User talk:Cymrogogoch

: ]

Pil (placename)

Please do not revert again without discussing this. Firstly, and most importantly, the area called "Monmouthshire" is wholly and entirely (at least in its coastal stretch) contained within the area called "Gwent". There is no justification for listing the two separately. If you like, all those listed as "Monmouthshire" could be listed under "Gwent", without any problem. Secondly, your reversion retains errors in wording - "it's" should be "its", and "Usk river" is an Americanism which should not be used in this article. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I did reply when I reverted your first edit, which grouped both subsections under "Gwent", you then undid this revision without response and made a different edit.

On that original edit (and I'm sure you are aware), Monmouthshire and Gwent have a number of definitions. Monmouthshire is the historic county, Gwent is a preserved county, the definitions of Monmouthshire do not always included the upper reaches of the Usk (e.g. as a Principal Area). When creating this article it just made sense to me to have the Usk grouping and the Monmouthshire (county) coast listed separately (the development of settlements on the Usk is heavily linked with maritime trade).

Your first point that they should all be grouped under one heading is cogent but your second revision added Gwent as a subsection of Monmouthshire. This did not answer the point in my original response and actively goes against your own point that Gwent/Monmouthshire should be considered the same entity. I think this is using the nomenclature of Monmouthshire as a county, existing within Gwent as an area. That is fine, but it has been poorly implemented. It is unique in the list (a change like this should have been made to all subsections), and should really include another subheading for the county of Newport rather than listing some in their area, and others in their county.

I will only revert your latest edit if you don't reply or if you are abusive. Happy to discuss further. Cymrogogoch (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a consistent way of subdividing the list - either using historic counties, or current local authority areas, but not a hotchpotch that seems to include some current areas (eg Monmouthshire) and some preserved counties (eg Gwent, Glamorgan, Gloucestershire, Somerset). My basic point is that if the Newport pills are included under Gwent, then so should the Monmouthshire pills. I don't really care which way it is done, but it needs to be done in a consistent manner. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but your last edit doesn't improve the consistency of the list. I would favour a more detailed geography but there is a difficulty when dealing with watercourses (particularly as some are no longer extant). Not editing the whole list remains a poor revision, especially when trying to improve the article on grounds of consistency.

Cymrogogoch (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply trying to remove the false implication that "Gwent" and "Monmouthshire" are somehow separate areas, when they are not. I will include all the "Monmouthshire" pills in the "Gwent" list, so there is no uncertainty. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent contributions to Brecon Beacons

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Brecon Beacons, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Min-Seo O'Connor (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gwyliau Hapus (Nadolig Llawen)

Dank Jae is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Dank Jae 21:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gwyliau Hapus back at you User:DankJae

Have a great 2025. Cymrogogoch (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ynys (Aberdare), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abernant.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Celtic rock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy Metal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bala Lake

You reverted me at Bala Lake (which tbh I was expecting!) - I'm not going to revert you but I disagree with you. It is not 'an impossible meaning' - the meaning for English speakers without a knowledge of Welsh is quite clearly 'the lake at the place called Bala' - quite meaningful. I grant you it is odd/curious to those like you and I who know what the Welsh word 'bala' means but it is opaque to anyone who does not know Welsh. In somewhat similar vein, we both know that there are many examples on the other side of Offa's Dyke of rivers and hills which have names which effectively mean 'river river' or 'hill hill' - they are curious examples but they do have meaning since the older language layer had become (or always was) opaque to speakers of the more recent one, so River Avon is simply the river called Avon, Breedon Hill is simply the hill at Breedon, never mind that bre and dun both meant hill in this more extreme example. This is the way the language of place-names works, the way it evolves. Geopersona (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geo thanks for the post,

Breedon Hill is a popular example of this and many popular toponymists point to "Hill-Hill Hill" as impossible/irrational. I am surprised Breedon Hill (or Pen Hill) does not have a similar discussion, but a major point of difference here is that Bala itself has a majority of bilingual speakers who can easily identify "Bala Lake" as impossible.

Your sentence "the meaning for English speakers without a knowledge of Welsh is quite clearly 'the lake at the place called Bala'" just goes against the reason for having an etymology section in the first place. The section should explain the 'full' meaning of a toponym's elements regardless of the language they are in or the ability of any potential readers, the meaning remains "impossible". The fact that some people are English only monoglots does not change an impossible derivation.

I guess my point is that if you've accessed the information in this very section, you can see that Bala Lake is impossible. Happy to discuss any of these points further Cymrogogoch (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]