User talk:Tipcake

I think I agree that the spelling of Gruffudd Maelor I and Rhys ap Gruffudd is as you have moved it to now, and am not intending to revert the move, but I think maybe a discussion was in order for the featured article of Rhys ap Gruffudd. In any case, I would suggest you have only half done the change, as both articles now require editing to reflect the change. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that you are familiar with Ancient Greek, and I wanted to ask if you could help us improve the Ancient Greek Wikipedia, which we have been reviving over the past few months. You can see the recent changes here. --Caro de Segeda (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm .nhals8. I noticed that you recently removed content from Gofannon without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -- in the club bumping that 17:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, yes, I did so because it is not argued in mainstream academic source that he was a genuine reflex of a pre-Christian deity. Rather, the medieval Welsh recycled names in -on because they recognised their antiquity (and gof is just the word for smith in Welsh so it makes sense that he is associated with smithing). I shall include that in my next edit. Tipcake (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Ednyfed Fychan has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Someone anonymous has contested your input in the Kingdom of Gwynedd article regarding the Coat of Arms of Llywelyn, which was referenced by Siddons. Do you want to revert and explain, or alter the text. Either way, perhaps use talk to explain the revert ? Cltjames (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't add that section, I just changed the spelling of the names in it. It seems right to me to remove it, though. The first person to be attributed the arms is Gruffudd ap Llywelyn ab Iorwerth and the arms are never given to Gwynedd itself as far as I'm aware, rather always for just the 'Prince de Galles' or whatever in the manuscripts, as memory serves. Tipcake (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, over a year ago, some editors including myself tidied the Owain Glyndŵr article with references, structure and all-round work, but it hasn't been further developed since. I suggested trying to submit the article for GA assessment. After your work on Ednyfed Fychan, I was wondering if you'd like to help try to raise the standard and try and find some missing citations for the Glyndŵr article? Cltjames (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, in theory yes, but there's far more secondary literature on Owain Glyndŵr than for Ednyfed Fychan. I expect to read a bit more about him in the next few months anyways, so I'll chip in where I can. Tipcake (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. In terms of the work needed, Talk:Owain Glyndŵr#Good article is the talk and has some suggestions. Then there are just more than five citations needed to make it a clean article ready for GA assessment. I couldn't find citations for the missing work, I tried asking but no one else came forward, but going through the history might uncover the author of the text. Something I'll try doing now... Cltjames (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the majority of the citations needed (six needed) were done by an anonymous IP almost 20 years ago, so I'm undecided as to simply remove the work from the text and try for a GA or not... Any thoughts ? Cltjames (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

That's not too much to look over, I think. I'll have a look later this month as I need re-read RR Davies anyways. Tipcake (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, great thanks. As well as the CN, there are also 5 page needed citations, some of which are easy, others a bit more difficult. Cltjames (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it will take a bit more work than that, honestly. There could be more background given and there are certain claims made in the article which are not backed up by the secondary literature I have to hand, i.e. that Owain Glyndŵr was 'crowned' at the parliament in Machynlleth, which is not in the pages cited in the very book given in the article. As I said, I'll be looking at him more thoroughly soon, so I will keep you notified... Tipcake (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you removed some context to the ancestry chart created, last year we had a consensus talk about the inclusion of that text, and for Llywelyn II as well. Please feel free to contribute to the talk to find the correct solution. But as for now, I personally feel the inclusion as a back story is vital to explaining the situation. Diolch. Cltjames (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, please see my comments on the Owain Glyndŵr talk page. Tipcake (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I was subscribed and saw the notification thanks. So, we can move forward to say, the information is there, so it is legitimately discussed, therefore it is a note, am I right? Something essential for the backstory, but is heavily debated, so this should be highlighted, not excluded, just needs to be in the correct section. Cltjames (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I quite follow your comment, sorry. If you want my opinion, I would suggest removing the text under the ancestry section since it merely confuses the reader with all these different viewpoints when in fact all except the reference to the supposed daughter of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd are true. The early life section needs a rewrite too since it claims he was the legitimate heir to different kingdoms. I seriously, seriously doubt that any of the cited sources say that he was the quote 'heir of both Deheubarth (House of Dinefwr) and Gwynedd (House of Aberffraw)', since both dynasties had male members in the fourteenth century, albeit among the minor nobility. Though then again as they are Victorian sources who knows. I can do that now, if you like. Tipcake (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

