Talk:Timeline of Welsh history

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Up to date sources are required[edit]

We can't rely on other articles to be stable or to be reliably sourced, I've seen sources/text messed with far too often to make assumptions about them. Doug Weller talk 11:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent the past five days building this new article in my sandbox and wanted to get it published as soon as possible so that other editors might be inspired to jump on board and start making contributions, particularly with sourcing content.
In many cases, sources can be picked up from the linked articles, but of course these need to be checked before being used here. Some things are sourced from books and other publications which cannot be easily checked for viability unless you happen to have a copy of the book at your disposal.
Does anyone know of any wiki guidelines that cover the rules on sourcing list articles such as timelines? I've noticed that other similar articles are very minimalistic in their approach to sourcing. It does seem logical that as the list is just regurgitating information from linked articles, the latter should bear the responsibility for providing the sources (and keeping them up to date). Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RB - it's surprising how time-consuming it is finding and verifying references, but I've done a few (as have you). I'll try to do some more tomorrow (around the rugby, of course). Cheers, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that great Clash of the Titans. May the best team win! Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LISTVERIFY. Good work both of you, sorry I don't have time to help. I must cut down my 17,000 page watchlist! Doug Weller talk 14:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: looks like we'll probably make the 100 today :) Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: 200 and counting :) Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodney Baggins: you guys are brilliant, we need more like you! Doug Weller talk 12:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced to 1099[edit]

I think up to the end of the 11th century is now adequately sourced. Tony Holkham (Talk) 00:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony, I'm guessing you have shelves full of Welsh history books at your disposal? I've been concentrating on the more contemporary stuff that can be sourced using online material. And I'm slowly filling up the 21st century section with the most important events. Would you be able to add a few more events for the 2nd to 10th century sections? They're looking a bit bare at the moment. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not on the shelves, no, but quite a few older ones I've downloaded and spend quite a bit of time reading and cross-comparing; surprising how some 19th century "historians" will write "facts" and not provide a source. Early first millennium verifiable facts are hard to come by, but that's what I plan to look at next.
Will you complete the tabulation, or do you want me to?
And are we including sport? T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can sort out the tabulation once the earlier sections are a bit more complete. I find it easier to build up the lists using bullets first. I'm in the process of completing the 11th century list at the moment and then I'll do the 12th and 13th. Hopefully your sources will be able to verify the additonal entries.
The article should be limited to legal, political, territorial stuff, so I'd say no to sport unless it's something particularly significant that marks an important point in history, e.g. the first game of rugby ever played on Welsh soil, or something like that. I'm steering clear of popular culture things too, but I would consider Welsh traditions like the eisteddfod to be very relevant to the history of the nation as a whole. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12th century[edit]

@Tony Holkham: I'm still looking at the 12th century stuff. It's totally mad! Bleddyn ap Cynfyn's sons (Iorwerth, Cadwgan and Maredudd) were quite a wild bunch by all accounts. Just take a look at this...

        • 1102 – Iorwerth ap Bleddyn, Prince of Powys, is manipulated by King Henry I of England into ravaging Shropshire on his behalf and betraying his own brother Maredudd
        • 1103 – Iorwerth ap Bleddyn rebels against Henry I, but is captured and imprisoned, leaving his brother Cadwgan ap Bleddyn as sole ruler of the areas of Powys not already in Norman hands
        • 1109 – Owain ap Cadwgan, son of Cadwgan ap Bleddyn, abducts his cousin Nest ferch Rhys from Cilgerran Castle
        • 1110 – Cadwgan ap Bleddyn and his son Owain are hounded out of Ceredigion by a groundswell of Welsh leaders, enraged by the Nest incident; Owain flees to Ireland but Cadwgan disowns his son and makes peace with the king
        • 1110 – Owain returns to Powys and enters into an alliance with his cousin Madog ap Rhiryd – Iorwerth ap Bleddyn is released from prison after seven years in captivity; he briefly regains the rule of Powys after driving his nephew Owain out of the kingdom
        • 1111 – Iorwerth ap Bleddyn is murdered by his nephew Madog ap Rhiryd, and the rule of Powys returns to Cadwgan ap Bleddyn, before he too is murdered by Madog; Owain ap Cadwgan takes over the rule of much of Powys
        • 1113 – Having been employed as penteulu (captain of the guard) by his nephew Owain, Maredudd ap Bleddyn captures Madog ap Rhiryd and sends him to Owain, who avenges his father's death by having Madog's eyes gouged out
Do you think this should be included, or is there too much confusing detail? I might be able to summarize it somehow but it's not easy! Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rodney, I would be inclined to summarise this period, such as "1102-1113 Period of violent power struggles for regional control between English crown and Welsh leaders such as..."
Tony, I noticed you've added a general entry at the start of the 12th century section. That reminded me that I needed to sort out the early 12th century madness of Iorwerth ap Bleddyn and his brethren. I've made an attempt but please feel free to edit/amend as you see fit! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rodney: good idea in principle; I'll try to find the right ref(s) to cover it. I think the key is to help the reader follow the timeline of the development of Wales as a nation without too much detail, and too many characters (such as in those novels you give up on because there are just too many characters to remember). Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Castles, Abbeys and Priories![edit]

There are a lot of these in Wales, and if we try to include the construction/founding of each and every one of them, the article will become rather choked, so we should probably limit them to a handful of the most famous/important/influential. As an English person (!) I would say that Neath Abbey and Tintern Abbey are most famous and my favourite castles are Harlech (bin there loads of times), Pembroke (bin there), Caernarfon (famous for investitures), Cardigan (it has a comical name). Please could a Welsh person (!) advise. Thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My take, as an Englishman very familiar with Wales, is that historical events linked to castles, etc., are more important than their foundation dates (which are so difficult to pin down anyway), so such structures can be linked when they are historically, militarily or politically relevant. If this makes sense? Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good idea. I've included the foundation of Tintern Abbey because it was particularly important as the very first Cistercian monastery in Wales. I'm currently trying to fill in the 12th century section, lots of shenanigans, not all of which are particularly relevant! Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots which aren't there any more, of course, like this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

to 999[edit]

