Talk:Snowdonia

Yr Wyddfa mention

The name Yr Wyddfa is mentioned in Snowdon article, but it is confusing to mention it here while saying that the area is named after Snowdon because that's not true in Welsh. Deleted Yr Wyddfa and added Eryri.

Black n white pic

Hiya. I've got a picture at Image:Bristly_ridge_in_winter.jpg if that's any use to this, or similar articles. Ojw 00:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to be a "wet blanket" but we really need colour pics of a National Park and yours is black and white. Others may be happy with black and white, but I'm sure colour pics will come along soon enough. Cheers! - Adrian Pingstone 09:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Geology

I'm not sure this page should be classfied Category:Geology of the United Kingdom. Apart from a brief mention of slate at Blaenau Ffestiniog, there's no geologising at all. -- Pseudonym 16:30, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)

External links on page

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Nigel (Talk) 15:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The above message from Nigel suggested that I discuss my desire to have a link to www.snowdonia-active.com. The site is no more commercial than a number of the other sites on the snowdonia page. Yes the site does contain a directory listing of businesses and service providers but it also has up to date news on economic, environmental and social issues issues affecting the region, a series of area and activity guides for those seeking futher info on outdoor activities in the area and a document library containing information on social and economic projects and studies that Snowdonia-Active have been closely involved with, in the region including a strategy to facilitate young local people into greater involvement in outdoor activities and hopefully into working in outdoor activities/education allowing them to remain living in the area thus helping to sustain the local economy, culture and language. I feel (yes I am biase) that the site should not be dissmissed as a comercial site seeking to use and abuse wikipedia but more a valuable information resource for those with an interest (perhaps yet to be discovered) in Snowdonia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.7.23.166 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 6 Sep 2006 (UTC) Thanks Chris :)

Reaction rather than thought but I'll think it through and put on some more tomorrow. I think quite a few of the others should go! Take a look at WP:EL & WP:SPAM and bear in mind that Wiki is not a tourist directory but an encyclopedia (& yes I do like Snowdonia a lot). The trouble is that there are many - in your words - biased web master or similar who are all sure that their website has something to offer. They all do but probably not on Wiki. But I will think about it and get back to you I promise --Nigel ^(Talk) 16:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK - looked at all the oethrs (as I had before) nothing there is strictly commercial. In practice I am not in favour of links (& have removed yours before). Wiki is an encyclopedia not a directory and external links are rarely valid. If you want to contribute something other than links (I imagine you know the area well) great but I will be keeping an eye on the page (& plenty of other like it). Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 09:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nige, "nothing there is strictly commercial" Snowdonia and Mountain Visitors Guide is covered in google adverts? You are obviously doing a good job keeping an eye on things but there seems to be a bit of a mismatch between your reasoning and the apearance of links to commercial sites on wikipedia surely there has to be one rule for all? Thanks for your time. Chris:) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.210.57.113 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Hum I detect a hint of sarcasm there. Interesting point tho - I use a fairly heavy duty HOSTS file (guess where I found the info) so I don't see the ads on it. However I'll remove that one to and bear that in mind on future sites. If you want to add to wiki - great - if you want to post links to your website then any number of editors will remove it --Nigel ^(Talk) 16:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again Nigel, I have a much clearaer understanding of how wikipedia works now, which is nice. I may well get round to adding some content if I get a quiet moment. Thanks, Chris

Removed from article: "Some quotes"

This section struck me as something of a disguised POV-fest ("we can't say how great Snowdonia is in our own words, but if we quote other people it's all right"). But one or two of them might be useful in context (e.g. a section about tourism and its history), so I'm moving them here.

Over the years much has been written about Snowdonia and North Wales, including the following quotes -

• "Views. Snowdonia has them in such spectacular abundance that you quickly run out of superlatives to describe them. At the top of every peak a glorious vista unfolds. Each bend in the road unfurls to reveal a new perspective of gasp-inducing splendour."

Francis Hardy, Daily Mail reporter, 14.12.2002

• "Perhaps in the whole world there is no region more picturesquely beautiful than Snowdonia, a region of mountains, lakes, cateracts and groves, in which Nature shows herself in her most grand and beautiful forms."

George Borrow, "Wild Wales", 1862

• "Snowdonia is superbly beautiful country ...."

John Wyatt, "The National Parks of England & Wales", 1988

• "It (Snowdonia) comprises, within a comparatively small area, some of the loveliest and most varied country that our island has to offer."

Penguin Guide to North Wales, 1949

• "... collected into a small space, more that is graceful, beautiful and romantic, may be found in North Wales than in any other spot in Europe."

Louisea Costello, "The Falls, Lakes and Mountains of North Wales", 1839

--Blisco 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is okay if we quote significant writers to say how a place is appreciated; that Snowdonia has been and continues to be appreciated for its grandeur and natural beauty etc is as much a fact as Beddgelert being a village within it. This is a referenced approach to mentioning those facts though I'd agree that we should not go over the top with it. For myself I'd pick up Borrow's quote as he was one of those responsible for inspiring further visitation so has an almost tangible part in Snowdonia's history. cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

'Snowdonia National Park' Merge

Shouldn't this be merged with Snowdonia National Park? There seems to be only a very minimal difference in the areas. Morwen - Talk 15:35, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. Is there actually a difference? Snowdonia is the national park right? or do they represent slightly different areas? Did the name Snowdonia exist before the national park was declared? Anyone know? -- Nojer2 08:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They Should be merged because it would mean less digging around and being able to use the whole lot offline not just one part

I've proposed a merger of this article with Snowdonia National Park, since (as mentioned by Morwen above) there is minimal difference between the two areas. Admittedly many people, including myself, tend to think of Snowdonia as the Snowdon area excluding the Rhynogydd and Cadair Idris, but the distinction is now fairly blurred; indeed this article covers the whole national park. If there are no objections I'll merge the two in the near future. --Blisco 11:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I confess I found it strange that there were two pages (while respecting a more local view). --Herby ^{talk to me} 11:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Go ahead with a merger, but be sure to retain the initial paragraph which clearly defines how the two are perceived.

