Talk:Wales Coast Path

Article name

The page should really be moved to Wales Coast Path, which is its official name - http://www.ccw.gov.uk/enjoying-the-country/visiting-the-coast.aspx. If no-one objects, I'll flag it up for a move (I think it needs to be done by an admin as a redirect from that name already exists). Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's rather hard to tell what the official name of the path is, isn't it? I did a lot of work on expanding this page from its original stub, and was initially going to propose the same move, until I discovered that a lot of official bodies - including the Welsh Assembly - are using the All Wales name, as Googling the name reveals. Perhaps when it opens officially throughout the name will become more standard. (Some refer to the "coastAL" path too.) Hogyn Lleol ★ ^(chat) 15:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 14:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, but I think (WP:OR!) that the "All Wales..." name was used in the planning and publicity stage, but that the "Wales..." is now used officially, on signs and so forth - http://wales.gov.uk/newsroom/environmentandcountryside/2011/5572643/?lang=en for example. Hopefully we can sort it out before it opens officially! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. Count me in as a YES Y Hogyn Lleol ★ ^(chat) 15:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Now done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wales Coast Path/Devolved administration

Banned sock puppet

Good morning Wedensambo, It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Wales Coast Path, may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, in order to gain consensus over whether or not to include, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you.  –  – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 09:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Boroda Gareth. Actually, my intention was to avoid controversy. You will probably be aware that the question of whether Wales is indeed a country in the widely-recognised sense is an inherently political one. The term 'country' can be seen as Welsh-nationalist, whereas the older term 'principality' can suggest subservience to England. 'Devolved administration', while admittedly less than elegant, reflects the current constitutional position accurately and hopefully allows readers to get past the politics and focus on the important thing, which is the truly impressive achievement of the Cymru Coastal Path. 'Hope that makes more sense. Diolch yn fawr, Wedensambo (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Sh'w mae Wedensambo, That is good reasoning. Unless you object, I shall copy 'n' paste this thread to the article 's Talk page. THen we should wait for reaction. Yn gywir –  – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 22:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC) No objection at all Gareth - it will be interesting to hear other editors' views too.Wedensambo (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC) This has been discussed multiple times on other pages. I've provided a link to the article on Country; it is a common fallacy that a country is necessarily a sovereign state - it isn't. Wales is not a principality (though it is sometimes wrongly or at least very misleadingly called that); it is one of the four countries of the UK as shown, for example, here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC) I think I understand your point, Ghmyrtle. I hope I don't suffer from that particular fallacy myself, though. It appears that an argument from documentary evidence can be made for either 'country' or 'principality' being officially sanctioned descriptors, in fact - but my rationale was that neither term is ideally neutral, simply because both have indeed been contested. I don't have an especially strong preference for or against either myself, but neutrality seems helpful in an article that is intended to be about a walking route (and one which will hopefully attract walkers from all nationalities). Perhaps such discussion is more appropriate to articles specifically covering such political questions, rather than this one?Wedensambo (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC) The term "...only devolved administration" is meaningless - it excludes from consideration all countries that do not have devolved administrations. The term "country" is used in multiple reliable sources, and is explained in articles here. That is ample explanation. The discussion that you seek has been held many, many times, and the outcome is consistent. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC) OK Guy, it sounds like you have a fairly strong political point of view there, which you're entitled to, of course, but I wonder if this article is really the best place to exercise it? I'm specifically not 'seeking a discussion', as you put it, but suggesting an uncontroversial form of words which may prove less of a distraction from the actual topic of the article in question. I agree that 'devolved administration' is a bit of a mouthful, but it's hardly meaningless if there's a whole (rather detailed) Wikipedia page about it. Perhaps unfortunately, from your point of view, there will be many readers who would see the country in this case to be Great Britain or the United Kingdom - and a debate about which level of territory has the best claim to be regarded as a country could be a distraction from the fact that Wales is the first part of either to achieve a full coastal path. The path is a substantial achievement, whatever variety of nationalism, federalism or devolution that you or I may most favour. Why limit the audience?Wedensambo (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Please withdraw your accusation that I edit with a political viewpoint. That contravenes WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC) My apologies. I wasn't levelling any accusation against you, or indeed