Jump to content

Talk:Senedd/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Expansion request

What laws does the Welsh Assembly have the power to pass, and has it passed any of signficance? Are they codified somewhere online? -- Beland 23:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The National Assembly only has secondary laws to pass, no primary legislation. Though this might change after 2007. - Draig goch20 14:49, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Why is the Union flag used here

Surely the Welsh flag is more appropriate in this context Lumos3 09:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Presumably the UK flag is used because, as it says in the caption, this article is part of the series Politics of the United Kingdom and the flag is associated with the series and not the Welsh Assembly. If it offends your sensibilities why don't you add a Welsh Flag? --Alun 16:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Politics of the United Kingdom, though, notice -- not Politics in the United Kingdom. I have removed this template for reasons of consistency: it does not figure on the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly pages. The present article needs a PoliticsWales template similar to the PoliticsScotland one. I know... I'm working on it. -- Picapica 10:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can't say I'm convinced there is any real distinction between Politics of... and Politics in.... Wales is in the UK, so its politics are politics of the UK (look at how Blair was so desperate to get Alun Michael as First Minister). Anyway, the question was about why the Union flag appeared in an article on Wales (and the answer is that it didn't, it appeared in the Politics of the UK template), not whether Welsh politics are British politics. Personally I think that the politics of all regions of England and other nations in the UK would constitute Politics in the UK, but it is a different question. I think the point about consistency is important though.Alun 17:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Wales and England

I think that this statement:
This is largely because, unlike other parts of the United Kingdom, Wales has always had the same legal and administrative system as England.
is not only totally incorrect, but displays ignorance about Welsh history. Wales was only annexed in 1536, but even after that was administered somewhat differently to England in many cases (education for example). This is documented well in A History of Wales by John Davies (ISBN 0140145818). Unfortunately my brother has my copy so I can't check the details. I'm going to modify this.Alun 17:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've included links to
  • Acts of Union 1536-1543
  • Acts of Union 1707
  • Union With Britain 1806-1922 (Ireland article)
Alun 18:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we get a picture of the debating chamber?

Something interesting

I have changed some articles that declare the First Minister as " Assembly First Minister" when really he is now "Welsh First Minister". When the Welsh Assembly Government was set-up in 2000, The First Minister declared that him and the Cabinet are separate of the Assembly, but are elected and answerable to the Assembly. This article has noted right by saying "First Minister and his Cabinet comprises of Welsh Assembly Government". Most articles on this Wikipedia are based on the period between 1999 and 2000. I am interested in other people comments about this.

Draig goch20 19:36, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Officially he's known as the First Minister for Wales. I don't know if this is because of the current obsession the government has with the word "for" (e.g. it's use in the name of government departments, where "of" would once have been used...) or whether it's to avoid implying Wales has its own Prime Minister!
Originally he was known as the First Secretary. The reason for this was allegedly that there aren't separate words for "First" and "Prime" in Welsh, so if the title was "First Minister", this would be "Prime Minister" in Welsh. Now they seem to have changed it to First Minister - I must have missed that as I don't remember reading about it. --JRawle 23:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't see ehy they couldn't have used "Prif Weinidog" or "Gweinidog Cyntaf"... "Prif Weinidog" is used to describe both the UK PM and the Welsh FM. -- Arwel 00:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I now see it's actually explained on the First Minister of Wales page. However, I still think it should be "First Minister for Wales". Googling with "for" finds all the official sites, "of" doesn't, so perhaps I'll move the other article. Update: it was on an old version of that page (found via Google) but someone's removed it without giving a reason. I'll reinstate it. --JRawle 19:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Draig goch20, what do you think this means: The First Minister declared that him and the Cabinet are separate of the Assembly.... I can't understand what this is supposed to mean. The assembly has a parliamentary setup, so unless I haven't fully appreciated the subtleties of the system, there is no separation of power between the executive and the assembly (like in the USA, where members of the executive are not members of congress). So members of the executive remain full members of the assembly. So how can they be separate? The first minister was either wrong, or there is something here I have missed. Can anyone explain?Alun 17:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Presumably he was distinguishing between the Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government - the WAG is the First Minister and the other ministers. -- Arwel 17:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
But they are still members of the Assembly, so there is no separation of powers. I mean that the WAG is in and of the Assembly, and so not seperate from it. It is one thing to differentiate between the executive and the legislature, but it is another to claim that the executive is seperate from the legislature.Alun 09:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

High-end?

The Assembly [...] will have a new, high-end assembly chamber

Can anyone explain what this means exactly? And which end of the chamber will be high? -- Picapica 09:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've often wondered what it meant as well.Alun 17:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
High budget. They're pouring a ton of money into the building. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 16:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Spot the weasel words competition

Please refrain from using weasel words, if you have a point, use references to back it up. Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source.
Many cite the fact that it is majoritively the English taxpayer propping up the Welsh Assembly and paying the salaries of those whom work there.... Another argument cites the Act of Union 1707. This Act states that there shall be one parliament for the United Kingdom. The current Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are contended have the powers of separate parliaments, and are therefore said to be breaking the Act of Union....establishing of the Welsh Assembly is also be viewed(sic) as federalisation, such as in the European Union, which many in the mainly centralised United Kingdom are opposed to. Alun 17:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


Opposition to the Assembly

This section has remained largely unverified for some time now. I am wondering what purpose it serves to maintain information here that breaches the verifiability policy. The original editor(s) have not seen fit to provide supporting material, and much of it seems to be waffle anyway. Alun 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved things around a bit

I have placed the History section at the start of the article and have split the Richard Commission content into a new section. I think the sections are now a bit more chronological in order. I have also been looking to try to verify some of the info here. I'll continue to tinker with the article and look for more references. Hope this looks OK. Alun 18:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Senedd v/s Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I have heard that at the official opening ceremony the name of the assembly will be translated into Senedd, rather then Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru. Technically the former translates to an independent national Senate on par with with a parliament or congress, and the latter is the technically correct translation for assembly. The Dragon's Eye reports that Queen Elizabeth may refer to it as the Senedd in her speech. Any comments on this?Drachenfyre 19:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Having visited the new building (which is very smart, BTW), it appears that the name Senedd might refer to the building itself, as this name appears in English notices throughout the building (e.g. "Welcome to the Senedd"), while references to the elected members still refer to Assembly in the English notices and Cynulliad in the Welsh. 18:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. The institution is called the Assembly or y Cynulliad depending on language. "y senedd" refers only to the building. They were the Assembly in the old building and continue to be in the new, but only their NEW home in Cardiff Bay is called the senedd. Esquimo 00:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The National Assembly for Wales is not in charge of UK Government depts in Wales

Who the hell made this comment? The Assembly has no power over UK Governments depts in Wales. The Assembly only has power over it's own depts. Someone has purposely put the wrong facts in here. The UK Government controls it's own depts in Wales and the Assembly controls it's own under what powers it's got. Seriously, this part of the article surely is wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.221.164 (talk • contribs)

The Welsh Assembly Government has it's own departments people, the department of Environment and Agriculture and the Department of Education and Lifelong Learning and the Department of Health and Social Care, etc. Whoever wrote that the Assembly Government controls the UK Government departments in Wales has got their facts wrong surely, as the UK Government would never hand over responsibility of their own departments to another legislature, that legislature would have to create their own under the Government of Wales Act 1998.
Under the new law, Government of Wales Act 2006, the monarch has a larger role, the Assembly will have Orders-In-Council to pass and each Assembly Government department is in full control of the Welsh Assembly Government, not controlled by the Welsh Assembly on behalf of the UK Government - who would never do that anyway.

Amlder20 14:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Since this section has been ignored, in order that this information IS factually incorrect, I am going to remove "Responsible for UK Government departments". If anyone wants to object, feel free to leave all your objections at my talk page - thanks. If this is disputed I shall request the page to be locked down until the edit dispute is over.

Amlder20 12:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Abbreviation

I have changed NAW to NAfW. Google's first reference to the Assembly under NAW is result 9, whereas for NAfW, not only is one of the top results from a local authority (Carmarthenshire County Council), but its first alternative suggested search is "national assembly for wales". More importantly, having worked in both local and central government, as well as with NAfW bodies themselves, the dominant abbreviation in official use is without any doubt NAfW. Didn't come across NAW even once in official documents during that time. 18:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

PS, Googlism doesn't throw up the Assembly under NAW, only NAfW.
Shouldn't both be included seeing as naw "national assembly for wales" gets over double the ghits as nafw "national assembly for wales" and I seem to remember seeing both on official documents. Possibly it would be good to find out if there is any official document specifying a preferred acronym, or, indeed, whether any acronym is official.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 14:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Map of referendum

DO we really need this map? It is an odd map, the referendum was held accross Wales, the verdict was not decided by winning unitary authorities, but by winning a majority accross the whole country. This map appears to indicated that certain authorities voted yes and others no and that this is somehow relevant to the outcome of the election. It is supremely misleading. It would be better to show the Yes/No split within the authorities by shading, like this map of the 2004 US presidential election, that shows that most states are purple, ie there are Democrat (red) and Republican (blue) voters in all states. Someone fancy a crack at this? If I had the foggiest how to do it I would do it myself. Alun 17:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That would certainly add to the information about the outcome which, as you note, was well split everywhere. In the absence of such a map, however, I would favour retaining the old one. A part of modern Wales is the fact that that is gets progressively more 'Welsh' the further one goes west. This was reflected in the result. Normalmouth 17:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I added a map from the referendum article that gives the level of Yes vote by shading, the referendum article has a Yes and No map by shading, but I think only one is really required, they show the same thing in negative as it were. Alun 18:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Welsh civic society

It is important to note that the campaign to secure a 'yes' vote in the 1997 referendum was won by cross-party support (except the Conservatives) AND by the mobilisation of what is best described as Welsh civic society. Without the support of the Trade Unions, the Church and others it is unlikely that Wales would have voted yes. I am therefore including this observation in the article. Am happy to discuss that edit on this page. Normalmouth 20:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a good rephrasing. It was poorly worded before, I had assumed it was support for the parliamentary Bill that PC and the LDs were giving. Doesn't this sort of information properly belong in the Wales referendum, 1997 article? Alun 02:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be in both. I'll have a look at the Wales referendum, 1997 article and see if I can incorporate a new section along these lines. Normalmouth 07:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
We could have a short section here about the referendum and the campaign, and include a link to the main article on the referendum. Alun 10:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The wording on it in this section, at one sentence, does well. That can be expanded upon in the referendum article. Normalmouth 10:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Gender Statistics

