Talk:Gwladys ferch Dafydd Gam

Lead (Completed)

The part of about her as the lady of Raglan Castle needs clarifying.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look at that. I'm going back again to confirm all the citations (lots of changes and I just want to feel comfortable that they're all in the right place.CaroleHenson (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I've done this one. Added something like "which she became at the time of her second marriage" to the mention of "lady of Raglan" in the lead section. Sorry to spoil the party. Sitush (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaroleHenson (talk • contribs) 16:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

John Milwater (Completed)

There appears possibly to be something not right with the T. Jones p. 341 references. A look [[1]] at p.341 shows a Thomas Milwater marrying a Blanch ... but this lady may not even be the correct generation. I'm a bit confused with Welsh names as I am aware that there are numerous spellings, particularly when we're going back as far as this (think Shakespeare, for that matter, who spelled his own name in many different ways). Anyway, can this issue be resolved? - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Perfect timing, I'm going back to reconfirm the citations and I'll make he necessary edit for this.CaroleHenson (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I had the wrong page number, it's page number 341. Sorry about that! Question for you: Is it right to put the citations after the last child - or is it better to have it at the heading for the list? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, p. 341 was the number you had as of this morning (UK time, GMT). The version of the book I link to above has a Thomas marrying a Blanch but I'm not 100% sure that it is the right Blanch. My main reason for doubt is that the other kids' names don't seem to align with your list from the two books (even allowing for the discrepancy you note in the article text). It could be that I'm misreading the relevant page but I think it might be worth calling someone else in as "arbiter" (not that we are arguing etc, but just to be sure).

I'm not sure that it matters too much but my own preference tends towards attaching the reference to the list heading (I usually use tables, which are a bit more complex than what is needed for your purposes here). Just stick it in: it takes 2 seconds to cut and paste it across if anyone gets miffed. Having a clear reference is the key. - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Cancel my cri de coeur, since we're in Agincourt mode. What you meant above was you have changed it from p 341 to p. 505. I've checked p. 505 and it is spot on. Worries over. I'd just add that you can expect this sort of review to happen: people will check, usually out of genuine interest in the subject and most definitely if an article is being peer-reviewed for a nomination, especially "Featured Article" - no need to take offence etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

None taken. The article has become much better from guidance and tweaking!!! Thanks for that!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Danesmoor (Completed)

There are references to the battle of Danesmoor and "Dunesmorc" (??) Presumably they refer to the Battle of Edgecote Moor....  ?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I just copied that verbatum from a reference. I suggest that I just delete that reference. A request: Do you mind giving me a chance to go through and clean up all the citations. I think it will take about an hour. With alll the movement and recent changes I would like to feel confident that it's all correct now and that the landscape is not changing as I'm going through each reference source. (Just finished Lewis).

When you say "copied verbatim from a reference", is the material in the public domain? If not, you could be violating copyright by copying other people's work verbatim apart from cited quotations. It's best to do what I do when paraphrasing close to the original source: use different words to convey the same meaning, rewrite the sentences and switch the sequence of the words, etc. to avoid copyright infringement.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Two things: 1) I meant I copied the term verbatum. I didn't mean that I copied the sentence verbatum, and 2) I took that part out for now. I'm going through the children's records and I'll build up the sections accurately from there. Make sense? --CaroleHenson (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry to have jumped on you like that. Here at Wikipedia, us editors have to perforce tread the corridor between Original Research (which is verboten) and violating copyright by too-close paraphrasing!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see a fondness and protection of the work performed here - with what is likely a never ending struggle to ensure quality. I'm learning a lot - and learning to appreciate why people are protective and seek the utmost quality!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

T Nichols (Completed)

