Talk:Cardiff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cities on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Cardiff is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

	Pending tasks for Cardiff
WikiProject UK geography has identified ways in which Cardiff can be improved. For tips on how to bring this article nearer to featured article quality see the guidelines and resources section of the WikiProject.
Expand introduction: three paragraphs would be good. Add economic data to industry section, possible renaming "Economy and industry" with subpage Economy and industry of Cardiff if required. Include GDP & employment stats (they mightbe available in this PDF file, or from local authority site). Mention major economic sectors and employers, with stats where possible. Tourism might fit better in this section, at least, when looking at it in terms of how many people visit the city and how much money they bring in. Possible demographics section, with info on population, including changes and structure. Also include any census data that looks interesting. Expand history, with subpage History of Cardiff. Is the fairtrade city thing notable enough to be mentioned here rather than a subpage? Either a geography section, or two new sections: "physical geography" and "Areas and transport". Incorporate the existing transport section, but turn it into prose. Include statistics on transport if available. Describe the situation and landscape, e.g. beside the Bristol Channel and at the estuary of the Taff. Is it on the river's floodplains, or on hilly terrain? Briefly mention the underlying geology. Climate, e.g. using [1] [2] [3]. If there are not many areas and suburbs of the city, briefly mention them all. Otherwise describe some of the notable ones and create a List of places in Cardiff article. In the politics section mention the four constituencies and who represents them. Has Cardiff been home to any really notable national politicians, or political activists who have made a major contribution to national life? Currently the only mention of the Welsh Assembly is in a photo caption. This might be the best section to mention it in. If possible expand the education section. For example, how many schools are there? See Bristol#Education for ideas for what to mention. If possible mention a little background on the city's town twinning, if there's anything interesting to say. "Natives of Cardiff" should be a category, but many of the more notable ones could be mentioned elsewhere in the article, e.g. historical figures in history and cultural figures in culture. In my (Joe D (t)) opinion the article should be reorganised somewhere along the lines of: Geography, History, Economy, Culture, Politics, Demographics, Education, in order to better reflect the importance of each aspect of the city. CITE SOURCES!

Please note that part of this page's page history resides at Talk:Cardiff/page history.

[edit] Notice

Could anyone add some more physical photos of Cardiff's skyline and attractions? Please respond. (Cepb 13:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Demographics

People keep playing with this section. Someone had put in some rather rediculous population figures. For instance, 60,000 students is well in excess of the combined populations of the universities. Those studying at FE colleges are generally not considered students. Furthermore, it is erroneous to say that students are 'not enumerated' in the census. They are - as the rapid rise in Cathays' population between 1991 and 2001 shows. No accurate predictions have been made for Cardiff's population, and 400,000 is highly unlikely before the late 2030s - unless there is a boundary extension.

ARGH its been done again - I had to change this just recently. It is NOT TRUE that students aren't counted. 2005 showed a population 319,000 versus a final estimate of 310,000 in census 2001. And The latest estimates from the Cardiff Research Centre saw growth in the city population of 15,000 per decade from 2011 onwards. So for the borough itself, if we take the estimates at face value and project between 2005 and 2011 based on the rate of growth between 2001 and 2005, we may get

2011 - 334,000 2021 - 349,000 etc

STOP CHANGING THIS!!

[edit] Photographs

DAdo the photographs accompanying this article give anyone a sense of what Cardiff looks like? Should this not be the purpose of including images? Dave63 10:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reckon the photos should be more integrated in with the article rather than just in a clump at the bottom. Make them slightly bigger too, and possibly less of them. - FrancisTyers 13:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photos and Caroline St

All but two of the photos are not of Cardiff at all, but of Caerphilly and surrounding area.

Whilst an essential visit following a night out, I doubt that Caroline St played a key in the city's industrial history ......

[edit] The lead section

The Wikipedia guidelines state that the first sentence should concisely define the topic. In other words, for a city, it might state where it is, how large it is, and briefly descibe it. This does not include details of history such as which traditional county it is in though it might include a mention of current county or unitary authority. Traditional county details belong further down the article, perhaps in a history section.

