User talk:Tipcake

Your nomination of Llywelyn Fychan ap Gruffudd has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Llywelyn Fychan ap Gruffudd has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amir Ghandi -- Amir Ghandi (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Cadwaladr ap Cadwallon is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Cadwaladr ap Cadwallon is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of JammyDodger357 -- JammyDodger357 (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Cadwaladr ap Cadwallon has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Cadwaladr ap Cadwallon has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of JammyDodger357 -- JammyDodger357 (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations RfC

Hi Tipcake,

There is an ongoing Request for Comment (RfC) at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/August 2026 RfC, which you may be interested in because in the past year, you have nominated or reviewed more than one good article nomination. This message has also been sent to all subscribers to the Good Article Gazette. The RfC contains many proposals (33 at the time of writing), which are split into the following categories: nominators, reviewers, reviews, volunteer roles, reviewing initiatives, and others. However, you are more than welcome to add any proposals of your own that you wish to put to the community.

By the end of September, all the proposals will have been closed by an uninvolved editor, either as a consensus for one of the options or with no consensus. At this point, editors will be invited again to develop these proposals into coherent policy and implement them.

Thank you for your contributions to the good articles project, and I look forward to your input! (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 16:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Owain Glyndŵr

I don't understand why you are deleting so much vital information from the text. In this case, Connoly and Panton were perfect additions to the text regarding Edward I, and was complimented by Bartrum. Please I don't want an edit war, because it will go to tribunal. Please work with me to find the correct solution regarding his genealogy. Cltjames (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The correct solution is to use reputable sources only. As the Wikipedia page literally says on Burke's Peerage, the Victorian editions of the work (which you are quoting) are full of fantasy and therefore are not reputable. There is no point adding fringe theories first spun two centuries ago when you have reputable, recent, academic work on the matter. Tipcake (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The reference is not Burke, it was Panton & Connoly, nothing wrong with those, vetted by other Wikipedians, including @Sirfurboy: who added the text. Can we please get a broader consensus on the text addition, it has been an edit war for too long now! Cltjames (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

There's no point using a Victorian fantasist's genealogies with caveats added when you have Peter Bartrum's work instead, who penned the authoritative academic work on medieval Welsh genealogies from 400-1400 and 1400-1500. I added this, as it was not there before. It is like quoting a geocentricist when you could just quote Galileo instead. Tipcake (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

First on the Burke question: I think Burke should probably not be mentioned at all, being as unreliable as he is, even to debunk it. It is also rather obscure in a sense: to my knowledge there is no modern academic source which mentiones Burke's supposed genealogy even to discount it.

Secondly: Panton and Connoly's books seem rather tangential to Wales, while Bartrum's work really is the gold standard for Welsh genealogies. Panton's book seems more focused on British monarchy, and Connoly's specifically on the Warenne family. I would suggest avoiding works which only touch on Owain Glyndŵr in passing, especially when there are plenty of reputable sources treating him as a subject of study in his own right. Hendregadredd (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2026 (UTC)