any comment upon how you edit - just acknowledging the point of view expressed in your comment above. That point of view does appear (to me) to have a particular emphasis as regards a specific political point, but that is not, in and of itself, a criticism; you have every right to your opinion. If you have taken offence - much as I may assure you that none was intended - it perhaps underlines the value of neutral phrasing in the article.Wedensambo (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC) I don't have an "opinion" in the sense that you appear to mean - that is, a bias. I've explained why the term "country" in relation to Wales is not contentious; it is normal, neutral, and further explained through a link to the country article. There's no need for me to labour the point. If the article wording helps to remove misconceptions, about the meaning of the word "country" as much as anything else, we are fulfilling our purpose. If any other editors agree with the point you are trying to make, I may return to the discussion - otherwise, that's it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC) You weren't being accused of uncontrollable bias either, don't worry. What I was, maybe not so diplomatically, trying to draw attention to is that the use of the term 'country' is contentious. Your answer to the the question of whether or not Wales is a country may quite conceivably be the right one - but the existence of the question, and of answers which differ from yours, means it is not completely neutral. I don't wish to labour the point either, so let's agree to differ and see what others have to say, as you suggest.Wedensambo (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC) It looks as if we have now explored this issue fairly comprehensively and not found a conclusive argument against the proposed edit. Do we now have a consensus for change? I'm happy to do it, but of course it would be preferable to have the support of fellow editors.Wedensambo (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Of course not. You have no support for your proposal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Your dislike of the idea is understood, Guy, and although you have not presented a conclusive argument to the contrary, I respect your right to an alternative opinion - maybe we'll just have to agree to differ on this one.Wedensambo (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC) I really think you should withdraw the suggestion (for a second time) that I'm motivated by anything other than WP policy and guidance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Two comments: the opening words of Wales are "Wales [pronunciation] is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain, bordered by England to its east and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west." The whole "is Wales a country?" has been debated to death at the Wales talk page over many years and the current wording there using "country" is a consensus viewpoint, as I understand it. I see little benefit in reopening the debate here when there is no reason to do so. Secondly, the source used to support the sentence uses "country" not "devolved administration". If someone wants to claim that it is the first devolved administration to have a full coastal path, then that needs a different source, one that uses the words "devolved administration". I saw this mentioned at WT:WALES, incidentally, but am not Welsh. Stick with "country", in other words. BencherliteTalk 14:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks for both points, Bencherlite. I can well believe that the issue has been 'debated to death' as regards the specific Wales and country articles in order to achive a workable compromise - but unfortunately the same cannot be said of wider society. If the passing mention of the path going around a country, so early in this article, causes unnecessarily furrowed brows, there seems a good reason to find a more neutral alternative. Perhaps we're drifting towards a fruitless dichotomy and an entirely alternative form of words is the solution?Wedensambo (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC) You seem to be the only one so far with a problem with the phrase as used here: Conde Nast and the Ordnance Survey are quite happy with it, for instance. Your proposed alternative is unsourced, so far. Do you have a source which uses "devolved administration" in the context of coastal paths? If not, and other editors are happy with "country" then consensus is against you. BencherliteTalk 14:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC) I see your point re references, Bencherlite, but that wassn't where we started, and I'd hesitate to go there as it could probably just re-open old controversies - for instance, I suspect we both know how easy it would be to find plenty of official references to Wales as a 'principality' instead. If I just had a personal 'problem' with the term (and I don't, really) I wouldn't have bothered proposing the change, rest assured. As to whether other editors are happy, there doesn't appear to be clear evidence of that here; there are some individuals who are understandably unhappy that their own point of view is not unanimous (that's an observation, not an accusation of bad faith, by the way), but as yet no positive argument in favour of a politically-loaded form of words rather than a neutral one.Wedensambo (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC) No, we have to start from the sources. The sentence which you wish to alter is "Wales is the first country in the world to provide a dedicated footpath along its entire coastline". It has a source, which uses "country" (not principality or devolved administration, note) and I have found two other reliable and non-Welsh sources that use the same phrase. You have not produced a source which uses "devolved administration". To change the wording to use "devolved administration" instead of "country" without finding a new source would be