Even if there is a press citation, wouldn't the information at Basque Parliament (40 women/35 men) negate the assertion about a majority of female members? Crunk 02:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by negate the assertion about the majority of female members? The Basque Parliament article doesn't say when this legislature was elected. Could it have been after the by election in Wales? This article doesn't claim to be the only one, just the first. It's also cited from a reliable source. If the Basque Parliament did indeed elect a majority female legislature before the Welsh Assembly (a distinct possibility, when has the UK press ever let mere facts get in the way of a good story?) then we should include it here as well. We should say something like claims were made that it was the first, but also that a Basque Parliament elected a majority female legislature earlier. If both claims are includeed and cited then we cover all the bases as it were. I see that the claims on the Basque Parliament page are not verified, though this does not mean that I dispute their veracity. Alun 20:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Proportionality

The electoral system used for the assembly does not produce overall proportionality. See Welsh Assembly election, 2003, where Labour got 40% of votes, but 48% of the seats, Plaid got 21% of the vote and 20% of the seats, Tories 19.9% of the vote and 18.3% of the seats, Lib-Dems 14% of votes and 10% of the seats. Labour still takes a lot more seats than it should, a little form Plaid, a little from the Tories and a lot from the Lib-Dems. In a proportional system Labour would have got 24 seats (they got 29), Plaid 13 (12), Tories 12 (11), Lib-Dem 9 (6), UKIP 1 (0). This comes to 59, discrepancies like this are usually overcome depending on the electoral system used. The most proportional systems are Single Transferable Vote (disputed), Open list and of course the AMS if the number of top up seats were larger, especially if they were on a national level, I think a 50:50 chamber would produce proportionality. Alun 06:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


The proportionality is across the whole assembly not just the list members. You keep insisting on a phrasing that badly obscures this. AMS can occur in variants where the list members are used to correct the overall representation towards proportionality, or the list element can be parallel to the constituency element, i.e. the list element is proportional only within itself and is an entirely separate election conducted without reference to the constituency element. If you feel that my wording doesn't make it clear enough that the overall proportionality is fairly approximate, try to clarify, don't simply remove the information. Overhang seats would be another possible method of achieving better proportionality, Germany uses them as even with a 50:50 split parties have still been known to get more constituencies than they deserve.Brett Dunbar 15:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The proportionality is across the whole assembly not just the list members.-No one has made this claim, but the assembly does not achieve proportionality. Alun 17:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You keep insisting on a phrasing that badly obscures this.- No I don't, your original wording stated that the assembly elections achieved overall proportionality, but they don't, it was your form of words that were misleading, my wording differs to yours only in that I claim a degree of proportionality, whereas you claim overall proportionality, I think my form of words is more accurate because my phrase does not claim true proportionality. Alun 17:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In actual fact the system used in Wales is not particularly proportional. Deviations from proportionality are due to three reasons. Firstly the number of top-up seats is two small to produce good proportionality. Secondly there are several regional lists rather than a nation wide list, this produces some bias. Thirdly each voter has two votes, one for the regional list and one for their constituency representative, because voters can split their votes between two parties it is apparent that a party could get better/worse results for the regional list than for their constituency vote, leading to over/under-representation in the legislature. Alun 17:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


The point is the top up is intended to go towards proportionality across the whole assembly there is another variant of AMS in which the list election is independent of the results of the constituency element it needs to be stated clearly that this system is not the one used here. My problem with your phrasing is that it obscures that the list members correct the overall representation towards proportionality rather than being a separate element proportional only within itself (I've noticed newspapers get this wrong quite often). Mentioning the various caveats on the actual achievement of overall proportionality is useful, overall proportionality is however what the system aims at.20:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The system is not overall proportional, it is merely more proportional than FPTP. It would produce greater proportionality if the additional members gained their seats based on the parties share of the votes from FPTP, as it is a voter can vote for Labour for their FPTP representative and for another party entirely for their regional list representative. So in 2003 Labour got 40% of the vote in the FPTP election, but only 36.6% of the vote in the regional list election, so some people were obviously voting for a labour candidate, but for a different party's list. It would also produce greater proportionality if the proportion of additional members was higher (50% instead of 33%). It would also produce greater proportionality if the additional members were elected on a nation wide level rather than a regional level. The system does not produce overall proportionality, neither does it aim at this, if they had wanted to introduce a system that aimed at overall proportionality then they wouldn't have chosen this system, they could easily have chosen a system where 30 members were directly elected and 30 were additional members, they could have determined proportionality based on the share of the vote the party got from the combined votes for the FPTP election and of course there is no reason for them to have produced the regional lists rather than a nation wide list. The point is that proportionality is not what they were aiming for, they wanted to maintain Labour's in-built over-representation (due to the corrupt of FPTP system) whilst appearing to produce a proportional system. The outcome was a better system than FPTP, but certainly nothing approaching an overall proportional system. My edit did not state that it is only the lists that are proportional, and I have no idea why you are making this assertion. Alun 17:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not claiming that you are asserting that the list element is parallel, what I am annoyed at is you keep removing wording that makes it clear that it isn't. the list corrects the overall representation for each region towards proportionality, it doesn't necessarily achieve full proportionality, it does aim towards it. If the list were parallel then and only then would the system not be aiming towards overall proportionality.Brett Dunbar 19:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The list system does not correct the overall representation for each region towards proportionality. The proportions for the parties on the list elections can be (and are often) different to the parties proportions for the FPTP part of the election. So the list element does not produce the same proportionality of vote as the FPTP system, this is evidenced by the Labour Party gaining a significantly reduced share of the vote on the regional list part of the ballot compared with their proportion of the vote in the FPTP element of the election in 2003. Indeed the list element is parallel as it is in effect a separate election as any voter can vote for any party's list irrespective of their vote in the FPTP part of the election. So effectively they are separate elections. In theory a party could achieve a much larger share of the list vote than of the FPTP vote and gain seats from the list system even without putting candidates up for the FPTP election. Any proportionality achieved is based exclusively on the proportion of votes a party achieves in the list election. I do not understand what you mean when you write you keep removing wording that makes it clear that it isn't. The regional list elections are independent of the FPTP elections, but the proportion of representatives elected from a list is not independent of the number of directly elected AMs. I think we need to come to a form of words upon which we can both agree. The current form of words is:

  • The additional members correct the overall representation of each region towards proportionality, rather than being elected in parallel to the constituency element, the corrective effect is somewhat limited by the low proportion of list members and the regionalisation of the list element.

How about this:

  • The additional members produce a greater degree of proportionality only within each region (and only for the proportions the parties achieve for the list election), which limits overall proportionality. Whereas voters can choose any regional party list irrespective of their party vote in the constituency election, list AMs are not elected independently of the constituency element, rather elected constituency AMs are deemed to be pre-elected list representatives for the purposes of calculating remainders in the D'Hondt method. Overall proportionality is limited by the low proportion of list members (one third of the Assembly) and the regionalisation of the list element.

I will not amend the text in the article until we come to I have amended the text and hope I have produced a form of words we can both live with. Let's not edit war, if you are unhappy with this form of words then let's discuss it here untill we are both happy. It may mean that we need to go into a bit more detail about the electoral system used, but this may be a good thing. Comments are appreciated. I have used a BBC site as a reference for the changes I have made.[1] Alun 06:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this information to the Electoral system section. Alun 11:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like decent wording.
We don't use parallel vote, that is a variant of AMS where the elections for the constituency and list representatives are entirely independent. This is much less proportional than the system we actually use. The main source of dis-proportionality is the large number of Labour overhang seats and the lack of any mechanism for giving the other parties supernumerary seats to compensate for thisBrett Dunbar 14:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes you are right, this is why I have linked to MMP rather than AMS. Alun 15:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I note use in the article of a link to "Additional Member System". I believe that although the system for elections to the Welsh Assembly is called an additional member system in relevant legislation, additional member systems generally are not necessarily designed to produce anything like PR. Linking to "Mixed member proportional representation" might be better, perhaps using "Additional member system (Welsh Assembly)" (a potential article site?) as a redirect. Laurel Bush 18:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

Um, it says in the article Under mixed member proportional representation a type of additional member system[1][2]
  1. ^ Mixed-Member Proportional Voting in PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION VOTING SYSTEMS, Types of Voting Systems: PR Library created by Professor Douglas J. Amy, Department of Politics, Mount Holyoke College. Retrieved 8 July 2006.
  2. ^ Electing the Welsh Assembly: Electoral Reform Society, information regarding Additional member system elections. Retrieved 9 December 2005.
So mention is made that the system is a mixed member system and that this system is a form of AMS. It is true that MMP is often called AMS in the UK, but strictly speaking MMP is simply a type or sub-group of AMS. I think this is what the article actually says. It's also referenced, and the texts linked to in the references give more detail regarding additional member systems generally. Actually the assembly is not particularly proportional due to the small number of top ups seats and the inclusion of regional lists rather than a Wales wide top up area, but that's another story. Alun 06:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about it the more I feel it would be a good idea to have an article specifically about the system used in elections to the Welsh Assembly or, perhaps, one about the different systems used in Wales or throughout the United Kingdom. Laurel Bush 10:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

That's not a bad idea at all. I'd be happy to contribute to such an article. Alun 12:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Constituency boundary changes

I am wondering when constituency boundary changes will come into effect for Assembly elections. Before or after they come into effect for Westminster elections? Laurel Bush 12:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC).

Before. They will be in effect at the next NAW election. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 18:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Suggestion to alter powers and status section

Once the GOWA 2006 is in force, Wales will have a totally different type of Assembly from the 1999-2007 Assembly. It's important to ensure that worldwide, people know the changes and the difference in the GOWA 1998 and the GOWA 2006. Amlder20 17:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Orders-In-Council and Assembly Measures

The Orders-In-Council are the only peices of legislation that will be approved by both houses of parliament, the Assembly and the Secretary of state for Wales. "although Assembly laws will be subject to the veto of the UK Secretary of State for Wales, House of Commons or House of Lords" has been changed to "although Assembly Order-in-Council laws will be subject to the veto of the UK Secretary of State for Wales, House of Commons or House of Lords. " so that people will know what laws will be passed by both Parliament and the Assembly and whats passed by the Assembly alone. The Assembly Measures are passed by the Welsh assembly only, and only needs parliaments approval if they are seeking to legislate on a "matter" that the Assembly has no power over, someone needs to read the act properly. Amlder20 21:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I shall correct what I said above but with the only exception, Welsh law can be vetoed by Parliament, but those laws are Orders-In-Council requests as I had called them. In effect if the Orders are not approved by Parliament they have indirectly vetoed the creation of an Assembly Measure. Amlder20 17:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

2003 election results

The summary table for the 2003 election results in this article don't match those in National Assembly for Wales election, 2003, the latter being (I think) the correct figures. Can anyone double check? Bondegezou 11:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a re-write

After tinkering a bit, i decided to do a bit of a re-write, starting with the opening paragraph. What does everybody think so far? I'm using as a mode the article about the Scottish Parliament, which is really very well written and structured. I think with a bit of effort we could get this artile up to a similar standard. Mathsguy 18:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Devolved areas

So what ARE the devolved areas of legislation?! MikkoAN1 14:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything as specified in that section of the wiki article, just it's town and country planning not county. The evidence for that has been added to the article. Town planning and Country-side planning, there is no such thing as a "countyside" Mr Stlemur. 82.11.221.164 12:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate external Iinks for NAW wikipedia article

I have removed the links to around 5 Assembly Member blogs/websites. There is insufficient room to list all AM websites and, in any case, each AM has a Wikipedia article with a link to their personal blogs. --Darren Wyn Rees 10:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Privilege

Are statements in the chamber of the NAW protected by Parliamentary Privilege like the Houses of Parliament? Richard Gadsden 14:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume so, best look at the GOWA 2006: [2] AlexD (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need the special infobox?