Rodney - I think we're fully sourced to 999. Some entries in the 10th century may be superfluous, but we can look at that later. Enough for today; it's nearly tomorrow... Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony - yes it's gradually developing. One thing I'm not sure about: you changed the citation for the bishop Morgeneu murder and altered the date accordingly. The ref. I put in yesterday came from the horse's mouth (so to speak), that is the St. David's Cathedral website, who I would have thought ought to "know the truth", but their date conflicts with the one in the Chronicle of the Princes. Which of these is most likely to be a reliable source for the date? Must get to bed now. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rodney - Sorry, I thought I was replacing my own ref, not one you had put in. Trouble is, it's so difficult to pin dates down exactly, but it appears in the Chronicle before the 999 (or 1000) accession of Cynan, so must have been before? The cathedral website doesn't give a source for their date. It's not a problem if you want to alter it. I'll have a look in some other sources. Tony Holkham (Talk) 00:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
John Davies says 999, but he had read the Chronicles (he says on the next page!), which say 996, so I don't know where he got 999 from. Tony Holkham (Talk) 00:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, I have no problem with you replacing my citation, I'm only concerned that we get the date right. So I've emailed St. David's cathedral to find out if they know something we don't. You never know, they may be able to provide us with some new source material that we didn't know about, or they might just not bother writing back. Who knows. In the meantime I'm happy to leave it at 996. Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we have to accept some leeway in dates in documents that far back, compiled long after the time. I wonder if they had any idea people would still be interested over a thousand years later. ;) Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References in centuries[edit]

Rodney, I am going to try to tackle the 11th century refs today. It would help me if I tagged those sections which need refs, if that's OK with you, rather than the tag at the top of the article. Other editors would then have a clearer idea of what's to be done, too. Those tags could then be removed (with a cheer!) when appropriate. Looking forward to seeing the first millennium fully tabulated, though I will still add more (with refs, of course) as my research continues. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good idea to tag the individual sections but I think we should retain the main tag at the top of the article. I'll add a link through to this talk section to explain what needs attention. That will make our requirements clearer and hopefully encourage others to contribute, especially if there is anyone with special knowledge or interest in any particular areas that remain unsourced. Please feel free to edit the text below if you think it needs further clarification.

Sections that require more references[edit]

The material in the article is adequately referenced up to and including the 10th century section. Citations are missing in each of the sections from 11th century onwards. Each of these sections has a mini-tag at the top but (in my view) the sections listed below are most in need of further references:
  • 11th century  Done
  • 12th century  Done
  • 13th century  Done
  • 14th century  Done
  • 15th century  Done
  • 16th century  Done
  • 17th century  Done
  • 19th century  Done
Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, the 8th century section only had one entry (Offa's Dyke) so I decided to research and expand it. I've managed to include a couple of acceptable citations but I wonder if any of it can be sourced using your reference material? Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it - see last section below. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tony, I've come to the conclusion that it's about time we removed the main tag at the top of the article, considering that we have almost 250 refs. now and it doesn't look as if anyone else is concerned about it. The individual sections still have their own mini-tags and removing the top one will make the article look more visually appealing. Any objections? Cf. Timeline of English history which has only four citations, many blank sections, and is generally a complete mess. To be fair, I feel I should step in and assist there considering how English I actually am... Rodney Baggins (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Agreed.  Done Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist duplications[edit]

There will inevitably be some duplication in the reflist as we add sources; these can be fixed invoking a Sources section eventually. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed this morning that the Chronicle of the Princes is cited 4 times: Refs. 38, 41, 45, 46. Was the Chronicle a regular running feature in the Archaeologia Cambrensis or was it just a one-off article in one particular issue of the journal? If the latter, we can probably simplify the references to point to one citation (maybe using sfn format), but if it's a running narrative over several issues of the journal, then we obviously need separate citations, but they should be in consistent format.
And talking of sfn format, I'm thinking at a later date it might be best to provide a Bibliography section with Harvard links from the Refs section. This might be a good way to separate the serious reference material from the more trivial news articles. But I'm probably getting ahead of myself here... Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to leave such formatting to you; I think I may be allergic (often had trouble, and only just mastered the rp template). Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Chronicle as it appears in Arch. Camb. is a one-off. Of course, others have published it. Shame the original Latin version is lost. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Davies[edit]

Currently we have three different editions of A History of Wales by John Davies. Can we choose the latest (2007) which is online (but which has pages missing from preview)? Also any thoughts about ref style? Would harv style be better? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Harv style, and have got my Davies refs from my 1994 paperback edition, so I don't think I can help with this question, sorry. I'm happy to source all his refs from this older edition, if it makes for consistency. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Yes, I think consistency is always preferred, regardless of ref style. Probably need to revisit style when all entries have been added and sourced. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC) p.s. for Harvard style see Parenthetical referencing[reply]
Ah, yes, Martin, I have used this style without knowing its name. I don't know which I prefer (or which WP prefers). I have recently started to follow Pdebee's rp example with his Pembrokeshire edits. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Kewel beenz" as these young scallywags would have it. Chortle. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well done on adopting the {{rp}} template, Tony, and what an ambitious article this one is! Let me know if you'd like any help with it (like formatting the isbn= parameters, for example; "Hyphens for Hire", here! ). Good to be reconnected with you again, Martin; remember this?
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 09:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The credit for this most useful article must go to Rodney, Patrick. For my part, I love citation-hunting, and am currently reading, enjoying and using Williams's scholarly (and itself thoroughly-sourced) book, though I have to admit I cannot work up any enthusiasm for the art of citation style. So I will leave that aspect to those who can. So long as my citations are understandable, I am happy, and will continue with what (I hope) I do best. Cheers-hyphen-thanks, T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy, Patrick. Yes, vaguely! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: I think this article is crying out for harv style referencing because there are so many lofty tomes involved, which would sit very nicely in a Bibliography section at the end. This would enable us to separate the serious reference material from the more trivial news articles. As mentioned above, I was thinking of doing this at a later date when the refs are a bit more stable. Unless you want to jump in and have a go yourself... Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am reminded of that wise old Welsh Nigerian proverb: "The frog does not jump in the daytime without good reason." So yes, I'll wait, thanks! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rodney, Martin, I have combined all the Davies refs according to the pages nos. in my 1994 "Davies" for consistency, as I am going to use that edition to ref some more events. I don't think it matters that we don't use the latest edition. Hope you agree. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. We miss having an (incomplete) online source. But you are the one with the source in hand. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me too! Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, both. 686 pages and very small print; don't no-one hold their breath... Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

