Talk:Garth Celyn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

	Middle Ages Portal Garth Celyn is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

I believe that this article is still work in progress. However, I would like to make what I hope are some helpful suggestions:

Apart from the capture of Dafydd ap Gruffudd near Aber Garth Celyn, the passage from 'The invasion of Wales was accompanied by savage reprisals...' to '...but that it existed before the conquest' is largely irrelevant to the subject of the article and should really be moved to a more general article on the English conquest of Wales which does not currently exist.

I take it that the 'Declaration of Garth Celyn' was the November 1282 letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury? I suggest that this is given its own article and that the 'Garth Celyn Letters. November 1282' and 'Extracts from the Register of John Peckham, 1282' sections are transferred there.

The literature section at the end needs some explanation.

Walgamanus 21:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of Garth Celyn

What is the etymological meaning of Garth CelynDrachenfyre 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopaedic?

There is no explanation to accompany the tag, therefore I am removing it until the editor explains what he or she means. Deb (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding to this sooner. In retrospect, I agree I should have written something like this when I tagged the article, though at the time I thought it was obvious. Clearly it wasn't.

Why did I mark it unencyclopaedic? Well, the article starts off very well: the "Early History", "Llys Garth Celyn, the royal court" and "Wales becomes England's first colony" sections are all very good. The next section, "Garth Celyn after the English conquest" seems a bit of hotchpotch of unconnected facts, but that's not a serious objection, and maybe that's all there is to say on those events. The real problem is with the next two sections.

Irrespective of how important the Garth Celyn letters are historically, it's not appropriate to have such long extracts present (or complete text if that's what it is). Compare it, for example, with the Magna Carta article. I suspect that the Magna Carta is of at least as much historical importance as these letters: but only three clauses from the Magna Carta are quoted. This article should do likewise: quote a few particularly noteworthy passages, and give a broad overview of the rest. The full text can always be moved to Wikisource and linked from this page.

Then there's the "Extracts from the Register of John Peckham, 1282". What can I say? It reads like a series of library index cards. — ras52 (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that this article needs some work done on it, but I cannot agree that it is worthy of deletion, as the tag suggests. 17:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyn Lleol (talk • contribs)

I agree that the article dosen't deserve deletion, though I do think the article would be significantly better off without the last two sections. I've retagged these two sections specifically. I'm quite content with the remainder of the article, as I said above. — ras52 (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to remove the text from the 'net. Just put it in the right place - wikisource.

It's a mess, but don't understand the {{unencyclopedic}} idea. Have change to {{cleanup}} maybe more suitable. Change back if you like but identify what part of WP:NOT applies. SunCreator (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Errors in letter translation or transcription

I've spotted a dating error in the letters. The letter 361 (CCCLXI, no MSS (ie manuscript number for the Lambeth archives) is given) states that 11th Dec 1282 is the Friday after St.Lucy's Day. However Monday 14 December 1282 (or Sunday 13th depending on the system in use, the 14th is more likely) was St.Lucy's Day. This is consistent with the letter 372 for example which states the 17th to be the Thursday after St.Lucy's Day.

Now where that error comes from I don't know. It does look like some notes of the translator have been included. Also without MSS numbers and better referencing of the whereabouts and nature of the manuscripts these translations can't be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbhj (talk • contribs) 03:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Pbhj (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)