In light of the existence of Template:Infobox Legislature, is the special box really necessary? The Legislature infobox is standard across all other legislative chambers (including Parliament of the United Kingdom and its houses, as well as the legislatures of various national subdivisions, e.g. Northern Ireland Assembly), has greater flexibility (should the structure of the Parliament change significantly), and otherwise renders the National Assembly for Wales infobox redundant.

So you know what it would look like, here's the Legislature infobox for the Scottish Parliament:

National Assembly for Wales

Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru
3rd Assembly
Coat of arms or logo
Type
Type
Leadership
Lord Elis-Thomas AM, Plaid
since 12 May 1999
Rosemary Butler AM, Lab
since 2007
Carwyn Jones AM, Lab
since 19 July 2007
Claire Clancy
since February 2007
Structure
Seats60
Political groups
Committees
  • Audit
  • Business
  • Equality of Opportunity
  • Europe and External Affairs
  • Finance
  • Petitions
  • Standards and Conduct
  • Subordinate Legislation
  • Scrutiny of the First Minister
  • Communities and Culture
  • Enterprise and Learning
  • Health, Wellbeing and Local Government
  • Sustainability
  • LCO Legislative
Elections
Last election
3 May 2007
Meeting place
Senedd, Cardiff
Website
www.assemblywales.org

Thanks for considering! Lockesdonkey (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Welsh Labour

I have made a change to a political grouping within the new, improved, infobox. I changed Welsh Labour to Labour Party. It is noted on the Welsh Labour page that "Welsh Labour is formally part of the Labour Party - it is not separately registered[1] with the Electoral Commission under the terms of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act." Consequently, electors voted for a candidate for the Labour Party and not Welsh Labour or the Welsh Labour Party. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A change has been made to the Party table in the Elections section - from Labour Party (UK) to Welsh Labour. Each of the Labour AMs is a member of the Labour Party. Each stood in their constituency representing the Labour Party. Each was elected as the Labour Party Assembly Member for their constituency. And most will be standing again in their constituency next month for election to the National Assembly as the Labour Party candidate. Consequently, unless and until the Labour candidates stand as Welsh Labour representitives, their political party should be noted as Labour. I have reverted the change. Daicaregos (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The nature of devolution, is such that Welsh Labour has seperate policies, and a seperate political identity from UK Labour. It is slightly misleading, in this context, to put them down as the UK party given the differences in policies and approach between Welsh Labour and UK Labour. In articles dealing with the national Aseembly and National Assembly elections it makes more sense to link them to the Welsh Labour page, then the UK Labour page. The Welsh Labour page also explains the position of the Welsh Labour party in the wider UK context.--Welshsocialist (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
It does not make more sense in articles dealing with the National Assembly and National Assembly elections to link to Welsh Labour. The Welsh Labour group may be trying to distance themselves from the party they were elected to represent, but that does not make them a political party. Please provide a link, for example, to allow me or anyone else here, to join. AFAICT, Welsh Labour is a splinter group of the Labour Party. Welsh Labour have no MPs or AMs, nor will they have any candidates running in the 2011 Assembly election. I would be delighted if they did run as a separate party. But they don't. If you want to add that a Labour politician is a member of Welsh Labour, go ahead – it is notable and interesting. But it is the Labour Party that will appear on ballot papers, and that is what should appear on their related articles. Daicaregos (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?frmGB=1&frmPartyID=6&frmType=partydetail

Suggestions for updating

The powers explanation needs updating. There is reference to schedule 7 but it still mentions LCOs and Measures which are no longer relevant. Perhaps also the devolved area list could go higher up in the Powers and Status section as there is a discussion of tax powers etc before we even know broadly what the devolved areas are.

I also think that this article can be a bit misleading as it says in the second paragraph at the top tht that after the 2011 referendum Parliament no longer needs to be consulted. It is correct that Parliament doesn't need to be consuled in the 20 devolved areas but, even pre-May 2011, Parliament never needed to be consulted where powers were devolved. It only needed needed to be consulted for new powers instered by LCOs. There's a similar error at the end of the Powers and Status paragraph. Seeing as there is so much confusion about NAfW powers it would be great if we could get a really comprehensive page for people to refer to. I am willing to make the small chnges I have suggested unless anyone has any objections? Tralban (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

How bilingual is the assembly in practice?

I'm curious about this. As far as I understand, the Welsh language is put on equal footing with English in many respects; and is used at some ceremonial instances. However, I do not understand whether English is the only practically used working language, with a little Welsh as a kind of adornment, or the rôles of the languages are on a more equal footing. Concretely:

  1. Is Welsh actually also allowed as an alternative to English in the ordinary Assembly discussions? I don't mean adding a quotation or two in Welsh, but keeping entire talks, or answering questions to ministers, or whatever, in Welsh.
  2. If so, is Welsh used in practice in this manner by some members?
  3. If so, is there any statistics of the proportion of English versus Welsh in the Assembly parleys?

I suspect that other readers than I also would be interested in such data. If there is some reliable source providing answers, I think that these should be added to the article, e.g., under a heading named something like The Assembly working mode. (This section also could cover some other information, like how many days a year the Assembly meets in plenum, and what kinds of permanent or temporary committees are formed by the members.) JoergenB (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This question seems more suited to one of the helpdesks, than an article talk page. Still, here is a link to Senedd TV, so you can watch Assembly sessions yourself to answer your question. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ieuan Wyn Jones

Changes to the Ieuan Wyn Jones' position in the Assembly are a bit previous. According to the BBC, he “... is to stand down from his Ynys Mon seat.” He has not done so yet. According to Betsan Powys “He'll start his new job in July but won't stand down as an Assembly member until his successor is elected.” The recent change has been reverted. Daicaregos (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

When I made the edit, the BBC article read "...with immediate effect" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22990696 obviously there seems to be some contradiction between the BBC article and what Betsan has heard. However the National Assembly webiste no longer lists Ieuan Wyn Jones as a member http://www.senedd.assemblywales.org/mgMemberIndex.aspx?FN=PARTY&VW=LIST&PIC=0 and http://www.assemblywales.org/memhome/member-search-results.htm?constituency=40 . So I think he has stood down and maybe Betsan's information is out of date? --Welshsocialist (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The situation does seem a little confused. However, if the National Assembly no longer consider him a member, then I guess that's that. I'll reinstate the changes now. If anyone finds more recent evidence showing he remains an AM, please share it here. Daicaregos (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Nature of legistlature, "West German Model"

Is there any scolarly discourse on the nature of the Assembly. Very much conceived as a "(West) German" and not a "Westminster" Model legislature.

Don't think it is so distinctive to be "sui generis" really but still it lacks an important feature of the West German model- the constructive vote of no confidence, (as the Alun Michael to Rhodri Morgan transistion showed). Otherwise though has lots of West German elements, the electoral system, emphasis on committees, consensual style. But there must be some scholarly analysis by now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.99.121.229 (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Wales Act 2014

The Wales Act 2014 is now law - this article will need some considerable updating as a result. Argovian (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Dafydd Elis-Thomas

Dafydd El is noted in the Infobox as a member of the Government. Although the reference cited says 'that he will be supporting the Welsh Government', it also says 'He sits as an independent AM'. That doesn't sound to me that he is a member of the Government. Nor does it sound as if he will be providing much opposition, so he doesn't belong there either. I propose he be put in a section by himself, 'Other: Independent' perhaps. Thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Assembly for Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Assembly for Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Assembly for Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Diagram

Hi,

The diagram & caption at the top of the page contradict the breakdown below it, it shows two UKIP seats instead of one and an Independent. Not sure how to fix but just wanted to point this out

Muffington (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed name change

The formal legislation on same has now been published - appears that Senedd would be official in both Welsh and English, but that referral to the body as the Welsh Parliament will also permitted - https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/17426417.plans-to-lower-voting-age-in-welsh-elections-to-16-and-change-assemblys-name-officially-unveiled/ Culloty82 (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The name change has formally come into effect - it will be referred to as the Welsh Parliament in English and the Senedd Cymru in Welsh. This page has been titled Senedd Cymru with a clarifier about Welsh Parliament in the first line. It should probably be Welsh Parliament with a clarifier about Senedd in the first line, as this is the English language page (yes - I'm aware that Senedd is also acceptable in English).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Wales (talk • contribs) 05:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
This is wrong - both Senedd Cymru and Welsh Parliament are the formal legal names in *both* languages, not one for each language. Also, it will be referred to as "Senedd", this has been confirmed by both the Government and the Senedd. Passmebywiki (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
You may well be right. According to the BBC here, the name is Senedd Cymru - the Welsh Parliament - all of it. That seems bonkers, but if it's right we should go with it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The legal name is both, this is the only option as it's UK legislation being amended, and not Welsh legislation, so there's no way of having a Welsh version of the (Government of Wales 2006) Act. Technically the legislation says "There is to be a parliament for Wales to be known as Senedd Cymru or the Welsh Parliament (referred to in this Act as "the Senedd"). Senedd is what will be universally used though. The slight quirk is that Senedd Cymru is used in the English and Welsh names for, eg, Acts (of Senedd Cymru). And Senedd is used in the English and Welsh name of several bodies/positions: Members (of the Senedd), (Senedd) Commission, Clerk (of the Senedd), etc. I'd be tempted to call the page Senedd as that is what it will be known as... Passmebywiki (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 May 2020

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: No clear consensus for Senedd or Senedd Cymru; not moved to Welsh Parliament; interim move to Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament; review in at least three months This is a complicated situation due to several factors. There is overwhelming consensus that the article should not be at "National Assembly for Wales" as an outdated title. There is less consensus on the exact destination. There are a number of statements about what the common name is expected to be but not what it actually is.

