1075:
similar? We should go with the most commonly used terms found in reputable history books. The sub-Roman and medieval kingdoms should remain on this template; whether we choose to stick with 'Welsh kingdoms' or accept an alternative such as 'Kingdoms of Wales', the word Welsh/Wales is quite appropriate. Wales did not come into existence with the creation of the
Principality of Wales. Polity does not equal country, and in any case the principality forged by the princes of Gwynedd did not include those areas under the control of the Marcher Lords, so Yorkshirian's argument holds no water. If it did it would also be wrong to speak of 'Anglo-Saxon England', not to mention other perfectly acceptable and common anomalies such as "
232:
214:
774:(*sigh*) I created this template more for my own evolutionary education than for any other reason, intending then (and still intending) to modify it over the course of time to be increasingly useful and informative. At my request, Enaidmawr was kind enough to point out some of the inaccuracies in the initial version, but was willing to live with them for the time being. I haven't gotten back to address all of them yet, but I haven't forgotten, either. I think my original choice of "kingdom" was ill-considered, but is the current environment a good one for tweaks and modifications? Regards,
1257:, which were sufficiently similar to merit inclusion within this made-up umbrella term). There never was any such thing as "Anglo-Saxon" anything, yet there is tolerance and acceptance of people who wish to describe this particular heritage in such terms (including on wikipedia), so perhaps the principle might also be acceptable for others, for example in what the word "Welsh" means. For myself, I think that the Welsh should lead in this area, not to have absolute power; similarly for those who might refer to themselves as of AS heritage. Regards,
1186:
applies also to the period before 1066. So some of the time it refers to, England as a kingdom existed. But your argument could easy be used with the name "Britain" and publications called "the
History of Britain" and so on, which is a much more solid geographical term. During the Iron Age and in regards to Brythonic tribes of that period Britain is less anachronistic than "Wales" or "England", since it falsely suggests a division along those lines when there wasn't one contemporary to that period. -
99:
242:
371:. This is the term used, and rightly so. Both your original edit and the most recent one are quite simply incorrect, apart from anything else, as this template includes kingdoms from pre-Roman to medieval Wales. I'm reverting to the original wording and bringing this up at the Welsh wikipedians' talk page. If we must have a change the only one I could support is 'Kingdoms of Wales', which would be in line with the category name.
148:
130:
359:, the standard modern work on that period, where numerous examples will be found of this and similar terms, e.g. " the Welsh kingdoms did indeed display remarkable powers of resilience and recovery as the twelfth century progressed" (p. 81), etc etc - I've no intention of listing the obvious from every possible source. The term is widely used by contemporary doyen of Welsh historians,
158:
410:! You or I don't need to ask on the talk page first before changing content. I think my change was good spirited and raises a valid concern and also was in good faith. Comments about anti-Welsh sentiment and such nonsense are an incredibly disgusting way to conduct oneself in an editorial though. Welsh history is in a terrible state on Knowledge.... I'll say it again
1049:
As already noted elsewhere on this page, the word "Welsh" has a variable history of usage, and there are also inconvenient inexactitudes in the use of other words such as "Brythonic" and "Cymraec". Is it possible to find an appropriate forum for this point? This page and the template's content cannot
495:
period, picking up on the common mediaeval term, a note on the pre-Roman period might be appropriate. In respect of
Kingdom, I've argued elsewhere (Cornwall) that this is probably not the right phrase, neither is petty kingdom. Enaidmawr is better placed to have a view on the proper translation. --
387:
Hello Jza84, I've reverted your edit back to the stable version. I hope that you'll bring an issue like this to the talk page and seek consensus before changing the template again. It may have been intended as an innocent description, as you state, but it is a change that ought to be discussed here
341:
If you actually knew something about Welsh history perhaps you might be better qualified to judge. As it is you are clearly pushing your own POV interpretation and should at least have the decency to consult with others before making such a radical edit to a key Wales template. Your arguments, such
1185:
Wow its one I created two years ago as well! weird, I can't recall making it. In any case, I think all
