorrect. If you want only UN recognised states, then please start a new category: Celtic crosses in UN recognised states, but please don't confuse the readers!

2. On all Wikimedia projects, sources trump ignorance, popular ideology, political pov etc etc. As you can see here on enwiki there are >40 sources in that Talk page whereby Wales is called both a nation and a country. Every UK Prime Minister in the last 100 years has used these words to describe our country. This week, once again, Boris Johnson used 'country', and has done so consistently since he was appointed to his office. Has Chancellor Angela Merkel (and all past Chancellors) refereed to Bavaria, North Rhine-Westphalia or Brandenburg as "countries"? No! That's where your argument falls flat: the sources say that Wales is a country. The description of categories should be what's in the tin: Category:Bananas should have bananas, Category:Elephants should have elephants, Category:Countries should have countries.

3. You say, "Seems like some people in Wales have another view of categorization than you." - I have NEVER come across a single person in Wales who doesn't think that Wales is a country. This is the normal way. Maybe if you lived in Wales you would understand this.

4. "Sorry if I'm hurting your unionist pride"! By the way, I would never stoop so low as to say your 'German pride' as it would be nothing short of bullying. Stick to the argument! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000:

1. All your words about the terms country and state are superfluous. I wrote, that I admit, Wales is a country, and I only described the practice of the categorization in the categories "by country" and the practice is, that there is only one of 10.000 entries, which isn't one of an UN recognized state.

2. Not only in my but many other European citizens' opinions Boris Johnson isn't the best reference, but in this case assumed he's right, yet you're wrong with Chancellor Merkel, because Bavaria, Westphalia and Brandenburg are countries as well. But it doesn't make much sense, to classify a category "Bananas in Bavaria" as part of a main category "Bananas by country" if there is a category "Bananas in Germany".

3. Your reasoning on this point is completely wrong. No matter if Wales is a country or not, people in Wales and in the other countries of the U.K., namely England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, too categorize in another way than you do. Look, nobody except you categorizes "Celtic crosses in [country of the U.K.]" under "Celtic crosses by country" but only under "Celtic crosses in the United Kingdom". Because of your categorizing both under "by country" and "in the United Kingdom" the listing of Celtic crosses in Wales under "by country" is double, once directly, once indirectly. This is to avoid. Therefore happened my correction of categorization and I was right about that! If the category "in the U.K." wasn't there, you would be right.

4. I'm sorry, I don't understand, why "Welsh pride" is bullying. It was meant to be friendly. And as much as you get excited about the status of Wales, I would have guessed, you would be proud of being Welsh.

Im Fokus (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Part of your reasoning here is very unclear, however:

1. If one out of 10,000 is different, then that needs to be said in Wikipedia, otherwise we produce fake news. If the sources say that Wales is a country in Europe and the world, then our categories need to say that.

2. If Merkel (and similar sources) say that Bavaria is a country, then that too should be reflected in the categories. Really odd that there's no mention of this neither in the English or German Wikipedia articles; but you may know differently. But if what you say is true, then add it! But this discussion is about Wales only, regardless of how other places are defined by sources.

3. You're right! There are two thoughts on this: that Wales is in the UK and that Wales is in Europe and the world. I agree. That needs to be reflected in the categories; we need both, otherwise it becomes incorrect, censored, and not "the sum of all knowledge". Your point that placing two categories is 'doubling' (or what is referred to on WP as COM:OVERCAT) is also incorrect. The policy actually states that:

Countries may be categorized as part of multiple overlapping categories. For example, Category:India is in Category:Countries of South Asia as well as Category:Countries of Asia.

4. I accept your apology. My race, gender or creed has nothing to do with this discussion. Inappropriate ad hominem remarks are best kept at bay. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: 1. & 3. Final remark: If the categories completely overlap, i.e. if one category is a full subset of the other, classification should only be in the subordinate category. You can then logically derive the affiliation to the superordinate category. So there is no such thing as "fake news" (it is better to avoid this contaminated term).

Lots of other users do it like me. Why is Cardiff only listed under "Cities in Wales" and not under "Cities in United Kingdom" and not under "Cities in Europe" even though it is in the UK and Europe? Because it makes sense, since Wales is entirely part of the United Kingdom and this is entirely part of Europe (total overlap). So logically, if Cardiff is in Wales, it must also be in the UK and Europe.

It's like a family tree: You are only listed as a child of your parents and not as a grandson of your two pairs of grandparents and a great-grandson of your four pairs of great-grandparents. Otherwise the family tree would be completely bloated and unhelpful, as it would be very difficult to analyze.

--Im Fokus (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That's the point: Wales is not a full subset of the UK. It may well be in politics, but certainly not in sports and culture. 'Wales national football team' is listed under 'European national association football teams' and to delete this would be very foolish and political. 'Fake news' is giving incomplete information just as much as giving wrong, incorrect, inconsistent and vague information to the reader. Same with culture eg the National Eisteddfod has nothing to do with the Welsh Government or the English Government and in no way is a subset of English culture. And when we go back over 200 (pre-UK days), then the use of UK is idiotic! Some of these Celtic Crosses are 1,500 years old, made well before England was even conquered by the invading Angles, Jutes, Saxons and Frisians; a time when Wales existed, but this is another issue, which Wikimedia has not grasped - the anachronistic use of modern words to categories older subjects. The period between 400AD and 1,100AD in Wales is called 'The Age of Saints'; in England it's sometimes called 'The Dark Ages'. Viva la difference! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

If there wasn't a national team for all of Great Britain, like in football, or if the category was "Celtic Crosses by culture", you'd be right. However, "Celtic Crosses by country" is about which country the cross is in. And geographically and politically Wales is a complete subgroup of the UK, sorry.

But let's end the controversy. Vive la différence! --Im Fokus (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)