The term "Senedd" has clearly become a common name in English for the building and has been a metonym for the institution even prior to the formal name change but this does not directly mean it has automatically become the common name for the institution post the name change. Out of the various contributions there's strong support for including "Senedd" in the article title but not a clear consensus to use either "Senedd" or "Senedd Cymru" on its own; there is also a sizeable element for including "Welsh Parliament" either alone or in the full bilingual name.

Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament covers all bases and has strong support as a secondary and/or interim option pending time to see which name emerges as the actual WP:COMMONNAME. For now it is the nearest to a consensus outcome. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


Senedd Cymru → Senedd – Third stage in the bold–revert–discuss cycle; I reverted Llew Mawr's redirection of the Senedd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) disambiguation for further discussion. The question is basically: is the parliament the primary topic – and thus should be at Senedd with a hatnote for Senedd building per WP:ONEOTHER – or is there no primary topic, and should the page at Senedd be a disambiguation page? My own thoughts are that the parliament is indeed the primary topic — but I'm not fully convinced yet — and, for the reasons I made at Talk:Senedd building#Requested move 5 December 2019, "Senedd" is already the common name in English sources, so in the context of a move discussion, I would support a move to Senedd. Sceptre (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I think we have to wait and see what the common name is, that is whether reliable sources refer to it as Senedd Cymru or Senedd (both are given by the body as acceptable names by the NAfW naming document) or even Welsh Parliament. I've been working over the last few days on a detailed move proposal for all Senedd articles with a dozen options for editors to choose from in the future when WP:RS exist so a common name in English might be clearer. In the mean time, I'm happy with this article being at Senedd Cymru. I also won't be quibbling over your unrelated revert.
P.S. Although you somehow relate the two, my change of a dab page to a redirect (which you reverted) doesn't relate, in any strict way, to your move proposal above. It is common for short names to redirect to longer (more precise or official) names with a dab hatnote at the longer name (indeed, it's a common compromise; see Wikipedia talk:D). Do you also object to that? Your comment, "if it's the primary topic – and I believe it is, FWIW – then the article for the Senedd should be here, not at Senedd Cymru" fundamentally misunderstands that one article is often the primary topic for multiple terms.
Llew Mawr (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • As a interim measure we could use both names i.e. Senedd Cymru - the Welsh Parliament as the page title until a common name emerges in popular usage. Using the current monolingual name Senedd Cymru as the page title seems to go against the bilingual nature of the institution. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I weakly support this, if others support my idea to wait, say, two months and go with what news articles and other WP:RS tend to call it then (my WP:crystalball suspects "Senedd"). Llew Mawr (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I Strongly Support this change to Senedd. Senedd is the commonly used name as set out by the Senedd Commission, and as used by the Welsh Government. It is also consistent with, eg, Members of the Senedd, Senedd Elections, Senedd Commission, etc. Passmebywiki (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I Strongly Support a change to Senedd with a redirect from welsh assembly and welsh parliment as AMs are now MS (member of senedd). I would Support the name being bilingual and Strongly oppose it remaining as National Assembly for Wales (as this is no longer its name) [1] CimlaGus (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support for immediate change. I hesitated to comment previously in this discussion, because of uncertainty over whether Senedd or Senedd Cymru was more correct - but, clearly, "National Assembly for Wales" is now simply wrong, unjustified, and needs to be changed as quickly as possible.. The name has changed. I favour Senedd as the WP:COMMONNAME. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC) .... but, for the time being I would support a move to Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament as being an improvement that recognises the new official name. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support Its oblivious this happened today, as they officially renamed the region's devolved legislature into the Senedd Cymru (or Welsh Parliament), but I have no clue, why this needed to be reverted back to the old name of the devolved legislative system for Wales? Plus, the BBC post two articles, of supporting this as well.[2][3] Chad The Goatman (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I realise I haven't clearly given my position (partly as this proposal lacked precision on exactly what will go where and I was waiting to see if an admin reverted back to NAfW).
  • I think Senedd should redirect here (WP:PT for that term), but accept others disagree.
  • I think leaving this at National Assembly for Wales causes too much WP:SURPRISE.
  • I support us following WP:NC on non-clearcut (cf. papal) name changes by moving it to Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament as an interim measure as part of a two-month move moratorium till WP:RS are available.
  • If and only if that proposal fails, I support it being moved to Senedd (probably more likely to be used as its name in English-language sources than Welsh Parliament and definitely more likely than where it was originally moved, Senedd Cymru, a title only used in Welsh).
Llew Mawr (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, the change to 'Senedd Cyumru - Welsh Parliament' or Elshad's proposal. The official website's news release states "the National Assembly for Wales officially becomes Senedd Cymru and Welsh Parliament, commonly known as the Senedd." [4]. While I appreciate WIKI uses the most commonly used name and this will take time to develop as an interim measure I think it's best to follow either the wording in the legislation or that used on the official website until a point in time has been reached that a common name has developed. Allialliw (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, English-language sources have been calling it "the Senedd" since way before the renaming bill went through the Senedd. Although that's mostly due to metonymy (c.f. Holyrood, Stormont, Westminster), it shows that most people are comfortable with calling it as such, and, in my opinion, the Senedd's naming advice that it's "commonly known as the Senedd" is descriptive of common parlance rather than prescriptive. As you've mentioned, USEENGLISH only applies when the English term is the most common one used in English; after all, nobody calls the third-largest party in the Senedd the Party of Wales, nor does anyone talk about the recent Irish election being a surprise victory for Ourselves against the Warriors of Destiny and Tribe of the Irish. Sceptre (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I support the interim move to use the full bilingual name i.e. Senedd Cymru - Welsh Parliament. This has been used for the "Amgueddfa Cymru – National Museum Wales" page. It seems the least controversial and most accurate option for now. Dunadan9 (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to Welsh Parliament, as this is the english language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I strongly supoort a move to Senedd Cymru. I think the approach used for Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann is something we should emulate. There, the page titles are Dáil Éireann/Seanad Éireann as appropriate, and the infoboxes have Dáil Éireann/Seanad Éireann at the top, with Assembly of Ireland/Senate of Ireland underneath. In the body text, Dáil/Seanad is used. So I would suggest Senedd Cymru as the page title, Senedd Cymru with Welsh Parliament underneath in the infobox and Senedd being used as the general term in the body text of the article. DrFrench (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too soon. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Senedd was in use long before the recent name change, in the established British tradition of naming institutions after places. Too soon does not apply, as it is not a new name. Neither is there a need to wait for a new commonname to establish itself, as this institution was established in the previous century. Using "the Senedd" is established enough that the BBC article on the new name uses "the Senedd" throughout when not referring to the official name. A bilingual formal name is an unnecessary stopgap when there is a longstanding common name. As for the language, Senedd is often used in English, and is less ambiguous than "the Assembly" (or "the Parliament" now perhaps). CMD (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament until a WP:COMMONNAME emerges. It is too early to say what the common name will be, but until then the new formal name, Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament, should be used. Note that in this BBC article explaining the reasons for the new name, initially the name Welsh Parliament was to be used, after 75% of people in a public consultation backed that name, and it was only rejected because the resulting acronym for Welsh MPs, MWP, resembled the first syllable of the Welsh for "muppet". After a resultant campaign for a purely Welsh name was opposed, the bilingual name was backed by the Welsh Government as a compromise. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't really have a view on this, as it's probably too early to identify a common name. However, I think it's worth pointing out that WP:USEENGLISH is not an appropriate guideline to follow here. We have several articles on national legislatures with titles like Knesset (not "Assembly") and Bundestag (not "Federal Diet") because this is how they are commonly known in English. Number 57 08:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    Comment on comment: I agree. Except WP:UE is exactly the policy to follow and was the one followed at Talk:Bundestag#Name of article, Bundestag being the title suggested by WP:UE:WP:DIVIDEDUSE): loanwords into English are fine if used by the most WP:RS and Senedd is English per general lingustics and WP:UE(in fact, it is imprecise and/or non-NPOV in Welsh). Llew Mawr (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/senedd-parliament-wales-welsh-assembly-18205053
  2. ^ "Why are Welsh Assembly Members changing their name?". BBC. 6 May 2020. Retrieved 6 May 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ "Welsh assembly renamed Senedd Cymru/Welsh Parliament". BBC. 6 May 2020. Retrieved 6 May 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ https://senedd.wales/en/newhome/pages/newsitem.aspx?itemid=2097
  • Support as the current common name. At this point it's comfortably the name most used in RS coverage. An example is the BBC here which introduces the longform bilingual name then uses Senedd for the rest of the article. Other sources refer to it as Senedd including Wales Online and ITV News. If the common name changes in the future the article can be moved again. Ralbegen (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support bilingual article name. Until this week officially The Senedd was the name of the building. It will take a very long time for an established name to be bedded down with the public. Littlemonday (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support bilingual article name, i.e. Senedd-Welsh Parliament as an interim title now that "National Assembly" is obsolete - if consensus then supports the sole use of Senedd, that can then be formally adopted. Culloty82 (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support full bilingual name as an interim measure until a settled common usage becomes apparent. Tammbeck (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Either Senedd or Senedd Cymru. The former long being the common name despite technically relating to the building. The official renaming also helps and the meaning isn't precisely Parliament although it is OK as a translation -----Snowded TALK 16:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The name Senedd has been in use for a long time prior to the official renaming, while Welsh Parliament has not. Slight preference of Senedd Cymru over 'Senedd, to differentiate it with Senedd building. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 16:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Either Senedd or Senedd Cymru the latter being my first preference for disambig reasons with the building itself. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
How long has Senedd been the commonly used name in English RSSs? If it has only recently occured due to the passage of the bill, should we not wait a little longer, say ten years, to make sure it isn't a fad? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
It has been in use for years and if you check above you will find BBC and other references. It has been common to use the name of the Building for the Assembly -----Snowded TALK 12:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, there seems to be a huge panic to adopt Senedd Cymru across English Wikipedia. Ya'll gotta calm down & (for now, at least) compromise & use both Senedd Cymru & Welsh Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
There is no panic GoodDay, just a normal process to adopt the new name. You should know by now that asking other editors to calm down is considered provocative and also a little foolish. You have a view, fine argue for it, but leave the provocative comments out of things please. We don't want to go back to past issues please. -----Snowded TALK 20:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The 'new' name hasn't been decided 'yet'. Be patient & wait until it is decided. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This looks like it will go through as a Support, however this Wikipedia is in the English language therefore I feel the article should be "Welsh Parliament". The lead section should therefore be "The Welsh Parliament (Welsh: Senedd Cymru) is the democratically elected...." My opinion comes partly from the official website itself, which says....

