Talk:Cardiff Arms Park

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleCardiff Arms Park was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 22, 2008Good article nomineeListed
February 3, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Untitled[edit]

I wonder if counries other than the UK went millenium-mental and named anything built between 1995-2001 "millenium" something -- in which case, this page may be up for disambiguation at some point. I sat in wait for the the "millenium supermarket", "millenium flower pot", "millenium telephone box" and so forth. -- Tarquin 19:27 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

Hey, if you're building a structure that is going to dominate the centre of your capital city, and it opens in 1999, I think you can justify calling it "Millennium" (two l's, to n's) -- User:GWO
well-spotted. I was too busy concentrating on not writing "Minnellium" (a la Victoria Wood ;-) -- Tarquin
Ahh, but did you notice I managed to mispell "two", and have now misspelled misspell..

Only one I can think of is the Millennium Skytrain line in Vancouver. - user:Montrealais

There's Millennium Park in Chicago. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:52, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with moving this article from Millennium Stadium to Cardiff Arms Park. Despite the fact that one was built on the site of the other, except by ignorance the new stadium is never, to the best of my knowledge. referrred to as Cardiff Arms Park and it is misleading to treat them in the same article. Have separate linked articles if you like, but don't merge them like this! -- Arwel 13:47, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm with Arwel! Just because they left the old sign outside doesn't mean that it's called it. Cardiff Arms Park is a stadium that got knocked down. The Millennium Stadium is a completely different stadium that just happened to be built in the same place. Have two different articles.
Okay, I've moved the Millennium Stadium out into its own article at Millennium Stadium. This article still needs major work though. I'm not really sure what the status of the Cardiff Arms Park name is. It seems that the whole complex is called Cardiff Arms Park and it contains the Millennium Stadium (called the National Stadium before it was rebuilt?) and Cardiff Rugby Club, who still call their stadium Cardiff Arms Park. The Millennium Stadium website [1] includes the text 'Cardiff Arms Park' under the logo, indicating that the whole complex is called this and outside the stadium their is a sign above a passageway saying 'Cardiff Arms Park' that I believe leads to the rugby club. Does anyone know? What we really need is an article on the Millennium Stadium (got), an article on the old stadium (called the National Stadium?), an article on the rugby club's ground (what's it's official name?) and then to convert this article into one on the Cardiff Arms Park complex (assuming I'm correct in the status of the various names). Anyone up for finding out and doing it?
It is pointless having two articles on the one subject. The name of the stadium is the "Millenium Stadium, Cardiff Arms Park". It is on the same site. It would be akin to having two pages for Wembley Stadium. Anon IPs should also log in and sign their posts. Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
They are totally seperate stadiums, just on the same spot. No merging is needed. Cactusrob 23:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the confusion arises because this page mainly talks about the old national stadium. Probably this article should mainly talk about the current Cardiff Blues stadium, with the old national stadium under a 'history' section? Gareth 00:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have there been two merge attempts? I saw the proposed "merge to Cardiff Arms Park" thing on the Millennium Stadium article, came here, and half the comments are from two years ago. Anyway, I don't think they should be merged. A plan or diagram explaining how they fit together might be worth creating, though? Telsa (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the merge. This stadium is the heart and soul of Weslsh soccer and should not be combined into a rugby park
I too strongly disagree with the merge. The Millennium Stadium is a venue for soccer, rugby, concerts, any many other events. Cardiff Arms Park is a now-demolished rugby ground. As there have been no arguments given in favour of merging since November 2006 (and apparently only one person in favour back in 2004) I'll remove the tags. Thryduulf 17:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I visited Cardiff Arms Park in 1994 when I played rugby and toured through England and Wales. I recall that it was fondly referred to as 'God's Acre' by some. I was surprised there was no mention of that in this article. Was that not a common nick name used for the park? 68.194.209.63 (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the attendance figures for Cardiff Blues home games, figures based on attendences for all games in season. the previous reference was to a homemade site and was incorrect and not updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.10.45.219 (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External link to youtube[edit]

I have reverted the edit to delete the youtube link:-

  • Because the match/try is considered by many to be the best match/try ever, and therefore a crucial piece of Cardiff Arms Park history. It also shows the inside of the National Stadium of which I cannot find a free use photo.
  • See Wikipedia:External links...Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites "There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines..." Seth Whales (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

greatest try[edit]