This view is also stated in the Naming Conventions policy.

Your revert, Owain, breaches these Wikipedia conventions and guidelines. I'd appreciate it if you would restore the text to my last version. Thanks. Chris Jefferies 28 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)

The first sentence has not changed.
the traditional county has nothing to do with history, but with geography, which is why it is near the top of the article. Owain 28 June 2005 21:52 (UTC)

The policy also states that traditional county information is in the present tense, and should form part of the opening paragraph. Owain 28 June 2005 21:52 (UTC)

it does no such thing. It clearly states that Cardiff is a unitary authority, and that it is geographically in a traditional county - this is allowed by the policy! Please see the edit history for a version that was accepted by both viewpoints. Your unliteral editing has re-ignited the edit war and re-introduced inaccuracies that had already been ironed out. Owain 28 June 2005 21:52 (UTC)

Hi Owain. My mistake over the first sentence, sorry about that. However I cannot agree with you that 'the traditional county has nothing to do with history', surely it has to do with history, geography, government and no doubt other things too. But that's not the point. The point is that however you characterise it it's too detailed and minor a point to appear in the lead section of a Wikipedia article. The current county might be relevant, but the historical county is certainly not.

The fact that it is geographical is not an argument for including it here. For example the name of the main street is geographical but would have no place in the lead section.

The Naming Conventions policy simply does not state that 'traditional county information should form part of the opening paragraph'. Indeed it clearly states 'We should use the current, administrative, county'.

It also states 'We should mention historic counties in articles about places and in references to places in a historic context, but only as an afternote' (my emphasis).

It is a matter of opinion whether your revert breaches Wikipedia conventions and guidelines. My opinion is that it does, your reading of those conventions and guidelines seems to be selective and biased.

I am therefore restoring the text to comply with Wikipedia policy. Chris Jefferies 29 June 2005 11:41 (UTC)

The 'current county' as you put it is simply the local city council - hardly relevant in a paragraph defining where a place is, I'm sure you'll agree. Whereas the 'historical county', as you put it is a specific geographical reference, and I would hardly call that 'too detailed and minor'. Owain 29 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)

That is simply a facetious argument. Clearly the main street has about as much relevance as the city council has in describing where a place is. Yet you seem to think that the mentioning the city council is relevant, and the geographical county is not. I simply fail to see the logic in that argument. Owain 29 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)

I was not quoting verbatim from the policy, I was attempting to explain it. A quote from the policy is "Coventry is in the West Midlands, and within the traditional borders of Warwickshire". That is clearly an opening sentence that mentions both the administrative county and traditional county. Owain 29 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)

Yes, but then it goes on to give 'acceptable things', one of which is to mention the traditional county in the opening sentence! You can quote these things selectively if you wish, but my version is clearly allowed by the policy! Owain 29 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)

I see that you didn't bother checking the edit history, which has evidence of a previous edit war. A factual compromise was reached that was acceptable to both parties, but you seem to want to stir it up again for some reason. My version clearly mentions both administrative and traditional areas in an unambiguous way that is compatible with the policy - what is possibly wrong with that? Owain 29 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)

The policy has not been broken! I refuse to let this article lie, with the prefectly valid and acceptable reference to Glamorgan shoved into the eighth paragraph with the completely factually incorrect "The city once formed part of the county of Glamorgan". I am reverting to the compromise version that was agreed between myself and G-Man. Owain 29 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)

I only put it like that because I knew you would revert it, not because I particularly like it. Frankly I dont see why I should have to compromise with agreed policy and some other position. If were talking about the policy then it clearly states.

Articles about counties should not be split up and should not be disambiguation pages. They should treat the counties as one entity which has changed its boundaries with time. We should not take the minority position that they [traditional counties] still exist with the former boundaries.