Hogyn Lleol 13:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger done. --Blisco 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Issue with the merge

The merge of Snowdonia and Snowdonia National Park is causing problems with inter project and inter language links. There are two Wikidata entries d:Q867913 and d:Q20888920 with Wikipedia and Wikivoyage articles listed in both. Usually I would just merge these two lists but there are two separate articles on the subject in Welsh, Breton and Catalan. My knowledge of Gallic languages does not go past road signs so not capable of merging these pages. Proposing to move all language and project articles to Snowdonia were can, unless someone has a better idea? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

just been stumbling over the same issue, as interwikilinks are broken because of that. Has there been any progress? Agathoclea (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Pronouncitation

Could someone had a pronounciation guide (IPA) for the Welsh "Eryri"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.101.226 (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Location map

Snowdonia

I've uploaded a location map of Snowdonia to Commons (shown to right). I have not created an associated {{location map}} template, but this can easily be done if desired.

If this is created, it will enable creation a map of Snowdonia similar to the one under construction at Talk:Dartmoor#Location map, and could be used in related articles (see this example). Hope people find it useful.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Could someone add a new section "Geology"

Could someone add a geology section. What are the rocks composed of? Describe all rocks of which it is formed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.171.220 (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Have made a start on that and will expand it yet but reserve most detail for a separate article on the topic which I've already linked to. diolch/thanks Geopersona (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Any information on early civilizations?

I've been looking for an article that contains information on the history of people in Snowdonia. Anyone knowledgeable? Thought it might be a good addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.201.42 (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

How about Ordovices for a start ?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Improving the article

I was surprised to see how little attention this article had received over many years so decided to do something about it (actually my original aim was to put together a new article on the area's geology which I'm also doing but this one needed some getting into better shape). I've initiated various topics here and hope others will now take some time to develop and reference these more fully (and yes, i'll be adding more references soon myself) diolch/thanks Geopersona (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

discussion of name - maybe best done at Talk:Snowdon?

Given the recent decision of the National Park Authority to change how it refers to both the area and the highest mountain in English, namely Eryri and Yr Wyddfa respectively (the Welsh names) rather than Snowdonia and Snowdon, there are likely to be similar considerations regarding the choice of name in both cases. It is probably helpful if such discussion is in one place, rather than fragmented. So could I suggest using Talk:Snowdon rather than here, as the place to discuss these two closely related issues together? (In principle it could be in either place, but that talk page has more existing discussion already, so it would seem to make sense to choose that.) Dani di Neudo (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I actually think that the answers are different. The National Park Authority does have the power to change the official name of the national park - and so as long as this article is about the national park, we should be seriously considering renaming it to Eryri. But it doesn't have the power to change the common name of the mountain, and so we should hold off changing that article to be called Yr Wyddfa until there's evidence of it becoming common usage outside the national park's own publications. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Apart from the questions being discussed regarding WP:COMMONNAME etc., an editor has replaced Snowdonia National Park Authority with Eryri National Park Authority. This one is trickier and I have left it in, but it needs discussion. Legally the park authority is the Snowdonia National Park Authority, as per schedule 1 of the 1995 relevant act,[1] but the authority can restyle itself, just as the Welsh Assembly Government restyled itself as Welsh Government prior to any official change. Having said that, we still use WP:COMMONNAME don't we? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that both discussions are distinct.

The mountain is to be referred to as the Welsh name (Yr Wyddfa), although Snowdon is still common. This is an article on The National Park, that is not called Snowdonia anymore. I’m assuming that the Northern Macedonia article has changed from being Macedonia? 81.174.169.183 (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is old and superseded by the requested move discussion below. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 18 November 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus, WP:COMMONNAME. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Snowdonia → Eryri – The official name has just just been announced as being exclusively Eryri, with Snowdonia being used only in a legal capcity. Titus Gold (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Link to sources below: https://snowdonia.gov.wales/paper-on-place-names-principles-approved-in-order-to-safeguard-and-celebrate-welsh-place-names-within-the-national-park/

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/snowdonia-national-park-called-yr-25536121

https://nation.cymru/news/yr-wyddfa-snowdon-to-be-known-by-welsh-name-from-now-on-after-national-park-vote/

https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2022-11-17/mount-snowdon-to-be-known-as-yr-wyddfa-from-now-on

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snowdon-to-be-known-by-welsh-name-of-yr-wyddfa-0762p302p Titus Gold (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support as per above and as per WP:NAMECHANGES, although it may be worth waiting to see if the use of Eryri continues to be used in media and official sources etc. over the next few days+. I would also note that Eryri is already commonly used in both Welsh and English already, even before the official name being exclusively Eryri.

