![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Welsh word is cwmwd, plural cymydau. Commote is the anglicised word. I'm glad to see that cantref is used on this page rather than the English eqivalent hundred. For consistency and out of respect for the language I feel that this page should be moved to Cwmwd (anybody typing "commote" in Search would still get there). The list of cwmwd names is very misleading as well and needs changing to their standard spelling (Llan Uaes = Llanfaes, Teigyl = Tegeingl, etc.) and links (and pages) provided. If nobody has any objections I propose doing that in the near future. How about a new category whilst we're at it - Medieval Welsh administrative units for instance - which could then incorporate the stuff under cantref? Any thoughts? Enaidmawr 00:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The trouble with transcribing a list, silly spellings and all, from a medieval text, is that if it contains errors, we have to preserve them out of respect for the text. Surely, what people need is a comprehensive, correct (or correctable) list in recognisable orthography. Anyway, there are errors in the list:
I guess the reason for these errors is that even editors can't make out what it all means, so what chance does the average Wikipedia user have?
Incidentally, the average person among the billion or so people in the English-speaking world, reading an English text, may come across the term "commote" (99% of cases) or "cwmwd" (1% of cases), and will want to look it up in English Wikipedia. So what should the article title be?
A reliable list of commotes would be very useful, and I'd like to edit it so that it points to actual relevant articles. I suspect that the above are transcription errors rather that errors of the Scribe of Hergest. But I'm reluctant to consult the Red Book in order to put it right, when I have the correct information, in legible form, from reliable sources, on my bookshelf. So what am I to do? . . . . LinguisticDemographer 22:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
the discussion above about the units being mythical. Surely, by the 11th century at least, there are enough records to reconstruct which areas had lords and who controlled them.
Within the Wikipedia, we should try to get more consistency between this page and cantref, even if it involves arbitrarily establishing a date for the page's schema and just including notes on changes earlier or later in time or, alternatively, having two lists on this page – one giving the Red Book's account and another the actual historical reconstruction. Surely, we can't just accept the Red Book's by itself: it doesn't even mention Arwystli.
Also we should aim for consistency with other pages – Ial lists lords subservient to Powys Fadog for centuries while this page includes that commote with Gwynedd and writes it off as lost to the Normans within the lifetime of the Bastard. Both can't be right. — LlywelynII 00:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Welsh word is cwmwd, plural cymydau. Commote is the anglicised word. I'm glad to see that cantref is used on this page rather than the English eqivalent hundred. For consistency and out of respect for the language I feel that this page should be moved to Cwmwd (anybody typing "commote" in Search would still get there). The list of cwmwd names is very misleading as well and needs changing to their standard spelling (Llan Uaes = Llanfaes, Teigyl = Tegeingl, etc.) and links (and pages) provided. If nobody has any objections I propose doing that in the near future. How about a new category whilst we're at it - Medieval Welsh administrative units for instance - which could then incorporate the stuff under cantref? Any thoughts? Enaidmawr 00:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The trouble with transcribing a list, silly spellings and all, from a medieval text, is that if it contains errors, we have to preserve them out of respect for the text. Surely, what people need is a comprehensive, correct (or correctable) list in recognisable orthography. Anyway, there are errors in the list:
I guess the reason for these errors is that even editors can't make out what it all means, so what chance does the average Wikipedia user have?
Incidentally, the average person among the billion or so people in the English-speaking world, reading an English text, may come across the term "commote" (99% of cases) or "cwmwd" (1% of cases), and will want to look it up in English Wikipedia. So what should the article title be?
A reliable list of commotes would be very useful, and I'd like to edit it so that it points to actual relevant articles. I suspect that the above are transcription errors rather that errors of the Scribe of Hergest. But I'm reluctant to consult the Red Book in order to put it right, when I have the correct information, in legible form, from reliable sources, on my bookshelf. So what am I to do? . . . . LinguisticDemographer 22:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
the discussion above about the units being mythical. Surely, by the 11th century at least, there are enough records to reconstruct which areas had lords and who controlled them.
Within the Wikipedia, we should try to get more consistency between this page and cantref, even if it involves arbitrarily establishing a date for the page's schema and just including notes on changes earlier or later in time or, alternatively, having two lists on this page – one giving the Red Book's account and another the actual historical reconstruction. Surely, we can't just accept the Red Book's by itself: it doesn't even mention Arwystli.
Also we should aim for consistency with other pages – Ial lists lords subservient to Powys Fadog for centuries while this page includes that commote with Gwynedd and writes it off as lost to the Normans within the lifetime of the Bastard. Both can't be right. — LlywelynII 00:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)