"The Senedd is not just a building for Members, it is your building. It is the main public building of the Welsh Parliament, the main centre for democracy and devolution in Wales." from https://senedd.wales/en/visiting/senedd/Pages/senedd.aspx

SethWhales talk 08:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I can't see 'Welsh Parliament' or even 'Parliament' ending up in common usage- too much confusion with Westminster. Senedd on the other hand is already in use and has been for some time -----Snowded TALK 08:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
People in Wales use Senedd in relation to the building, not the legislature. The commonly used name is "the Assembly". If the name change goes through (as I think it will), the name of the article should at least be looked again at in 2021, we can then see whether media outlets and the general public etc. will use Senedd Cymru or Welsh Parliament. My opinion: 'Welsh Parliament' will be used widely, not Senedd Cymru. SethWhales talk 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
It would be perfectly reasonable to open the article with "The Welsh Parliament etc." even if the article title is "Senedd". COMMONNAME applies to article titles, but formal names are often used at the start of articles. That would also reflect what this BBC article does. CMD (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I will support on the basis of the view taken by Llemiles on 10 May 2020, namely that Let's go with that so we have a correct and commonly used article name, and then we can have a further discussion in the months ahead if users find that Welsh Parliament instead emerges as a more common name in future. I'd be happy to revisit, but let's get this right now, because the current settlement is not acceptable to anyone. SethWhales talk 07:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • COMMENT - Choose whatever 'name' yas wish for the article. Just please, can we have Welsh Parliament somewhere in the intro and/or infobox, for us english-only readers? An example of this consideration for english-only readers, is at the Taoiseach intro. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The final paragraph of that BBC article makes the point well "While the legislature's new name is officially Senedd Cymru/Welsh Parliament it's likely that, at least within Wales, it will be referred to as the Senedd, a name that's already in use in both languages and which will differentiate it from Westminster" My bold -----Snowded TALK 19:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support move to Senedd Cymru 46.193.0.163 (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I support moving this article to Senedd over Parliament, and I hope this happens. However we are currently in a situation where the constituencies have all been moved to Llanfoo (Senedd constituency) while this article remains at National Assembly. I worry that a lack of consistency and eagerness to edit has resulted in confusion. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support using Senedd Cymru, convention in these articles is to have the country name included, see Parliament of the United Kingdom. I also fully agree with Ghmyrtle (talk · contribs) - National Assembly for Wales is a ludicrously incorrect article to use right now. Clearly the commonly used name in the press and in the business of the Parliament itself is 'Senedd' (for example its English language webpage is senedd.wales). Let's go with that so we have a correct and commonly used article name, and then we can have a further discussion in the months ahead if users find that Welsh Parliament instead emerges as a more common name in future. I'd be happy to revisit, but let's get this right now, because the current settlement is not acceptable to anyone. Llemiles (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Amending my comments following the below input by Capewearer (talk · contribs), it appears better form would be to follow the example of Dáil Éireann and go with the raw name of the legislature itself. Clearly Welsh Parliament is a clarifier because as other have noted, there are lots of Parliaments, but Senedd is unique enough itself to be the common name as many have noted is used in press coverage. Llemiles (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sincerely hope we will be mentioning Welsh Parliament in either the intro or the infobox, for us english-only readers. Not everyone is gonna know what Senedd Cymru means, even though it's currently being (since May 6) hastily put in several related articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Reply to GoodDay - Most articles are using both names i.e. "Senedd Cymru - Welsh Parliament" rather than a monolingual name as there does not appear to be a consensus as to what name to use. I don't think this is confusing at all as the words "Welsh Parliament" are there to aid people who don't understand what the term "Senedd Cymru" mean. On this article, in the infobox, the Welsh name is used first followed by the English name and in the lead paragraph, the English name used first followed by the Welsh. We often use "native" names before English language equivalents if they are in common usage in English language media. Examples include using the Hindi language name Lok Sabha instead of House of the People for the lower house of the parliament of India, where Hindi and English are the official languages or for a Welsh example, Plaid Cymru instead of the English language name Party of Wales. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Dáil Éireann in Ireland, Seimas in Lithuania, and Storting in Norway are similar examples. Capewearer (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment - Sorry, I think I didn't make my position as clearly as I had hoped in the above post. I think the article name should currently be bilingual "Senedd Cymru - Welsh Parliament" until a consensus can be reached or a common name emerges in the media. The examples I quoted above were to illustrate that the English language name should not always take precedence simply because this is the English language Wikipedia. I also believe that a bilingual name formula, Senedd Cymru - Welsh Parliament, should be used in the body of articles, again until a widely reported common name emerges. Where I have made edits to remove the former name, i have used the bilingual name as the replacement. As for acts and members of the institution "Members of the Senedd" and "Acts of the Senedd" should be used at this is what they are called on the face of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
This institution has been around for a couple of decades. Why do we have to wait for a new name to be established when there are existing ones? CMD (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Because technically it would be Original Research to say something will be called x when the name hasn't been published/consensus formed in sources. Plus I note in the BBC source in 2 sections above, it is noted that Seneed Cymru and Welsh Parliament were to be used in equal standing. Therefore, since I'm answering your Q I might as well do this. MOVE TO "Senedd Cymru - Welsh Parliament" Games of the world (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I haven't mentioned at all what it might be called, I've mentioned what it is called, and has been called for a few years now. CMD (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - The current use of the term assembly is in my view incorrect. Sl90531 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support a move to Senedd. The lead could be something like: “The Welsh Parliament (Welsh: Senedd Cymru), commonly referred to as the Senedd, is the devolved...” — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedWales
  • Strongly support a move to Senedd. I have temporarily moved the article to "Senedd (Welsh Parliment)". The glossary page of the Senedd website (note my typical reference term) uses the term Senedd. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TG11TG15 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://senedd.wales/en/help/pages/glossary.aspx
@TG11TG15: You're not suppose to 'move' an article, when it's in the midst of an RM. GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes I know. This is merely a temporary change. As it stands, it seems the title "Senedd" is the most strongly supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TG11TG15 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Apparently, you don't know. Repeat, you're not suppose to move the page, not even temporarily, during an RM. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support a change to Senedd with a redirect from Welsh Assembly and Welsh Parliament, made particularly stark by the fact that politicians once known as Assembly Members are now Members of the Senedd. I would Support the name being bilingual and Strongly oppose it remaining as National Assembly for Wales. SlashBeef (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC) — SlashBeef (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Don't mean to be rude, but someone's got to count the votes and although, I can see what you want to say, technically we have two support votes, when you can only choose/vote for one. May kindly I ask that you unbold the oppose and also the support for the title which you feel less strongly about, just to make it clear to whoever has to close this. Games of the world (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support change to Senedd. This word is common place in Welsh culture and history see Owain Glyndŵr's Parliament. It's what we have used to describe the UK Parliament with the added 'San Steffan' (Westminster). The word's very similar to other parliaments across the world. I edit on the Welsh Wicipedia and we have decided to use Senedd Cymru, furthermore we can't use Senedd Cymru on the English Wikipedia (as it's not legal), but we can use Senedd as it's unique and every thing else is called Senedd (Commission, region and constituencies). Let's be unique! Cwmcafit (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
But I do agree that there should be strong redirects from Welsh Assembly/ parliament. Cwmcafit (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
""If a Welsh Wikipedia is ever started"....  ??!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Good to see it does exist. Didn't see it on the main page. So they use Welsh on the Welsh platform. Good to note that they also note the English name Welsh Parliament in the lede there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
This article seems to say that they are two names (one in English, one in Welsh), both of "equal" standing. That is a situation more like Canada's, where we should use the English name when in English and French/Welsh when writing in those languages. Other articles can be found refering to the body only as the "Welsh Parliament".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the move to Senedd per Llemiles and Snowded, with no prejudice against a later move to Welsh Parliament in the unlikely event that that catches on as the WP:COMMONNAME. Like the Dail in nearly monolingually English-speaking Ireland, the name Senedd has been in use for some time in English-language RS per WP:USEENGLISH, even by the BBC,[1][2] and nobody called it the "Welsh Parliament" prior to the legal change of name that went into effect this month. Its members' names are not bilingual: they are "Member of the Senedd (MS), and Aelod o’r Senedd (AS) in Welsh. ", as mandated by the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020.[3] We can't leave the name as it is, and we equally can't use a hyphen or slash in the title, because it doesn't have one in its names, either official or in common use: unusually, it has two official names, not one big hyphenated or slashed name. Since both are in wide use, and since we can't use both as the title of the article, we have to pick one, and the tie-breaker for me is the fact that "Senedd" is what it calls itself throughout its own website.[3][4] So the best course in this unusual situation is to move to Senedd for the title, and the official names Senedd Cymru and Welsh Parliament bolded in the lead, with redirects from both. Capewearer (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-50531106
  2. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-48790319
  3. ^ a b https://senedd.wales/en/newhome/pages/newsitem.aspx?itemid=2097
  4. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=Senedd+site:senedd.wales
Agree with you, best summary on the talk page. And yes you can't use two names on the page title as that will confuse people. It will also confuse people if it's members are called one thing and it's institution is called something else. If you watched the debate around the name, Carwyn Jones MS wanted the Welsh Parliament to be an explainer.[3] This can be done in the infobox and first sentence.Cwmcafit (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree, it is best summary on the talk page and seems to reflect consensus. Is there any reason why we shouldn't just impliment this? Its been open for some time -----Snowded TALK 12:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree, we really need to get a move on as this article has been at a blatantly incorrect name for almost two weeks now. Elshad (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
See top of thread - the seven days consideration period ends tomorrow morning. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to Welsh Parliament, per WP:USEENGLISH. While I see Capewearer's argument that "the Dail" has become a nearly universal name (even in English) for the Irish parliament's lower house, I don't think that the time is ripe yet for ascertaining whether "the Senedd" is going the same way. We should let some time pass, maybe a month or two, and if reliable sources have come to use "the Senedd" as the common name, then we should move to "Senedd". However, unless and until that time comes, I think "Welsh Parliament" would be the most suitable article name. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
If you check there are multipe sources using Senedd which has been used as a name for the Assembly before it was renamed. It would be more approriate to see if "Welsh Parliament" ever catches on which is frankly very unlikley -----Snowded TALK 18:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that. I just found this BBC article, which says "the Senedd" and "the Welsh Parliament" have equal status, but it appears that "the Senedd" is the most common name. In that case, it makes more sense to go the other way around and set the name to "Senedd". I personally prefer the name "Welsh Parliament", but it's a pretty open-and-shut case if "the Senedd" has become the most common name already. I'm changing my vote to Move to Senedd. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2020 (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.

Commonly referred to as the Senedd?