I notice you are citing Nichols at 1872 but you have linked to a 1991 reprint. You need to make this clear - details are: publisher Genealogical Publishing.Com,; published 1991; isbn 9780806313146. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, you are linking to Burke's 1847 edition, not 1863 as in your citation. Details: publisher H. Colburn, date 1847 - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Knowing how to do this right should help me a great deal the next time - and not have to double-back and mix up the info. Thanks for catching it!!! --CaroleHenson (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Bullets... children info (Completed)

Copy from an individual posting as an FYI: I spent time last night removing bullets, because I was told it's best not to do that. Further, I am building on this section, which will have more information about the children. Can we compromise: keep the paragraph formatting, but lose the bolding of the names? Thanks!!! --CaroleHenson (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Bullets are fine, and bolding is something to be used only rarely. I let it drift earlier but the editor who removed the bolding and replaced with bullets was, IMO, correct. If the info you add becomes overweighted then the layout can/will be reviewed. I've seen situations where a one-sentence pararaph has ended up as an entire new article. What you have to remember is that this is "live". It is not a draft of a book etc where you tinker to your heart's content behind the scenes and then produce a "work". It can and probably will change. For example, if the info on the children starts to drift away from the article title then there comes a point where the question has to be: do you/we create separate articles? Sitush (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll put the bullets back. I forgot what article I worked on someone said bullets should be rarely used. Guess a mix of opinions! I agree that without any calling out of the names, it definitely looks new columny.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Two times Sir Henry Wogan is in Gwladys' immediate family

There are two instances where Sir Henry Wogan comes into Gwldays' family tree: - Watkin Vaughan (from 1st husband) marries Elizabeth Wogan - Margaret Herbert (from 2nd husband) married Sir Henry Wogan

From Oxford Dict of National Biographies, there is a statement: Watkin "married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Henry Wogan of Pembrokeshire, whose wife was Sir William ap Thomas's daughter."

From that statment, if I have this right, it sounds like:

• Sir Henry Wogan married Margaret Herbert, younger half-sister of Watkin Vaughan
• Sir Henry Wogan either had daughter, Elizabeth from a previous marriage, or Henry and Margaret had a daughter Elizabeth - who married Watkin.
• Sir Henry Wogan was probably considerably older than wife Margaret Herbert

What are your thoughts about these connections? --CaroleHenson (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone who is more au fait with the sources may have an answer. The ultimate WP tests are verifiability and reliability. But verifiability takes precedence, in my opinion. It can lead to daft results where something which might be true cannot be verified but something which is not true can be verified - one has a reliable source, the other one is, for example, just plain old common knowledge.

On the odd occasion that I've hit the sort of mess you mention above, and in the absence of a source to prove one way or the other, I've tended to present all the possibilities. But this is dangerous territory: you are admitting to a potential discrepancy (good, because the new reader is then aware that the article appreciates a possible anomaly) but potentially inviting comments about "original research" (bad, according to WP policies).

Hopefully someone with more experience - either in this subject or in WP policies - can resolve the issue. In the interval, keep calm and carry on. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

For me, this is where it gets fun!!! Anytime there's an interesting story that gives one a window into someone's life! I've adapting to the way things operate here. I'm good.

The ODNB information that you provided was incredible and refuted some items in the article, so it was good to have a definitive article to be the measure of what's "right" for the article. I'm a bit worn out about this article - so before I delve into William Herbert's article and a couple of things to carry over from Owain's, I need a break. I'll be back to it sometime within the next couple of days or so and finish up the last 2 of 5 articles you sent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaroleHenson (talk • contribs) 02:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Article needs trimming

