Talk:Rhys ap Gruffydd

Effigy image

The lead image looks suspicious to me, and I think we need a better source for it. It's an early 19th century drawing of a knight in plate armour. It's not clear which book it is scanned from, so I can't verify that the book linked the effigy to Rhys. Even if the book does link the effigy to Rhys, maybe we shouldn't treat such an old source as reliable without a corroboration from a modern source. I doubt a 12th century Welsh lord would have worn armour like that. It looks more like armour that a 15th century knight would have worn. Can someone take a second look at this?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that this webpage might mention the effigy [1] (The Church Monuments Society website). It mentions an effigy in the south choir aisle, and states: "Top: Knight (14th century) head on helm with lion crest; tunic shows relief carving of lion rampant. Feet on lion with long tail. Said to be Lord Rhys ap Gruffydd (1197), if so retrospective".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Searching GoogleBooks I found snippets that mention the effigy. One of them is from the Turvey book used throughout the article. This is all I can see from the snippet: "Although there is no compelling reason to doubt that the tomb viewed by Fenton, which may still be seen today, contains Rhys's mortal remains, neither is there any firm proof, other than a strong tradition. The effigy thought to represent Rhys, a knight in full body armour, can be reliably dated to the fourteenth ...".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I managed to extract the rest of the paragraph; "can be reliably dated to the fourteenth century and no earlier. Why the original tomb should have been replaced and possibly moved, and who would go to the time and expense of constructing two undoubtedly finely carved effigies for both Rhys and his son, more than a century after their deaths, are questions which remain to be answered." Thhist (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

History of Wales has the effigy with the tag "Effigy wrongly alleged to be of Rhys ap Gruffydd in St David's Cathedral". No citation for saying it's not him though. Surely this was looked at and sorted out by the reviewers as part of the FA process? DeCausa (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should count on an old review process, but I agree that the tag you mention (in another article) seems inappropriate, although it seems equally wrong to simply state that it's an effigy of him. Based on the information I have seen here, I would say two things should be noted in the caption under the image, namely that it is "thought to be" of Rhys ap Gruffydd, and that the present effigy was made in the 14th century. Thhist (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I assumed it would have been re-reviewed before going on the main page today. I didn't realise FA's go back on the main page without a re-review. Hmm. DeCausa (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It was chosen to be the TFA (by me, because I am a TFA delegate and I wanted a Welsh-themed article on the main page today) on 14th February. That's plenty of time for anyone who is interested to check the article in detail before it appears. If I'm selecting an article, I will check for maintenance tags and deadlinks and will try to fix what I can (or choose something else). But I am not in a position to give every article appearing as TFA a review equivalent to that which would be given to an article at FAC or FAR. Bencherlite^Talk 12:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeing the effigy image on the Main Page today, my first reaction was, what's that behind his head? The article doesn't explain it, either.

If the "dubious" effigy image can still be seen, as the cutline for the St David's Cathedral photo says, wouldn't it make more sense to use a photo of the effigy?

Sca (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I changed "Effigy of Rhys ap Gruffydd…" to Alleged effigy of Rhys ap Gruffydd…" to affirm that there is no confirmation that the effigy in the picture is indeed that of Rhys ap Gruffydd. Revolution1221 (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Rhys's brothers

The article says that Rhys was born in 1132, the second son of Gwenllian, and one younger brother was killed in battle and another captured in 1136. Is this correct? DNB on Rhys says that he was the youngest son. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

"confusingly"

under the "children" section of the article, does the word "confusingly" mean that it's unclear why multiple of his kids have the same name, or that their having the same name has a confusing effect? maybe most readers understand what's intended, but i'm unclear on it. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rhys ap Gruffydd. 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/20071117021556/http://www.gtj.org.uk/en/subjects/5271 to http://www.gtj.org.uk/en/subjects/5271

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) 16:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

URFA 2020

The page is awash with images; are they all necessary? Particularly, perhaps, those of the numerous castles and abbeys? I've tried different screen settings and there are a couple of instances of MOS:SANDWICH. And two of the maps need their information sourced on Commons (that is, where the data came from to create them. I have been unable to do this, although I sourced the first one. Unfortunately, the image creator hasn't been active on any WMF project since 2010, so we're unlikely to hear from them. Access to specialist texts may be necessary. The references could be tidied, viz. publisher locations added.

I did a brief copy edit, spot-checked some sources (all clear) and checked for MOS errors. Apart from the above, no problems found. (Presumably because Jimfbleak already did the hard work in January! Tick VG!) SN54129 16:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding to SN's comments, just a couple minor things. I would recommend adding the brief discussion of his titles that's in the lead into the body as well, and the background states that Maelgwn was KIA, but later in the article it's just stated he was captured (execution seems plausible). There's also a tiny amount of uncited text in the children section (some of it's in the article already, but a few dates of death aren't). Marking as satisfactory. Hog Farm _Talk 05:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I did some image layout cleanup, and queried Ealdgyth re citing the two maps, which are likely sourceable to the same as the first (cited) map. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately not; the Walker map is basically the general political layout of the country around that time (counties, etc), and quite easy to source, but the next two—the extent of RaG's holdings at two different periods—are a lot more detailed. Minutiae, almost. I went through a lot of stuff but couldn't find anything. If only people would source their bl**dy data...even on Commons! SN54129 16:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Then I have suggested/inquired at Ealdgyth's talk whether we should comment them out. What do you think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, of course, it's a shame, but I did suggest cutting out some images; while I would've preferred some of the lookalike ruins to go, this would also work, wouldn't it. And if we eventually get sources, they can be as easily restored...? SN54129 16:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to comment them out then ... my concern is that, as soon as an article lands in the "Satisfactory" column, someone puts it up at WP:TFA, and we have cn tags here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Arfbais Deheubarth arms.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)