King Arthur[edit]

My next question is: whilst we know not to mention the war, do we mention King Arthur, and if so how? He is mentioned in several scholarly history books of the 19th century and earlier. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's OK to mention King Arthur in passing, as long as he's referred to as "the legendary King Arthur" and any material is tied in closely to the source text, possibly with the use of direct quotes, so it's clear we're not stating it as fact. Legends are generally thought to be based on a modicum of truth, so it should be OK to include but tread with care. This is only my opinion of course! Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - is this all right? Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's fine but I noticed that Arthur's connection with Wales is not immediately clear. Although he is usually connected with Camelot, a fanciful castle/court with no definite fixed location, the wiki article for Camelot states that Arthur's chief court was generally located at Caerleon in Wales, which is traditionally connected with Arthurian legend. So it might be worth mentioning the Caerleon connection, with a direct reference to the sources that make this link (e.g. works of Geoffrey of Monmouth and Thomas Malory). Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not real history of course, just fanciful mythical folklore? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a grain of truth, and it's best to mention him, rather than he be the elephant in the room? Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and Merlin's sister used to live on the Bulmore Road and take washing in, lol. I guess you are right, although King Arthur makes no mention of Caerleon. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
His sister...? Is that a fact? I must make a note of that. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. I'm not sure that Wisty, E. L. (1979) is considered a WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New unsourced events[edit]

Rodney - I was just about to start referencing the 12th century this evening when I saw you had added to the 8th... where did they come from (presumably somewhere!) - other WP articles? I think we have to be careful not to take one step forward and two steps back, otherwise an uninvolved editor is going to come along and start deleting unsourced refs, of which there are still a lot. Perhaps if the events go in, but commented out...? And/or you could report them here, where they'd be picked up. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Tony, I thought the 8th century needed expanding so I picked up material from various different places and built it up like a jigsaw. If you can verify any of the events, please do so, otherwise yes we could comment some of it out for now if you prefer. Sorry to throw a spanner in the works. Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok. I'll work on the 8th first. You were quite right that it needed more. Cheers, T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And you're right, I did mostly get the information from other wiki articles which don't themselves have adequate sourcing, e.g. Rhodri Molwynog, Caradog ap Meirion, Battle of Hereford, Offa of Mercia. This was after doing a general Google search on Wales in the 8th century to throw up the basic events. That's the way I work Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good way of trawling for info; I was only questioning putting them in the article too soon. The truth is out there... Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Morning Tony, anything that can't be verified in the 8th century list, please just delete it. As long as we have more than one or two entries, that's fine. I'm going to tabulate the earlier sections today (3rd>8th) and then if I happen to come across any additional events that I think need to go in, I'll bring them up here on the talk page first before adding them. I could do with getting back into the 21st century really...! Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to keep up with you :o). In a situation like this, I like to work through one source for events of significance, so at first it might seem we are relying too heavily on few sources (such as Williams and Brut), but that will balance out when I work through other sources (probably Davies next). All good fun, so long as I remember it's not a job... Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you imagine how great it would be if we were getting paid for this!? Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6th century[edit]

Tony, I've just tabulated the 6th century and changed one or two things, as noted in my edit summary. Feel free to revert any of my changes if they don't agree with your sources. One thing I've noticed: the entry about the plague doesn't tie in because it makes no mention of any particular connection with Wales, but I've found that (according to the wiki article) Maelgwn Gwynedd died of the "yellow plague" which was quite probably the arrival of Justinian's Plague in Britain. Would it be possible therefore to combine the two entries, something like this:

  • 547 – Death of Maelgwn Gwynedd, king of Gwynedd, known for funding the foundation of Christian churches throughout Wales;[36] Maelgwn may have died of the bubonic plague, a pandemic that spread across Europe and beyond, mostly via trade routes, in the early 540s[37]

Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Above looks just right. I've been looking at Dewi Sant, not officially canonised until the 12th century. His bishopric, Menevia, was renamed Ty Dewi in his honour after his death. I'll put that in. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd 1912[edit]

I think I've fixed these, and replaced one with Davies1994. Lloyd is of limited use (to me) because I can't access the pages in full, only snippets. I'll resume trying to source the unsourced events tomorrow, starting with the earliest. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template: History of Wales[edit]

I have added this article to the above template, which I think should go at the top of the article, as it has links to all aspects of Welsh history. Any probs with this? Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good idea, and I've added the template to the article, which looks pretty cool don't you think? Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly does. Tony Holkham (Talk) 17:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about the See also template in the lead? Not sure where it should go, or whether we should just leave it in the body text like before, or remove it altogether? Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