Titus Gold (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per NAMECHANGES.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. As most people around here know, we name articles by their most commonly used name in reliable English-language sources, not by their official name. This article should not be moved until it is demonstrated that "Eryri" is used most commonly in English-language sources outside of just announcing that the official name has been changed. When Britannica gets around to moving their article, that will be a good indication that the name is in common usage. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME It's too soon; 'Eryri' is not yet the dominant name. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, too soon to see if English-language media pre-dominantly stop using “Snowdonia”. DankJae 11:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  The National Park's official website already uses Eryri on the English side [2]. Surely the Park Authority is the arbiter here, especially as the Welsh Government noted that is was for the Authority to decide: https://snowdonia.gov.wales/. At the very least, one has to recognise that that is the official name of the park (even if you still dispute the usage of the Welsh name for the range specifically, though that has also been made official by the park authority) 81.141.6.73 (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  See WP:OFFICIALNAME (Wikipedia avoids official names in most situations), Wikipedia uses the WP:COMMONNAME as shown in independent sources. Significant time needs to pass to see if "Eryri" catches on in independent, secondary English-language sources, per WP:NAMECHANGES. It could be moved at a later date, but only when common usage supports such a move. It is too soon. DankJae 19:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - this is almost a classic example of the case of this rule, the Welsh name is relatively unknown, as with most other official renaming with political undertones, these don't change its actual name - Snowdon is the most widely used name by far, and as with differently named Welsh cities, suspect this will not be for the short term either by any means. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Any decision regarding the official name of anything is political, but when the change of usage favours a native (and minority) language, it is more visible, and evokes an emotive reaction from the speakers of the dominant language. Your argument is therefore flawed; people have made the same argument about almost every instance where a native place name has been restored to official usage. When the spelling of Caernarfon was restored (from Caernarvon), similar argument were made (just look at the talk page), but nobody questions Caernarfon now. 2A00:23C6:7C14:9801:A89C:72E9:6972:5BCA (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. As per my argument at Snowdon. Its English name will continue to be Snowdonia regardless of any "official" change and English Wikipedia should reflect English names and terms, while Wicipedia Cymraeg should do the same with Welsh. – Dyolf87 (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  How can you say that that the English 'will' continue to be used? That's an assumption, unless you can foresee the future. Not a neutral viewpoint at all. 81.141.6.73 (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't need to have a neutral viewpoint. I am, however, a linguist and am more than qualified to comment on linguistic trends. Even if, within Wales, the words "Snowdon" and "Snowdonia" are completely eradicated and replaced by "Yr Wyddfa" and "Eryri", the same won't be done outside of Wales. It will take at least 2-3 generations for the change of Snowdon to Eryri to take-over among non-Welsh speaking Welsh people within travelling distance of Snowdonia - say within 50 miles - i.e. people who will likely talk about it most often. You then have the issue of branding - outside of Wales organisers of things like the Three Peaks Challenge will continue to use "Snowdon" because it's what people will know - they won't want to explain that "this name we don't know how to pronounce used to be Snowdonia - but the locals don't like Snowdonia so we just print "Yr Wyddfa" but say "Snowdon""; this, compounded with the English elitism and the UK-wide accepted attitude that all native languages other than English are pointless and "not worth learning" means that the names Snowdonia and Snowdon aren't going anywhere for a very long time. – Dyolf87 (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support the National Park's official website already uses Eryri on the English side. Surely the Park Authority is the arbiter here, especially as the Welsh Government noted that is was for the Authority to decide: https://snowdonia.gov.wales/

No, the Park Authority is not the arbiter for what the title of a Wikipedia article should be. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Proposal is contrary to policy. Also there is a fundmental misunderstanding here. The Snowdonia National Park Authority has agreed to use this name exclusively in its material, but it does not have the legal power to make this the official name of the park. It is the name used by the park authority on materials they disseminate, and the legal (i.e. official) name remains. In any case Wikipedia uses WP:COMMONNAME and policy is clear that WP:OFFICIALNAMES should not be used just because they are official. As and when the majority of media and common usage catch up, and the common name becomes Eryri, then at that point Wikipedia should follow suit. WP:NAMECHANGES says If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. At this point they clearly don't and so we clearly shouldn't. This proposal has come way too soon. We are not there yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, given that no evidence has been produced that the common name has changed. Note that, contrary to several of the comments above, the official name also has not changed. What triggered this was a change in Snowdonia National Park Authority's style guide. Kahastok talk 20:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - the proposal, and indeed the proposer, are unsurprising, but it is premature for the COMMONNAME reasons articulated above. It will, almost certainly, happen but we are not there yet. KJP1 (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The WP:COMMONNAME is Snowdonia. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose My heart may say 'Eryri' but en wikipedia policy COMMONNAME says 'Snowdonia' Llwyld (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral - Because I actually think we should split 'Snowdonia' from 'Eryri National Park', and not change the name of the mountain range until and unless the Welsh usage catches on in English, per WP:COMMONNAME. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as it is still referred to as Snowdonia in English by the majority of published sources and this is English language Wikipedia. In Welsh language Wikipedia it should be changed to Eryri if it isn't already. ---Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 14:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME. So far, there has been no mention of Google Trends which keeps track of what people search for on Google and is a resource recommended by WP:COMMONNAME to try to determine the most common name for a topic in the English language. According to a comparison I ran for this discussion there are much more searches for "Snowdonia" vs "Eryri" from within the UK including Wales. In other words, it is too early to tell if usage of the Welsh name has entered common use in English.

In case this is useful in future debates, I learned the words "endonym" (name used by the inhabitants) and "exonym" (name used by outsiders), which I have so far not seen in this discussion, (see the endonym and exonym article on Wikipedia) earlier this year in a Geofocus video on You Tube (Turkey CHANGES its Official Name) which discusses countries which changed their official names in recent years (apologies for the low source volume). To try to find an older example of a similar naming dispute, the government of Ivory Coast has officially preferred the French name Côte d'Ivoire to be used in every language since 1986 but this has not stopped "Ivory Coast" from being the most common name in English for that country nearly 40 years on i.e. official usage does not always translate into common usage in English. My point here is the most common endonym (say, within Gwynedd and its neighbouring communities) for the mountain range and/or the national park could be different to the most common exonym (say in the rest of Wales remembering Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English which states in the event of strong national ties to a topic to use that country's dialect (the formal dialect not colloquialisms)) which could be the most common name for it among English speakers. Tk420 (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)-edited

• • Oppose**: In line with WP:COMMONNAME Jèrriais janne (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose – Google trends of Eryri vs. Snowdonia shows WP:COMMONNAME is Snowdonia. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Obviously the common name. This is English Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In other media

An editor added some unsourced content in the above named section. A CN tag is on it now but I was going to just pull it out as WP:UNDUE but then I wondered about the whole section. "In other media" seems like a dumping ground for a random selection of things filmed in Snowdonia. There are only three there now, and only one of them is remotely interesting - but even that is not very interesting. Many things have been filmed in Snowdonia over the years, but what is the point of the section? If it can't be anything but an indiscriminate set of links, I would suggest it can go. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Did consider removing the recent sentence, but it seemed true, so tagged CN, (big chunks of this article are uncited, so they'll have to be checked too). The section in its current state is not necessary and skews quite recent, but I'd prefer it be expanded with sources on potentially more notable uses as you say many things have been filmed in Snowdonia. But it could be cut now and re-added with more (historical) significance at a later date, so sure it can go for now. DankJae 18:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and as no one else has chipped in, I have removed it. However, placing the link to the specific edit here: [3] so that it is easily found by any future editor who wants to write a new and improved such section, and might want to access what was there before. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Big edit: reducing focus on name