I find the phrase "commonly referred to as the Senedd" odd, considering that "Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament", has only been in existence since 6 May 2020. Before that date, it was only the building that was known as the Senedd. The "Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament" was previously commonly known simply as "the Assembly". In my view, this is the Welsh Parliament trying to get the public to call it "the Senedd", when there is no "commonly known name" at all. I accept "Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament" as the article name, no problems with that, but to go onto say that it is "commonly referred to as the Senedd", is just nonsense. SethWhales talk 23:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The institution itself was referred to as "the Senedd", similarly to how it was referred to as "the Assembly", long before the recent name change. ("The Assembly" would not be a good article title however.) CMD (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I can find no evidence (having read many pages of results from a Google search) that the word "Senedd" was widely (or commonly) used (instead of the Assembly) to mean the institution rather than the physical building. Nevertheless, what I was suggesting was that the sentence "commonly referred to as the Senedd" be removed, nothing else. I was not suggesting to change any article to "The Assembly". SethWhales talk 04:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I suggest changing the wording to "also referred to as the Senedd". Tammbeck (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Well I did a search as well and found many examples which back up personal experience ofconversatons in WAG and elsewhere. In effect the building and the institution are frequently conflated. -----Snowded TALK 09:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Tammbeck. It may be premature to say that reliable sources "commonly" refer to the Parliament (rather than the building) as the Senedd, but I'm sure it's likely to become more prevalent quickly, so we should be prepared to move the article again fairly soon. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
"...also referred to as the Senedd", would be best. PS - Best we wait 'six months' before having another RM, though. GoodDay (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
A WP:COMMONNAME will be established long before that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I can live with also referred to as the Senedd (for the time being), instead of commonly referred to as the Senedd. SethWhales talk 12:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I've edited the lead with the compromise wording, which is tolerable to a majority here. Tammbeck (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this webpage and the linked guide both state that it will be commonly referred to as "the Senedd" and these recent news articles all make reference to "Senedd" and not "Welsh Parliament". Of course, the communication guide from the Senedd does not mean that the man in the street will use that name (but then I suspect for some time the man in the street will still refer to it as "the Assembly"). However, to the extent that major news organisations commonly refer to an institution it seems clear they're going for "Senedd". Gonefishing (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The current opening sentence - reflecting the clear and evident choice that has been made by the Senedd itself to make the name Senedd Cymru first amongst equals - seems reasonable. However, the name of the article looks ridiculous and out of line with English-language Wikipedia convention and precedent, and will also make linking to the article cumbersome. I'm not sure why people are so fixed on what the institution is commonly referred to as - how many people commonly referred to the previously named institution as "the National Assembly for Wales"? I did because I'm into that level of precision, but I think we can all recognise that "the Welsh assembly" was far more common in everyday English conversation - yet the article was, correctly, named National Assembly for Wales. Senedd Cymru is clearly the right name for the article now, with a reference to the Welsh Parliament and Senedd (without the Cymru) in the first sentence. I also predict that, after a lot of fire and fury, this is where we will end up. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
One of the primary reasons the Page Rename discussion (directly above) resulted in the current page name is because the parliament isn't commonly known as the Senedd. Yet. Obs. Sionk (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Fully agree with Kennethmac2000 (talk · contribs). It's pretty clear from notable media coverage, the institution's own publications, and from conversations with anyone in Wales (at least my neighbourhood) that Welsh Parliament is probably the least useful name to use in the title. In order of use across multiple mediums, I find it tends to be referred to as 1) Senedd 2) The Assembly (outdated) and 3) Welsh Parliament. I've yet to see anyone assert how Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament or Welsh Parliament is the WP:COMMONNAME. Sionk (talk · contribs), even if Senedd isn't the sole name used to refer to the institution, there is no evidence that any other names are better candidates to be the WP:COMMONNAME. Llemiles (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
As you know, the institution's own publications and chats with friends wouldn't count towards establishing the COMMONNAME. And surely we'd need to look at sources that are more recent than early May (when the original page move decision was made) before changing the decision. Sionk (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely, I’m not suggesting my social life be evidence for the change. That said I’m not sure that any future discussion needs to be based on new evidence. The decision to go with Welsh Parliament - Senedd Cymru was in my interpretation one which balanced both views as a short term measure on the basis that we would look again at the decision in the near future (not contingent on any particular new evidence). Indeed if there are sources prior to the name change showing a consistent use of the term Senedd, then those sources should be absolutely be considered valid in deciding what the common name is, now it has also become the de jure name. But it is clear there is current, notable, and widespread use of the term Senedd Llemiles (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

2011 devolution referendum and Wales Act 2017

I disagree with the statement "its primary law-making powers were enhanced in the Wales Act 2017 following a Yes vote in the referendum on 3 March 2011" on the article. It implies that 2011 referendum was implemented by the Wales Act 2017 - which isn't the case.

The 2011 Welsh devolution referendum page states: "regulations for the referendum, and the powers to be approved or rejected by it, were provided for in the Government of Wales Act 2006."

As a result, there was no Act needed by the UK Parliament after the referendum to enact what the people voted for. As mentioned above, this was provided by the Government of Wales Act 2006.

The Wales Act 2017 page states "the legislation is based on the proposals of the St David's Day Agreement which were not included in the Wales Act 2014." There is no mention of it being a result of the referendum that was held six years before it.

Lighthouse3050 (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It says "following" which is factually true and the referendum paved the way for the legislation although the 2014 Act and the Silk Commission are there. So there is scope for a different wording - open to ideas there -----Snowded TALK 04:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

My proposal: "Its primary law-making powers were enhanced following a Yes vote in the referendum on 3 March 2011, meaning that the UK Parliament or the Secretary of State for Wales were no longer consulted when passing acts of the National Assembly for Wales related to the 20 devolved areas.[10]. These powers were further extended by the Wales Act 2014 and Wales Act 2017." Lighthouse3050 (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Like that -----Snowded TALK 09:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Senedd party composition

Abolish the Welsh Assembly now has two members, following the affiliation of Mark Reckless, so adjust the infobox accordingly. [1] Culloty82 (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I've changed AWAP to 2, though this is something you can do if you're confident with editing pages. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Sixth Senedd

I corrected the table which references the 1st, 2nd, etc Assembly/Senedd. The text said Assembly/Parliament, but the English is either Assembly (pre-name change) or Senedd - parliament is confusing and not common use. And yet my change was reversed with a WP:MOS added. This is backed up in the Media: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/2021-senedd-elections-could-be-postponed-if-theres-another-surge-in-coronavirus-cases-says-first-minister-mark-drakeford/ar-BB1b8lvo or https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/how-2021-senedd-elections-made-19298678; by the Independent Remuneration Board: https://senedd.wales/en/newhome/pages/newsitem.aspx?itemid=2100; the Scottish parliament: https://external.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=12944&i=116989&c=2295030; the Senedd itself: https://senedd.wales/en/bus-home/bus-legislation/Pages/bus-legislation.aspx.

I'd like to undo the undo and change it back to Assembly/Senedd. Does anyone object? Cymro (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Presumably it was reverted because the recent name change will affect the 6th sitting, but the previous 5 pre-dated the name change. The name change wasn't retrospective, after all. 'Senedd' is the Welsh word for 'Parliament' and this is the English language Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The current term is the Fifth Senedd (as the name has already changed). And "Senedd" is also the English, it may originally be a welsh word, but it is also the English word for the institution (the law doesn't specify a name for a language, incidentally). The examples I posted above were intentionally English language examples. (see also: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Oireachtas) Cymro (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Abolish the Welsh Assembly Members of the Senedd

As of the 31st December 2020, the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party is not registered with the Electoral Commission. As a result of this, the party's two Members of the Senedd - Gareth Bennett and Mark Reckless currently sit as independents. I tried to edit this but every time it wouldn't work so would someone else mind having a go? Thank you very much!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddiewhite1234 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to have a discussion on how we deal with the situation that Abolish is not an official party under the Electoral Commission, and does this mean that Bennett and Reckless are technically independent MSs. In my opinion on Wikipedia they should be put down as Abolish members as that's what they call themselves and can form a group in the Senedd under any name (not political party group), this is what Independent Alliance for Reform group have done. In addition this is what the media portray, them as Abolish MSs. I will be adding this to the talk page of AWAP. Cwmcafit (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I've set out some detail on the registration situation at Talk:Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party#Registration situation but in summary the group labels used by members of a parliament and the formal registration for using a name on ballot papers are two separate things that sometimes get out of line because of the different requirements. (Neil McEvoy's new party has shown this from a different angle.) Bennett and Reckless are clearly part of a party that currently has two factions fighting over control of the name. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
It's interesting that the Senedd, and the Nation news article both put these MS's down as "Independent". If it was down to me, I'd say we should be following the official sources and calling them Independent rather than deciding we know better. As for the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party, aren't there still two of them both competing for the name? Sionk (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes there are two Abolish parties competing for registration, and Bennett and Reckless are part of the first original party. Senedd website doesn't say that Neil Mcevoy is a WNP MS therefore should we make him Independent also? In addition Nation and BBC have also cited Reckless as Abolish MS.[2][3] Cwmcafit (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://nation.cymru/news/senedd-musical-chairs-continues-as-brexit-party-members-switch-allegiance-again/
  2. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55527175
  3. ^ https://nation.cymru/news/abolish-ms-says-he-wants-wales-to-reject-power-grab-bill-so-westminster-can-impose-it/