Before I could start on the 12th century, I had to get my growing list of sources in some sort of order, so I went the whole hog and created Bibliography of Welsh History, which I hope will help others as well as me. It contains as many online links as I can find, and I will add to it as I find more. Some are downloadable free, and make fascinating reading (there are SO many historical Welsh articles that are poorly sourced). I hope I can get back to sourcing this article's mediaeval events soon; maybe tomorrow (if tomorrow ever comes, that is...). T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this bibliography covers the whole of the History of Wales series, I would still like to provide a dedicated Bibliography section at the end of our article, so that the reference books can be presented together in a coherent list, separate from the other references. The related inline citations can then be changed to sfn format so that they appear in the References section as brief links down to the Bibliography section. Please take a look at Tintern Abbey which is the type of referencing style I'm proposing. The Bibliography entries would be in alphabetical order (Aldhouse-Green & Howell 2004, Allen 2016, Barrett 1994, etc.)
@Pdebee: do you know if it's OK to use a combination of sfn and rp templates? If a book is only cited once or twice, the page numbers can be contained in the {{sfn}} template, otherwise I hope it's OK to use {{rp}} where there are a large number of tags pointing to the same book. Take ref.6 for example (Jane Williams (Ysgafell)'s History of Wales) – this is cited 26 times, so unless we make use of inline rp tags then we'd end up with up to 26 separate related notes in the Refs section (which would be ridiculous). However, something like Ref.5 (John Barrett's Fragments from Antiquity) is only cited once so the page number can be contained in the sfn template and would then show up in the related note. I think it's best to avoid unnecessary rp tags as they can clutter up the text. Any thoughts on this? Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the 12-17th centuries still need refs, which will considerably increase the total number of refs and cause more work if changes are needed, shall I stop adding refs until the above is clarified? Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the sections above also discuss sources, so the question is getting a bit fragmented. A firm decision would be useful at this point. I'm happy to hold off, but I'm happy with either style (and agree about the need to avoid clutter). Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could carry on for now while we're discussing it, as I don't know how long it will take to make a decision. It should be quite easy to swap over to the new style once we've clarified it. Or if you prefer to wait and then adopt the new style for further references... Your call. If it helps, I could give an example of what I'm talking about in my sandbox? Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, I'll carry on. I keep finding more refs. I quite like the style used in History of Wales, but I said I wasn't going to interfere...! Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look in my sandbox. I've separated out the book citations from the other references and put everything in sfn format (just for the first 2 sections for illustration purposes). I hope it's mostly self-explanatory but I'll try to give an overview later. Gotta go on school run right now... Rodney Baggins (talk)
Rodney - Thanks for doing that. However, I'm slightly confused by the three source sections when I was expecting just Refs/Notes and Bibliography/Sources, whatever they are called. If you want to look at "Smith 2008" you don't know whether it's listed in References or Bibliography, so finding it is not simple, and I wouldn't like it to be difficult for readers to get to the source. Perhaps it should be just References and Sources? Or maybe I'm missing something, which is quite likely, and why I have tended to take a back seat on this issue. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I'm sorry you're confused, I suppose it is a bit confusing at first sight. Don't forget this is just my own interpretation of how things can be done, but I may be doing it entirely wrong and could really do with some input from others, e.g. Pdebee. By way of explanation: Anything that can be classed as a published work, with its own ISBN number, will come under Bibliography (although I've noticed that Ysgafell 1869 is missing an isbn parameter). This section can stand on its own as a list of works ("lofty tomes") that someone might want to skim through, so it's a good idea to have them all listed in one place. Anything that doesn't fit in the Bibliography section, e.g. newspaper articles, online reports, PDF files, basically anything that can't be classed as a published work with its own ISBN number, goes into the References section. Anything in this section will potentially have an access date, because this material may be updated by the originator at will. Of course, published books can also be updated, but this requires a new version to be published with its own unique ISBN number, so it can be separately identified. The Notes section is simply a bare list of quick links that come directly off the inline sfn tags in the body text. Each one links down directly to EITHER a published work in the Bibliography section OR a more "flimsy" source in the References section. So with your example, "Smith 2008" links down to the full citation in the Bibliography section, and the "Smith 2008" entry in Notes is just a stepping stone to that. You wouldn't normally expect the reader to pick individual items off the Notes section without first linking to it via an inline tag.
We could just have two sections, called References and Bibliography, where the published works are linked through to the Bibliography with short format templates, and all the other "flimsy" stuff is just left as is. This is how they do it in Tintern Abbey but I'm not sure I like the idea of mixing up all the short sfn links with the longer citation definitions, simply because the sfn links get a bit lost in the fog.
I've also seen Wiki articles where everything is put under References with subheadings "Sources" and "Bibliography", but I can't think off the top of my head where I've seen this, and not sure if I actually agree with it! Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rodney Baggins; You asked me: "do you know if it's OK to use a combination of sfn and rp templates?" I don't see why not, simply because they are all templates. If you look at WP:CITESTYLE and the all-important WP:CITEVAR, you can see that what's important is to implement a consistent style, and decide whether to use templates throughout, or not use any templates at all (if you look into the source of Ernest Hemingway, you can see that the editors adopted a Harvard-style approach, without using any templates at all. However, some of these editors have also used {{cite web}} templates, which surprises me in a featured article!) Personally, I never use the {{sfn}} template, simply because you can use the |page= parameter in the {{cite book}} template when you cite a book only once, and then use the {{rp}} template when you cite a book several times, per WP:IBID. Then, all the details pertaining to your cited books appear in a single section (References), instead of being split across two sections (Notes and Bibliography). But I realize these preferences are clearly subjective . I hope this helped, for what it's worth.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 18:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input Pdebee, I've done a bit more pondering and decided that the Notes/Refs/Bibliography arrangement is probably a bit over the top, so I've now gone back to the more conventional approach of using two sections: References (includes all web citations and short format notes) and Bibliography (contains all the published works identified with ISBN numbers). Please take a look here. It's not so bad and I think it could work. You mentioned the Ernest Hemingway article – I don't like the fact that there are no links provided from the notes down to the relevant entries in the Bibliography section. The reader just has to go down and find the source for themselves. My approach includes links for every note. The idea of the Bibliography section is to keep all the books together in one place to provide a kind of library of sources that the interested reader might want to use for their own research. If we were to use the |page= parameter with the {{cite book}} template, we would end up with a page number in the book's entry in the Bibliography list which would look out of place as this is supposed to be a sort of master repository of books, rather than just a list of the portions of the books that we've used for our article. I hope this makes sense. I've decided to hold off for a while anyway. Maybe Martin would like to pitch in at some point? But I think it's best to wait until the book collection is a bit more stable, because Tony might decide to substitute one or more book sources for more suitable alternatives. Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome, Rodney; I really like your solution, which is excellent, IMHO. On the subject of Ernest Hemingway, I don't like that approach either, although it's an interesting example of how an article can reach featured status even though citations could easily become inconsistent without the aid of templates. Also, there are editors who shun templates because they clutter the source of articles, and I can certainly appreciate and respect that view also, which is why I always insert spaces between citation parameters, as I did recently for Pembrokeshire, so the "clutter" is a bit easier on the editor's eye.
In any case, I think you and Tony are doing a great job here and, when you're done, this article will have much better references than its siblings for England and Scotland! I also admire the work that Tony is doing on the Bibliography of Welsh History article; a most impressive resource! All very best wishes of continued progress.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 08:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This looks OK. I'm happy if you want to wait, or if you want to start now. I don't want to create extra work for you by continuing as I am, so keep me posted; I may do some more sourcing today. I'll certainly keep building the Bibliography, but that's a separate issue, so don't let it confuse the bibliography on this article.
On a related issue - should I be putting ref names in quotes? And should the ref names be author and date, rather than something else (e.g. Ysgafell, which I used to avoid confusing with any other Williams)? I am happy to go back and revise them if I haven't been doing it right.
T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, it's good practice to put quotes around ref names (see the guideline here: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Repeated citations), and "name" can be anything you like except all numeric. I tend to use a standard of "AuthorYear", which could be further differentiated into "FirstnameSurnameYear" to ensure uniqueness. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 10:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wise One; always helpful. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tony; I am always happy to assist where/when I can, but thank you for your kind and sage words , and for your many contributions to our encyclopedia. With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 12:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pdebee: I'm extremely pleased with your enthusiasm, it's always good to get some appreciation from a seasoned Wiki devotee, thank you! Unless there are any objections, I'd like to implement my References/Bibliography solution but I'll do it piecemeal so it won't cause too much disruption. Assuming Martin is tied up at the moment, I'd like to make a start on this by creating a stand-alone (for now) Bibliography section and copy the book citations into it. Then I can start applying the {{sfn}} templates into the main body and changing the full book citations to short linked notes in the References section. I'll start with the books that are only cited once to make things easy and go from there. The books that are cited several times, e.g. Chronicle of the Princes, will likely only need one sfn link and page numbers can be displayed using inline {{rp}} templates as they already are at the moment. Pdebee: maybe you could help by tidying up the ISBNs and add spacing to the cite book templates? Tony: hopefully none of this will affect what you're doing too much but if there's anything you don't agree with, just let me know.