wrong, since it would not be reporting accurately what the existing source says and would instead be inserting a POV (that Wales is not a country) which is unsupported by the balance of the sources. To remove the sentence because some people (although not, you say, you) might have a problem with Wales being described in this article as a country (even though that's how Wales is described in its own article, based on a wider analysis of the sources than you've undertaken) would really be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. BencherliteTalk 15:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)Wales is commonly described as a country, in the media and official sources. It has a national identity and a national anthem and a language, for example. To deny this is bizarre and adding unnecessary controversy. Sionk (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Sorry we found ourselves editing at the same time, Sionk. I don't think anyone's denying that this has become more common usage in recent years. But why deny that it will also confuse, or even annoy, others who see a differently-defined territory (i.e. GB or UK) as their country? This article just doesn't seem the ideal place to invite, or respond to, such differing perspectives, as some elements of this discussion have shown. Nobody (well, at least not me) is knocking Cymru; the point of the suggested change was to leave politics to one side so that people could see what Wales has achieved in establishing the coastal path - and hopefully, to my mind, to be tempted to come and use it! Giving people the impression that they're only welcome if they sign up to separatism probably isn't a great sales approach - not that Wikipedia is a sales platform, of course, but maybe you can see the point?Wedensambo (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC) No idea what the last sentence is meant to imply. But looking at the article (rather than talking abstractly about Wales) it would seem better to remove the claim altogether, about being the "first country in the world to provide a dedicated footpath along its entire coastline". It seems to be cited only to a niche travel website, rather than a widely recognised, reputable source. Some people will find the claim questionable so, if it remains, it should have multiple reliable sources backing it. Sionk (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC) BBC and Ordnance Survey sources to the same effect added. BencherliteTalk 19:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC) In that case, problem conclusively solved! Sionk (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC) What the 'last sentence' implied, Sionk, was the starting point of this very proposal - the observation that being drawn into a distracting debate about whether or not Wales should or should not be described as a country is essentially irrelevant and unhelpful for this specific article. Whatever cartographical preference one may have personally, this is inescapably political language. The discussion on this page has started to reflect the heat rather than light that touching upon political or national loyalties can generate, and as such your earlier suggestion to simply remove the sentence under consideration may indeed be the wisest approach.Wedensambo (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Except that it is supported by reliable sources, and is notable. Please consider the possibility, in the light of the evidence in front of you, that the views that you express, about whether or not the term is contentious or confusing, may simply reflect your own personal opinions, not any that may be widely held, or that need to be considered further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC) I take your point about potential notability, were the references reliable, but unfortunately the sources turn out not to have been well-referenced or robustly evidence-based themselves. A quick bit of research shows that the claim that it was the first country/state/administration (whichever term one prefers) has missed rather a lot of predecessors, like the Netherlands (definitely a country), California (most certainly a state) and Madeira (a semi-autonomous region), to cite a just a few examples. I'd argue that the Wales Coastal Path is better-organised and more accesible than all of them, of course, but I am indeed biased in this respect! The very evidence of this conversation does rather underline the contentious nature of the phraseology which triggered the initial proposal. It is sounding rather like the safest course now may be to remove this point (or drop it to later in the text, to report an interesting claim rather than make a bald assertion) and then let the impressive nature of the path speak for itself. However, if acceptable, we could safely say in the introduction is that this is the first part of the UK to have a complete coastal path, and it shouldn't be too hard to find references to back that up, but I'm open to challenge should anyone consider this similarly politically-loaded terminology. Wedensambo (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC) The only reason why this discussion is continuing is that one editor - you - is pursuing a point in direct opposition to that expressed by every other editor here. It's really getting quite tedious. If you have sources that show that other countries also have footpaths along their entire coastline, can we see the sources, please? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Note that the England, Wales, Scotland and United Kingdom articles make the equally political (but hardly controversial) assertion that the UK is made up of a series of countries. It is the widespread consense of Wikipedia. Any editor that disputes it should take it up at the appropriate place, not here. Sionk (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC) I cannot find Wedensambo disputing that anywhere here or elsewhere –  – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 19:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC) He is disputing that Wales should be described as a country, and asserting that those who say that it is are "nationalists" or have a "strong political point of view". Multiple reliable sources describe Wales as a country and, in particular, support the statement that "Wales is the first country in the world to provide a dedicated footpath along its entire coastline" Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Quoting Sionk writing above – '... it would seem better to remove the claim altogether, about being the "first country in the world to provide a dedicated footpath along its entire coastline". It seems to be cited only to a niche travel website, rather than a widely recognised, reputable source. Some people will find the claim questionable so, if it remains, it should have multiple reliable sources backing it.' (7:16 pm, Yesterday) seems sensible. I had not considered that any of Wedensambo's conversation here denies the fact that Wales is a country. There is nobody alive that is a more hawkish Welshman than I, and I am immensely proud of the achievement –  – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 21:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Gareth - You've missed the OS and Condé Nast refs provided by Bencherlite, which have now been added to the article. To which, I could add the BBC, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Independent... etc. It's not the lack of reliable sources that's the problem, it's one editor's refusal to accept them - not helped by personal attacks on other editors' integrity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC) I did. There can be no disagreement now that we don't have multiple sources –  – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 23:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Oh dear, this has dragged on a bit. The original starting point was the observation - I think a fairly common-sense one - that different people have different definitions of 'country'. Individual political perspectives do tend to be deciding factor, although we can't see that so clearly in this discussion as no editor with a strong alternative view has come forward. Observing that another editor has a particular political perspective is no insult, by the way; actually, a compliment, in my book. We could, if we all really wanted to, drag this out further by digging for references to Wales being a principality rather than a country (which wouldn't be that hard) or providing references to other coastal paths for those not willing or able to search for themselves - but doing so could be a fearful waste of everyone's energy, and seems unlikely to achieve anything positive for the article itself (or for external impressions of Wales, sadly). The added references were the result of some impressive rapid detective work by the looks of it, but unfortunately it's likely that they originate from the same unreferenced phrase in a press release - regrettably, it happens all the time in journalism. Repeating an unsubstantiated claim does not, in and of itself, make a reference more credible. If we want to see this article have the greatest credibility for people coming here to find out about the coastal path - a brilliant achievement which I look forward to walking, if I put my cards fully on the table - perhaps we have to be willing to put propaganda value to one side. As suggested above, picking up Sionk's idea, there is a sensible solution available: remove this point altogether from the introductory text and let the nature of the path speak for itself, or drop the material to later in the text in a way that reports an interesting claim rather than makes a bald assertion. It would be great if another editor could see to this. Diolch, Wedensambo (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Ha Ha! You're so right, Guy. 'Same applies to both of us, though, doesn't it? 'Hence the suggestion that another editor to should now attend to this... Wedensambo (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC) It's a shame you couldn't have used your time more fruitfully to improve the article itself. It's a mess. I'm addressing it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC) The demand to remove the sentence from the article is yours, not mine, Wedensambo. My earlier suggestion that the claim needs additional sources has been addressed. On Wikipedia we refer to reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking. The BBC is without question such a source. You can hardly dismiss it as shoddy journalism simply because it disagrees with your view. You evidently have a fundamentally different definition (from the majority) of the concept of 'country', which isn't going to be solved here. Sionk (talk) 12:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC) That Wales is a country, and that the Wales Coast Path is “the first coastal network in the world to cover an entire country” (to quote Ordnance Survey), are supported by numerous, impeccable reliable sources. There is no reason not to say so in this article. Indeed, not to say so would be remiss. Daicaregos (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC) OK, but that's your opinion, Sionk, not a 'fact'. I haven't demanded a cut or edit, I've just proposed one, in good faith - and suggested, in order to avoid an edit war, that someone else does it rather than me. The Beeb is certainly a wonderful institution, but not impecccable or beyond question. No news media source is perfect, and few are immune from copying and pasting from a press release on a busy day; I wouldn't go as far as describing that as 'shoddy' journalism really, but it's a syndrome worth being aware of if you want any article to be as robustly-referenced as it could be. 'Enough time and energy now spent discussing this subject, to my mind - over and out. Wedensambo (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sections 'for marketing purposes'.