But frankly I have no interest in going over this traditional counties argument again. We argued this matter comprehensively at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places) and your favoured approach recieved only two votes. As far as I'm concearned the matter is settled. G-Man 29 June 2005 21:17 (UTC)

Votes? How can you you have a vote when you don't know what you're voting on? What place to votes have in a factual encyclopaedia anyway? The fact of the matter is that many people don't realise that there are different things that could reasonably be called counties. e.g. ancient counties, registration counties, administrative counties and ceremonial counties. The fact that people such as Chrisjj don't realise this leads them to add factually incorrect sentences such as 'Swansea was part of Glamorgan prior to local government changes'. Local government changes only change administrative counties, not the other three. If you take the position that counties are 'one entity which has changed its boundaries with time' then why the hell are there different ariticles on traditional, administrative and ceremonial counties? Surely counties are one entity that have changed over time? Why the hell have infoboxes got entries for traditional, administrative and ceremonial counties? Surely there is only one set of boundaries that have changed over time? Nonsense. This is dumbing down of the highest order. The whole encycolpaedia is in danger of become self-contradictory at this rate, not just the straitjacket 'policy'. Owain 30 June 2005 11:17 (UTC)

I dont agree, the facts are disputed. The notion that traditional counties still exist in the present tense in any meaningful sense is debatable. And it appears to be a minority position that they do. And before you start I'm well aware of you arguments that traditional counties have never been abolished and still technically exist etc etc. But the question of whether they exist still in any "real world" sense and should be regarded as still existing entities is a matter of opinion. And your opinion appears to be the minority one, hence the result of the vote and the policy. As for Why the hell have infoboxes got entries for traditional, administrative and ceremonial counties? thats a good question, its nothing to do with me. Personally I would prefer that they were called 'historic counties' in the infoboxes rather than 'traditional counties' as it's less confusing. G-Man 30 June 2005 19:05 (UTC)

I strongly agree with G-Man on this. What do other editors of this article think? Comments anyone? Chris Jefferies 30 June 2005 19:18 (UTC)

Hi Owain, I think we need to be careful. This is the Cardiff talk page and I'll try to reply in a way that will benefit the Cardiff article.

The lead section should be brief and to the point, and the entire article should adhere to Wikipedia conventions and policies. The Cardiff lead section should mention that it's a large city, that it's the capital of Wales, that it grew from a small town because of its port and the coal trade, and a few other major pieces of information. This section is a brief summary of the main facts - the first thing a reader sees.

Detailed information belongs further down in the main body of the article. That some people hold the point of view that Cardiff is still part of Glamorgan is something that can be legitimately mentioned in the main body, but NPOV probably requires that we also mention that others do not hold this view.

My opinion is that Cardiff is a unitary authority, was once in the county of Glamorgan, and that some people take the view it's still in Glamorgan. Not all of that needs to be in the lead section. I'd be interested to hear the views of the other editors of this article. Chris Jefferies 30 June 2005 12:02 (UTC)

I am geniunely interested as to when exactly you think Cardiff was in Glamorgan, and why. Owain 30 June 2005 14:55 (UTC)

As Cardiff is a unitary authority, Wikipedia guidelines ([[Naming Conventions, second paragraph, second scentance) suggest that we use the traditional (see Subdivisions of Wales) counties as geographical references. My preference would be to include this information in the lead paragraph. Iain 1 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)

That's almost right. The convention states we should use the ceremonial county which in this case would be South Glamorgan (also see the 1974 section of Subdivisions of Wales. But we should consider keeping the wording short and simple. How about this draft...

Cardiff (Welsh: Caerdydd, from caer, "fort," and dydd, "Aulus Didius") is the capital and largest city of Wales. It is a unitary authority and part of South Glamorgan.