Dear Rodney; Thank you. I'll be happy to assist with applying the hyphens in |isbn= parameters and add spacing, as you requested; I'll wait a bit, until you've made progress with the action plan you outlined above, but please don't hesitate to contact me when you'd like me to spring into action. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 08:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Pdebee, you said above... if you look into the source of Ernest Hemingway, you can see that the editors adopted a Harvard-style approach, without using any templates at all. That's the very reason why the notes in the References section don't link through to the Bibliography. The "Harvard-style" notes are bare and (in my opinion) of little use because they don't lead anywhere! And that's precisely the function of the sfn template! I might go in and help them put that right at a later date, but TBH I don't have any particular interest in EH.

We are of a mind on this point , although 'bare' ref tags are definitely allowed. Beware of changing from one citation style to another, though; as WP:CITEVAR stipulates: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. But, as you said, you have no interest in Hemingway.
Finally, and since we're going to be working together on this project of yours, please feel free to call me Patrick.
With kind regards for now; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 08:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just found out that NHS prescription charges are going up on 1st April from £8.80 to £9.00 (per item) ... as I've said before, it's all very well having devolved governments with their own law-making powers in Wales/Scotland/Ireland, but when us English are at the mercy of the incompetent and heartless BRITISH government (no devolved assembly for England!) we definitely get the fuzzy end of the lollipop stick... Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both, for all this. Right behind you. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rodney;
As you requested yesterday, I have now added hyphens to all the |isbn= parameters in the Sources section, in accordance with Pattern for English language ISBN numbers. I have also reviewed all the books listed in the References section, and noticed that most of the books there are already listed in the Sources, except: 13 (Davies, J), 26 (Frere), 30 (Grant), 32 (Bartum), 38 (Rosen), 98 (Richards, M) and 146 (Brownes, D & G). I didn't know whether you are planning to add these into Sources also, and therefore left them alone. However, if you intend to add them in the Sources section also, then I'll wait until you've done that and return to check all the |isbn= parameters one final time. Hope this helps.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Patrick, great job! There really wasn't any rush, as I'm only part way through filling up the Sources section, as you have noticed some sources are missing, and there are quite a few more that you didn't notice. For example, 7 (Williams), 21 (Lloyd), 27 (Laws), etc. These have no isbn number at all at the moment, so you may have overlooked them in the Refs section. The idea is to duplicate all the publications in Sources first, then substitute each entry in the Refs section using inline sfn templates with links to the relevant Sources via short notes in the Refs section (as demonstrated a while ago) – I still have the example in my sandbox if you want to take another look. I'm anticipating a few problems but I'll bring them up as they occur. I think it might be worth starting a new section here as this one has grown rather long and the heading (Bibliography) is out of date, as I decided that Sources was more appropriate. So I'll start a new section. See you there... Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You’re welcome, Rodney. Yes, I only looked at book references that already had ISBN numbers and ignored the rest. Feel free to give me a heads up when you’re completed your end of the task and I’ll go over the Sources section again. I agree that a new section here at the talk page would be a good idea. Good luck and thanks for the opportunity to work with you on this. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 22:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cymuned[edit]

Rodney - I can't find anything on them more recent than this in 2008. The links on their article seem to have been archived or are dead. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I presume Cymuned isn't around as a separate group any more because your source says they were struggling to survive in 2008 and their Wiki article uses the past tense (but says nothing about when they folded). I've done a bit more digging and managed to find a couple of sources that I can use to back up the existing entry. I can't find a source that specifies the date as 11 July 2001 so I'll just have to change it to July 2001.
I'm going to work on the 19th century next, and then the 17th, so I expect we'll probably meet somewhere in the middle! Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13th century references[edit]

