Given the document below, determine if the summary is factually consistent with the document. A summary is factually consistent if no facts in the summary reflect the negation of a fact in the document.

Document: Welsh ministers had refused to support Plaid Cymru AM NAME_1 NAME_2's attempt to introduce a bill that would protect the names of houses and farms, fields, natural features and landscapes. Mr NAME_2 said there had been strong support for his proposed bill from external organisations. But the Welsh Government's NAME_3 said the proposals were not feasible. All the opposition groups - Plaid Cymru, UKIP and the Conservatives - supported the proposal, but with Labour opposed AMs voted 28 against to 25 for. Mr NAME_2's bill would have deployed a range of measures to protect names, including establishing a system where people who want to change a historic name must seek consent to do so, and a general prohibition on changing a historical place name. The proposal had followed a series of rows over changes to names over the years, including a dispute where the Grade I-listed NAME_4 near

Summary: 1. The proposal had followed a series of rows over changes to names over the years, including a dispute where the Grade I-listed NAME_4 near Skates was referred to as Wynnborn mansion in online marketing material.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document with respect to facts?
Options: "Yes" or "No"

Answer:


 Provide your response in exactly 6 paragraphs (separated nearby paragraphs with 3 aterisk symbols ***).
user