Will you keep in mind that however much people think that the try against the barbarians is the best ever, there was a blatently obvious forward pass in it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.90.235.42 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted images[edit]

Images of the stadium have been deleted twice now. I feel it is wrong to delete these free images. See WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE and in particular "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation" Images of each stand in the stadium are very significant and important. They add to understanding and also are mentioned in the first paragraph in the section plus the gates to the Arms Park. Yes it could be possible to find these images in Commons, but that makes little sense. See also WP:GACR in The six good article criteria "6. Illustrated, if possible, by images...images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions."...Overall I feel it is wrong to delete images of the stadium when the article is about a stadium.SethWhales talk 22:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cardiff Arms Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Split[edit]

I'm a bit confused reading this article about what "Cardiff Park Arms" actually refers to, the whole complex or just the stadium immediately North of the Millennium Stadium. If the former then the article is mostly fine with maybe a slightly rewording of the first sentence needed, but if the latter each stadium really should have it's own article, especially as the stadium is smaller than the old National Stadium. Mn1548 (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional problem: In trying to alter the structure of the article to acknowledge that the "Cardiff Arms Park" refers to the site in addition to the stadium. There is a lot of overlap between the "history" section and the old "rugby ground". The history section also seems very focused on the old National Stadium and doesn't really give a good overview of the site as a whole outside of the "early history" section. Mn1548 (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is very old discussion which first started on 30 Jul 2004 (see above) by Arwel. The Millennium (now Principality) Stadium is NOT, and never will be described as being part of Cardiff Arms Park. Have look as the address at the bottom of https://www.principalitystadium.wales/. Also on the official Royal Mail site (https://www.royalmail.com/find-a-postcode) simply enter "Principality Stadium", and in both instances you will find the official address as Principality Stadium, Westgate Street, CARDIFF CF10 1NS. Cardiff Arms Park is not part of the address on either website. The address of Cardiff Arms Park is Cardiff Athletic Club, Cardiff Arms Park, Westgate Street, CARDIFF CF10 1JA. Please don't give opinions, as this is original research. This is too controversial to make major changes to the article. We need consensus on this before reverting, discuss on this Talk Page. SethWhales talk 19:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Split (again)[edit]

Unfortunately, an editor has split Cardiff Arms Park (similar to the last split above) with no discussion whatsoever. See Splitting an article - Create a discussion first. This discussion needs to take place first.

For the record: In the new article Cardiff Arms Park Cricket Ground starts off with Cardiff Arms Park Cricket Ground]] is a cricket ground... This 100% incorrect. The cricket ground has not existed since 1966, and even then it was never called Cardiff Arms Park Cricket Ground. Have a look at Titles of works - Capital_letters

The bowling green has never been called Cardiff Arms Park Bowling Green, see the Cardiff Athletic Bowls Club website (https://www.cacbowls.uk/community/cardiff-athletic-bowls-club-15033/contact/) which states Cardiff Athletic Bowls Club, Cardiff Arms Park, Westgate Street, Cardiff. Not Cardiff Arms Park Bowling Green. Again have a look at Titles of works - Capital_letters