Requested move 11 January 2021

Senedd Cymru-Welsh Parliament - Senedd At the time of the official name change six months ago, I supported a bilingual title as an interim move until a media consensus on the WP:COMMONNAME emerged. Now, however, the Senedd seems to have been widely adopted by the Welsh media, including BBC Wales [1], ITV Wales [2] and Wales Online [3]. A disambiguation page would be required to distinguish the parliamentary body from the physical building, but "Senedd" now appears the common term used for both. Culloty82 (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-54981502
  2. ^ https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2020-12-30/historic-resolution-or-parliamentary-pantomime-uk-eu-deal-debated-at-westminster-and-in-the-senedd
  3. ^ https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/welsh-independence-price-senedd-referendum-19438732
Senedd alone may make sense within Wales or the wider United Kingdom, but the English-language Wikipedia is not a Wales- or UK-only resource, so the page title should be Senedd Cymru. See also Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann - everyone talks about the "Dáil", but the English-language Wikipedia article is not titled simply "Dáil". I support a move to Senedd Cymru. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I too support a move to Senedd Cymru. I think it's ironic how people insist that 'Welsh Parliament' should follow 'Senedd Cymru' in the title of the page, when pages like Cortes Generales, which reference Spanish parliamentary institutions, are titled in Spanish, and not English. I think it is trivial and unnecessary. Yes, English is a recognised language in Wales, but that does not mean it should correspond to the name of the article. By that logic, countries like South Africa, which have multiple national languages, should have articles, relating to their country, with long titles, consisting of all the names for the article in their respective languages, this is extremely inefficient. 8oym8 (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I do not support a name change until people can evidence that the name is used in both national media and foreign English language media. WP:ENGLISH says most common in the English language so I do not feel that our entire decision should be based upon local media (though that should count too). ~ El D. (talk to me) 10:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I've done a quick search in some large non-UK English-language media outlets (such as The New York Times, CNN and CBC) and there are very few references to *either* Senedd (Cymru) *or* Welsh Parliament. (The Scottish Parliament is far more widely discussed outside the UK, partly due to the prominence of the independence debate in Scotland.) What do you think the optimal name is? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I personally feel that most people outside of Wales would be confused by "Senedd Cymru" (I was unaware of the name change myself until I saw the article) but if foreign and national English language media uses the term with sufficient frequency then it would likely cause confusion if we used "Welsh Parliament". ~ El D. (talk to me) 09:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
The Senedd elections are coming up shortly. There will surely be coverage of the election, beyond the borders of Wales (though I appreciate it will be competing for attention with the Scottish elections). It would be sensible to wait to see what sort of descriptions are used is English language media sources, at election time, before making another decision about the page name. The official name is in the two languages because there is a division of opinion, even in Wales, about the preferred title. Sionk (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2021

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: Consensus to move to Senedd as the most commonly used name in English language sources and the primary topic of "Senedd" in English. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament → Senedd Cymru – Per COMMONNAME. A year ago, the title of "Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament" was agreed to as a compromise until it was made certain what the most commonly used name is. As mentioned by Culloty82 in the above section, and bolstered by the election cycle, we do have that commonly used name: "the Senedd". From a cursory view of reliable sources, they will often use the English term "Welsh Parliament", but typically only once near the top, and use "Senedd" in the rest of the running text. Indeed, even UKIP used the term while campaigning. Just like we don't have the article at "Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales", neither should this article really be at "Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament" any more Sceptre (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as the nominator, I would also support a move to Senedd; I'm ambivalent on either title. Sceptre (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "Dáil Éireann" is used many times throughout the prose of Dáil Éireann, whereas "Senedd Cymru" doesn't get used at all in this article outside of noting it as an official name. That suggests they are not used equivalently. CMD (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "Dáil" is also used many times. The cases where "Dáil Éireann" is used are largely either (a) a discussion of this very point (ie, Dáil vs Dáil Éireann), or (b) formal/legal references to the name (eg, its use in the constitution). No-one in the street in Dublin talks about Dáil Éireann, yet that is the title of its Wikipedia article. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The use on "Dáil Éireann" on that article is far broader than those two uses; it is used in almost every section of the article. CMD (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The expression "the Dáil" is used 44 times on the page, while "Dáil Éireann" is used 24 times (excluding the page title, links to other articles, footnotes, and references to historical institutions). I agree that "Dáil Éireann" is probably used slightly more commonly in the English language than "Senedd Cymru" currently is, but "the Dáil" remains the dominant term for the institution in the English language - yet in spite of that the page is called "Dáil Éireann". Kennethmac2000 (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I would think the Parliament is the primary topic and would just need a hatnote to Senedd building. If "Senedd" needs disambiguating, then surely it should be Senedd (Welsh Parliament). Sionk (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
"Senedd Cymru" is a natural disambiguation from the building. Sceptre (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. If we're looking for compromises here, might I suggest the following...?
° The page title becomes Senedd Cymru, as proposed, and consistent with Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann (Senedd Cymru's exact cognate).
° The first line of the article's body becomes:
"Senedd Cymru or the Welsh Parliament, commonly called the Senedd, is..."
° The remainder of the article uses just the term "Senedd".
Kennethmac2000 (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm well aware that there is a page at Senedd. As I said in my comment above, it is clear that the parliament is the primary topic, and that no disambiguation page is necessary. A hatnote on this page is sufficient for disambiguation purposes. There is no good reason to retain a disambiguation page that will no doubt that WP:ASTONISH the vast majority of readers, who will be looking for the parliament. Dáil Éireann is in no way this page's 'exact cognate', nor is there any reason to take reference from that example (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). RGloucester — ☎ 17:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I said that Seanad Éireann was Senedd Cymru's exact cognate - which it is. Adjusting for the different countries, the etymology of the two terms is the same. No-one in Ireland, at least when speaking English, goes around talking about "Seanad Éireann" - yet that is the name of the English-language Wikipedia page for the institution. This despite the fact that fewer people in Ireland speak Irish than speak Welsh in Wales. In any case, another way of adhering to the principle of least astonishment is to be consistent across articles about similar things. It is inconsistent to have one article called Seanad Éireann and another called just Senedd when both refer not only to similar things (ie, legislatures), but actually even to legislatures with names which are cognates. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I think those titles should likely be changed, if what you say is true and verifiable. Moreover, while you posit these Irish examples as evidence of a certain consistency, there are other examples that contradict such an idea, for example, we have an article at Riksdag, not Sveriges riksdag. However, that's neither here nor there. The common name of this body is 'Senedd', and that should be the title of this article, pure and simple. If other articles have titles inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, we can deal with them later. For now, let's deal with this one. RGloucester — ☎ 22:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
It looks like the Senedd disambiguation page was created long before the official name change of the Parliament. I would say the Senedd is definitely the primary topic now. With only two things to disambiguate, a disambiguation page is no longer necessary.
On the subject of the Irish Parliament, I wouldn't say one similar (questionable) naming example sets a precedent on Wikipedia. Or we'll end up renaming all articles about governments in their native language.Sionk (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Presumably one commonality here is that both Ireland and Wales are English-dominant countries where there is a clear and relatively well accepted drive to give their native Celtic languages a certain prominence also in the English language. Both Ireland and Wales give their legislatures official names in the English language which are Irish and Welsh respectively. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
That's not actually correct. The official name in the English language is 'Welsh Parliament'. It's quite clear that you're trying to push some POV here, and it would be appreciated if you'd kindly stop. Your speculation about which title is 'first amongst equals' and what is official and not official is quite frankly, neither here nor there (WP:OR). The only thing that will determine what this article should be called is the Wikipedia article titles criteria, and if one takes all of them into consideration, 'Senedd' is the only possible title of this article. You forget, of course, that not only is 'Senedd' the common name, it is also more recognisable, more natural, and finally, and most importantly, more WP:CONCISE. The article on the American Senate cannot of course be titled 'Senate', because there are many other senates. There is only one Senedd (and the building is naturally subordinate to the body it houses), however, so that problem does not exist in this case. RGloucester — ☎ 23:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm the one trying to push some POV? You're the one who referred to the term Act of Senedd Cymru below as "nonsense", despite that being the law of the land! There is no official name in the English language. In both the English- and Welsh-language versions of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020, the name of the Senedd is Senedd Cymru or the Welsh Parliament. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
On Seanad Éireann, that is the official name set out in the Irish Constitution, so it makes sense to have that as the page title there, but then predominantly refer to "the Seanad" afterwards. I have no strong opinion on whether "Senedd Cymru" or "Senedd" is more appropriate here, though the former option does eliminate the need for disambiguation. Culloty82 (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
And the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 provides that the official name of the Senedd is "Senedd Cymru or the Welsh Parliament" - though with Senedd Cymru clearly being first amongst equals, given that, for example, a piece of primary legislation passed by the Senedd is known - in the English language - as an Act of Senedd Cymru (not an Act of the Welsh Parliament, or an Act of Senedd Cymru/the Welsh Parliament).
To take another cognate, the United States Senate is commonly called simply "the Senate" - certainly in the US, but also outside. Yet the English-language Wikipedia article on the Senate is titled United States Senate. So the common name doesn't seem to be the determinant here. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
"Act of Senedd Cymru" is certainly a curious English-Welsh mashup that throws the cat amongst the pigeons, haha. Sionk (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Luckily, on Wikipedia, we are not bound to what is official. Hence, we have Act of the Senedd instead of the aforementioned nonsense. RGloucester — ☎ 23:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Yet bizarrely the first term to be bolded in the first sentence of that page is Act of Senedd Cymru. Anyway, thanks for pointing out that page - I think it should be moved to Act of Senedd Cymru. But we can deal with that later. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2021 (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.

Incomplete move on 15 May 2021

I lost the argument on the move - fine. Now we should all work to make the move to Senedd clean and consistent.

Why does Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament still exist as the old Senedd disambiguation page? This is just wrong. Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament should be a redirect to Senedd.

If this is a Wikipedia issue rather than a human error, why can’t we do moves like this as a clean atomic operation with everything happening at the same time? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I have boldly redirected Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament to Senedd as it seems to be its primary topic. Please feel free to revert, discuss and fix the 2,328 incoming links! Certes (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Kennethmac2000 (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Official bilingual name - and the wording in the article intro

There seems to be some disagreement about the wording of the introductory sentences of this article, the formal/official name of the Senedd and whether "Welsh Parliament" is English and "Senedd Cymru" is Welsh. I was going to suggest the opening sentence reads "The Senedd (pronounced [ˈsɛnɛð]; lit. 'senate'), officially known bilingually as Senedd Cymru/Welsh Parliament comprising Welsh Parliament in English and Senedd Cymru (Welsh pronunciation: [ˈsɛnɛð ˈkəm.ri]) in Welsh, is the devolved, unicameral legislature of Wales."

The situation isn't helped by the ambiguity of some official announcements, the new Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 and news coverage at the time of the name change, for example the Senedd's news release on 11 May 2020 says the official name is "Senedd Cymru and Welsh Parliament" while the Act says the Assembly is renamed "Senedd Cymru or Welsh Parliament". The BBC News article on 6 May 2020 says the new name is "Senedd Cymru/Welsh Parliament", with the Welsh and English names having equal status. ITV preferred "Welsh Parliament or Senedd Cymru", while several other news outlets use the name initially preferred by Wikipedia, "Senedd Cymru-Welsh Parliament". Whether we use an "and" or a "or", a dash or a forward slash, it's clear that the official name includes a Welsh name and English language name, of equal status (as a compromise to Assembly members who did not want a Welsh-only name).[4]. Some of these issues were discussed at length during Wikipedia's initial page rename discussion.