I notice that the article has been nominated for a DYK. That's great as Gwladys is an interesting subject, meets the notability requirements, and the article is very well-referenced. I also see however, that it has grown unwieldy and unfocused. For starters, there is far too much information on Gwladys son, Roger. There is enough material on him for a separate article. As it currently stands the article resembles a family saga rather than an account of Gwladys and her life. Another thing, I see there is an image representing the Wars of the Roses. Gwladys died in 1454, the year following their commencement, so how was she in any way directly affected by the wars? The article mentions only that her sons had fought on the side of the Yorkists, but nothing about her personal involvement in any of the battles or their aftermath. That image IMO needs to go. I'm sorry if I sound disparaging, but I'm only offering an honest critique that would be given were I to review the DYK nomination. Keep the info on her son for his own article, but my suggestion is to delete it from this one.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Saw this coming, hence my comment at 00:47, 11 February 2011 above about sentence turning into full-blown article. I probably should have been a bit less obligue. But all is not lost: CaroleHenson, I suggest that when you trim you cut-and-paste the info removed & save it somewhere. It will save some typing when a new article is created. It is easy to re-insert the references by cut/pasting the relevant ones from this article to the new one. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Sir Roger is certainly notable enough for his own article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, that comments are very helpful and I am very appreciative of the time that you took on this!! Let me see if I got them all and have my to do list:

1) Trim information about son Roger

2) There is enough information for a separate article for son Roger

3) Remove the image of War of the Roses

4) I think you're saying either put information in about Gwladys' direct involvement in son's activities or trim this information down.

Is that right? --CaroleHenson (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The article is about Gwladys, therefore it needs to remained focused on her. A bit of background history and biographical info on her childrenis fine for context, but to project well after her own lifetime detailing her children's activities and itemising their offices is going off on a tangent. For instance, the War of the Roses had no relevance to her personally.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you mind taking a look at the article now? I've taken care of items 1 and 3, set aside the information about Roger for a separate article§I believe that Roger's second wife was Margaret, sister of James Touchet d'Audley, daughter of John Touchet d'Audley instead of Margaret daughter of James because the birth dates , death dates, and the marriage dates and children's birthdates of their putative children do not compute otherwise. Margaret, daughter of James Touchet was probably born about 1440, too old to have produced children born in the 1440's as they must have been. The obvious conclusion is that it was Margaret, Daughter of John Touchet who was of the right age to marry about 1440-45( after the death of Roger's first wife) and produce two daughters who married about 1460§[user talk:DocSpenser} and explained the change positions from that of Gwladys and Roger (Lancasters) to that of their of the son Yorkists activites. Does that work or do or are there still changes that are needed. Thanks again! This article keeps getting better and better! --CaroleHenson (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes to information within references?

In finding a source of something I read in several sources, it seems that the information within the references has changed since I did the thorough walk-through of all the references. Does anyone know how I can go back to the completion of the reference updates I made several days ago to compare the info? Thanks! --CaroleHenson (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about sourcing

Hi, I've done some work on novels set in Wales during this period and was tidying, clicking through links, and somehow landed here. This is a nice page, but I have some questions and comments. The page looks a little oversourced to me, and I think much of the information can be found at Castles.com. I'm curious why that's not being used. Currently ref 2 goes to The Story of Monmouthshore, but there isn't anything in that book that cites the information, even in the snippets. Is this a mistake? At any rate, it can be easily cited to the castles website. Also, all the Prichard refs need page numbers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Never trust a website if there is a printed alternative. Never trust a website which is published personally. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I get that. But the cited material can't be verified in the books, and the page numbers really do need to be added. If the cited material doesn't exist in the book, then use the website. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple of things:

• You're right about the second reference. I'm not sure what's going on there, but it will be easy to query to get that from another source. I'll work on that.
• Oh, Pritchard!!! This was one of my first articles and I cannot imagine what I was thinking by not putting in the page numbers. You're right!

Things I'm questioning:

• I agree with Sitush about using the Castles website. Besides, I'm not really feeling too ambitious about going back and reworking a completed article with book references to web sources (i.e., rewording to exclude info not on that site - or to get the snippets that belong to the Castles site and others that don't).
• I can see your point about over-referenced. Is it enough of a problem that it's worthwhile spending the time to determine which of several references to pull for a sentence or group of sentences?