Brythonic tribes across Britain from that period should be contained within one single separate template to avoid anachronism. Enaidmawr the term "Anglo-Saxon England", while a complete construct
958:
These are
Brythonic kingdoms, the concept of Welsh hadn't been invented yet and at this point Brythonic kingdoms also covered much of what is today England and the Scottish Lowlands. IMO this doesn't belong in the same template as post-Roman kingdoms, where the concept of "Welsh" actually begin to
593:
The word "Welsh" has an amorphously inexact history of usage, as some of the eymology sections and articles show. It has additional characteristics and nuances to those who are Welsh and Welsh-speaking (myself not among them). The words "Brythonic" and variations of "Cymry" carry their own baggage
494:
I'm surprised you didn't realise that it would be controversial. There are two issues here, one is the use of Welsh rather than
Brythonic and the other is the use of Kingdoms. In respect of the first, while Brythonic is the language group, most modern history books use Welsh to cover the whole
1074:
Perhaps a seperate template for the pre-Roman kingdoms/territorial units - i.e. those of the
Deceangli, Demetae, Gangani, Ordovices, and Silures - is the answer? The use of the term 'Brythonic' for that period is not straightforward either. How about a template for 'Iron Age Wales' or something
868:
How about "Kingdoms of medieval Wales"? Then cut out the Roman-era and pre-Roman kingdoms and tribes for the
British tribes template. This way we can include all the kingdoms in what is now Wales during the period after Roman withdrawal and the final incorporation into the Kingdom of England.
845:
This template includes kingdoms of varying size, duration and importance from the Iron Age/Roman period through to the High Middle Ages. The only possible term is that which is in general use in just about any book or article on the history of Wales: 'Welsh kingdoms' or 'Kingdoms of Wales'
1005:
It would be just fine with "Welsh kingdoms" IMO, its contentious to assert that the early sub-Roman kingdoms were "within Wales" until such an entity (the
Principality of Wales) was founded in the 12th century. They were Welsh, culturally and lingustically, certainly but they were
988:
PS: In particular, I think it would be helpful in establishing the difference between those sub-Roman entities ("kingdoms") which can be described as being "within Wales", and pre-Roman entities ("tribes") which could better be described as "in the area which later became Wales".
571:
Hello Jza84, Enaidmawr's revert of your change (the first one) carried an edit summary of "You have got to be joking, not to mention downright ignorant and insulting!" ... this seems like an unambiguous announcement that the change is considered controversial, but that's only my
317:
as an "English kingdom" - it wasn't, of course; it was a petty kingdom inhabited largely by Jutes, Frisians and Saxons. Infact its like calling both
England and Wales "Federal Islamic Republican 51st state of Euro-America's kingdoms" in the year 3000 - when infact they were not.
734:
rename to Kingdoms and tribes of early Wales, denoting groups for Iron Age, Sub Roman, Medieval, etc. Since the nav box is Wales-specific, include all three time periods. Work could continue on the Iron Age tribes of Britain, possibly expanding further
902:
That works for me, Cuchullain. The earlier stuff has already been removed (rather prematurely perhaps) to a new template. All the remaining realms can be classed as medieval if we accept that includes 'early medieval', and few would argue with that.
1055:
Could someone create appropriate template(s) and seek feedback and comments? The successful editor would receive the accolades of a grateful community, and we could then consign this template's shortcomings to the ashcan of history. Regards,
959:
exist (roughly, but not solidly around the 6th century). There should be two separate templates for all the pre-Roman Brythonic kingdoms which are mentioned in Ptolmey's Geographia and then this one just for post-Roman Welsh kingdoms. -
350:
start? Have you actually read anything on the history of Wales? Clearly not, or you would have seen that the term 'Welsh kingdoms' or 'kingdoms of Wales' is so common that quoting examples is almost superfluous, but you could try
444:
Thanks for your response, Jza84. I'll take you at your word on what you say, and if you didn't suspect that your change would be a controversial one, as it certainly was, the discovery must have come as a rude shock. Regards,
1083:" as well, of course.) As for early and medieval Wales, it was united by law, language, culture and custom, so of course it is right to speak of 'Wales' from the sub-Roman/early medieval period onwards. Every book on the
1044:
For what it's worth, the issue of pre-Roman tribes/kingdoms/whatever was one of the problems that Enaidmawr noted when the template was created. He also noted a number of other problems and needed improvements.
