Talk:Buellt

Note

I guess the page histories have already merged, so it's clear which user had parked it. Regardless, apologies. — $Llywelyn II$ 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. About time this stuff got put to use.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Material for article expansion

Probably should go onto its own page, but (bizarrely) German wiki (and no one else) has a page devoted only to the cross shown. If the cross is really that important or special, maybe we should have a page, too? — $Llywelyn II$ 23:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's also more at the Buellt-related pages on Gatehouse-Gazetteer concerning the original Welsh castle, de Braose's motte, and Edward's (although the Builth Wells & Builth Castle pages are pretty good for that one already).— Preceding unsigned comment added by LlywelynII (talk • contribs)

That German article doesn't give us much to work with for the crosses. The castles may be worth getting into, or perhaps we could improve the Builth Castle article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruler List

Until that page gets overlong, probably better to list them in a new section at List of rulers of Wales#Buellt and link from here. I'm sure I could find the Nennius list, but anyone have something more, y'know, reliable? — $Llywelyn II$ 23:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually two relevant lineages: the Ffernfael genealogy from the Historia, and the later Rhwng Gwy a Hafren dynasty descended from Elystan Glodrydd. Lloyd's History of Wales vol. 2 includes that genealogy on p. 770. I don't know that the Elystan lineage was connected to Ffernfael, or Vortigern. It's also important to note there wasn't a king or kingdom of "Buellt"; Ffernfael's realm is given as both Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion. The Elystan line were active throughout Rhwng Gwy a Hafren – and they weren't kings.

I'd say the Rhwng Gwy a Hafren dynasty may be worth listing at List of rulers of Wales, however there are several more lines that aren't included. I don't know that Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion are worth including, since most of the kings aren't known from any other source and thus will never have articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historia written at Buellt?

I'm unhappy with the line, "The 9th-century Historia Brittonum, traditionally ascribed to Nennius, focuses such attention on the local dynasty and towns that some scholars speculate the author was a local of Buellt". One of the works cited, Todd, was written in 1848 and is extremely out of date. The other source, Thornton, only says the author may have been from the "border-regions of southeastern Wales", quoting David Dumville. Todd's suggestion that Ffernfail was the author's patron have been superseded by recent scholarship that suggests it may have been written in Gwynned for Merfyn Frych, but that the author may have been from the southeast (not necessarily Buellt). I'm going to remove that wording.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the line, and have added some more. I also replaced the 19th-century source for the name with more up to date ones, which offer a somewhat different etymology.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neuadd Siarman Cross

Another link to an actual image of the Llanynis pillar cross in Brecknock Museum: [1] That site dates it to the 9th century. Could perhaps be developed in the text, using also the gtj image I added as a external link in the current image caption? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how helpful that link placement is, but we could certainly add something about the cross if we have reliable sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is [2]. Not that helpful, hidden in the caption, really. Just added there as there seemed no better place. I guess either could go in External links, although they are just single images. I quite agree that something should be added in the text. Both of these sources are fully reliable, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is, those links don't offer us much information on the item or explain why it's significant to the article subject. They're just images and brief descriptions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. I just thought that real images were perhaps better than, or at least complimentary to, a drawing. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]