By the way, here is what Ben Guy (prof at Cambridge) has to say on the matter in his book from his PhD thesis called 'Medieval Welsh Genealogies (p. 45, n. 239):

Iolo Goch, Achau Owain Glyndŵr (ed. Johnston, pp. 36-42); Johnston, 'Iolo Goch', pp. 90-3. It would be profitable to examine the genealogies of Owain Glyndwr found in sixteenth-century manuscripts to determine whether they could have been composed during his lifetime. Versions of a text designed to show that Owain Glyndŵr was, through his mother, descended from Llywelyn ab Iorwerth and King John are found in Llanstephan 12, pp. 18-19 and 65-6 (s. xvi^med) and Brogyntyn I. 15, pp. 382 and 391 (1593-6); these must derive from the common exemplar of those manuscripts, probably written by Ieuan Brechfa (cf. Table A.4.1.1). The constituent components of the same text are also, interestingly, found among the few genealogical fragments in Peniarth 51, on pp. 186 and 209 (written by Gwilym Tew in the 1460s and 1470s). Immediately following the text in Llanstephan 12, p. 19 and Brogyntyn I. 15, p. 382 is a pedigree of Phylip ap Madog ab Ieuan, whose pedigree also occurs in Peniarth 51, p. 143. Phylip ap Madog was an early patron of Gutun Owain, and his pedigree is recorded in two of Gutun Owain's own genealogical manuscripts: see Guy, 'Writing Genealogy', pp. 109-11. Perhaps Ieuan Brechfa and Gwilym Tew both used a manuscript by Gutun Owain that included this genealogy of Owain Glyndwr (cf. LlIG (GO) G40.2.1-2). Might Iolo Goch be alluding to this same written genealogy when he claims that Owain was 'Aur burffrwyth iôr Aberffraw' ("fine pure fruit of the lord of Aberffraw', 1. 96)?

It is probably simplest to just quote this and Bartrum's modern genealogies rather than the rigamarole of trying to make a coherent summary from outdated sources. Tipcake (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so it's important to use more than one source on the matter. So I changed the text and re added into a note for the text we created as a team to explain Glyndwr's genealogy, and you are welcome to write a second note. And then maybe we can think of a way of integrating the texts correctly for the article and its readers. Cltjames (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I just don't understand the merit of including the reference to the phantom daughter of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. If anything it brings attention to a long debunked myth and thus is unhelpful to the reader. I am happy to reconcile the rest in the early life section. Tipcake (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I feel the note is fine for whoever wishes to learn more in the article, as the conjecture does hold its own in the subject matter, also I've reincluded a similar text to the Llywelyn II article, because again, it is a missing piece of a jigsaw puzzle for readers and we went through with this before in a talk debate and decided on the inclusion. Feel free to rekindled the talks on Llywelyn II & Glyndwr. Cltjames (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I have kept it and reconciled the old and the new. Tipcake (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