It has the advantages of conforming with both lead section and county naming conventions for a unitary authority. Chris Jefferies 1 July 2005 11:00 (UTC)

That convention is therefore useless. South Glamorgan is a local government area that existed between 1974 and 1996 and is clearly part of a larger area called Glamorgan. The perpetuation of former local government areas as geographical references is clearly absurd, when they were created with the efficient provision of local government services in mind, not in the context of a wider geogeraphic framework. Take any place in Pembrokeshire: The county has existed since the 12th century, it also exists as a unitary authiry since 1996, yet we are supposed to put 'it is in Dyfed'. That is a classic example of where common sense should take priority. The centuries old traditional counties are much better suited to this purpose than local government areas that existed for a mere 22 years! Owain 1 July 2005 14:00 (UTC)

I attempted to stress Cardiff's heritage as Glamorgan's main town/city for generations by including the fact that it was the county town of and centre of admin of Glamorgan and South Glamorgan. This was un and then re-edit, but never the less stresses Cardiff's long-term, regional importance. Owain's changing of county town to county borough fails to stress Cardiff's central importance to the area and puts it in the position of being on an equal level with the other boroughs of Glamorgan.

I also think it's important that Cardiff's conversion into an apparent 'city county' is held in perspective - just like Swansea, Bridgend, Neath, Caerphilly, Port Talbot and the other principal areas of Wales's most populous county, Glamorgan's district councils were all split from their sub-county councils (South, Mid & West Glamorgan) into unitary authorities. The 1994 local government (Wales) Act was not some kind of special status for Cardiff but central government tinkering with the administration of all of Wales.

With regards to the points raised above, geographically South Glamorgan is definitely more accurate than South Glamorgan as there was no North or East Glamorgan county council and the most Northerly point of Glamorgan is in Mid Glamorgan and the most easterly point of Glamorgan is in South Glamorgan. If South Glamorgan is used to describe the geographical location of Cardiff then it betrays the use of the fundamental terms of north, east, south and west (Cardiff is definitely southwest Glamorgan). Anyway, longitude and latitude are already included and I added ceremonial and traditional counties to the info box so any user can choose their favourite, and possibly learn a little about the UK's recent chaotic use of the word "county". So there's no need to argue over which one is more relevant (Traditional). Owen Spedding 13 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

Hi Owen, it's good to be able to discuss Cardiff for a change instead of policy. Each place deserves to be considered individually, and if you feel there's a good reason to mention Glamorgan in the lead section, then you should definitely make the change. There will always be exceptions to any policy rule and it's important to be flexible, that is what Wikipedia is all about.

The problem we have with Owain's edits is that he systematically changed lead sections of articles on British places wholesale to reflect his (minority) opinions about historic or traditional counties. There was no justification on a case-by-case basis. I suggest you go ahead and change the text as you think fit, or propose the wording here for discussion, as you prefer. (But be aware, others who disagree may change it back - one of the many joys of Wikipedia :-)

Thanks for explaining. Chris Jefferies 09:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I want to try and help to resolve this difficult situation. I live in Cardiff, watch the page and a bit saddened about the number of edits which do not actually improve the article, but just flip between opposing views as to whether “in the traditional county of Glamorgan” (or somesuch) should appear in the introduction.

We need some way of stopping the attrition of edits and reverts so we can all get on with life. The only way of doing this is having policies. We have one on the use of county names but it clearly can be read more than one way. The “put Glamorgan in the introduction” camp point to the acceptable Coventry example in the policy: Coventry is in the West Midlands, and within the traditional borders of Warwickshire. The “leave Glamorgan out” camp point to the only as an afternote comment in the policy proper.

There seems to way out but to refine the policy to be explicit about the use of traditional county names in article introductions.

If there was to be such a proposal, we would need to consider the relative value added by referencing current administrative boundaries compared to traditional counties. The current boundaries tell us about the governance of the place, and put it in the context of regional political and service delivery frameworks. The traditional boundaries tell us where it is, with reference to a spatial framework that to all intents and purposes has no current relevance. And people know where it is anyway, because there is a map. --Dave63 11:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Both sets of boundaries are important. Yes, the local government boundaries tell us about the governance of the place and the traditional county boundaries tell us where a place is. That's why having both is a good thing. What is especially useful is having a set of boundaries that are outside of the scope of constant political meddling. In that context I would say the traditional county boundaries have plenty of current relevance.