Rodney - I'm halfway through the 13th century, making some changes as I go, which I hope are OK; I know I'm relying on one source at the moment, but Davies is highly regarded, so this should not matter. Hope you agree. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 01:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony, fine by me. I notice that you added an entry saying that the title of regional rulers changed from "king" to "prince" in 1200. Must admit, I'd been wondering about this because the terms seem to have been interchangeable and I've been a little confused about which to use in some places. Assuming that 1200 is just an approximate date (unless someone suddenly made an announcement about the title change), maybe we should put "c. 1200" in the date column? In the 12th century section, we've used "prince" rather than "king" in two places: 1102 refers to Iorwerth ap Bleddyn as "Prince of Powys"; and 1188 calls Owain Cyfeiliog "Prince of Powys Wenwynwyn"; but these are prior to the 1200 changeover. Is this an inconsistency that we can live with or should we change them?
I don't think it matters; the rulers themselves were not consistent, and some of the illogicalities of early Welsh history (or at least of the early writers) are well illustrated in the timeline. There are plenaty of links for people wanting to know more. Davies says "by 1200..." so I'll put that in. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We had some input the other day from Ehrenkater which was most welcome and helpful. I do hope Ehrenkater will continue to show an interest and seek out errors that we've not noticed. He seems to have checked the earlier sections and a couple of things he pointed out in his edit:
  • 313: The Edict of toleration should have been called Edict of Milan because that's where it was linking to. But did you actually mean this to point to the Edict of Serdica, also known as the "Edict of Toleration by Galerius", which came a couple of years before the Edict of Milan? Which of the two does the citation actually refer to?
  • 1404: Cleanup tag indicates that the information is inconsistent with the 1400 entry. We've stated that OG set up the first Welsh parliament and was proclaimed Prince of Wales in 1400 AND 1404. The BBC source is ambiguous. It states "Owain Glyndwr was reputedly crowned prince of Wales at a parliament in Machynlleth in 1404" but also says "A group of supporters proclaimed him Prince of Wales" shortly after the revolt that began in 1400 and prior to subsequent events in 1403 and 1404. Can you find a reference to this in Davies or one of your other reliable sources so we can clear this up? Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will try to clarify this when I get there. I'm working chronologically so the timeline is clear in my mind (always, hopefully, with the definition of "history" in sight: history is the answer to the simple question: How did we get here?). Shouldn't be too long getting there! Cheers, T Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
13th century sourcing complete. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony, I have been watching, but been busy working on snooker articles lately. I think you and I both needed a bit of a break from this project as it had been getting rather intensive! I shall be getting back to the 19th century shortly, but I think most of the unsourced entries there can probably just be removed TBH. I hope your back problem has improved by the way. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rodney - When I resume with Davies et al, I will try to expand the first millennium, but will concentrate first on completing sourcing the 14th and 15th centuries. You're probably right about deleting some unsourced 19th century entries (for now, at least). Then we can get rid of that ugly header tag, which I always think is off-putting for readers. Regarding my back, I am having to be careful, but much more comfortable, thanks. I suspect some accidents and injuries in early life that I shrugged off at the time (as one does) have left a legacy that I am "enjoying" today. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14th century[edit]

Rodney - 14th century sourced, but for one query - see 1327. Tony Holkham (Talk) 00:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, might the 1327 snippet be removed altogether if his stay at Llanthony Priory was so brief? Could these additional points be added/sourced instead? I'll just jot down my thoughts here...
  • Oct 1326 - King Edward II flees to Wales after his regime collapses[83]:512 ...and retreats to Caerphilly Castle in South Wales
  • 16 Nov 1326 - King Edward II is captured by rebel forces north of Caerphilly in South Wales and escorted back to England via Monmouth Castle; he is forced to relinquish his crown two months later[83]:514-515
  • (delete) 4 April 1327 - King Edward II, now a prisoner, is transferred to Llanthony Priory[citation needed] (he's already been deposed at this point so maybe not worth mentioning?)
  • (add?) April 1327: Edward's final remaining forces surrender, after being besieged at Caerphilly Castle for five months

Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would simplify further for balance of relevance to Welsh history:
  • 1326 - King Edward II retreats to Wales with his forces after his regime collapses; he is captured by rebel forces north of Caerphilly, escorted back to England via Monmouth Castle and relinquishes his crown two months later[83]:512-515

Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that sounds just about right. As long as the additional Monmouth Castle bit is covered in your source, I'd stick with that. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Monmouth is covered by ref 83's page range.  Done Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources section[edit]