Thanks,--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If any of the remaining Castles.com cites are also supported by another cite, then remove the Castles.com one. Add a "Further reading" section and put the Castles.com link there. Well, that's what I would do, anyway. I know that the webpage is supposed to be a transcription but, well, how do we know that it is an accurate and full transcription?

There were a lot of people with experience who chipped in with comments as this article developed, all of whom were pleased with the outcome (as far as I can recall). It does not need any big reworking. Oversourcing can be an issue but I think that in this instance it was pretty much all needed unless the decision was taken to rely primarily on Castles.com. Of course, no article is ever finished ... - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and as I think I brought up at the time, the transcription is actually a breach of UK copyright law. Not our problem, but why rely on something that may get taken down? - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on the Pritchard book and then will replace the second reference - fortunately the info about her is mostly in a group of - but it's spread out over many pages and not necessarily in chronological order so this is going to take me a bit (Ironically, I remember writing the page numbers down, though, in my handwritten notes. Yikes!). I'm not quite getting the point about the castles.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've spent most of today working extensively on copyvio problems on Wikipedia. I took a moment to clean one of my own articles I haven't worked on for a while, idly clicked on links, found myself here, (nice page!) and immediately noticed the many blue links. Having just completed reviews of several FACs, and having finished getting an article through FA & another submitted, I immediately go to the sources these days. The point is this: much of the article is sourced to a book without giving an online link or page numbers. That is a little problematic, yes. Either the page numbers need to be provided, or a link, or use the website, because this isn't a GA or FA, so the website is fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If Prichard's book says Gwladys had brown hair and the Castles site says she had brown hair, and you used both to support a statement in the article saying that she has brown hair, then it is unnecessary/redundant & I would remove the Castles one. There are situations where you would use mutliple sources but this is not one of them. Does this make sense? Or have I misunderstood your point of confusion? - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree about the page numbers (which I thought were actually there at one time) but not about the alternative. It may not be a GAN but it might be in the future. Why tear things down? - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Prichard is linked in the Bibligraphy; it is just that you cannot see the entire book online. I'll check Archive/Hathitrust etc for an alternate link but, of course, WP:CITE etc in any event do not require that a source is online. Handy & should be linked if available, but not essential. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have John Davies, A History of Wales. Will look for her in there. I'm not tearing down; I'm asking a question about verifying sources. Post ec - Prichard has no page numbers; whether it's linked is irrelevant. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We agree about page numbers, but not "The point is this: much of the article is sourced to a book without giving an online link ..." or relying on Castles.com, which in my view would be tearing down. - Sitush (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, when you have a chance, can you see if I'm doing the biblio/ref combinations correctly for Prichard. There are three new rows for Prichard in the references by page numbers - page 431 is one example. For some reason there's two Prichard rows in the Bibliography and I'm not sure if what I'm doing did that. Thanks!!! In the meantime, I'll keep working away. We can provide the link that will bring someone to the first page (of a chapter) that is written about Gwladys.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have amended the three citations you refer to, though you were pretty darn close for a first attempt and I suspect that plenty of people would consider what you did to be ok. The biblio is down to me, not you. I have added a link to the online version at archive.org, relegating the reprint to a "sort of" note for those who might want to find it in a library/bookstore using the ISBN etc. Again, this is a subjective call: remove it if you want. - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes, Sitush! Do you mind letting me know when you're done (I saw your edit for 431 and was in there doing the same thing you were to the others - we've got the same timing, got a conflict edit with this one, too)? Then, I'll put an "in use" tag up while I complete the page numbers. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't need cite templates for each page number, just put in the page number. I can help, but not at the moment. Sitush, I wasn't saying it had to be an online source; I believe you misread. I was saying the source has to be verifiable. Carole, in response to your comment on my talk page, if I have another source that's reliable, then it would be fine to use. There's very interesting information about her son in Davies - are you saying we shouldn't have that information in this page? Btw - no need to rush or to panic. Not really a big deal here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