I've just made a fairly significant edit to the article, as I felt that the name issue had come to dominate and that things needed to be rebalanced. The main changes I've made are:

• Extending the lead so that it now has sections on the 'old' geographic region and the area covered by the national park.
• Splitting the 'Name and extent' section into 'Etymology' and 'Extent' sections, and focussing the latter soley on the etymologies of 'Snowdonia' and 'Eryri'.
• Making 'Use of Eryri in English' a full section rather than a subsection, and focussing discussion of the Welsh and English names there.
• Placing 'Use of Eryri in English' beneath sections I'd consider more important in an article about a national park, e.g. geology and natural history. If the consensus is to bump it back up that's fine.
• Retitling 'Snowdonia national park' as just 'National Park', and focussing it on the governance of the park rather than the name.

Within the national park section I've tried to use neutral language such as 'the national park'. As the park now calls itself 'Eryri' I've used that name in the section's lead sentence, but have balanced this with a short summary on the status of 'Snowdonia'. I've also tidied up a bit and switched the order of the names in the infobox, but if I don't go into every detail please don't think I'm deliberately hiding anything.

I think the main thing with the name change is to write about it neutrally and accurately, but to also keep coverage proportional. I hope my edit has achieved that, but as I've made some relatively big changes I thought it was fair to provide a place to discuss and improve them. Thanks! A.D.Hope (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

There were 21 sources given for that Eryri in English section (5 short paragraphs of text). I have reduced that somewhat per WP:OVERCITE but I expect that a single good secondary source on the issue could be the basis of a rewrite. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I did notice the high number of sources but didn't have the stomach to sort them out during my last edits, so thank you for that! A.D.Hope (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand concerns of the name issue coming to dominate. I (think I did?) largely expanded the section, may be adding too many cites, to support the debate here at RM and to inform editors who may boldly automatically change everything to Eryri. To reduce such dominance I would prefer the rest of the article is expanded, although some reductions to the name section can be justified.

Ofc, when the article moves to Eryri, the section could be entirety deleted and replaced with “formerly known in English as Snowdonia” should others want it. DankJae 10:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Request to rename page to Welsh name Eryri being the dominant.

With the change of name of the national park and Yr Wyddfa itself, I think it’s high time this page follows suit and uses the only and correct name respectively. The title should be read Eryri and not snowdonia, and all mention of snowdonia should be as “Formally Snowdonia”, or even, “previously known in English as Snowdonia”, with Eryri always used in superior position.

There’s no reason this page is still holding onto the name snowdonia, and thus is now disrespecting the name change and the Welsh language itself. Jackwdj (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose for now – your argument is just WP:OFFICIALNAMES and per the RM above, provide evidence and not personal opinion to fit with naming policy. DankJae 14:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

See [4]. You would need to show how the situation has changed since that discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The BBC now almost exclusively uses the name Eryri in article headlines involving the region:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66583515

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66568125

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66437437

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-65986706

Several articles, including the most recent one make no mention of Snowdonia even in the text:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67823607

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-66299587

The last article which did not reference Eryri in the title was published almost a year ago in February 2023:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64541154

The only other article directly referencing the region which used Snowdonia in the title since the February article was actually discussing changing names to Welsh versions and in fact exclusively refers to the national park as Eryri in the text:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67431789

Also, as a side note which I noted whilst getting these links, other bodies are dropping the usage of Snowdonia in favour of Eryri:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-65887990 Jaa.eem (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, I’ve been unable to make input due to ill health.

Given now that the majority of news outlets, including the BBC now use Yr Wyddfa and Eryri respectively, and majority of users on Facebook and other social media platforms; how would be put motion forward once more to make the appropriate changes to the relevant pages? Jackwdj (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That is only one source, BBC News Wales, more is needed, especially more than just local news. DankJae 22:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

This one from BBC News England only uses Snowdonia, so possibly the BBC changes the name depending on the audience. Nonetheless, more thorough analysis is needed, but many sources still state "also known as Snowdonia". If more sources fully drop it across the board and consistently, then yes there is a stronger case. Many times they still mention the name as an alternative, having it dropped from sources entirely is a clearer indication of a fully accepted new common name. There is clearly progress, within BBC Wales, but still do not see it yet in other publications, possibly should in a few months/years. DankJae 22:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, when the article prominently says "Eryri, also known as Snowdonia," it appears that the BBC follow official name but recognise Snowdonia as the common name. How are you enumerating that "the majority of users on Facebook" and elsewhere are using this term? I note that any editor can open a new move discussion, but if you want to make a convincing argument you will need to provide actual evidence that the common name has changed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

“Also known as X” is not evidence of X being the common name. Rather it is evidence of it being a common name.

The official name of the region is Eryri and there is evidence of being exclusively referred to as such - that is clear evidence of the name becoming common. Jaa.eem (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe at this point there is far more than enough evidence for the name change, Especially due to the fact of the actual name change itself taking place in a legal and public standing. And moderators standing in the way of the change is only causing more

devide. People look to Wikipedia for a valid piece of evidence and truth and for us to continue using Snowdon and snowdonia over the actual names is only playing into the hands of those who don’t like nor want the change and therefore use it to spread misinformation. And us not using the correct names of Yr Wyddfa and Eryri respectively is spreading misinformation to the public, and there’s no way to argue around it; that’s fact. And prolonging the change, is only causing more devide and conflict within the use of the names and language; and making it look as though we do not respect the name change and use of the language.

This prolonging the inevitable needs to stop, implement the change and we can help speed up the normalisation of the correct names. Jackwdj (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTADVOCATE, Wikipedia is not to be used for the "normalisation of names", Wikipedia follows after the normalisation not push for the normalisation, and "taking place" means it isn't completed yet. Wikipedia does not use the name preferred by some organisation as their "truth" or "correct names" but uses the name used by the internet as a whole. Sources are deciding one-by-one to fully change and when most do that's when Wikipedia will.

