Talk:Cantre'r Gwaelod/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move

This merge should be done ASAP. I believe this article has the more recognisable English form of the name. Walgamanus 18:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah i think the merge is a good idea - redirect from other page to here however. I think this is the most common spelling. Pydos 08:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The other article should be merged to this one. --Jugbo 20:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by "more recognisable English form". Both words are Welsh neither are English. "Cantre'r Gwaelod" is probably the more recognised 'form', and you will find reference to it in most modern Welsh texts as such. 144.124.16.33 17:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm months behind. But why has Cantre'r Gwaelod been redirected to here? Wouldn't it go the other way around? Or, failing that, either/both to Cantref y Gwaelod? Telsa (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The recent addition of the cy: page (which spells it Cantre'r Gwaelod) has reminded me of this, and I still want to know. Why is this en: one at Cantref Gwaelod? Telsa (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Cantre'r Gwaelod is the only correct form of the name. Apart from making no grammatical sense, "Cantref Gwaelod" is historically incorrect (and it's a name that goes back centuries and has a deep resonance in Welsh culture). I've read a great deal about Wales, in Welsh and English, and have never come across this version before. Let this be moved to Cantre'r Gwaelod, where it belongs, as soon as possible, please. Enaidmawr 21:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

See above: no-one has justified the original move since it was made a year ago. For the benefit of any admins, there is some further agreement that it should be at Cantre'r Gwaelod over on Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board#Cantref Gwaelod/Cantre'r Gwaelod. The only reason I listed the move request in the "Potentially controversial" section of WP:RM was that someone, at some stage, saw fit to move it here in the first place and I suppose they might come back. They're still wrong, but there you go :) Telsa (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. :) -- Arwel (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I, Telsa, was the one who originally merged "Cantre'r Gwaelod" to "Cantref Gwaelod", and I did it because there were two articles that pertained to the same subject. The consensus at the time, as you can see above, was that "Cantre'r Gwaelod" should be merged to "Cantref Gwaelod", so I did it since everyone else was just talking about it. Obviously, the name of the article is easily changed. Jugbo 18:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could someone indicate a pronunciation for the word for us non-Welsh-speakers? I can guess at "Gwaelod", but "Cantre'r" is less obvious. Also, does the pronunciation differ when spoken by English speakers? 69.95.233.41 (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Map of lost land

The section Origins of the Myth might be modified - while talk of myth is fine, this map is from a technical work discussing the change in coast lines in the region (and the book has additional drawings and/or photos of the area). As the coast line in the map of the lost land shows a 5th century coast line, that is well within recorded history, and much later than the article now suggests. In short, this might be a genuine remembrance, and not a myth at all. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This map (and other similar ones you have added to other articles) needs proper citation - just saying "a technical work" is not enough, particularly if (as I suspect) it is taken from an old work which has been overtaken by later research. Where precisely is it from? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There is little doubt that the legend (which has parallels in north Wales - Llys Helyg - and elsewhere in northern Europe) is based on folk-memory of the loss of land to the sea, as the geological history of rising sea-levels in the prehistoric period shows, but I agree with Ghmyrtle that a source is needed. I'm also suspicious of the map's accuracy (and its unconventional spelling[s]): even though scientists might be able to reconstruct ancient coastlines with a fair degree of accuracy that does not, in this case at least, prove that the area corresponds to Cantre'r Gwaelod or even that the kingdom/cantref existed as such (its traditional ruler, Gwyddno Garanhir, seems to have "migrated" from the Hen Ogledd, as did other 5th-6th century characters, for instance). To show the legendary kingdom's location clearly defined like this is misleading, though I have no doubt Notuncurious's contribution is well-intentioned, of course. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Ghmyrtle (I inserted the image; sorry that it was from a now-discredited source, as was pointed out elsewhere; my error). However, the reference was provided (click on the image - it has title, author, date, and the url to take you directly to the source; I sometimes forget to add the page number, which is unintentional). I'm in a bit of uncertainty about this point - unsourced images (especially maps and such) over-populate wikipedia and should be challenged and removed; but to explicitly cite references for every image within the wikipedia article sounds obtrusive, and it seems that they should be referenced in the text that accompanies uploading (which is what I do). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The map came from this source, which is indeed outdated and (largely or wholly) discredited but is also interesting. I haven't read it yet, but it may be that there is some information in there, as well as in later more reliable scientific sources, which may be worth considering for inclusion in the section on theories as to the origin of the "myth". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ashton's book The Evolution of a Coast-Line now gets a mention under literature, with a note that his map is conjectural. It's fine to include reference to the work, I guess it must have been problematic as the map was presented as fact.

Expansion

I've given this article considerable expansion and added references (which it was lacking). It's a fascinating legend and I think it deserves some attention, so I hope my edits have provided useful understanding.

Incidentally my inclusion of an infobox (deleted within minutes of my edit!) wasn't intended to present the legend as fact, only to provide the benefits that an infobox usually offers, i.e. giving the reader at-a-glance summary information. I was careful to use wording like "supposed", "estimated" etc. If there were a "mythological location" infobox available, that might have served better. But alas there isn't one. Wikidwitch (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem, for me, was not so much the existence of the infobox as the map within the infobox. This is the same infobox, and the same map, as is used for real places. The casual reader, seeing the infobox and map, would think that there was a real place buried out there under the waves, in a specifically marked location. That is false information which should not be shown in an encyclopaedia - there is no evidence that somewhere like Cantre'r Gwaelod ever existed, or where it may have existed. Indeed, if we had a "mythological location" infobox, I would have no objection to it being used - but not an infobox that is used for places that really exist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I take your point. I did have that in mind when I used a large circle (rather than the standard map dot) and labelled it "estimated location" - I guess it would need some sort of visual way of saying "approximately here but we're not even sure it was real".... one for another day I guess.Wikidwitch (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that it is a real place. Interpretations vary as to what it is, but there are real features out there that gave rise to a mythical tale, and these features have a location. Likewise the Bimini road. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The "Bimini Road" is a real rock formation that can be photographed. "Cantre'r Gwaelod" is a place of myth and legend. There are real features out there, but they are not called "Cantre'r Gwaelod" - they are submerged forests, geological features, etc., that some writers have associated with the legendary place. I don't think that's splitting hairs, I think it's a real difference between the two. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to get drawn into the infobox debate, but I think you've done a great job on this article, Wikidwitch. Well done!  An optimist on the run! 18:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) I'm certainly no expert, but I thought it needed a bit of a lift!Wikidwitch (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything else that can be added? If it gets up to about 17k (a five times expansion), it'll make a good contender for WP:DYK.  An optimist on the run! 18:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dai Brainbocs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly I think I have exhausted all I can contribute to this article. Looking at it again, I would say that the Myth section would benefit from more detail - maybe cite the Black Book of Carmarthen, more detail about the story. Gerald of Wales, I gather, refers to a submerged forest appearing in south Wales, although I don't think he explicitly refers to the legend. There's also a 19th-C painting by George Francis Miles, 'the Lost lowlands of Cardiganshire' but I can't find any reference to it.21:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cantre'r Gwaelod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426091115/http://ten-wolde.net/stpeters/page2.html to http://ten-wolde.net/stpeters/page2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)