Owen Spedding wrote Owain's changing of county town to county borough fails to stress Cardiff's central importance to the area and puts it in the position of being on an equal level with the other boroughs of Glamorgan.. No it doesn't, a county borough was independent of the county council, whereas municipal boroughs in Glamorgan were not. Owain 12:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Name

Hope I don't start a war here. I've edited the 'Roman' part of the article. Linking Cardiff with Aulus Didius Gallus and presenting it as fact is erroneous. Propounded by the Internet, I suspect this idea came originally from a misreading of Tacitus. I won't go into details, but the hypothesis is tenuous almost to the point of being arcane. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it is unlikely. (Posted by User:194.81.116.246 at 15:55, August 10, 2005)

Does anyone have a usable source of someone saying this? If not, it probably should be removed. Vashti 15:35, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cardiff Singer of the World

Shouldn't there some mentioning of this contest, arguably the most recognized contest in classical singing in the world? Especially since Welshman Bryn Terfel, former winner, started his career at the Welsh National Opera.::::::::::OiBrent

[edit] Happy Hundredth

I'm sure there are lots of mentions of Cardiff's centenary on the internet; it would be interesting to know if there are any residents of the city who are a hundred years or older, and who have lived there since it was city-ised in 1905. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Light Transport realized in Cardiff?

I read that a new way of transportation would be installed in Cardiff by 2003: Urban Light Transport, a mixture of taxis and trams which runs on a given track and carries each passanger to his or her destination (or a stop close to it) without stopping. (source in Hungarian) Has it been realized since? Adam78 11:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I remember seeing this demonstrated on the TV. It looks incredibly cool, but there's no sign of it. Vashti 08:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

See article Personal Rapid Transit and the site of the company that proposed the Cardiff plan [4]. Also see this [5] site for links to news stories on the scheme.

AFAIK Cardiff Council are official still behind the scheme, but the last statement saying that is quite old now. The Welsh Assembly were going to fund the majority of the costs, and they pulled their support in 2004, so it is de facto dead. Although I can't ATM point out the evidence it is generally agreed the scheme floundered because of fears about the shear amount of dedicated infrastructure that would use up precious space in the city centre (along with the visual impact of that infrastructure) and that most of the support was built upon unrealistic/false expectations that it could provide all the flexibility of cars/taxis but for the user and government costs of buses. It has also been siad that the scheme (which from the start seems far more suited to uses such as at Heathrow, than for an organic city) was only ever dabbled with by the Assembly as a publicity stunt type thing to attract inward investment.

According to current transport and urban masterplans for Cardiff, the only major public transport schemes considered for the foreseeable future are the conversion of the City line and Coryton line (see Valley Lines) into a light/semi-light rail loop line (more station, more frequent service, etc) with a major park+ride site near M4 Junc 32. Similarly public opinion is still generally leaning towards the much bigger conversion-expansion of the urban commuter lines into the core of a cut-price tram-train network (thou of course, they don't express that in those technical terms). Such a plan as been mooted and proposed innumeral times over the last 2 decades, particular in Assembly in-put into the re-franchising of the local rail operations. First group actually went as far as making it a core commitment of their bid at the last round. (Yet, they lost.) According to experts, chances of it happening soon have been damaged by the Assembly committing to funding the purchase of new trains to replace the worse of the aging rolling stock currently in use. This spring the Assembly finally gets control over rail transport policy (replacing the DfT/SRA), having until now had almost zero influence over the rail operations. Given this, there are significant chances they might decide to make an impact with these new powers, which moving with the conversion would do. Most transport policy document from the Assembly and related bodies have hinted in this direction and related devleopments (such as establishments of one or more PTEs and advances such as electronic ticketing). --Myfanwy 11:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A website about Cardiff

Hello there - I would like to add my site to the list of external sites on the page about Cardiff. I am not going to lie - it's for basically increasing traffic to my site.

I would not add/spam wikipedia by just adding it, so I wondered if you would mind checking it out, and deciding whether it deserves a link from the Cardiff Page.

http://www.cardiffians.co.uk

It's not finshed yet, but there is a LOT of content on there.