You have only provided opinions not evidence, change will come, but still not yet. Wikipedia isn't here to follow names preferred organisations or governments automatically, but represent what sources and people use. DankJae 22:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Evidence from one localised publication is not representative of the entire English-speaking internet. Here are some that still use Snowdonia: The Telegraph, Herald Wales, The Independent, The Standard, Daily Post Sky News, the name change is still a work-in-progress among the average reader. DankJae 22:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, tory rags. Ofcourse they would.

and furthering to your previous comment stating “ Wikipedia isn't here to follow names preferred organisations or governments automatically, but represent what sources and people use” - spreads misinformation. I could claim to be a chicken, and get my friends to call me so, but it doesn’t change the fact I’m not a chicken, and we should be doing more to assist people into using the correct names.

did you know Apple and Google maps use their source data from wiki to name and pinpoint on their maps and for descriptions? And with myself working for Apple, it’s caused a great deal of headache for staff who deal with the maps side as they use Wikipedia for reference. So we’ve had to use inaccurate information within the system. Food for thought. Jackwdj (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

There are no moderators standing in the way here. Wikipedia does not work like that. All editors in good faith have equal standing. I said any editor can open a new move discussion and that includes you. See WP:RM#CM. However, I can understand that is daunting, so maybe a more experienced editor would open a discussion for you - but anyone wanting to open a move discussion would need some reason why the result will be different from last time. You would need good evidence that the common name has changed, or else the discussion will be a waste of time. I don't think you have that evidence yet. It will happen one day, but for now we just have some vague assertions about facebook and disparaging remarks about a section of the press. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Brecon_Beacons § Bannau_Brycheiniog_name_update

Comment/ and Oppose - Although it seems as though other languages are moving to Eryri, just like to Yr Wyddfa (idk spelling). In fact, these following languages now use Eryri: Spanish, Irish, Cornish and Polish. Idk how article titles work in other language WPs but some choose official name rather than common name (which is what English WP uses). The Independent still uses Snowdonia. Basically, we do not apply Spanish WP rules to English WP and vice versa (i.e. they each have their own rules). In short, it is still common to use Snowdonia and Snowdon in informal cases mainly because it is easier to remember and to pronounce.

There are other situations in which the native name (Endonym) may be official, but not used in Wikipedia for now

• Turkey (Türkiye)
• Ivory Coast (Côte d'Ivoire)
• Czech Republic (Czechia)

Also keep in mind this is not a formal move request, but it looks like at this stage, it will likely not succeed. Breathinkeeps32 (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Breathinkeeps32, as mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales#Mass implementation of Welsh place-names on other Wikipedias, one of the English Wikipedia supporters for Eryri etc, mass-moved every non-English Wikipedia article they could on the same random day, so indeed we should not use other Wikipedias' use as an argument as they were (almost) all done with no discussion with no evidence aside "official name", which may or may not meet their individual guidelines, which I do not think were ever considered. DankJae 20:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I've been BOLD with the infoboxes, moving the national park one down to the 'National park' section and introducing the 'mountain' one, following e.g. Andes and Alps. I think it's helpful to differentiate the area from the national park, but I'm quite happy to discuss this.

@DankJae I expect you'll have some thoughts! A.D.Hope (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope I’m fine with it, in the end, this article was originally about the mountain range. Good both aspects were integrated in the infobox though. Ofc, would prefer (≠ support) the two articles were separate again, but probably not in its current state. And a discussion before any such split.

Although “Eryri National Park” should be re-added somehow?

Whether it should be “Eryri NPA” is a debate over the “official” or “legal name” to be used. But if it were a separate article, that may be titled “Eryri NPA” as it is likely used more now as a possible new commonname (easier to determine for a formal entity than a more vague general area like here). But largely tolerated it here to appear that Wikipedia is not wholly rejecting the change. But yes it legally remains Snowdonia.

Ofc, I’m only one editor, and I am not really on this article tbh. DankJae 01:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Appears "Eryri NP" was there, just the {{Infobox protected area}} didn't display it while embedded, so struck-through comment. DankJae 01:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a lot of trouble with that so I'm pleased you resolved it!

On the NPA, they seem to go to great pains to avoid using their full name on their website. I suspect this is because it remains 'Snowdonia NPA' and they want to reflect the shift to 'Eryri'; certainly 'Snowdonia National Park Authority' is how internal documents still refer to the body. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess that's their approach to avoid being required to include both names, the name they want, but also the existing legal name. Nonetheless, Wikipedia follows common use, if more sources use "Eryri National Park Authority" regardless if they use it themselves or legally have a different name. Plus the renaming is still an ongoing process. Nonetheless, as the NPA has no separate article cannot fully push which name should be used, so unless another editor reverts to Eryri, I'll leave it here if you wish for it to be Snowdonia. DankJae 12:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind which name is used, but until there's proof of a shift to 'Eryri NPA' I think it's best to stick with 'Snowdonia NPA'. From a quick news search I can see a lot of references to 'Eryri National Park', but not to 'Eryri National Park Authority' – mostly it's just 'the authority' or 'the NPA', which we can't use as it's ambiguous. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of Eryri as English language name in first sentence

The first line has been edited from "Snowdonia or Eryri, in Welsh (pronounced [ɛrəri] ⓘ)" to "Snowdonia (or Eryri, in Welsh (pronounced [ɛrəri] ⓘ))" to reflect the nature of the name Eryri as an exclusively Welsh name. I believe this was the correct decision as although the name Eryri is favored for use in English by the Welsh Government, there is no English language authority who does- as far as I can see. Looking today at the dictionaries of Oxford, Cambridge, Collins (British), Mirriam-Webster (USA) and Macquarie (Australian), all have entries for "Snowdonia" and none for "Eryri", except for Oxford and Cambridge which list it as specifically and exclusively as a Welsh language name.

