Talk:Cefnllys Castle

September 2007

I reverted the edit by Jeremy Bolwell since I think the article is too brief to justify splitting into sections, which are of only one or two sentences each. Also I don't think "Only the Church Remains" is a suitable section title.

I am guided in part by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings).

--John Stumbles 08:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cefnllys. 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/20070928105325/http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/swanbrec/churches/maelien/5544.html to http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/swanbrec/churches/maelien/5544.html

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) 17:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• that a dispute between Llywelyn ap Gruffudd and Roger Mortimer over the rebuilding of Cefnllys Castle was one of the factors that led to Edward I's conquest of Wales?

Sources: Sorry this is going to be long because the lead up to the war was complicated, and each historian discusses Cefnllys within their explanation. I include extracts here because they're all behind paywalls

1. Smith, 1998: "[Cefnllys was] one of the most sensitive issues left unresolved" (p.361) "The main matter of contention was undoubtedly Cefnllys... Llywelyn now registered his mounting concern that [Mortimer] was preparing to contest possession of a vital area of the march. Clare, Bohun, Mortimer: it was the third of these who posed the greatest threat to the fragile state of equilibrium" (p.362) "The situation deteriorated year by year and ... Sooner or later the [existing peace treaty] would be devoid of meaning. (p.363)
2. Davies, 2000: "Roger Mortimer likewise set about ... rebuilding the castle at Cefnllys and doing so, according to Llywelyn, on a scale quite unwarranted by the terms of the Treaty of 1267. These individual confrontations ... cumulative effect, especially as the years passed, was to create in Llywelyn's mind a suspicion that there was an orchestrated attempt to undermine his hard-won gains, especially in the middle March, and to subvert the terms of the Treaty of 1267 ... he could hardly avoid the suspicion that the royal government ... increasingly acquiesced in, and possibly supported, the activities of Clare, Bohun, Mortimer ... by autumn 1270 Llywelyn was warning that since the Treaty was not being honoured, he might be compelled to ignore it; by February 1274 he was linking his failure to pay the instalments of the tribute due to the king directly with the failure of the Marchers ‘to restore to Llywelyn the lands by them unjustly occupied" (pp. 322–323)
3. Prestwich 1997: "There was trouble between the Welsh prince and Roger Mortimer. Llywelyn claimed that Mortimer's castle-building activities in Maelienydd went beyond what was permitted by the Treaty of Montgomery, and that his own claims to the land, acknowledged in the treaty, had not been heard. In these circumstances, Llywelyn was not prepared to continue payment of the money under the terms of the treaty." (p.174) Further summonses were issued by Edward ... Llywelyn steadfastly refused to attend, and the sums due under the terms of the Treaty of Montgomery remained unpaid." (p.175)

• ALT1: that a dispute between the last independent Prince of Wales, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, and Roger Mortimer over the rebuilding of Cefnllys Castle was one of the factors that led to the conquest of Wales?
• Review (not required) Bob Hindmarch

5x expanded by Jr8825 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC).

• This well-written and impressive expansion is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Thank you for doing a QPQ. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Save for the last reference

It's common practice to just have the reference at the end of the final sentence it supports, if it supports multiple sentences. (i.e. "My mom hates me. Oh and my dad.[1]" I did this, and NewtTickler reverted me for "too much rely on the final reference - including something unsupported by the reference", which I don't think makes sense when many articles— even G and FAs— utilize this to save some bytes and to make the prose less cluttered. GeraldWL 05:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

NewtTickler, do you even see that I added a discussion here? I'm happy that you undid my edit there, cause it seems like my ping wasn't reaching you. GeraldWL 17:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I did not get a ping - you need to sign your post at the same time you leave the ping. Adding a ping after having signed the post means it doesn’t work.

Despite what you claim about GAs and FAs, they don’t promote the practice of adding information from one source into something that isn’t supported by another source. If you are trying to remove what you think is a double citation, don’t remove the second one, remove the first. Your edit has meant that the source at the end of the sentence is supporting something from a different source. As this is an FA, please be careful when messing around with sources. NewtTickler (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

NewtTickler, then why not, instead of reverting it completely, edit it to remove the first sfn instead of the second? I would love a more straightforward reasoning: "You removed the second and not first ref". I still don't understand what you completely mean, so I'll do the correct edit and see if you're on the same boat. GeraldWL 06:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

How will you learn not to make the same mistake again if you need to have people correct the most basic errors. Can you now see the difference in the two versions? You removed the source that supported the statement “The outline of a building in this area is likely to be the oak hall recorded at Cefnllys in the 15th century.” Your first edit made that supported by Brown & Pearson, pp. 10 and 16. That’s not right: it’s not supported by that. It appears on page 18, which is what the citation said. Please be very careful when you mess around with sources - it was slapdash to remove a valid one and make the information rely on something different. NewtTickler (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

NewtTickler, umm excuse me, did you see the latest revision I did? The statements are: "There was probably a small bailey to the south-west, and a scarp across the main ridge suggests the southern half of Castle Bank may have formed a large north bailey. The outline of a building in this area is likely to be the oak hall recorded at Cefnllys in the 15th century." Both are supported by "Browne Pearson 2006, p.18". So, to not make it duplicate, I removed the first sfn, which is literally the same with the second sfn. Since BP200618 is ref. 14, that makes it: ""There was probably a small bailey to the south-west, and a scarp across the main ridge suggests the southern half of Castle Bank may have formed a large north bailey. The outline of a building in this area is likely to be the oak hall recorded at Cefnllys in the 15th century.[14] A stone curtain wall and rampart extended along most of the hilltop rim.[15]"

I'm not repeating about the previous edits-- that certainly is an error that I removed the second instead of the first. I CAN learn from my mistakes by myself, I don't need you ranting about my previous edits in order to learn from my mistakes. Perhaps just tell me in a straightforward way, and I would just do the right edit, instead of ranting more things in this talk page which does not contribute to anything. GeraldWL 07:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course I saw your edit – and you’ve finally got the basic step right, so well done.

By the way, I’m not the one here who is “ranting”, thanks. I’ve just explained where you were sloppy. It’s good you can learn from your mistakes, but if they’re not pointed out to you, you wouldn’t notice or know. I was quite clear in the edit summary what the problem was, but that obviously didn’t work, neither did my first explanation here, thus the second, longer, clarification. Perhaps now you’ve learnt the right way, you can ensure there’s no further sloppiness? NewtTickler (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

NewtTickler, I did learn not to rush in edits the next time, and I apologize if I turned rude previously. I'm usually the straightforward person, so long words can annoy me. No offense, of course. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year for ya. GeraldWL 07:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

NewtTickler, Anyway, this is unethical for some, but the reason I edited the article in the first place is because I was learning how FAs are like, since I'm currently planning to have an article to FA, and it's now on PR. If you're fine with this, could you see the article and perhaps give suggestions? It's lonely as hell and I don't want to deliver something for FA that's less than perfection. Again, this is only if you have the time to. GeraldWL 08:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)