Does the Wales Coast Path consist of separate parts and can this be proven? The article says the path is described in sections (on the Wales Coast Path website) for marketing purposes only. If that is the case, why are separate articles being created for these marketing areas? Is this simply a scam to justify the existence of the new Living Paths! project? Sionk (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The words "for marketing purposes" were inserted in this edit by the editor who created the article, but I'm not sure where they came from. Neither the WCP site itself nor other references I've seen use those words - but, it does break the path down into separate areas or stretches, each with its own leaflets and maps. I'm not convinced of the value of having separate articles on each stretch, other than to promote tourism - which, however admirable a goal it may be in some ways, is really not what an impartial encyclopedia should be doing. Also, the articles on stretches like the North Wales Path seem to be unreferenced (apart from mentions of the launch of the path as a whole), and include a fair amount of original research, or at least synthesis. Should we be going down this (ahem) path? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I should think that the 8 subpaths will be developed during the next year or two as more editors are trained in the Living Paths project, and would be too big for one article. I agree with you that the original research should either be delete or referenced. Developed further, I also think that such information would benefit local walkers as well as walkers from further afield, and should deserves it's place in an encyclopaedia. I'll do some work on them and let's take it from there. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the bottom line, per WP:N, should remain whether the individual stretches are mentioned in independent sources - rather than whether the articles "benefit.. walkers" - which would be a matter for Wikitravel (or Wikiwalk...) rather than this encyclopedia. The problem with initiatives like the Living Paths Project is that they get their support (and funding?) on the back of claims or assumptions that they will benefit tourism and the economy. But, that is not a role that Wikipedia (or Wikimedia UK) should be performing or even necessarily facilitating. Incidentally, I realised afterwards that singling out the North Wales Path as an example was a poor choice by me, as apparently it already existed on a slightly different route from the WCP. But, is that true of the stretches elsewhere? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Some did, others would have grown in time to what they are now. One of the first was the Pembrokeshire Coast Path as you can see the article was started in 2002! What better way to inspire new editors? And it might bring a breath of fresh air! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The division is more than just for 'marketing'. I have edited the page to offer a broader rational for the 8 separate geographic areas, which have their own histories and identities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinLeicester (talk • contribs) 21:16, 3 October 2013‎