Because of this, and in interests of neutrality, it would appear correct to have wording that indicates that "Eryri" is a Welsh language name. Perhaps a compromise could be reached and have the following alternative wording: "Snowdonia or its Welsh language name Eryri (pronounced [ɛrəri] ⓘ)" 89.242.251.72 (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we look at what the sources are doing. The national park itself styles itself "Eryri national park", and we now have the Eryri marathon and other such. Visit Wales calls it Eryri and many other sources are doing so too. Eryri is not yet the COMMONNAME, but it is clearly an alternative name in English language sources. Thus I will revert your edit to the status quo. Please build a consensus before attempting to revert this in again. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there a non governmental source? It appears wikipedia is being used to advance Welsh government policy. If you look at the page for Turkey, there has been a similar issue which was no resolved in the way my edit did. I'd also note that Snowdonia is an area not a company. 89.242.251.72 (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Fresh out of the publish button, Daily Post. DankJae 12:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd argue what constitutes an English name is if it is used in English as is, which Eryri is (now), like Llanelli, Conwy, Ceredigion, even Uluru, are now, and if sources don't specify "Eryri" as the Welsh name, but just the name, then we don't need to either. But not sure where the line is drawn where one name no longer needs to be labelled Welsh, nor believe that it should be dictionaries, would we change Aberdyfi to "Aberdyfi is the Welsh name for Aberdovey, a village and community in Gwynedd"? Plus it isn't the Welsh Government changing the name, and it is a recent change so dictionaries may take time, plus dictionaries don't have every single place-name.

Preferred if you raised a discussion first than force your edit, but appreciate your attempt to compromise. While I'd argue labelling it Welsh isn't as needed if English sources don't do such. ", or Eryri in Welsh," is better than putting it in parenthesis, but once again preferred the previous wording, although open to a fuller discussion on the lead entirely if others wish. Unless, we only consider Welsh names to be unlabelled, untagged and unitalicised, if they're the common name, which nonetheless probably needs to be reviewed again as the previous RM is possibly outdated. DankJae 12:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The only uses I can see in English are from the Welsh government, Wikipedia shouldn't be a government mouthpiece. No objection to saying the national park has officially changed name but the geographical area, I do not agree. 89.242.251.72 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Multiple secondary and independent sources do use Eryri. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] As well as others do also use Snowdonia. Both names are used, with Eryri a clear alternative in English. DankJae 12:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Eryri is Welsh 89.242.251.72 (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Aberystwyth is Welsh. Avon is Welsh, for that matter. Bethel is Hebrew. Montreal is French. So is Des Moines. But they are all used in English sources without note, so we don't have to specify their etymology. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

difference being that many of those names are actually recognised around the world as the names 89.242.251.72 (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

...actually recognised around the world... Nederlands/Dutch: [12][13][14][15]

I could do the same for other languages, but hopefully you get the point. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, because if other foreign languages use the Welsh name that must mean English,

does too, this discussion already occured on the Swedish page, and they picked the Welsh name as there was no reason to use an English one, as English is not Swedish. However, in Dutch Snowdonia is still favoured, except when referring to the official name of the national park (not the area) https://www.visitbritain.com/nl/bestemmingen/wales/snowdonia-eryri 89.242.251.72 (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The point is that Eryri is used worldwide, without anyone needing to say this is the Welsh name. As the park authority decided to use this name, media outlets and others worldwide are starting to use it as the name. As you will see, many use both Eryri and Snowdonia side by side, but they don't say "Or Eryri in Welsh". Also if by the Swedish page you mean the Swedish Wikipedia page, I wouldn't go by the decisions on such pages. Wikipedia is never a source for itself, and those pages have been edited by an editor taking the polar opposite view from yours who summarily changed them all to Eryri without discussion, and, I presume, without much knowledge of those languages. I would have changed the Dutch one back, but I don't know the Dutch Wikipedia policies, and whether they prefer common name over the official name. I have some reading to do on that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You keep repeating this mantra that it is Welsh Government pushing the change. It is not. It was a decision of the National Park Authority, which is independent of Welsh Government. Of the sources I mentioned, only Visit Wales is part of Welsh Government. Marathon Eyri is not, and neither are any of the significant number of news sources that are now using Eryri. It is clear that Eryri is being used in English and is a valid alternative name to Snowdonia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Is that the park authority with a website ending .gov.wales? Get real, kid 89.242.251.72 (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Multiple local government use government domains, doesn't mean they're directly connected to it. Prefer if it used ".net"? DankJae 13:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

What does that show? Ceredigion, a local authority, has a gov.wales domain name. The park authority is independent of Welsh Government. Why would you think otherwise? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It would appear DankJae is using Sirfurboy as a sock puppet account - against Wikipedia rules 89.242.251.72 (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

or you're just being disruptive. DankJae 13:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

SPI is thataway -->

Knock yourself out. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn’t we do the opposite?

“Eryri or as it’s known in English snowdonia” 217.72.125.96 (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Not until the article title is changed when it is proven "Eryri" is now more used than "Snowdonia". DankJae 16:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Toponymy

The second paragraph of the above section needs to be addressed. It currently reads

The origins of Eryri are less clear. Two popular interpretations are that the name is related to eryr, 'eagle', or that it means 'highlands' and is related to the Latin oriri ('to rise'). The latter is considered more correct, for eryri as a plural form means 'uplands', but it is not any direct form of the word eryr in the meaning 'eagle'

The second sentence is not well-supported by the sources, and source seven itself contains claims without a clear source. I edited the section on the 30th to remove any claims of correctness, but this was soon reverted back by @Hogyn Lleol. This follows a back-and-forth last June between myself and Hogyn Lleol over the same issue.

I'm sure there's something we can say about 'uplands' or 'highlands' being the more likely meaning of the name, but the current wording does not work. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi. It wasn't "reverted back" by me, as such; I reinstated a rephrased version which I considered an improvement. But as you say, the current wording could be bettered to indicate the more likely meaning. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm just using Wikipedia terminology; undoing another user's edit is called reverting. Would you mind elaborating on the meaning you're trying to convey; I must admit I find the current sentence slightly difficult to follow, particularly what 'direct form' means. Cheers, A.D.Hope (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

"Use of Eryri in English"

I've just copyedited this section, and as it's a contentious topic it seems sensible to open a discussion. My main aims were just to reduce the amount of repeated material and minor details (e.g. that Gwynedd Council motion which didn't lead to anything much) and also to take some of the heat out of the language.