Many thanks!

sitemaster AT cardiffians DOT CO DOT UK

As somebody who keeps a very close eye on link-spam, I very much welcome someone making the effort to come to the talk page first, and seek a third opinion. And after a good look through the site, I think it's worthy of inclusion; as far as I can see, it meets "what should be linked to" (5) and doesn't fall foul any of "what shouldn't be linked to" of the external link guidelines. It's a good resource and I'll add it to the external links list now.

(PS - just for your information, the site doesn't display quite correctly in Mozilla, but that's no criterion for exclusion!)

A q uilina 22:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aquilina,

Many thanks for having a look at the site, and for allowing for it to be added to the list of external sites on the Cardiff Page. I will of course add a link to Wikipedia (something I should have done a long time ago anyway!)

I am pleased that so far, everyone who has viewed the site has given it favourable reviews. The link from Wikipedia will help no end to increase the site's visability on the internet, and bring more people to the site. This is what spurs me on to keep adding to, and improving the site. I will see what I can do about the Mozilla issue, and appreciate your bringing it to my attention.

Kind Regards,

Cardiffians Sitemaster

[edit] Reverts

I've reverted some of the changes the recent anon made. While much of it was good, some seemed odd - the repeated emphasis on Wales being a principality, the removal of the Welsh for "Cardiff" from the opening together with the emphasis that "less than 25% of the population use Welsh) (by contrast with Wikipedia standard practice as shown in Milan, Florence, Moscow and many other pages), and the deliberate description of Cardiff's universities as "provincial" (a technical term rarely used as it refers to every university which is neither Oxbridge or in London, IIRC). Vashti 08:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Cardiff, you've now reverted these changes back. I don't believe these changes are neutrally worded (see WP:NPOV). What does everyone else think? Vashti 18:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Having just found The Principality of Wales, which appears to be a POV fork of Wales, edited only by User:Cardiff, this is looking *very* peculiar indeed. Vashti 18:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. See Saint David's Day, which I just reverted. Cardiff removed important information, and is not complying with WP:NPOV, IMO. I support your revert, and will do the same myself. I am also checking this user's other contribs.Econrad 18:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Vashti 19:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've requested temporary page protection. This is getting childish. Vashti 19:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also been bold and gone through the differences between the page as it was last night before our friend showed up, and how it was this evening after the last revert, putting material back as it was. While some of the material looked as if it might have been improved, I don't know how much of it can be trusted, or how many of the revisions were accurate. The list of excisions from the "Natives of Cardiff" list, in particular, was shocking. Vashti 20:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cardiff - relatively flat?

What's the source for this one? Being up here on a hill looking at Caerphilly Mountain, the word that springs to mind for Cardiff's landscape is not "flat". Vashti 02:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but if you view the city from Caerphilly mountain or other high areas then most of the city is quite flat, especially compared to other parts of Wales! Perhaps it could be changed to 'mostly flat' or something along these lines. Tom1000

Mmm, although if you go to the north and east, around Thornhill, Lisvane and Llanrumney, the mountain begins rising well before you ever leave the city boundary. "Relatively flat" is a little bit misleading when the rest of the sentence could well be "although the hills would be considered significant anywhere else here they happen to be in the shadow of a mountain". Maybe remove the comment so that it starts "Cardiff's geographic features ..."? What do geographers say about Cardiff's terrain? Vashti 03:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam

I've removed most of the links from the bottom of the page as not actually being informative about Cardiff. I removed two university departments and one personal blog. I left in the most comprehensive travel guide - I think we only need to link to one of these. I also took out the Wiki link that was added, as it's not yet a very complete Wiki - if anyone wants to go and contribute it's at [6].