Admittedly the Pembrokeshire Coast Path was very well established in its own right (being as it is, around a National Park) and it looks like the Ceredigion Coast Path pre-dates the Wales Coast Path (though any mention has been expunged from the Ceredigion Council website). Possibly Anglesey Coastal Path too. But the remainder simply don't exist as entities, other than convenient sections to fit on a map to inform walkers. Because the new articles are largely unsourced travelogues, I don't think they'd be missed if they went. Sionk (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

In response to earlier comments, it was I who originally inserted the phrase "for marketing purposes" as this is what the official website and publicity said at the time. The stated intention of the relevant authority (at the time) was to produce a set of official books reflecting these stated sections, so that individual sections could be marketed, also as part of the whole. This, I think, was the meaning behind their choice of phrase. If there is no reference to this now, it is not that there never was, but that the website no longer says it. Hogyn Lleol ★ ^(chat) 08:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Do the newer walks merit articles? Are they "mentioned in independent sources"?

Yes:

1. the county councils who physically look after them certainly refer to them as individual paths. Take a look here at Camarthen County Council's use of the term "Carmarthenshire's Coastal Path", for example.
2. individual brochures have been produced by the Welsh Government, the Ramblers Association, all relevant county councils and the Countryside Council for Wales for each individual path: see here. Individual webpages / websites also exist as well as the paper form. This alone is a "significant" and a "reliable" source.
3. books have been written on these units, such as this one; Published: 01/12/2013; Publisher: Northern Eye Books; ISBN 9781908632265 which calls the Carmarthen Coast Path "Carmarthenshire & Gower: Wales Coast Path Official Guide: Amroth to Swansea" but is based on the geographical unit of Carmarthenshire coast path. This is a secondary, reliable source. All 8 paths have similar individual books published (one or two wll be published in December 2013): see here.
4. independent web sources, unrelated to the founders and developers of the path also treat these as individual units within their own rights as can be seen in the British Coast Guide and the Wales Directory Guide which mentions the "Carmarthenshire Coast Path". The "All Wales Path" website has an article on each of the 8 paths e.g. this one is about the "Carmarthenshire's Coastal Path". Even the BBC refers to it as the Carmarthen coast path" as you can find here. "Significant, reliable and and obviously a secondary source. See also the terminology here. The People's Collection of Wales treats the Carmarthenshire coast as an unit: "A walk along the Carmarthenshire coast to Pembrokeshire on the new coast path." These 8 paths often are also counties; it is a natural marriage! Where a path contains two counties, it may well be a menage a trois, but it's still an unit! The Ramblers Association are also grouped into county units with Carmarthenshire and Swansea groups in allinament with the corresponding paths!

These reliable (mostly third-party) sources certainly make each 8 individual path worthy of an individual article (as per Notablity criteria). Without Subject-specific guidelines on paths the following have been met:

• "Significant coverage" - I have referenced the Carmarthenshire Path, the others have equal coverage. Sionk's main criterion is whether the paths existed before the (all) Wales Coast Path. I suggest that this is irrelevant. Ghmyrtle, however, uses Wikipedia criteria, and this is what is outlined here. There are many criteria which could be used such as the numbers using these 8 paths: the Gower Path (349,333) had three times the number of users in 2012 than the long established Pembrokeshire Path (102,721) in as can be seen in this report by indepednent Beaufort Research, the Environment Agency Wales, Cardiff University, The Countryside Council for Wales etc for the Welsh Economy Research Unit of the Welsh Government.
• "Due and undue weight" Wikipedia:DUE#Undue weight - imho the above shows that most independant sources give due weight to each 8 individual path, and use their names to define their locations.
• "Notability requires verifiable evidence" - this will be added to each of the 8 paths as the articles develop.
• Nothing in the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not guidelines negates my arguments.

The opening sentence of the Whether to create standalone pages is, "When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it." Can I repeat: the Wales Coast Pasth and the 8 local paths will be developed in the near future. Creating 8 stand alone articles helps the reader to understand the information, as it is presented in more manageable units.

Should an encyclopaedia with an article on the human leg also contain articles on individual parts? The answer is obvious. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, looking at the Carmarthenshire Council webpage, it is about "Carmarthenshire's coastal path" which is not quite what you're claiming. The Countryside Council for Wales maps are quite clearly of sections of the All Wales Coast Path. Some of the paths may justify a separate article about them (they existed before 2012) though they are currently barely sourced. As far as I can see the separate coastal paths along the South Wales coast in particular are invented by you and there is insufficient coverage about these sections to justify a split from Wales Coast Path. Sionk (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. you missed WP:NOTGUIDE, which is clear that Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Much of these new articles is about places of interest along these sections of coast, You argues above that "such information would benefit local walkers" and this, in my view, is a clear indication that this is travel guide info and not directly about the history and development of the alleged paths. Sionk (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sionk. Let's take these one by one:

First, you say: "Carmarthenshire's coastal path" "is not quite the same as" "CARMARTHENSHIRE’S COASTAL PATH" (the term used on the referenced website); I actually had capital letters (CCP). In what way? In my opinion what I said consolidated the fact that the unitary authority treats it's path as a single, geographical unit, rather than just a small part of the larger path.

2. "The Countryside Council for Wales maps". These are individual paths. These are physically and individually produced, as individual brochures, corresponding to each individual path. That can not be reduced by implying that they are part of the larger path. As I mentioned above: "Should an encyclopaedia with an article on the human leg also contain articles on individual parts?"