By just put the page numbers, I think that Truthkeeper means like this. Like I said, it is subjective. The things that are in favour of that approach is that it reduces mark-up clutter in the edit box & it is easier for newbies to work out how to do it, should they want to edit further. I still prefer my way, where it bounces down to the bibliography. I just do, that's all. Can't explain it. Can see the good points of the alternative. Am not breaking any rules, as far as I know. Easiest thing in the world to remove with a search/replace if ever someone at FAC disliked it, but more tedious to put in if they want it. ;)

Perhaps I did misread the bit about "online links", but it still seems as clear as day to me. Perhaps I have tunnel-vision in how I am reading it at the moment. I notice that Carole also had a problem understanding the point on your talk page to which you refer. So perhaps also it is your phrasing that is a little off tonight? Been there, done that! I can absolutely guarantee you that she has no problem with anyone adding further info. Why on earth would she? She has been here a few months, got a GA and collaborated with a lot of people (evidenced at her talk page). It seems an odd question to ask in these circumstances but, hey, as long as we end up with an improved article then I'm content. Sitush (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'd prob use Harv templates here. What I meant is that you don't need a full cite for each page number in the text because it does clutter up the text considerably. On the Edmund Evans article you cited I didn't use templates, but if you look at Ernest Hemingway or True at First Light I did - all the way through. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding. I made simple talk page post. I never said a source had to be available online - but seems to be as clear as day to you that I did. The source does, however, have to be verifiable and have page numbers. I don't think I misread Carole's post - she asked me not to add another source, though I have a good scholarly source sitting right next to me. I'm just scratching my head - it seems a lot of drama over very little. Anyway, if you guys want help, given that Carole is new here, I'd be more than happy to reformat using Harvard short cites and then you could see how those are added. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course I'd be very happy with any additional content from another source - I thought the comment was about finding a reference to replace Prichard, which seemed like in the end a lot of extra work to get the phrases and sentences matched up to a new references. I'm find with the way we're changing the page #s, I just needed help ensuring I had the right format - and I don't think it adds that much extra space - but of course it's a lot easier to modify to another format than add the page #s. The net-net for me is - I'm cool with everything. Hang in there and I'll get the page numbers finished (and fix the missing space I now see in the reference section).--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Adding Prichard page numbers  Done Removed the Monmouthshire reference  Done Having the 1st edition book open to the first page of the chapter on Gwladys (spelled Gwyladys there)--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw the comments about the two books. I had been using an older version and Sitush found a newer (preferred) edition. We shouldn't need to have both books in the bibliography.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Other way round: you were using the newer & I found the original. However, as far as I can see, the page numbering is the same. If you do bin one then I think retaining the older version might be better because it does allow people to view online if they want to do so. - Sitush (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Harvard cites, btw, are something I used to use at university, However, here most people seem to favour the long-winded templates (when they use any template at all, that is). It is even built into the editor tool, which I guess makes things easier for newbies. Changing the cite format of an article once it is in place requires consensus, but experimenting in a sandbox requires just effort.

This isn't drama. You raised an important issue re: the page numbers, which I still believe were in there at one point but clearly are not now - it was a good point. The rest of it is misunderstandings of what you said here and on your own talk page, plus a difference of opinion about whether Castles.com should be used instead of the myriad. FWIW, when CH started this article she was guided into using various standards etc precisely so that she would pick up the mechanics of things, and that included aiming for a solid article rather than an average one. It worked, I think, although there definitely was a bit of drama at the outset. <g> Whether those that assisted/guided selected the "right" way to skin the cat is another matter, because there is more than one "right" way. - Sitush (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Change without a source

There was a change in who "Elizabeth Vaughan married" without a source, making it look like the new info came from the article's sources.

Sorry, I meant to cover it in the edit summary - but it looks like "rollback" doesn't give me an edit summary.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)