Talk:Senedd

I wish that before changing the Welsh name of the Assembly people would actually make sure that what was there before was wrong (it wasn't... see the Assembly's website).

-- Arwel 23:28, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't Ty Hywel be spelt as "Tŷ Hywel" with it's correct Welsh spelling? Also for the main Tŷ Hywel page?

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)Reply

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)Reply

High budget. They're pouring a ton of money into the building. QuartierLatin1968   16:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)

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)Reply

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)Reply

Can we get a picture of the debating chamber?

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply
• 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)Reply
• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

Yes you are right, this is why I have linked to MMP rather than AMS. Alun 15:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

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).Reply

Um, it says in the article Under mixed member proportional representation a type of additional member system^[1][2]

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)Reply

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).Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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).Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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:

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928162655/http://www.comisiwnrichard.gov.uk/content/template.asp?ID=%2Fcontent%2Fevidence%2Foral%2Fwlga%2Findex-w.asp to http://www.comisiwnrichard.gov.uk/content/template.asp?ID=%2Fcontent%2Fevidence%2Foral%2Fwlga%2Findex-w.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311002727/http://www.publicinformation.wales.gov.uk/scripts/viewnews.asp?NewsID=581 to http://www.publicinformation.wales.gov.uk/scripts/viewnews.asp?NewsID=581
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/n6m/wales/your_rights/civil_rights/national_assembly_for_wales.htm

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)Reply

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925190634/http://www.nhfa.co.uk/objects/downloads/NHFA_news.pdf to http://www.nhfa.co.uk/objects/downloads/NHFA_news.pdf

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)Reply

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041208073417/http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/topstories/wales.htm to http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/topstories/wales.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050323120107/http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/publications/leaflets/welshassembly.htm to http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/publications/leaflets/welshassembly.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00t5z5c

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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 quibly 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• Administrator's note This article has been restored to the location status quo ante to avoid confusion about outcomes. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

• 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)Reply

• 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 Elshad (talk • contribs) 17:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

• 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)Reply

I realise I haven't clearly given my position (partly as this proposal lacks precision on exactly what will go where).

• 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/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)Reply

• Strongly support, it's called the Senedd now so it would only make sense to change it.BitterGiant (talk)
• Move to Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament until a WP:COMMONNAME emerges, per Cordyceps-Zombie and Llew Mawr. See Amgueddfa Cymru – National Museum Wales for another article title using this style. Ham II (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose move to Senedd at the moment, FWIW, this is way too soon. If it's new official bilingual name is Senedd Cymru—Welsh Parliament then I'd support a move to this name (or similar) until we have clear evidence of its WP:COMMONNAME. We simply don't have sufficient evidence at the moment that it will be widely known as the Senedd (which in my mind still refers to the building). 'Senedd' after all is the Welsh word for parliament, hence the new official Welsh language name 'Senedd Cymru'. Look at the Millennium Stadium article, which hasn't been changed to its new official name yet - though I'm not advocating a review period of years for Senedd Cymru, a few weeks or months will suffice :) Sionk (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

• 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)Reply

• Move to Welsh Parliament - it has two co-official names, and makes sense to use the English rather than the Welsh one. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 20:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
• Move to Welsh Parliament per WP:USEENGLISH. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

  WP:USEENGLISH is about using "the version of the name [...] which is most common in the English language", rather than using an English-language name whenever that's an option. We don't yet know which name will be the most commonly used in English. Ham II (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

• Move to Welsh Parliament per WP:USEENGLISH. --Dragonlord73 (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

• 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)Reply
• Move to Welsh Parliament, as this is the english language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

• 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)Reply

• Oppose Too soon. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
• 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)Reply
• 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)Reply
• 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)Reply

  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)Reply

  • • Perhaps I worded the above poorly, but my point was that several editors are claiming that WP:USEENGLISH means that "Welsh Parliament" has to be used, which is not the case. Number 57 09:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

• 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)Reply
• 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)Reply
• 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)Reply
• Support full bilingual name as an interim measure until a settled common usage becomes apparent. Tammbeck (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
• 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)Reply
• 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)Reply

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)Reply