3. You say: "the separate coastal paths along the South Wales coast in particular are invented by you". All my above links show that they exist as individual entities. The Carmarthenshire Coast Path even has it's own logo, placed along the paths. The criteria here, Sionk, should not be whether I have invented these paths, but whether I have provided significant, reliable and secondary sources; which I have.

4. You say: "there is insufficient coverage about these sections". I have referenced only one of these three trails: Carmarthenshire. I can do the other two if you like. I've started doing this in their corresponding articles.

5. You say: "you missed WP:NOTGUIDE". I didn't quote from that as it's certainly not relevant to any of the 3 paths we're discussing (Carmarthenshire, Swansea and Gower and the South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path). What part of these 3 paths "is travel guide info"? Points of interest are found in thousands of Wikipedian articles, and include Listed buildings, geographical landmarks (such as Worm's Head), important people from the area, folk-tales such as the Mabinogi (geotagged to the actual location) etc etc. Each one has "descriptions of people, places and things".

The WP guide you refer to states: "Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc". None of these 3 articles refer to any tourist attractions, restaurants, hotels or venues. Or is it that you have an objection to my use of the word "benefit"? I can assure you that readers do certainly "benefit" from knowledge on Wikipedia; that's why it was born, it's raison d'être. That term (benefit from knowledge) is used widely on Wikipedia as can be seen here (" benefiting from knowledge, skills, and culture developed around DOING Wikipedia in Education") or here ("You benefit from knowledge"). It is not a material term and appears in over 10,000 other pages on Wikipedia.

Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately you'll need to provide reliable proof of the existence of these distinct paths, as with any other Wikipedia article. Debating at length about semantics is a diversion. Carmarthenshire Council describing the delights of Carmarthenshire's coastal path is not the same thing as saying there is a long distance walk called the "Carmarthenshire Coastal Path". Saying you've seen signage saying "Carmarthenshire Coastal Path" isn't really strong evidence, is it? The articles about these alleged South Wales routes in particular will need improving quickly or removing. Maybe if there's some sort of coverage about the remedial work carried out in South Wales to join the bits of the Wales Coast Path together, it can be used to expand this article instead? Sionk (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I see a sign with "Aberystwyth" on it as I drive into a town: that is proof to me that I'm entering that town, sufficient proof for Wikipedia. You still want me to prove to you the existence of Aberystwyth! The sign proves it: external, reliable source. Same with these paths: the individual brochures prove it, independent websites referring to these three paths as individual paths prove it, signs on the paths prove it. I have referenced extensively my sources pertaining to one of these (Carmarthenshire Coast Path) and I can assure you that the other two are equally as solid. Yet you have not proved or referenced your claim that these three paths do not exist. You need to do that. I'm not sure to what you are referring to when you say that I have "seen signage saying "Carmarthenshire Coastal Path"? I certainly haven't said that; other people have seen it, said it, written about it. And as to your suggestion that "Debating at length about semantics is a diversion": can you tell me which bit? I have answered every one of your questions fully. I'm not certain how I can say it any simpler? Other people treat Carmarthenshire Coast Path by that name; it is recognised by a number of external bodies, authorities and websites, as I have shown. That, in my humble opinion, answers your question directly and should not be fobbed off as "semantics". Now, either prove to the community that these three do not exist - with neutral, external sources, or is there anything deeper to all this troubling you? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I picked up a leaflet yesterday on the Newport Coast Path. It's clearly part of the Wales Coast Path - but there's no mention at all of it being part of the "South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Completely bizarre comment from Llywelyn2000 I'm afraid. The onus here at the very least is to prove something exists, before writing a profile on Wikipedia. Geographical features they need to be proven to exist. Someone saying "I saw a signpost once" is not reliable proof. Aberystwyth is not comparable, being a very large university town with plenty of published information about it. The arguments over Cardiff North (geographical area) spring to mind, where one of the supporters justified it on the basis there was a roadsign pointing to "Cardiff North" on the M4 motorway. This didn't wash at AfD. Sionk (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path

Participants may be interested to contribute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path. Sionk (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmarthenshire Coast Path. Sionk (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