770:
so far, and we ought not constrain feedback to just one interest group. Certainly the reaction from the other interest groups would be relevant to this discussion, as the change is to be made on a broad scale.
459:
I didn't think it would be at all, and for the reasons at the top of the page. For me, "Welsh kingdoms" is anachronistic, as these (petty) kingdoms pre-date Wales by centuries. It's comparable to saying the
342:
as they are, are highly disingenuous. Just what do you have aginast the Welsh, Jza84? (Not so long ago you were deleting references to Welsh nationality as "unverifiable"!). When exactly, in your expert
706:. Brythonic denotes language, not place. Kingdom is not the best word, but seems useful for the intended purpose which is to document ruling authority by name/date(period) of the location.
464:
is a "Scottish kingdom", when it was inhabited by Britons and Gaels (not Scots) and spanned what is now England..... however, if "Welsh kingdom" appears in sources, then fine! infact, I think
754:
Let's hold off consideration of this relabel/rename until we see the reaction to the change at some of the other "petty kingdom" articles and templates. The stated reason for using
1026:
I agree as well. If a kingdom occupied swathes of territory outside present-day Wales and pre-dated the concept of 'Welshness' then calling it a "Welsh kingdom" seems ahistorical.
739:
And Ireland? I have been communicating offline with two knowledgeable folks (one is Gerald Morgan) about this subject. More to share after Sept 16 when I'm back in town.
822:. The translations which I've seen suggest that "Welsh kingdoms" is fine. Alternatively, there are precedents for using the Welsh words themselves, for instance at
39:
1220:
However this gets worked out to consensus satisfaction is fine by me, Geaugagrrl, so am not feeling any rain on the parade; but yes, now that you mention it, they
1306:
1311:
313:
It strikes me as odd and retroactively changing history to claim these territories as "Welsh". They were Brythonic. The claim is analogous to claiming the
1321:
1253:, completely made up in modern times. For example, there is no such thing as "Anglo-Saxon law" (it was the laws of Saxon Wessex, Anglian Mercia, and the
74:
677:
615:
Perhaps this whole thing is a case of misunderstood intentions and reactions, and even if that is not the case, let's pretend that it is. Best Regards,
869:
Otherwise, we may have to divvy the template into more or less arbitrary timeframes, as has been done, for example, with the Roman province templates (
1010:
separate rival kingdoms, owing alliegence to different monarchs and houses. The concept of Welsh predates the reality of Wales itself by centuries.-
1316:
766:
is the best accurate description, and should be used. So far, this terminology is only being applied to Wales-related articles, this template and
1291:
264:
1296:
80:
736:
1119:, with a talk page. If this or something like it is acceptable, then its duplication in the "kingdoms" template can be pitched. Regards,
1301:
929:
I've implemented the change and combined the lists. It seemed the easiest solution to me, but this may bear further discussion later.--
255:
219:
936:
884:
180:
594:
and nuances. A forum for discussion seems appropriate, but this page and the template's content can't possibly be the right one.
1149:
1113:
302:
What exactly are the Welsh kingdoms? Kingdoms inhabited by the Welsh? -- Well, no, the Welsh are a modern nation who live in
20:
789:
Thanks for your work on the WP Wales project Notuncurious. Good plan to wait for comment and further development. A bit of
874:
231:
213:
69:
110:
171:
135:
60:
870:
643:
I've posted a notice on the WikiProject Wales talk page to invite comment on the proposed renaming of the template.
549:
I guessed you meant that, as Enaidmawr is a Welsh speaker, he would be best placed to provide a translation, yes?