There are still improvements to be made. In particular, I'm not sure whether it's fair to claim that the national park authority's name policy faced criticism based on a single article in The Critic. It would be worth looking to see if there's been more widespread criticism. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Trimmed it further, plus changed the heading to "renaming".

Added The Critic to try and avoid the section being 100% pro-Eryri, but we must do with what we have, and tbh still surprised how most sources quickly demoted Snowdonia instantly. Yes rarely found any formal opposition aside social media, so assume no worthy opposition AFAIAA. BB's rename was much more controversial in comparision.

Eryri is clearly the most-preferred name in most sources now, although Snowdonia is still sometimes also mentioned secondarily (very rarely primary). So depending on whether sources should omit the former name entirely, there is at least some stronger foundation for a potential RM, which seems to be getting closer. DankJae 09:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about 'Renaming' as a heading, as it could imply that the NPA has more power than it does to dictate the name of the area. The previous title was arguably more neutral and allowed the section to discuss the use of English and Welsh more broadly rather than focussing on the recent activities of the NPA.

I don't think you were wrong to add The Critic, but if it's a lone voice of criticism then we either need to make this clear or remove it to avoid false balance. I'll scout around and see if anyone else has objected.

On a potential RM, I do think we'll need to be wary of recentism. The Welsh newspapers and similar are certainly using 'Eryri' much more frequently since the NPA's decision, but 'Snowdonia' is still very common – if you walk into Waterstones to buy a guide to the area, for example, it's the name you're most likely to encounter (although Eryri isn't unrepresented). A.D.Hope (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NAMECHANGES, we give priority to recent sources following an official change. Older books aren't the base of any common name, as they're only as representative of the time they were published (alot are pre-2022). From now expect Eryri to start popping up, but sole-author books in Waterstones is not strong evidence for common name but rather the common name according to the sole-author, it usually is recent news organisations and other frequent media/academia, for their wide coverage to the public rather than niche travel guides. The national park is much more known and not limited to only being discussed in travel guides, over like a small forest or a footpath.

While the NPA don't have the power to enforce or legally rename it (although the gov would likely be happy to do it for them), their action has basically already caused a wide rename by independent organisations as many recognised the change.

In terms of heading, "renaming" is technically correct referencing the national park and more concise, whether it is for the region is I guess the debatable bit. But the section is now more focused on just the national park changing its name, and less on non-national park matters. But will revert that, but when this article becomes Eryri then it would be "renaming", although likely the section will be just deleted then. DankJae 10:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this into a proxy RM discussion, so you'll have to forgive me for not engaging with your points right now. I will caution against expecting the article's name to be changed to Eryri at some point. It may well do, but equally the next RM might find that 'Snowdonia' is still the common name.

Back to the subsection, do you think it's more or less fine as it stands? I do think that the current title is better, if you can live with it. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll accept keeping the section title. Just naturally uneasy that it portrays it as universally accepted. But in reality it was by professional media. If/when this article is re-named this section probably would be deleted/merged however. DankJae 10:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion "Use of Eryri in English" is neutral as it doesn't say how it's being used or how such usage has been received.

I've just put two bits of info back in – that "Snowdonia" sometimes has to be used and that the policy only applies to the NPA. Both strike me as important in the context of the section. I've not reinstated the criticism sentence as it could be false balance to include it. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales § Snowdonia/Eryri National Park Authority

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales § Snowdonia/Eryri National Park Authority. Concerning the use of "Eryri National Park Authority" on other articles rather than "Snowdonia National Park Authority". DankJae 14:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Opening line change?

I propose that the opening of the article ought to read: Eryri, formerly Snowdonia, is... which reflects the now standardised name as Eryri, even in English promotional materials, but keeps the current English common name rather than giving Eryri as an alternative to Snowdonia. – Dyolf87 (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, MOS:BOLDLEAD is clear on this, article title first until it is changed. Follow order per WP:COMMONNAME. Also debatable if it also applies to the range/region. DankJae 08:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per DankJae. If and when the article is named Eryri, because that is verifiably the COMMONNAME, the lead will follow. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per DankJae. Just like why the lead of Twitter says Twitter, officially known as X since July 2023 and why its still called that. If the article title changes, then the lead would also have to be changed. JuniperChill (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Even with the 'standardised' name, Snowdownia remains the WP:COMMONNAME. Llwyld (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

"Use of Eryri in English"/"Use of Yr Wyddfa in English" sections

Can anyone explain why "Use of Eryri in English" should be its own top level section, out of context at the bottom of the page; rather than part of the "Toponymy" section at the opposite end of the article? And the same for the "Use of Yr Wyddfa" section on Snowdon.

I united these sections on both articles in July, as they seemed obviously to be related, but A.D.Hope separated them again in September. Can anyone explain why this is desirable? To me it gives a significantly less readable article, reading as if editors weren't aware that the same subject is being covered twice in different sections.

I think WP:STRUCTURE may be relevant - The internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight .... Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. WP:NOTNEWS is also perhaps relevant - a current debate shouldn't be treated differently from other notable content on the subject of the article; which it seems to me the article is doing by putting it in its own separate top-level section, rather than in the section about toponymy.

Thoughts? TSP (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The two sections cover separate, if related, topics. The 'toponymy' section is about the history of the names 'Snowdon' and Yr Wyddfa, and the 'use of Eryri in English' section' is primarily about recent changes to how the Snowdonia National Park Authority uses the names of the mountain.

My impression is that the 'use of Eryri' section' has been maintained as a sort of stop-gap measure while the effects of the NPA's naming policy played out. The publication of its report in November provides a good opportunity for us to take stock and decide how the issue will be covered in the article in future.

My current preference would be to maintain the status quo, although I'm open to persuasion. The two topics are distinct, and I feel that incorporating the current 'use of Eryri' section into the 'toponymy' section as a subsection – as your edit did – would give undue prominence to the name issue; the reason it's the last section is partly to avoid giving it precedence over sections which are arguably more relevant to an article about a mountain, such 'environment'.

