Talk:Llansantffraid-ym-Mechain

In light of the name change shouldn't this article also be changed accordingly? Kingbumpkin (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is it true to say that the village decided to change it's name? I thought the decision was made by Powys County Council on the advice of the Welsh Language Board. Kingbumpkin (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Nonsensical redirect

It is laughable that "Llansantffraid", a quite common Welsh placename with several variant spellings, should have been redirected to "Llansanffraid-ym-Mechain". If anything, the redirect should be to the disambiguation page Llansanffraid. Ten or more parishes of the same name and variant spellings are disambiguated in the Welsh language Wikipedia at Llansantffraid (in Welsh). In Welsh, llan = church, parish or village; sant = saint; Ffraid = Bride or Bridget. I'll have a go at correcting the misdirect. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've fixed the redirect to the dab page in accordance with your post at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Technical requests (any editor can make a page into a redirect or disambiguation page). You might also want to check whether the Template:Powys navbox is now OK. — Richardguk (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss

May I first explain that being a contributor to Wikipedia is foreign to me. My reason for participating was to correct spelling and factual errors. My understanding is that my factual presentation on the history of the name of my village is in doubt. I would welcome a dialogue to resolve this and to have the references I have quoted verified. Blackwhitefox (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive comment and for helping to improve the encyclopedia.

Though I don't know much about this particular case, the following phrase in the article indicates the current problem: "In recent years the correct spelling, without a 't', ...".

This statement assumes that there is a single objectively "correct" spelling. That does not mean that every possible spelling would be "correct"; but where more than one spelling has been in widespread use by reliable sources, Wikipedia has to maintain a neutral point of view. (The sources should be authoritative, though, so we don't simply accept anyone's assertion about what is right or wrong!) So, if the academic sources do strongly support one spelling over the other, that can be recorded objectively without asserting that the alternative spelling is not "correct". (As an example: the traditional pronunciation of "Daventry" is "Dane-tree". But most people now pronounce it "Dav-en-tree", and it would be wrong for Wikipedia to take sides as to which pronunciation is "correct", because they are both in widespread use by reliable and authoritative sources.)

A second issue is undue weight: At present, over half the article is about the placename's spelling. That is far too much information for such a narrow point. (For comparison, the article about the place with the most disputed name in the UK / island of Ireland devotes less than 10% of its text to the naming dispute!) There is surely more to be said about the village than its spelling; and if not much is to be said about other things, then it is unlikely that the spelling deserves to be discussed at great length in a general encyclopedia article.

UK law assigns official names to council areas, cities, wards, parishes and communities; but there is no legal register of placenames and so there is no official name for any village. In this case, the county and community councils disagree with each other. Ordnance Survey disagrees with itself at different scales! Royal Mail has used both names at different times. So the only neutral fact is that both spellings are in recent use and that there is a dispute as to which variant should be preferred. The article should then summarise the merits asserted by each side.

I hope that helps explain the relevant Wikipedia policies. Clearly the spelling of the place has been an issue in the recent past. But if there is a dispute among local people or councillors or academics, that is evidence of more than one possible spelling, regardless of how compelling you or I might individually consider one or other variant to be. As editors, our role is only to record what is, not what ought to be; Wikipedia's primary mission is to record the world and its changes, not to change the world itself. If we improve the world by spreading knowledge, that is a welcome side-effect; but we are not allowed to take sides in ongoing disputes.

I would encourage you and other editors to improve the article by reducing the length of the spelling section, removing the assertion that one variant is "correct", and replacing the interesting but lengthy information about one version with a summary that includes a brief explanation of why the county council's review was rejected by the community council and some local residents.

You might find it helpful to add a link to the more general information in the Welsh toponymy article. Indeed, if you are willing to retain a neutral point of view, you might also want to contribute to that general article, where your specialist knowledge will benefit more readers.

— Richardguk (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the article in a way that hopefully does justice to both sides of the argument. However, I am coming round to thinking that all this discussion is unnecessary... is it not sufficient simply to state that there are two spellings of the name, one Welsh and one anglicised? A bit like Y Trallwng/Welshpool. Have a paragraph about the origins of the name, mention the two spellings and leave it at that.Dromoyne (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Llansantffraid-ym-Mechain. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100924054536/http://www.francisfrith.com/llansantffraid to http://www.francisfrith.com/llansantffraid/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Llansantffraid Defaced Sign.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]