1087:
I have read does so, naturally enough, so what right have we as wikipedia editors to go against that usage?
662:
360:
24:
1262:
1124:
1061:
779:
661:
re expert usage. Historians use the phrase. For example, in the The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales (
620:
461:
450:
393:
1145:
Not to rain on your parade with the new template, but this is already in place on come of the articles:
1191:
1015:
964:
307:
116:
933:
881:
685:
310:? -- Well, also no, these kingdoms pre-date Wales by centuries (Wales was a concept of the future!)
1092:
908:
855:
465:
376:
50:
263:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
179:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
994:
979:
835:
554:
247:
65:
1258:
1120:
1057:
775:
674:
616:
446:
389:
364:
46:
1187:
1031:
1011:
960:
680:.) entry for Dyfed, Kingdom begins: "One of the kingdom of early Wales ... " and elsewhere.
347:
818:
1158:
930:
878:
800:
790:
759:
742:
718:
709:
681:
646:
520:
482:
424:
328:
314:
260:
241:
1088:
904:
851:
794:
372:
1285:
990:
975:
831:
755:
670:
666:
550:
407:
1266:
1195:
1164:
1128:
1096:
1065:
1035:
1019:
998:
983:
968:
941:
912:
889:
859:
839:
806:
783:
748:
724:
689:
652:
624:
558:
544:
535:
527:
505:
496:
489:
454:
431:
397:
380:
352:
335:
163:
1027:
469:
758:, or some similar such, is that there are many candidate kingdoms, such as the
823:
514:
476:
418:
322:
237:
153:
1250:
767:
147:
129:
406:
That's fine that you've reverted..... but guys, get up to speed here....
1254:
827:
1249:
Yorkshirian, I think Enaidmawr's point re Anglo-Saxon is that it is a
1079:
England"! (There are plenty of books available on the "prehistory of
303:
176:
673:
et al., eds (2008). Cardiff: University of Wales Press. pp. 228.
816:
suggests that the term which needs translating into English is
92:
15:
813:
414:.... how many GAs and FAs? I'm only trying to help out here.
472:, then all these places can use the term with some context.
974:
I agree - such an approach could help minimise confusion.
534:
Not sure what aspect of my comment "How so" relates to --
468:
might even be a suitable article if it does satisfy
259:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
175:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
412:Welsh history on Knowledge is in a terrible state
762:(mentioned near the top of this page), and that
8:
954:Pre-Roman Brythonic Kingdoms are not "Welsh"
208:
124:
812:I don't speak Welsh, but a quick look at
408:you don't need permission to make an edit
109:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
1224:used to look remarkably undifferent ...
210:
126:
715:16:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Updated
253:This template is within the scope of
169:This template is within the scope of
98:
96:
7:
357:The Age of Conquest: Wales 1063-1415
1307:Template-Class Middle Ages articles
115:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
1312:NA-importance Middle Ages articles
14:
1322:All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
273:Knowledge:WikiProject Middle Ages
797:might be in order just now too.
276:Template:WikiProject Middle Ages
240:
230:
212:
156:
146:
128:
97:
40:Click here to start a new topic.
1317:Template-Class history articles
1155:. Isn't it exactly the same?
871:Template:Roman provinces 120 AD
942:20:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
913:23:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
890:15:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
749:05:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
1:
1292:Template-Class Wales articles
1267:15:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
1196:04:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
1165:03:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
1129:00:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
1097:23:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
1066:15:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
1036:09:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
1020:12:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
999:11:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
984:07:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
969:07:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
875:Template:Late Roman Provinces
860:23:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
840:18:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
807:16:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
784:16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
725:02:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
690:13:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
653:03:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
625:17:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
559:14:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
545:13:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
528:10:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
506:04:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
490:01:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
455:01:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
432:00:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
398:00:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
381:00:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
336:23:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
267:and see a list of open tasks.
183:and see a list of open tasks.
37:Put new text under old text.