It's a good addition, and wise move. Also, I re added a short few sentences about Edward I, I feel the addition is worthy of the text. Cltjames (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy to help! Tipcake (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, hoping all is well, hopefully you've had time to do some research, or at least think about improving the Glyndŵr article. I was reading the Owen Glendower, Or, The Prince in Wales, Elizabeth Hardy at Google Books, and that Glyndwr was a descendant of the third Tribe of Wales. I think that could be useful in adding, only there is the issue of a WP:RS (reliable source), because of the age of the source. I don't suppose you've seen this elsewhere have you ? Cltjames (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth mentioning because those categories (the 'tribes') are not medieval, but rather early modern inventions. They would therefore have meant nothing to Owain Glyndŵr or his supporters. It also surely cannot be true as he's patrilineally descended from Bleddyn ap Cynfyn, whose patriline in turn is only reliably recorded back a further two generations. It's already probably confusing enough for the reader explaining how he was descended from the Second Dynasty of Gwynedd and the one of Deheubarth enough as it is without explaining all the houses he is descended from in the female line, let alone one that didn't even 'exist' in his time. Tipcake (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, didn't see the IP squeezed another revert in there in between my series of edits just now. I'd have reverted it right away if I'd noticed. Apologies for making the revert slightly harder for you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Also to be aware, you are arguably over 3 reverts in 24 hours there. You might want to self revert the last, in case this goes to the edit warring noticeboard. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah right, ok, I'll leave it, then. I was just asked to help out to improve the article to GA status, that's all. Tipcake (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh don't leave the article. I'm happy to support your edits. Just trying to avoid an accidental 3RR block. Self reverting will remove any breach of 3RR (not sure if it is one, depending on whether your first edit is considered a revert or not). But the IP is edit warring, and that never works out well. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Peidiwch â phoeni, diolch am eich cytuno a'ch cymorth, te! Tipcake (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Dim problem. Hwyl. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

It's happened again, I'm afraid, if you're not aware. Sometimes I wonder if people have basic reading comprehension or even care about faithfully quoting sources..! Tipcake (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

On 24 January 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ednyfed Fychan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the earliest distinguished ancestor of the Tudors served as a diplomat, judge, and military leader to Llywelyn Fawr of Gwynedd? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ednyfed Fychan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ednyfed Fychan), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I have posted a report regarding our discussion on House of Mathrafal at the Administrators’ noticeboard for edit warring:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

This is for administrator review only. Please do not respond on the article or talk page; an admin will contact us if needed. 0waleshistoryedits (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Just so you know, I reverted because it is I who wrote that section, specifically from a book source noting the time period as the Cambro-Norse era, so literally a referenced section. I don't see what's wrong with the heading, especially because it is referenced. Can you explain requested change please? Cltjames (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

It isn't used in Wales and the Britons, neither Wendy Davies' Patterns of Power in Early Medieval Wales or ib. Wales in the Early Middle Ages, or in Life in Early Medieval Wales by Nancy Edwards. Instead, they use 'Viking period' to describe the era. The only place I could find 'Cambro-Norse' in use is in A Corpus of Early Medieval Inscribed Stones, vol 1, where it refers to an archaeological find, a type of carved cross, and Mark Redknap speaking of a 'Cambro-Norse phase' in the archaeological history of Llanbedrgoch. It therefore appears to refer to a type of archaeological stratum where there is found evidence of Norse settlers and culture in Wales. It does not seem to be used by historians at all.

I wrote this earlier, but I've just got a copy of the book you cite and the same author uses it there to describe... "The geographical position of north Wales and its close sea-borne connections to the Isle of Man, Dublin, the Wirral and Strathclyde, naturally led to some engagement between its coastal population and the Scandinavian world. The extent of this engagement has long been debated, but the term ‘Cambro-Norse’ has been usefully adopted for the period c. 850–c. 1100 (Knight 1984)" (p. 401) and "fashion or culture which should more appropriately be called ‘Cambro-Norse’, reflecting the contact between the two cultures in the territory," (p. 407), confirming my suspicion that it is not a term referring to a historical period at all, but rather a certain archaeological and cultural phenomenon. Tipcake (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Giles 1841 translated Nennius explanation that Cunedda arrived 146 years before the reign of Maelgwn in 547, making Cunedda's arrival in Gwynedd at 401. This is not factually incorrect, it is an old style of calculating dates which the Welsh used prior to the newer calendars. Besides, where is the reference for the year 500??