We now have the slightly ridiculous situation where we have no consensus to delete South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path and Gower and Swansea Bay Coast Path, but a decision that Carmarthenshire Coast Path should be merged into this article. Any suggestions as to the way forward? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRV? Sionk (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think I'd prefer a proposal to merge the South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path and Gower and Swansea Bay Coast Path articles, with this article, for consistency. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

At least AfD and DRV get wider input, rather than the same old people saying the same things. It's pretty unbelievable an arbitrary non-existent, very poorly sourced "long distance footpath" wasn't deleted! Sionk (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Porthmadog to Machynlleth

The Porthmadog to Machynlleth section of the Wales Coast Path#Component sections appears to be included in the Llŷn Coastal Path in this article, but not in the Llŷn Coastal Path article (irritatingly using coastal instead of coast!). Does this section of the path have a name and if not, should it? I've also raised this at Talk:Llŷn Coastal Path. Tony Holkham (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Claim of first footpath around an entire country's coast

I would like to challenge the claim of the Wales Coast Path being the first path around an entire country's coast. Long before the WCP opened I knew of the existence of the Raad ny Foillan which circles the entire coast of the Isle of Man. On later research I discovered that the RnF was opened in 1986 making it predate the WCP by 26 years. As neither Wales or Mann are sovereign nations neither path is the first to cover an entire country's coast by the United Nations definition of a country. The sources cited in this article are the BBC, Ordnance Survey and the Guardian. There is no way they could have all made the same error unless they got the information from the same source. However the Guardian article states that the path is heralded as the first continuous walking route along a country's coast which suggests they might be open to the idea that it is not the first to cover the coast of a whole country. Even if it is not the first path along an entire sovereign nation's coast the WCP is still the first path along the entire coast of a country of the United Kingdom and there is a strong possibility that it is the second path around the whole coast of a Celtic nation after the RnF. Tk420 (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

'Majority' and 'most' are carefully used, at least in the lead. Perhaps more needs doing in the body to point the missing links. RnF does not follow all the coast either, avoiding Langness. If User:Tk420 you want to challenge the claim, what is needed is a source rather than OR. SovalValtos (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind a 'country' does not need to be an independent sovereign state. And the Isle of Man is claimed to be an island and 'crown dependency'. Either way, I've no personal problem with the proviso "claimed" or "heralded" to be added to the article here. Sionk (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I, for one, am quite happy with the addition of the word 'heralded', which validates the citations. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no universally accepted definition of a country in at least two instances that might be relevant to this discussion.

1) The Oxford English Dictionary defines country as a nation with its own government in sense 1. However there are nations which do or do not recognise each other for political reasons. The number of sovereign states recognised by the United Nations stands at about 195.

2) Whether the four parts of the UK are countries is the most frequently asked question on the talk page to the United Kingdom article on Wikipedia. According to the FAQ section in that talk page as a result of a lack of a formal British constitution, and owing to a convoluted history of the formation of the United Kingdom, a variety of terms exist which are used to refer to England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Reliable and official sources support use of the word "countries" On Wikipedia, the term has broadly won preference amongst the editing community (note, however, that a country is not the same as a sovereign state).

Also the words country and nation are often synonymous with sovereign state in everyday speech, including in school geography lessons, which contributes to the confusion on the definition of a country and the English language is not regulated.

Therefore whether the Wales Coast Path is the first footpath to cover an entire country's coast (or most of its coastline anyway) depends on how one would define a country. Tk420 (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Didn't we already agree that? No-one has ever claimed it was the first path around a sovereign state. And like you say yourself, "Reliable and official sources support use of the word "countries"" for Wales, Scotland and England. Sionk (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Running record

Editors interested in this article may want to include this BBC news item, if appropriate. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Twenty days!
Yes, Tony, I would support its inclusion. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

My gut feeling is no, as self policed, though possibly evidenced by satnav, but I cannot point to a policy. Amusing that Jenkins' said his wife Cerys 'was by my side the whole time' but she did not share the record! Endurance events is an 'other stuff' example supporting inclusion.SovalValtos (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)