Either way, I'd strongly dispute Kennethmac2000's idea that because "Senedd Cymru" is one part of the official name(s), it ceases to be Welsh :) Sionk (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that this sort of nit-picking is really necessary. In the first place, I don't think we have the ability to WP:OR analyse a primary source, such as a the law mentioned above, and determine that its wording actually means that the 'official name' is 'Senedd Cymru or Welsh Parliament'. That sentence could very well be interpreted to mean that it is named one or the other in any given instance, but not both at the same time. Let's put that sort of analysis to the side. Reliable sources are mixed in their use, but the BBC, for instance, is happy to use 'Welsh Parliament' alone, alongside 'Senedd' (but not Senedd Cymru). Rather than trying to sort out a situation that we are not capable of sorting out, we should accept the wording as it is now. It is an undeniably true statement that the Senedd is 'formally known as the Welsh Parliament in English and Senedd Cymru in Welsh', and what something is known as is not the same as what it is officially named. RGloucester — ☎ 20:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I am open to finding a reasonable compromise here, but continually asserting that your perspective is right and that others’ is “nit-picking” RGloucester doesn’t help in reaching one. Let’s start from the premise that your views are legitimate and genuinely held, and so are mine. You don’t have any particular right to keep reverting my edits and to deem your preferred wording to be canon law.
As was mentioned above by Sionk, the original plan had been to formally name the Senedd “Senedd Cymru”, regardless of language. What then would its formal name have been in English? It would clearly have been Senedd Cymru. I accept that that isn’t what happened in the end, but it is not correct to claim that names which originate in one language can’t nonetheless be the (official) name of things in another language. To take a current example, many languages refer to the Eurovision Song Contest as the Eurovision Song Contest, despite the fact that that is clearly an English language-originating term. But nonetheless Eurovision Song Contest in Swedish is Eurovision Song Contest.
SEWA 2020 could have said that the Senedd’s name is “Senedd Cymru in the Welsh language or the Welsh Parliament in the English language”. But it didn’t, perhaps because of the aforementioned compromise - the intention was that Senedd Cymru could also be used in English, as seems evidenced by the term Act of Senedd Cymru.
I suggest we find a form of words which reflects the fact that this ambiguity genuinely exists. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually, the original proposal, backed by a public consultation (that was later ignored), was plain 'Welsh Parliament'. The proposal was then changed to 'Senedd Cymru', and finally, to the bilingual name we've got now. In any case, you continue with endless speculation, presuming, that because 'Senedd Cymru' might have been accepted as the name in English if things had gone differently, it is wrong to specify that it is a name in 'Welsh' now. This is a very bizarre argument. The relevant law, which, mind you, is not something we should be interpreting, doesn't say anything about Senedd Cymru being used in English, and even if it were used in English, that would not change the fact it is Welsh, and not English. What is so hard to understand about a Welsh term being Welsh (to the point that it doesn't even take a definite article), and an English term being English? Are you suggesting that it would be acceptable to refer to the Senedd as the 'Welsh Parliament' when speaking Welsh? I don't think so. Why, then, do you insist on arguing for the primacy of 'Senedd Cymru', when even the Welsh Government's own style guide puts 'Welsh Parliament' first in English? I cannot see this as anything other than 'nit-picking', because, as you might've noticed, I supported the use of 'Senedd' in English, and have no problem with its use. What I don't support, is weaselling in this WP:POV-laden OR about what name is 'first among equals', &c. RGloucester — ☎ 22:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
You accuse me both of "arguing for the primacy of 'Senedd Cymru'", and of 'nit-picking'. These seem contradictory. Arguing for the primacy of 'Senedd Cymru' is surely not just a minor debate about punctuation or something, it goes to the heart of the matter. I argue for Senedd Cymru to come first and to not be considered solely Welsh because of the fact that that is the legal reality (eg, in SEWA 2020, in The Senedd Cymru (Letters Patent and Proclamations) Order 2021 mentioned by Trefelio below, etc). That is the whole point of the use of the term "formally". You seem to be arguing for a similar 'street vernacular' test to that which was used for the title of the article - eg, if the man or woman on the street says that the Senedd is formally known as the Welsh Parliament in English, then it is formally known as the Welsh Parliament in English. But that isn't how it works. The law decides what a governmental institution is formally known as. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
No, the law doesn't decide anything on Wikipedia. We base our coverage on what reliable secondary sources say, not based on primary source analysis, which is WP:OR. And moreover, it is not clear that the law even says what you think it does. You seem to be mistaking 'formally' for 'officially'. 'Formal' simply recognises the reality that 'Senedd' is a short-form name, and that 'Welsh Parliament' is the long-form name. In any case, I oppose the proposal below, because once again, the English name should be first in the English Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 12:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
If this is as simple as us replacing the word 'formally' with the word 'officially', I'm happy to do that:
"The Senedd, officially known as Senedd Cymru or the Welsh Parliament, ..." Kennethmac2000 (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
To me, wording the formal names along similar lines to the legislation provides a certain clarity i.e. "The Senedd, formally known as Senedd Cymru or the Welsh Parliament". It introduces the name Senedd, then shows where that name comes from, i.e. from the formal Welsh name, then gives the formal English name, the meaning of which should be understood by everyone on English wikipedia before going on to the definition. There's a logic to that order. Personally I don't feel we should add 'in Welsh' and 'in English' in that sentence because it is sometimes known as Senedd Cymru in English (for example in legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/141/made). If anyone was unsure which languages they are, there is reference later in the first paragraph to the Senedd being a bilingual institution which uses Welsh and English. Trefelio (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I completely agree with this argument about the logic to the order Senedd -> Senedd Cymru -> Welsh Parliament. And, again, that Senedd Cymru is also a valid name for the institution in the English language. At a push, I could see the argument that Welsh Parliament is less of a valid name in the Welsh language, but even in the Welsh-language version of SEWA 2020, Welsh Parliament is also referred to.
I propose that we change the first sentence of this article to:
"The Senedd, formally known as Senedd Cymru or the Welsh Parliament, ..."
It is clean, simple, and follows the order of the logo and the law. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose – I never said that Senedd Cymru wasn't used in English. Obviously, it will be, in the narrow context of 'Act of Senedd Cymru' and a few other cases. That doesn't change that it is Welsh. This is the English Wikipedia, and the English formal name should come first. Unless, you propose, that I go now to the Welsh Wikipedia and place Welsh Parliament first in their article on the subject? The editors above need to consider that the name of this body is bilingual, and respect that the English name is of equal status to the Welsh name. RGloucester — ☎ 12:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Support this proposal, thanks Kennethmac2000. I think it's the best way of conveying this information about the names in a clear and logical way so that readers generally immediately understand it Trefelio (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Such a proposal falls afoul of WP:NPOV. If you want a 'logical' way to word the first sentence, which presents the 'Senedd' short form as originating from 'Senedd Cymru', then you would do as follows:

'The Welsh Parliament or Senedd Cymru, commonly known as the Senedd'.

This is in line with the Welsh Government's own style guide, and is easier to understand for English speakers, and indeed, for people from outside the UK. It also respects the bilingual nature of the name, by putting English first on the English Wikipedia, just as the Welsh is put first on the Welsh Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 16:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I would say that that proposal isn't clear, as it is not 100% obvious if it is only the name Senedd Cymru that is commonly known as the Senedd, or if it is the institution as a whole (even if all of us in this discussion know which it is).
The Welsh government is not the Senedd, any more than the UK government is the UK parliament, and it may have a particular slant which is different to that of the Senedd itself, or, just as importantly, the law of the land (which is of course a secondary source).
Senedd Cymru comes first in the Senedd's logo, and in the "title" of its website (including in the English-language version of the website). It is simply faithfully representing that order, not to mention the order in SEWA 2020, to repeat that order on Wikipedia - it is not original research. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Really? I think that's made quite clear by the use of commas: 'The Welsh Parliament or Senedd Cymru, commonly known as the Senedd'. The meaning you suggest would only be possible if it were written as 'The Welsh Parliament, or Senedd Cymru (commonly known as the Senedd)'. Making this sort of comment does not speak well of your intent here.
The fact that the Welsh Government is not the Senedd is in fact a good thing, because that makes its style guide a secondary source. What you propose is indeed OR. You cannot merely presume that the placement of text in a logo (which is bilingual and used in both languages), or what is written in a law, has anything to do with what order we should use here. We follow secondary RS. If you think a law is a secondary source, then I suggest you read WP:SECONDARY again. In any case, the first thing that is written on the Senedd website when you open it up in English is as follows:

About the Senedd The Welsh Parliament is the democratically elected body that represents the interests of Wales and its people. Commonly known as the Senedd, it makes laws for Wales, agrees Welsh taxes and holds the Welsh Government to account.

It does not even mention 'Senedd Cymru', and does not hesitate to use 'Welsh Parliament' alone. Your claims do not hold up to scrutiny, and it is clear that your sole purpose here is to push a POV. As far as you are concerned, no compromise will be satisfactory: the English name is a mere appendage, tacked on to satisfy a lunatic fringe in the Senedd, and hence you deem it unworthy of equal treatment, despite tons of evidence to the contrary. Enough, I say. RGloucester — ☎ 21:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
On the first point, that is simply not true. The English language is helpfully ambiguous on this point, and "the Senedd" in the phrase "The Welsh Parliament or Senedd Cymru, commonly known as the Senedd, ..." could syntactically be referring to either Senedd Cymru alone or to the entire noun phrase.
On the point about the type of source which SEWA 2020 is, you are quite right that it's a primary source. The law is also among the most reputable types of primary source there are, and the use of such sources is not forbidden when one is simply faithfully relaying them as statements of fact.
You continually accuse me of pushing a particular POV, this time by alleging that my view is that "the English name is a mere appendage, tacked on to satisfy a lunatic fringe in the Senedd, and hence ... unworthy of equal treatment", but in so doing you are evidently pushing the opposite of this POV, which is a POV in itself. In statements like the aforementioned, you are also making this more personal than it needs to be. Play the ball, not the man. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
By that token, your proposed text is also ambiguous, implying that 'Senedd' is only used as a short form for Senedd Cymru. Can you not see how a absurd a suggestion this?
The problem is not the reliability of the law itself, which no one would question, it is that the law does not explicitly say anything about the status of either name. Everything you claim is based on your interpretation of the text of the law, not on what the law itself says, and this is the textbook definition of WP:OR. If the law said something like 'The name of the National Assembly for Wales is changed to "Senedd Cymru". Its official description is 'Welsh Parliament', similar to the situation in Ireland, then you would have a case to make. However, it says nothing of the kind. All it says is that 'National Assembly for Wales' is replaced by 'Senedd Cymru or Welsh Parliament', and one cannot presume merely from this anything about the status of the two names.
However, as it is clear that we will not reach a satisfactory conclusion among ourselves, I will be opening an RfC to settle the matter through the soliciting of third party opinions. RGloucester — ☎ 13:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Senedd/Archive_1&oldid=1256605196"