Talk:Abergwyngregyn

message: This page seems to be a repeat of another page Garth Celyn. This page should really only have anything specific to the new name and link back to the historic name for everything else. I see its a new page and may be work in progress so I'll leave it for a while and look back later. --Cynnydd 14:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Cynnydd.  Have put merge request on pages. At present both articles are practically word for word identical and neither have any non-historical content.  — ras52 00:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, these two articles should be merged. Even though the place has changed name, there is no need for two articles, one historic and one current. One article is plenty. Some of the Aber Garth Celyn article should be transferred to the Abergwyngregyn history section, although some is more relevant to the Garth Celyn article. In fact, the Abergwyngregyn history section and the Garth Celyn article need to be better defined, with far less overlap. To help with the work in progress, I suggest that once merged, much of the Abergwyngregyn history section needs transferring to the Garth Celyn article. Only a brief overview of Garth Celyn's associations is needed here. I have put the usual 'Main article' note in place which will point people to the more detailed information, but the transfer itself still needs doing. Hope this is of help. Walgamanus 21:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Forgot to say, the Literature section at the end needs some explanation. Walgamanus 21:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Agree with you. From a cold Snowdonia, Nadolig Llawen, Happy Christmas. BrynLlywelyn 20:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated content 

message: Much of the content added on 16.12.2008 has come verbatim from another website, ie. <http://www.abergwyngregyn.co.uk/html/tyn_y_mwd.html>  Hogyn Lleol (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied content

message: There is a long-term local discussion over the details of the history and archaeology of the village, relating mainly to the exact location of the probable pre-Conquest llys / palace / high-prestige remains / site of historical events. Under these circumstances we need to remind ourselves what Wikipedia is not. In particular, we need to use reliable sources, and, so far, there are none for one of the hypotheses. In this context we need scholarly writings, not necessarily by academics but published secondary sources, based on primary evidence, that identify and cautiously interpret the available archaeological and written record. And we should be particularly careful to avoid any appearance of riding our own hobby-horses. In particular, it's normally not good to use material from our own websites unless it meets the very highest standards - and even then, this would imply that it's using reliable sources in a way that's appropriate for an encyclopedia, and it would usually be best to use those sources directly. I have made some edits to reflect those policies. I will add that I would love to know more of the local history, and would welcome any reliable evidence for the current minority hypothesis. But, for now, it remains a minority hypothesis and lacks reliable support; the relevant websites are evidence only that claims have been made. The minority hypothesis deserves a brief mention at most, and most of the details about Pen y Bryn and Garth Celyn should be either omitted or put briefly, with references, in Pen y Bryn as they now are. Civis Romanus (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of sources in historical section

message: At http://www.coflein.gov.uk/en/site/309171/details/THE+LLYS+AT+ABER%2C+HOUSE+EXCAVATED+AT+PEN+Y+MWD/ we have a "site description" of "THE LLYS AT ABER, HOUSE EXCAVATED AT PEN Y MWD". The RCAHMW make a very clear statement on this page that the llys was at the site on the valley bottom, not that the site "could be associated with". Whether they are right is another matter, but the reference strikes me as unambiguous. I've left the wording as it now is ("associated") but I don't think it's the best way of presenting a contentious point. Civis Romanus (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coflein 

message: I can't make sense of this explanation of the name: 
The earliest name for the vale was Nant Mawan ('Record of Caernarfon', 1371, Bangor University Archives). Mawan, a personal name, contracted over time. Llyn Nant Mawan, became Llyn Nan (Mafon) and then Llyn (N)anafon.
I wonder if a reference can be found and the explanation made clearer. thanks Geopersona (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Llyn Anafon