The rugby ground has never been called 'Cardiff Arms Park Stadium', it is simply called Cardiff Arms Park, see the Cardiff Rugby website (https://www.cardiffrugby.wales/cardiff-arms-park/history) which states "Cardiff Arms Park is the home of Cardiff Rugby situated next to the Principality Stadium in the heart of the Welsh capital. The Arms Park has been used as a rugby ground since the 1870s, with a cricket ground also formerly situated to the north of the site." Again also see Titles of works - Capital_letters. SethWhales talk 17:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the split happening, it just needs to be done in the right way, which it hasn't been. User:Mn1548 started a discussion 18 months ago, received pushback, and has now decided to follow through with the split anyway without waiting for consensus. First of all, titles need to be correct, which they aren't, but then the content needs to be split correctly too. Please, let's restore things to how they were and make sure we do this right. – PeeJay 20:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary for the split talks about it being hard to follow the article because so much is going on. I'm not sure I agree with that rationale - the sectioning might use some thought and a bit of work, as might the ordering. And putting the images on the right will make it easier to follow as the section headings will always appear properly. But otherwise, this doesn't feel too long. I'd say improve rather than split first off. I'd certainly support restoring to how it was and discussing properly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go further: I reckon that if either the bowling green or cricket ground articles came up for AfD that they'd be closed as merge to this one... Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, I'd agree with that. – PeeJay 20:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the need for an article split at this time, but if the proposer wishes to nominate it for one, then it can certainly be discussed here first (after the present split has been undone). I am more concerned with the inaccurate and inconsistent naming of the various facilities that are included. Loopy30 (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need for a split, and I definitely see a consensus against the split in the discussion here so far. --Mvqr (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PeeJay: Firstly, by "received pushback" you really mean one editor disagreeing, and acusing me of "not waiting for a concenus" when the discussion has literally been here for 18 months in which nothing has been done to address the issues I originally proposed. I did try reorganised the article to better dusting the parts of Cardiff Arms Park but that was reverted.
For everone else (@Mvqr: @Loopy30: @Blue Square Thing: @Seth Whales:) who might have missed it. The reason for the split is that each stadium/sports ground is different and different things have occurred at different one. The article talked about history and use of the complex as a whole not specifying what happened where. Major example the Rugby World Cup matches held at the national stadium but listed at Cardiff Arms Park, which isn't wrong but confusing as Cardiff Arms Park is the name of the stadium and the whole complex. It was virtually impossible to tell when Cardiff Arms Park was mentioned the article, if it was referring to the stadium or the whole complex. And where things are refered to as being part of the Arms Park but not the stadium we really should be more specific to where in the Arms Park it actually happened or referes to.
Finally, @Seth Whales: if you're unhappy with what I've named some of the new articles, and you know what they were actually refered to as, just change the name.Mn1548 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you didn’t wait for a consensus. @Seth Whales replied to your original proposal, you never responded. You don’t get to just assume a consensus and plough on with your changes just because the conversation went stale. – PeeJay 18:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article that is GA-rated really shouldn't be split up into bits without definite consensus. What little is left here now isn't good - in any form of the word. The splits should be undone and the article restored back to how it was before the splits happened. If parts of the article are unclear, they can be re-written or re-structured. I see no need for splitting anything out, and as noted above, if the articles came up for AfD then I think it would be an easy 'merge' result. H. Carver (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with splitting is that:

A) The new names are original research as the names of the rugby stadium has never been called Cardiff Arms Park Stadium,and the same applies to the other split articles.
B) Probably more important than the names of the articles, is that the whole site has a very complex history since the 19th century, and therefore by splitting the Cardiff Arms Park article it loses clarity for the reader. The site originally had a rugby ground (south ground), cricket ground (north ground), tennis courts, a bowls green (pre 1966) then in 1966 it had two rugby grounds (north ground for Cardiff RFU and the south ground for the Wales RFU (National Stadium)), with the cricket going to Sophia Gardens. In 1999, the National Stadium was knocked down and replaced by the expanded Millennium Stadium which also involved knocking down the Wales Empire Pool in Wood Street, Cardiff Empire Telephone Exchange building and the newly built Territorial Auxiliary & Volunteer Reserve building both in Park Street, and the Social Security offices in Westgate Street. The Millennium Stadium is now on roughly two-thirds of the old National Stadium, but it no longer uses the Arms Park name. Confusing or what? This is why it needs one article to explain this.