The BBC link is the kind of quality page that I think we should be linking to. Vashti 12:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I see an anon has added the wiki page back in again. What's the consensus on this? Vashti 03:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the external links. As for the cardiffpedia wiki, articles such as:

Cardiff University is one of the biggest Universities in the UK. It has 25,000 students and 5,500 staff and an annual turnover of £300 million. (that's the entire text)

don't add anything to the content here. The link might be worth having once its got some comprehensive in-depth coverage, but for the time being that link is only there for the wiki's benefit, not the reader's. I'd remove it. Aquilina 09:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've removed the link again; we'll see if it comes back. :) Vashti 01:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I confess to having added the link in question at first, but have not re-added so I'm not sure who that was. I guess I should have visited the Talk page before adding it. I accept the critisism that its not yet a comprehensive resource. Hopefully it will be in the future, and can be added by consensus. RobsterCardiff 14:08, 12 June 2006 (BST)

When the wiki is more mature, I would be happy to see it added. :) Vashti 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The river Lleucu is new to me. Wherever it flows it cannot be more than a stream. Specific references in the body of the article are suggested for Llandaff Cathedral, the Catholic archbishopric (together with C19 Irish immigration- as well as other patterns of immigration),the historical role of Nonconformity.

Clive Sweeting

[edit] capital.tv

Does anyone else think that a local station broadcasting shopping TV should be listed next to the national TV stations? We haven't listed student radio or the local stations which we've occasionally had, for instance. I've reverted it twice, and the account which was adding it has done nothing else but add plugs for that station. It's been added again by an anon, but I'm reluctant to revert it again. Anyone else? Vashti 12:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cardiff music scene

A new arrival has made a start on a Cardiff music scene article. I have added a couple of categories to it, but I think it needs more facts and references (and bands, probably :)). I don't know much about music in Cardiff, but perhaps someone who watches the Cardiff page might..? Telsa (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates

Two values for coordinates are given: which ones are correct? It would be wise to make the article consistent. -- Casmith 789 16:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Districts

I have added Roath to the list of 'inner-city' districts in the districts section of the article. It seemed foolish to exclude it given that it is described as a district above "areas of and around Canton and Roath" and at the bottom of the page in the list of districts as well as in the article on Roath.

I have also wikilinked the rest of the districts i.e. Penylan and Gabalfa since half the list were linked and the other half not. I suspect it doesn't matter whether they are linked or not due to the aforementioned section at the bottom of the page but there should be some consistency. Grangetown and Riverside no longer lead to disambiguation pages. Kae1is 21:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

The whole page seems to have too much text and not enough photos, so it would be better if there were more photos, or central station perhaps for transport, a picture of queen st or st marys st, and a panorama of the bay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apple 123 (talk

• contribs) 16:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Domestic Architecture

Having lived in Cardiff before migrating to Australia I remember inner suburbs of striking Victorian and Edwardian terraced houses, many of them stone built. Examples being Cathays, Roath and of course Colum Road! It would be nice to see a reference, and a small photo gallery, of this characteristic urban landscape that is among the best preserved in Britain. MichaelGG 10:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capital of Wales

If Cardiff was declared the Capital of Wales in 1955, but the Assembly wasn't constituted until 1999 (I know the history of devolution), what significance did this have? Presumably it was more than an honorific, but what government functions operated at the Welsh national level? Even the Welsh Office was based in London. All I can find is Category:Welsh executive agencies -- economic development, and the tourist board. --Dhartung | Talk 19:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually worked for 5 years at the Welsh Office at Cathays Park from 1969 to 1974. Whilst there was a London Office, that was very much a foreign outpost and regarded as a 'touching base' operation with the 'Saesneg' in London. The vast majority of the staff, the decision making and - during my time there the Secretaries of State (the Hon. George Thomas not to be confused with his successor Peter Thomas) - were very much in residence in Cardiff. MichaelGG4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Postal Code

The article states the postal code as being CF1 to CF6. I live in Cardiff and my postcode starts CF14. So it obviously goes further than CF6. Does anyone know where to obtain a definitive answer to this?

[edit] Map

Someone has added a new map that shows the location of Cardiff to be near Bristol and actually places the location dot on the English side of the Severn and this is repeating itself throughout other Welsh pages. Can someone revert it back to the previous map that highlighted Cardiff in a seperate Wales map? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apple 123 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/r/Talk%7ECardiff_fd97.html"