A.D.Hope (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a WP:RECENTISM issue, and I don't think this is a great way to solve it. Toponymy is the study of place names; what term is used for the mountain and region in English seems to me fairly clearly a toponymical topic. Looking down the content list, every other part of the article is well-organised into the significant aspects of the things being described - toponymy, geography, history, etc - then there is this out-of-context section on a current controversy sitting at the bottom.

Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, with attention to the long-term significance of the information included - WP:RECENTISM. Stop-gap measures are not really encouraged. If there is too much information on a recent controversy and it is overburdening the respective section, I'd suggest the solution is to cut it down to what will be considered significant in 20 years' time; not to include it in length, but pushed to the bottom of the page out of context, so we can include it, but not in the right place.

Alternatively, if the debate is overwhelming the respective sections but is considered independently notable, we could create a separate article for itself, then link that from a brief summary in each article's Toponymy section? (This would also avoid much the same content being repeated on Snowdon and Snowdonia.) TSP (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion the 'Use of Eryri in English' section is written neutrally and contains an appropriate level of information which is likely to be of long-term interest; it's hard to predict these things, so apologies if I'm wrong, but the use of the Welsh language within Wales seems like it will be of interest for the foreseeable future. On that basis I don't think that the section conflicts with WP:RECENTISM.

Without wanting to repeat myself, the topic is distinct from simple toponymy. Rather than being about the history of the names as names, which is what toponymy sections typically cover, it's more about how they're handled administratively by the NPA and the politics surrounding the recent changes. Having two sections therefore makes some sense.

While I've considered a separate article myself, is the language policy of a national park authority a notable enough topic for its own article? My feeling is that it's better covered in the articles about the areas affected. I'd be cautious about splitting off an article about the NPA (it's currently covered in this article) as the language policy might unduly dominate it. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: understand both sides and how separating the two may look odd. However prefer to keep them separate for now, otherwise there would be more pressure to remove more of the information as it would appear to be WP:UNDUE. Of course, it can be reduced when the situation changes in the future, and to consider combining them then, but due to the importance of the debate prefer more detail kept in its own section for now. DankJae 23:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Like DankJae, I am seeing both sides, but I am coming down the other way. It feels that logically this information belongs together and having its own section is indeed WP:RECENTISM. It is not something that has had much discussion in secondary sources. The section is a reaction to an announced change. Paring back would not necessarily be a bad thing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@TSP @DankJae @Sirfurboy

I've just made an example edit which removes the 'use of "Eryri" in English' section, moves its former content to a new 'name' subsection of the 'national park' section, and condenses said content considerably. I chose the 'national park' section over 'toponymy' as the issue primarily concerns the national park authority. It also allows the 'toponymy' section to remain a conventional overview of the history of both names.

I'd be interested to hear what you think about this proposal – both the location of the subsection and its content. Thank you, A.D.Hope (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Quite a lot was cut in that edit, and the remaining stuff is not really important, may it just be simpler to trim to:

In 2022, the national park authority announced that they would use the Welsh name "Eryri" for the national park (except in statutory documents). The authority declared the change a "success" in 2024, following widespread public adoption and support for the name change.

?

I guess it solves the long issue of my hyper-focus on the name change, which would be cut anyway when/if the page moves. While I prefer to keep the details, it seems to be causing more issues. DankJae 23:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, there is a small sentence under National Park already about the name change. Would it be better to use that and delete the "Use of Eryri in English" section entirely? DankJae 00:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you think is important and what do you think isn't, Jae? A.D.Hope (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Well the history seemed to be more important rather than the legal context of the change, the logo or that it is specifically technically only applies to the authority. However, neither the history is needed, so might as well delete it all bar the existing sentence. DankJae 11:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

(Apologies for the delay in replying, I've been away.)

I prefer it being under National Park than the current top-level section shorn from all context; but I think really, it's a naming issue not a national park issue. While it's the national park authority that is acting on the request to change its usage, I think the comparisons to Uluru and Qomolangma make it clear that the campaigners see this as a wider issue about naming and language use, not a technical one just about national park policy.

Personally I think the issue has been widely-covered enough in third party sources to have more than the current sentence or two in the National Park section - and I think you could justify a separate article on it if people think that's best and aren't happy to cover it in full in the Toponymy section (there would certainly be no trouble getting multiple third-party sources, and because it covers both Eryri and Yr Wyddfa that answers some of the usual objections to forking). TSP (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

An article just on the name change? I don't think we have the secondary sources to justify that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't you think so? It seems to have been pretty widely covered.

Here are 15 articles from reliable secondary sources on this subject specifically: BBC, The National, Sky News, MSN, The Telegraph, Nation.Cymru, BBC again, Wales Online, North Wales Chronicle, BBC again, The Guardian, The Independent, BBC again, ITV, London Evening Standard. That seems pretty comfortably above the standard to establish notability.

Or perhaps the article could be on the use in English of Welsh names for Welsh geography more generally - it's not hard to find reliable sources for the debate around names of lakes in Eryri, the decision to use Bannau Brycheiniog instead of Brecon Beacons, and the name of Wales/Cymru itself. TSP (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. The news reporting is a primary source. Something on bilingual naming more generally is more likely to have secondary sources, yes. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that applies to all of the above - the policy you link says that newspaper articles are sometimes primary and sometimes secondary, and this from the BBC, for example, seems to be analytical rather than reportage - but even if it did, scroll up a little in the same essay for the "Primary" does not mean "bad" section.

Non-newspaper pieces are harder to find, with it being a subject that's gained in prominence relatively recently; but here's an analytical piece which probably qualifies. TSP (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Primary does not mean bad on a page, but for establishing notability, secondary sources are required. They are required because encyclopaedic articles are tertiary, and should rely for their subject on secondary sources. On that, yes, the piece in the Conversation is secondary, and points to where an encyclopaedic subject may lay. Not specifically in the renaming of the national park, but on the issue of Welsh names altogether. I think that demonstrates how the secondary sources guide us to the notable subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)