1297:NA-importance Wales articles
189:Knowledge:WikiProject Wales
45:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1338:
1302:WikiProject Wales articles
192:Template:WikiProject Wales
225:
141:
123:
75:Be welcoming to newcomers
363:and is also used by Sir
256:WikiProject Middle Ages
1150:Celtic tribes of Wales
1114:Welsh Iron Age peoples
462:Kingdom of Strathclyde
70:avoid personal attacks
699:renaming template to
308:subdivisions of Wales
279:Middle Ages articles
669:, Menna Baines and
1109:Template created,
732:Alternate Proposal
248:Middle Ages portal
111:content assessment
81:dispute resolution
42:
1050:be the right one.
939:
887:
848:Teyrnasoedd Cymru
819:Teyrnasoedd Cymru
704:Kingdoms of Wales
678:978 0 7083 1953 6
639:Proposed renaming
543:
526:
504:
488:
430:
365:John Edward Lloyd
334:
295:
294:
291:
290:
287:
286:
207:
206:
203:
202:
172:WikiProject Wales
91:
90:
61:Assume good faith
38:
1329:
1163:
1161:
1154:
1148:
1118:
1112:
1085:history of Wales
937:
885:
805:
803:
747:
745:
737:using this list.
723:
721:
714:
712:
651:
649:
542:
540:
525:
523:
511:
510:How so Snowded?
503:
501:
487:
485:
473:
429:
427:
415:
388:first. Regards,
369:History of Wales
348:history of Wales
333:
331:
319:
281:
280:
277:
274:
271:
250:
245:
244:
234:
227:
226:
216:
209:
197:
196:
193:
190:
187:
166:
161:
160:
159:
150:
143:
142:
132:
125:
102:
101:
100:
93:
16:
1337:
1336:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1282:
1281:
1159:
1156:
1152:
1146:
1116:
1110:
956:
801:
798:
760:Kingdom of Kent
743:
740:
719:
716:
710:
707:
647:
644:
641:
536:
521:
513:
497:
483:
475:
425:
417:
413:
367:in his classic
329:
321:
315:Kingdom of Kent
300:
298:Welsh kingdoms?
278:
275:
272:
269:
268:
261:the Middle Ages
246:
239:
194:
191:
188:
185:
184:
162:
157:
155:
87:
86:
56:
12:
11:
5:
1335:
1333:
1325:
1324:
1319:
1314:
1309:
1304:
1299:
1294:
1284:
1283:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1069:
1068:
1052:
1051:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1024:
1023:
1022:
986:
955:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
895:
894:
893:
892:
863:
862:
850:covers both).
810:
809:
752:
751:
728:
727:
693:
692:
640:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
437:
436:
435:
434:
411:
401:
400:
384:
383:
299:
296:
293:
292:
289:
288:
285:
284:
282:
265:the discussion
252:
251:
235:
223:
222:
217:
205:
204:
201:
200:
198:
195:Wales articles
181:the discussion
168:
167:
151:
139:
138:
133:
121:
120:
114:
103:
89:
88:
85:
84:
77:
72:
63:
57:
55:
54:
43:
34:
33:
30:
29:
28:
25:Welsh kingdoms
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1334:
1323:
1320:
1318:
1315:
1313:
1310:
1308:
1305:
1303:
1300:
1298:
1295:
1293:
1290:
1289:
1287:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1223:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1166:
1162:
1151:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1115:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1054:
1053:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1042:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
996:
992:
987:
985:
981:
977:
973:
972:
971:
970:
966:
962:
953:
943:
940:
934:
932:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
914:
910:
906:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
891:
888:
882:
880:
876:
872:
867:
866:
865:
864:
861:
857:
853:
849:
844:
843:
842:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
820:
815:
808:
804:
796:
792:
788:
787:
786:
785:
781:
777:
772:
769:
765:
764:petty kingdom
761:
757:
756:petty kingdom
750:
746:
738:
733:
730:
729:
726:
722:
713:
705:
703:
698:
695:
694:
691:
687:
683:
679:
676:
672:
671:Peredur Lynch
668:
667:Nigel Jenkins
664:
660:
657:
656:
655:
654:
650:
638:
626:
622:
618:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
570:
560:
556:
552:
548:
547:
546:
541:
539:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
524:
518:
517:
509:
508:
507:
502:
500:
493:
492:
491:
486:
480:
479:
471:
467:
466:Welsh kingdom
463:
458:
457:
456:
452:
448:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
433:
428:
422:
421:
409:
405:
404:
403:
402:
399:
395:
391:
386:
385:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
349:
345:
340:
339:
338:
337:
332:
326:
325:
316:
311:
309:
305:
297:
283:
266:
262:
258:
257:
249:
243:
238:
236:
233:
229:
228:
224:
221:
218:
215:
211:
199:
182:
178:
174:
173:
165:
154:
152:
149:
145:
144:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
122:
118:
112:
108:
104:
95:
94:
82:
78:
76:
73:
71:
67:
64:
62:
59:
58:
52:
48:
47:Learn to edit
44:
41:
36:
35:
32:
31:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1259:Notuncurious
1221:
1121:Notuncurious
1084:
1080:
1076:
1058:Notuncurious
1007:
957:
847:
817:
811:
776:Notuncurious
773:
763:
753:
731:
701:
700:
696:
658:
642:
617:Notuncurious
537:
515:
498:
477:
447:Notuncurious
419:
390:Notuncurious
368:
356:
353:R. R. Davies
343:
323:
312:
301:
254:
170:
164:Wales portal
117:WikiProjects
106:
19:This is the
1188:Yorkshirian
1077:prehistoric
1012:Yorkshirian
961:Yorkshirian
663:John Davies
361:John Davies
306:. Are they
270:Middle Ages
220:Middle Ages
1286:Categories
1160:Geaugagrrl
931:CĂșchullain
879:CĂșchullain
824:Hen Ogledd
802:Geaugagrrl
744:Geaugagrrl
720:Geaugagrrl
711:Geaugagrrl
682:Daicaregos
648:Geaugagrrl
346:, did the
1251:neologism
1222:really do
1089:Enaidmawr
905:Enaidmawr
852:Enaidmawr
768:Glywysing
373:Enaidmawr
83:if needed
66:Be polite
27:template.
21:talk page
991:Ghmyrtle
976:Ghmyrtle
832:Ghmyrtle
551:Ghmyrtle
107:template
51:get help
1255:Danelaw
828:cantref
702:Ancient
697:Propose
538:Snowded
499:Snowded
344:opinion
1028:Pondle
1008:within
793:&
659:Oppose
113:scale.
1081:Wales
814:cy:WP
791:chill
572:take.
522:Talk
516:Jza84
484:Talk
478:Jza84
426:Talk
420:Jza84
330:Talk
324:Jza84
304:Wales
186:Wales
177:Wales
136:Wales
105:This
79:Seek
1263:talk
1192:talk
1125:talk
1093:talk
1062:talk
1032:talk
1016:talk
995:talk
980:talk
965:talk
909:talk
877:).--
856:talk
836:talk
830:.
826:and
795:kind
780:talk
686:talk
675:ISBN
621:talk
555:talk
470:WP:V
451:talk
394:talk
377:talk
68:and
355:'s
1288::
1265:)
1194:)
1153:}}
1147:{{
1127:)
1117:}}
1111:{{
1095:)
1064:)
1034:)
1018:)
997:)
982:)
967:)
911:)
873:,
858:)
838:)
782:)
688:)
665:,
623:)
557:)
519:|
512:--
481:|
474:--
453:)
423:|
416:--
396:)
379:)
327:|
320:--
49:;
1261:(
1190:(
1157:~
1123:(
1091:(
1060:(
1030:(
1014:(
993:(
978:(
963:(
938:c
935:/
907:(
886:c
883:/
854:(
846:(
834:(
799:~
778:(
741:~
717:~
708:~
684:(
645:~
619:(
553:(
449:(
392:(
375:(
119::
53:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