Work has started on this new section and as it is called "Sources" and not "Bibliography", I thought it best to start a fresh section here, but the previous discussion (above) is still relevant. First problem to report: see this edit – Ref. 98 (was 96 before I added 2 new refs. above it) has author M. L. J. Richards for "Monnow Bridge and Gate" but when I looked up the isbn-10, I found that the author was given as Michael Rowlands. Which of these is correct? I'm hoping that Richards was a typo. If you look at the book on Amazon, the front cover clearly says M. L. J. Rowlands! Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sources section pretty much full of book citations now, thanks for your help Patrick. I was aware that ref.2 (Pollard) & ref.147 (Browne) were outstanding (well spotted!) but I wasn't sure how to tackle them as they were not as straightforward as some of the others. I'll check them more thoroughly later. There are a couple of other sources that may or may not need to be included, e.g. the Nennius chronicles (ref.48) and the Cambrian Journal (ref.56) which appears to have been reproduced in book form by "unknown author". In the meantime, I've tried out an sfn template for the Rowlands source (ref.99) and it appears to have worked. If you have pop-ups enabled, hover over the [99] tag in the 17th century table, you should see the Rowlands short note pop-up, then if you hover over the "Rowlands 1994" in the pop-up, you should get a 2nd pop-up above, which gives the full book citation. Alternatively, click on the [99] tag, which directs you to the short note in the Refs section, then click on the "Rowlands 1994" link there to see the full book citation in the Sources list. Hey presto! Please let me know if this works for you and if there are any errors or issues that arise. Thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Rodney,
Very well done! I’m very pleased for you that it all worked out as you had expected after your initial sandbox test. Only a bit more donkey work to go through () and then you’ll have accomplished your objective. I am glad to have been of some assistance and will remain on standby for some more if you need it. I’ll keep an eye on this article for a little while longer anyway. Best wishes of success with the final stretch of your effort; this article looks most excellent!
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 19:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony Holkham: hi there Tony, I've been transferring the books over to the new Sources section, checking details as I go along, and some of the citations have no page numbers. Please can you help with this? The books listed below have no specific page numbers provided for verification, so it looks as if we're just citing the entire book.
  • 1st century: (c. 75) Campbell(2006) pp=?? Rodney Baggins - this is listed in sources but not cited in 1st century that I can see - Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC) >>> Tony Holkham - I replaced this with an online source because I couldn't find the info in the Campbell book (see this edit) - if you're happy with the Campbell source please provide a page number (maybe I'm missing something) otherwise we can stick with the Cardiff Uni citation and the Campbell book can be deleted from Sources. I must now sleep! Speak tomorrow. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rodney Baggins - yes, delete Campbell from Sources. Sleep well. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd century: (—) Aldhouse-Green/Howell(2004) pp=226  Done
  • 4th century: (385) Jones(2015) pp=22-23  Done
  • 5th century: (410) Allen(2016) pp=?? Allen unhelpful; extended Davies instead  Done
  • 11th century: (1056) Maund(1991) p=4 (only covers part of the entry)
  • 12th century: (1106) Hull(2005) p=102 just the one page  Done
  • 13th century: (1284) R.R.Davies(2000) pp=??
  • 14th century: (1384) R.R.Davies(1996) pp=?? Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rodney Baggins - I have done 385 (amended to 389). The rest will need more in-depth investigation when I have more time. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony, there's absolutely no rush. I can probably find some of them myself anyway, with the help of Google! Cheers. Rodney Baggins (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, or go to the wikilinks in the entry and see what supports those; I usually start there, following wikilinks and their sources, and a Google search if no luck. Google books can be frustrating because of what they will and will not let you see; but then they want you to buy the book, don't they? Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the Cunedda/Bartrum ref came from Cunedda article, so I don't know the answer to the question in your edit summary (best to ask here, as I can't respond to an edit summary) - maybe NLW will have access to the text? I'll add it to my list. Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rodney, Patrick - after some fun with Domesday in West Sussex, I am ready to "come back" to Wales and resume ref-hunting. Please let me know if I am formatting incorrectly (and tidily!). I'll have a look for the missing page numbers. Best wishes to you both. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony, I just did a little correction to the citation you added the other day. Don't forget to put the ref parameter at the end of the citation template, otherwise the linking doesn't work. I'm going to convert a few more of the existing sources in the next day or two. Hope you are well. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rodney, I've added a couple of refs, to find the book is already in the sources list, so I think I may be hindering rather than helping, because I don't know, when I find a ref, whether it is already being used. I tried to see a copy of RR Davies 1995 using my library card, but no luck. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony. The version of "The Revolt of Owain Glyn Dŵr" by R. R. Davies in Sources is the original hardback, 1st edition, published January 1996, ISBN 978-0198205081. I think the version you are using is the paperback, published 1997, ISBN 978-0192853363. Same book, just different editions. I imagine the page numbering is the same, but to be on the safe side we can always change the Sources version of the book to the paperback that you're using. I'll have a closer look at your edits tomorrow, need to go to bed now. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please check. I may have fixed the RR Davies refs which, although in the sources list, was only cited once. I have cited it twice more (but not with sfn template). I"m not using the RR Davies book (I don't have it - I have J Davies 1994). I'll keep searching for sources, but you will have to check my work. If I'm causing more trouble than I'm worth, I won't be offended if you say so! Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes some of this is a little confusing but as long as we're doing our best, I don't think anyone can complain! A couple of questions I need to ask you about the page numbering:
  • Maund 1991 ref. (for 1056 entry): this was originally page 216, so how come it has drastically changed to page 4 now?
    • The item in question is mentioned right at the beginning of the book, so that is better than hunting for the page (which Google make difficult) Tony Holkham (Talk) 18:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • R. R. Davies 2000 ref. (for 1284 entry): I identified this myself as possibly pages 368, 422, 461. I think these were just pages I found that mentioned the Statute of Rhuddlan so maybe not specific enough. Please can you check this and change it if you don't agree?
    • I will check. I'd like to read this book, so will try to get hold of a copy. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 18:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to put the new R. G. Grant source into Sources with inline sfn citation format. I have a query about this book but I'll ask it after I've done that, might be clearer then... Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I've just added the new Grant book to Sources and changed the inline citation to sfn format. I have cited ISBN 978-0-7893-2233-3, which is the original hardback edition, published by Universe in 2011. Its title is: "1001 Battles That Changed the Course of World History" (note the word "World"). The version that you have cited is ISBN 9780785835530. This appears to be a paperback reprint, published by Chartwell Books in 2017, with slightly different title: "1001 Battles That Changed the Course of History" (word "World" has been dropped). Have you physically got a copy, or are you just looking at the online version that you provided a link for? Amazon have further confused the issue because the version here looks like the 2017 reprint (according to front cover and ISBN given in Product details below) but if you Look inside, it is clearly the 2011 version (different front cover & ISBN inside). The fact is that both editions have the same number of pages (960), so I imagine that the type-setting and page numbering are exactly the same. They just have a different cover illustration and slightly different title (!) So, having said all that, I would prefer to cite the original hardback edition (ISBN 9780789322333) rather than the later paperback edition. Is that OK? Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I don't have a copy of either, I'm afraid. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 18:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. In answer to your If I'm causing more trouble than I'm worth... the answer is no, not at all, it's all good fun :) Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17th century[edit]

Rodney - this is the final century that is yet to be adequately sourced. I will do some homework on the Civil War, because John Davies (1994) does not go into detail in respect of military action in Wales, only saying that Wales would have preferred to be neutral rather than taking sides! It's not a period of history that I'm familiar with, so I will tackle it from the point of view of the places you mention.