We must have consensus so that we can move forward I feel, but we had a similar type of discussion in July 2004 (above - Untitled) and in May 2021 (Article Split). If the Cardiff Arms Park article needs clarity then it is up to editors to do this as it is a Wiki. SethWhales talk 14:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seen as the the cricket ground article and bowling green article have been merged with this article. I would support a restoration of the previous version with the cricket ground bowling green information being included in a section of the article called "other sports grounds on site" or something similar and maybe a bit more concise but with the National Stadium remaining a separate article as my main issue with the previous version is that it talked about Cardiff Arms Park and the National stadium as if they were the same thing. Mn1548 (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mn1548: says that "...it (the pre-split article) talked about Cardiff Arms Park and the National stadium as if they were the same thing"....actually they were the same thing. Both were then called Cardiff Arms Park. The National Stadium was named thus later, after it had been called the Welsh National Rugby Ground just to differentiate between the two rugby grounds (for Cardiff RFC and for the Wales Rugby Union), but even then, the National Stadium was often just named "Cardiff Arms Park", which was confusing (I agree). Have a look at the government website https://coflein.gov.uk/cy/safle/3064/delweddau then scroll down for images. This is why it should remain part of Cardiff Arms Park. Again I reiterate:
a) The Millennium Stadium is NOT (and never has been) part of Cardiff Arms Park. See https://www.cardiffrugby.wales/cardiff-arms-park which states "Cardiff Arms Park is the home of Cardiff Blues and Cardiff Rugby Football Club situated next to the Principality Stadium in the heart of the Welsh capital"
b) The stadium at Cardiff Arms Park, is not, and never has been called Cardiff Arms Park Stadium, likewise Villa Park is not called Villa Park Stadium, or Anfield is not called Anfield Stadium or the City Ground is not called the City Ground Stadium, I'm sure you don't want me to continue. Therefore this should be a redirect to Cardiff Arms Park in my opinion. SethWhales talk 09:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Seth Whales: OK, you saying that the National Stadium and Cardiff Arms Park Stadium are both Cardiff Arms Park and Millennium is not it true, but that still creates an issue that the presplit article did talk about them as being the same thing whilst true is still unhelpful to readers. It was very hard to distinguish in prose what each stadiums were used for and the history of them as while they are officially both Cardiff Arms Park they are two separate stadiums. I agree that as Cardiff Arms Park is the official name then that's what the page should be called however this page would need renaming to something else as (like I have said) one of my issues with the presplit article is that when "Cardiff Arms Park" was mentioned you could not tell if it was referring to the stadium or the site as a whole. Maybe the tiles Cardiff Arms Park (site) and Cardiff Arms Park (stadium) work to keep them both distinguishable whist also being the official names? Mn1548 (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mn1548: In most situations I would agree with you. However, what you have included into Cardiff Arms Park Stadium is in fact two different sites, what some describe as the south ground and the north ground the template (which I created) may help you.
So what you've (incorrect) called Cardiff Arms Park Stadium is in fact two sites, a "south ground" and a "north ground". The south ground was a rugby ground (for Cardiff RFC between 1876 and 1967) who also shared it with the Wales national rugby union team between 1884 and 1967). It then became the National Stadium (also part of Cardiff Arms Park) for the Wales national rugby union team between 1967 and 1999) and at the same time, the other rugby ground (the "north ground") which had previously been a cricket pitch, then in 1967 became the second rugby ground (for Cardiff RFC between 1967 to date. My template above explains it better than I do, but hopefully you can see the confusion when you incorrectly call an article Cardiff Arms Park Stadium, when you are in fact talking about two three different stadiums, but also on two different sites between 1967–1999. So it could be possible to have sections in the article called "south ground" and "north ground", but they do tend to run into each other. Maybe an expert in editing in Wikipedia could achieve this, but when I got it through Good Article status, I thought I made a good go at it from what the article looked like beforehand.
If you feel it still needs splitting (which I don't), you could have four separate articles:


and Cardiff Arms Park Stadium redirected into Cardiff Arms Park (rugby ground)

But they would be quite small articles when the original was only 63,487 bytes at the time of the split, not close to 100 kB (see below) from Wikipedia:Article size. So why does the article need splitting?
Readable prose size What to do
> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
> 50 kB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 kB Length alone does not justify division
< 1 kB If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded; see Wikipedia:Stub.

SethWhales talk 21:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Seth Whales: Like I said the names aren't perfect and I would 100% support renaming of the new pages to ones which represents their official names better, and I do like the names you've proposed. That template you've made for the timeline is also really good and that should definitely be included in the overall story article! I still think splitting is necessary as I tried doing something similar many months ago but keeping everything on one page and it just looked very messy and overcomolicated. One final note on the presplit article, as everything had its own infobox except the old rugby ground. Because of this I found it a bit ambiguous to where the exactly the old one was located and a lot of the prose read as if it was the north ground as the current rugby ground shared it's name. So before any renaming I think we should extract all information about the old rugby ground from the article about the new one and make sure nothing is left on that refers to the National Stadium if we are to use your suggestion for article names which I am in favour. Mn1548 (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To split or not to split (a decision)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was reached for option 1. Warofdreams talk 00:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mn1548: My overall preference is that Cardiff Arms Park is not split. The main problem for me in spitting is that it ends up with too many articles on the one subject. However, I think if a split is the consensus of the Wikipedia community, then there are two options to consider that may be acceptable to editors:

SethWhales talk 16:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, I go with:

Option 1. The article was a Good Article, but always open to new edits that Wiki editors feel is necessary to improve it. SethWhales talk 16:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I prefer Option 2 however I would accept Option 1 providing the following criteria are met:
1. The article details which part of the Arms Park is used for what (e.g. "The 1991 Rugby World Cup was hosted at the National Stadium" over "The 1991 Rugby World Cup was hosted at Cardiff Arms Park").
2. There is a clear distinction of the use and history, where appropriate, between Cardiff Arms Park the site and the stadium of the same name (This is mainly why I think a split is the best as I don't see a way to do this if they are on one article).
3. There is also some distinction between the old rugby ground and the new one as they are different stadiums.
Mn1548 (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. This seems the only reasonable way forward to me. There was no consensus for the split, so the article should be reverted to the form it was before the split took place. Editors can then work on it to improve any issues that it may have. (If the article is not restored and the splits are kept, it will need to be reassessed.) H. Carver (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - This apparently is an article about the different incarnations of particular sporting site. Makes sense to keep them together. When I re-entered the information from the two sites, that was because neither had enough in-depth coverage on their own to make a separate article. This seems like the best alternative to maintain all the information in the encyclopedia.Onel5969 TT me 20:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. I've looked up some of the articles on other Sport complex in Wikipedia, and many of them (Rizal Memorial Sports Complex, Headingley Stadium and Camden Yards Sports Complex, to list some examples) have stand-alone articles on some of the facilities and stadiums within the complexes. Admittedly I don't have enough knowledge on this particular subject to make a confident decision, but I think we can follow the precedents and have one article on the overall complex, and articles on the facilities if there are enough contents and trustworthy sources for them. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. I think a split will cause confusion and will probably result in readers having to flip back and forth to check points in one sub-set that are unclear in another. An article like this needs a sound structure so that the different aspects are covered in separate sections under a main section about the entire site. Incidentally, I think the same principle should apply to Headingley, mentioned above. BcJvs | talk UTC 21:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 - There doesn't seem to be enough content at present to justify separate articles for most of the subjects covered by this title. – PeeJay 09:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 - At this time, the combined article is the best to give the reader the information on the history and development of the site. If any of the subtopics becomes too unwieldy, they can always be spun off later to a stand-alone article as needed. Loopy30 (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 - per Pee and Loopy30. If the content gets further developed in the future, then splitting the article can again be considered. FULBERT (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 as in my opinion a single article can better describe the changing composition of the grounds. --Mvqr (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1, since I feel one article will be more comprehensive than multiple articles. Option 2 could work just as well; the split was done in a bit of an awkward manner in no fault of the splitter. SWinxy (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm closing this RfC as an uninvolved admin. There is a consensus for option 1; reverting the article back to the version prior to the split. I'd suggest checking when doing so whether there have been any subsequent additions or changes which should be retained. Many commenters have suggested that the article might be split in future if it grows to become unwieldy; however, there is no consensus at this time on how it might be split, should that occur - it's likely that a further discussion would be needed. Warofdreams talk 00:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National Stadium (Cardiff) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment[edit]

Cardiff Arms Park[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist article requires significant work on citations to regain GA status. MOS:IMAGELOC is not explicitly part of the GA criteria. MOS:LAYOUT refers to only one specific part of MOS:IMAGES (size), not IMAGELOC. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of sentences without citations. It's not on the good article criteria, but there are sandwiching issues with the images as well. Steelkamp (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't believe that it is, @Buidhe and Steelkamp:. The GA criteria only state:
"Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio"
"media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;"
"media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions."
  • WP:WGN notes "Mistakes to avoid: Requiring compliance with all of MOS:IMAGES (as opposed to just the sections linked in the GA criteria)". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically what is required is compliance with MOS:LAYOUT, of which MOS:IMAGES is a sub article. Most of the important points in the latter are in the former as well and therefore required by the GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 00:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's your interpretation. I don't see any indication that MOS:IMAGES is a subpage of MOS:LAYOUT, other than the former being linked from the latter (along with every MOS page). Template {{Style}} explicitly separates images and layout. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National Stadium, Cardiff which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cardiff_Arms_Park&oldid=1206544802"