What I did was a note, leaving the date as circa is WP:DUE, I don't want an edit war, this is a simple edit which is justified. I don't see a counter argument succeeding sorry, so, please let it be, because the note is simple and factually correct. Feel free to comment, but no need to reject, this could go to a talk, but frankly no one will care. In terms of this addition, it just makes sense... Cltjames (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Also there are noted seneshals before Llywelyn, as in Owain Gwynedd had stewards, so why is this not noted in the infobox? Cltjames (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The first contemporaneously arrested distain is Gwyn ab Ednywain, and the first important one is Ednyfed Fychan. I don't mind adding them all so long as there is contemporary evidence of them, not later lore like for Hwfa ap Cynddelw or others Tipcake (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I know what the HB and AC say. But no modern historian accepts the credibility of the story of Cunedda's invasion and his sons as it is 9th-century propaganda acting as propaganda for Merfyn Frych… Tipcake (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

It was an oral tradition passed generations, the only piece of information regarding the beginning of the kingdom, so why choose the year 500 randomly without a reference ?? Cltjames (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

No modern scholar thinks it's oral tradition, it survives in a written text from 829. 500 is our earliest evidence of 'Gwynedd' as it is when the Cantiorix Stone is dated Tipcake (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Heraldry society website is a WP:RS, it claims Owain Gwynedd had stewards, this should be included in the main body of text or a note if a steward is to be mentioned. Cltjames (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Llywarch ap Brân was allegedly Owain Gwynedd's distain, but there's no contemporaneous evidence of this and David Stephenson is not confident he really was steward: see Political Power in Medieval Gwynedd p. 110. I even mention this in the Ednyfed article since Ednyfed married his daughter. The source of the tradition is 150+ years later than Owain Gwynedd's death and isn't as reliable as contemporary evidence. Tipcake (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Then why is this not added as a note, this way the full story is better explained..? This could go as far back as mentioning how Ednyfed's ancestor was the 'Protector' of Rhodri Mawr, surely a similar position to steward just a different name. Cltjames (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Marchudd likely wasn't a real person, just an invention of late medieval genealogists who wished to flatter their patrons. I've added the disteiniaid to the info box now, in any case Tipcake (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

This should be mentioned as a note to the founding date of kingdom, giving 401 as the mythical date of its foundation. Cltjames (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

But the 401 date is not asserted by any medieval source, it is an academic reckoning by reconciling Nennius' narrative with the record of Maelgwn's death in the Annales Cambriae, which anyways has recently been argued is bogus and based on a fictitious plague in an Irish annal said to have happened in the same year which killed a nonexistent Saint. I forget the name of the article but it's in the last version of Studia Celtica from December 2025 Tipcake (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

But why not go one step further and explain this, instead of keeping this information secret, it can be added to the article as a note explaining the depth of the story. Cltjames (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I can rewrite it if you like, there are tweaks I'd like to do with it but I'm alas rather busy at the moment… as I've not been able to work on the Owain Glyndŵr article much either! Tipcake (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure, no rush. If I had the sources, I would conduct some research and do some work. So, I'm proposing to add a complicated note to the year of foundation, on the lines of Giles did note the year 401 is when Gwynedd was first occupied permanently, but then to explain the mythical status of the claim as it has been heavily debated. Cltjames (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Tipcake. Thank you for your work on Elidir Sais II. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice start! IS it possible to expand this? Thanks and have a wonderful day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Goronwy Fychan ap Tudur. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has no sources. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ScalarFactor (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I've added a source now, sorry, I had to get up while editing. Could you approve it now? Tipcake (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Tipcake,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Goronwy ap Tudur Fychan for deletion, because it's a redirect to a non-existent or deleted page.

If you don't want Goronwy ap Tudur Fychan to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Uffda608 (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Tipcake. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Gruffudd Fychan de la Pole".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 22 February 2026 (UTC)