Good to see, though, that almost everything else is now (mostly reliably) sourced. Congratulations on building such a comprehensive and useful resource. Are you going to tackle Timeline of English history next? (Only joking) Best wishes, T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Tony, thanks for all your perseverence. I've been away from the laptop for a while as I've been swotting up for my advanced driving test which I passed on Monday (hurray!) I'll go through later and check all your recent additions in case there is anything I can add or any questions that arise. There are still quite a few things on my to do list that need finishing off too. I think between us we've done a pretty good job here, and yes actually at some point I shall be doing some work on the English timeline, but the Welsh one will always be my first port of call. See you later. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN[edit]

Rodney - re Davies 1961, I don't think you should change the edition, as the page numbers may well not be the same. Remember that ISBN did not start until 1967, so no edition before that will have one. If one has been given, it must be a different edition, not just a reprint. That's my understanding, anyway! T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Williams 1961? Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, yes. I misread your edit summary and have Davies on the brain. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was pretty sure there wasn't a Davies 1961! The Williams book is problematic because the original hardback edition (1950) does appear to have an isbn (978-071951531-6) but the later paperback reprint (1961) doesn't (that's odd!), although it does have an ASIN (B0000CKXA2). As I'm quite keen to stick to using ISBNs rather than ASINs wherever possible, and in the absence of an ISBN for the 1961 edition, that's why I resorted to the older 1950 version. A bit odd. Not sure what to do. Do you have any ideas about this Patrick? The other book that has no ISBN, only an ASIN, is "Cardiff Castle: Its History and Architecture" by John P. Grant (ASIN=B000XGBFR8) but this is probably not so unexpected as it was published in 1923 so your argument for no ISBNs before 1967 holds true there! But I think in many cases, ISBNs have been issued retrospectively for older books. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Rodney (and Tony);
Long time no speak! I have now hyphenated the Williams book, as you requested this morning.  Done
When in Sherlock Holmes mode and searching for details on books, a tool that works well for me is BookFinder, which lets you search by ISBN numbers, but also by other criteria, such as author, title, etc. (click on Show more options... right under the Search button and it displays a more detailed menu for these). Having scrutinized what BookFinder knows about David Williams's A Short History of Wales, there seem to have been editions in 1950, 1961, 1963, 1965/66, 1971, 1976, 2001 and 2009, with most of the earlier editions up to 1976 described as having 134 pages (when a page number is documented). I couldn't find an occurrence of the 2001 edition with a page number indicated, and the 2009 edition is listed as having 224 pages. Here is the list of occurrences returned:
  • by searching on ISBN number (35 books);
  • by searching on title (86 books on the main list; there are four shorter lists also, when you click on Go back at the bottom of the main list).
I hope this helped a little. Well done for all your efforts here; this article looks great!
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 14:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sherlock: great work. I think you have some little grey cells as well... T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Castles[edit]

Rodney - Just a thought - would it be better to use this <ref>{{National Historic Assets of Wales|num= |desc= |grade= |access-date= }}</ref> template instead of offline book refs? The CADW refs have some historical detail, and are immediately accessible, but each entry would have to be checked that it does support the event in the timeline. Happy to do that if you want. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that sounds like a great idea, if you want to have a go. Feel free to remove the castle books already in Sources. Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, I think. Let me know if I've missed anything. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked that these new CADW refs. support the events in the timeline? Were you intending to replace the offline book refs or use both? There are 2 other Cadw castle books currently in Sources: Beaumaris Castle by Arnold Taylor (sourcing 1306 & 1330 events); and Conwy Castle by Jeremy Ashbee (sourcing 1401 event). Can these also be covered with the new template? Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First question: not yet, but I will get round to it. Second: No; it makes sense to leave them both in, as the printed books may contain more information, for anyone wanting to make a trip to the library. Third: I will get on to Beaumaris and Conwy, probably this evening. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beaumaris and Conwy entries don't need the CADW refs as the sources quote page nos., but I've added them anyway. I will check all the others. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rodney - I have scanned all mentions of castles, and can't see any problems with the sourcing (most have source + page no. anyway), but please let me know if you need anything more on this question. I'm back to Pembrokeshire articles in the meantime. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I wrote a reply late last night and then forgot to publish it so just found it hanging round in an open window on my laptop, sorry... Thanks Tony, I've added the links for the 3 castle books we were talking about originally (Butler/Kenyon/Taylor), without page numbers. It would be nice to be able to add those in eventually (if you happen to get your hands on any copies at any point on your travels...) but I think we've covered this pretty well now! I'll get back to looking at the other outstanding books/changes next. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legal, territorial, political[edit]

I was about to add the 1176 Cardigan eisteddfod to the timeline, but realised it doesn't fit the 'legal, territorial, political' criteria currently in the intro. But then, neither do many (or any?) of the more recent 21st century additions fit the criteria. My question is, should the inclusion criteria be expanded, or should the miscellaneous 21st century entries be removed? Sionk (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1176 is in there, and yes, I think the inclusion criteria could be expanded. It depends how you define "history", I suppose. Rodney Baggins started this article, and would no doubt have a view, too. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Yes, I've just noticed the 1176 eisteddfod is already included, silly me. Sionk (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the eisteddfod entries are important as they are part of the national heritage of Wales, which is particularly true of the National Eisteddfod. Of the "Legal, territorial, political" criteria, the "legal" and "political" are perhaps fairly self-explanatory and succinct, but (in my view) the "territorial" is more ambiguous, open to interpretation, and wide-ranging, including national/county boundaries, fighting over territory (as in historical battles) and also the nation's identity/culture, which is where the eisteddfods fit in. There may well be some dubious entries in the 21st century section that I'd be happy to discuss here. We definitely draw the line at popular culture and sporting achievements, which is why the great Geraint Thomas isn't in there! Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh government's new policy document[edit]

@Sionk: Hello, you reverted my edit and correctly pointed out that there are no secondary sources available to indicate the significance of the new policy document. I have searched and found none. However, in light of the current political shenanigans going on around Brexit and questions over the future of the union, I think it's worth adding at least one or two "events" to the Timeline to cover Wales' position regarding what are essentially important territorial issues. Would any of these be appropriate as candidates?

Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These all seem to relate to the UK staying in or leaving the EU. Personally I think the Timeline shuld list important events in and about Wales. And verifiably important events, at that. Sionk (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_Welsh_history&oldid=1210724949"