Talk:Conquest of Wales by Edward I

Redundancy in the lead
The redundancy I am referring to is mentioning three times in the lead paragraph that Edward I conquered Wales. I do not see any reason to state this three times in two consecutive sentences.

"The conquest of Wales by Edward I, sometimes referred to as the Edwardian Conquest of Wales, to distinguish it from the earlier (but partial) Norman conquest of Wales, took place between 1277 and 1283. It resulted in the defeat and annexation of the Principality of Wales, and the other last remaining independent Welsh principalities, by Edward I, King of England."

Therefore I suggest removing the second sentence while retaining "other last remaining independent Welsh principalities" in the first sentence and replacing the boldface with links. This would bring the article into compliance with Manual of Style/Lead section.

I also do not see which dates were taken out in this edit. The lead says "between 1277 and 1283" both before and after the edit. Surtsicna (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, the dates are still there. But you created a terrible run on sentence. It’s not necessary. MOS:REDUNDANCY is about the first sentence:
 * Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article. The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead if the article title is descriptive.
 * For example: Pakistani–Iraqi relations are the relations between Pakistan and Iraq.
 * That’s not comparable to The conquest of Wales by Edward I, sometimes referred to as the Edwardian Conquest of Wales, to distinguish it from the earlier (but partial) Norman conquest of Wales, took place between 1277 and 1283. which is a completely natural use of the article title with no redundancy. “Need not” isn’t the same as “Must not”. There’s no reason not to follow MOS:FIRST usual practice here. And Edwardian Conquest of Wales has nothing to do with redundancy - it’s ALTNAME. If that’s redundancy then every article first sentence with an ALTNAME is going to be guilty of it. DeCausa (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

You are right: MOS:REDUNDANCY does refer to the first sentence. I can also accept that there is no redundancy in the first sentence itself if Edwardian Conquest of Wales is taken as a name. I still do not, however, understand why what, where and who need be said more than once in two sentences that constitute the lead paragraph. A redundancy in a lead paragraph is as pointless as a redundancy in a lead sentence. And yes, "need not" is not the same as "must not", but it definitely suggests that there should be a good reason to have a "merely descriptive" title appear verbatim. The guideline points out in several places that the bolded article title should not be forced into the lead at any cost. In this case, the cost seem to be the links to Edward I and Principality of Wales, which necessitates the repetition of the key facts in the very next sentence.

I do not see how the sentence I proposed is a run-on sentence. The punctuation is all there. It could, however, be simpler. Perhaps: "The conquest of the Principality of Wales and the other last remaining independent Welsh principalities by King Edward I of England took place between 1277 and 1283. It is sometimes referred to as the Edwardian Conquest of Wales to distinguish it from the earlier (but partial) Norman conquest of Wales."

What do you think about this option? Do you have any suggestions? Or do you think the current wording is ideal? Surtsicna (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The conquest of Wales by Edward I took place between 1277 and 1283. It is sometimes referred to as the Edwardian Conquest of Wales to distinguish it from the earlier (but partial) Norman conquest of Wales. is more concise and better. DeCausa (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But what about the links to Edward I and Principality of Wales? Surtsicna (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t really see a problem with the existing last sentence of the opening paragraph. But you seem to have a low threshold for “redundancy” so that sentence could be replaced by bringing forward the first sentence of the third paragraph into the first paragraph:
 * In two campaigns, in 1277 and 1282–83, respectively, Edward I of England first greatly reduced the territory of the Principality of Wales and then completely overran it, as well as the other remaining Welsh principalities.
 * I don’t really think the link to Principality of Wales is that important. (It’s a debateable name anyway and may mislead/ confuse the casual reader - he was really Prince of Gwynedd) Possibly a better option is to change it to:
 * In two campaigns, in 1277 and 1282–83, respectively, Edward I of England first greatly reduced the territory of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd ("Llywelyn the Last”), and then completely overran it, as well as the other remaining Welsh principalities.
 * which is more informative. The last sentence of the second paragraph could then de-link Llywelyn and be amended to read


 * Although English monarchs had made several attempts to seize control of the native Welsh territories, it was not until Edward's war of conquest against Llywelyn, the last native Prince of Wales, that this was achieved on a lasting basis.
 * Cumulatively, several redundancies removed! DeCausa (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All good ideas, if you ask me. How do you feel about providing the link to the biography of Edward as soon as Edward is mentioned? I think that timely links are more helpful to readers than boldface. Debolding "conquest of Wales by Edward I" also highlights that this is a descriptive term, while "Edwardian Conquest of Wales" is meant to be a proper name (hence the capital "Conquest") and is thus bolded.
 * The conquest of Wales by Edward I took place between 1277 and 1283. It is sometimes referred to as the Edwardian Conquest of Wales to distinguish it from the earlier (but partial) Norman conquest of Wales. Surtsicna (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn’t see your post and had made a WP:BOLD change. Fundamentally, I don’t like debolding “Conquest of Wales by Edward I” because, to me, it doesn’t really work as a mere descriptive term. It’s what it’s normally referred to (or Edwardian Conquest) as a short-hand but really it was the conquest of north Wales, and the switching of feudal loyalties in patches of mid-Wales. A lot of the status of much of Wales didn’t actually change. But nevertheless it’s still normally called the “Conquest of Wales”. DeCausa (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So should it be capitalized then? Surtsicna (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think sources don’t tend to - see Davies, p.358. DeCausa (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually I don’t think they capitalize the c in Edwardian conquest either eg here. That should probably be changed. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. In that case I would question the need to even single out "Edwardian conquest of Wales" (let alone bold it) since it is not meant to be a proper name but merely a slight rewording of the already included descriptive term. There appear to be a multitude of variations of the article title in published sources. Surtsicna (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure I follow. What do you mean by multitude of variations? I’m only aware of Edwardian conquest of Wales or conquest of Wales by Edward. Both are terms of art utilized by historians because they aren’t actually true descriptions for the reasons I gave above. A term of art doesn’t need to be cpitalized. think you’re mixing two concepts. DeCausa (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing that they should be capitalized. I am wondering if we should go for debolding and removing the alternative for the same reason we are decapitalizing: they are not actually proper names. Among other variations of "conquest of Wales by Edward I" and "Edwardian conquest of Wales" I see "Edward I's Conquest of Wales". I do not think any of these are distinct enough to be singled out as an alternative name. I would not even call them names. It seems a bit like listing "Elizabeth II's coronation" as an alternative for "the coronation of Elizabeth II". Surtsicna (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m against debolding, as I said before. Being ‘descriptive’ doesn’t mean that the article name should not be bolded, just that it need not. I see no reason to move away from the norm here. Also, again as i said before, it’s not wholly a descriptive name anyway. It’s called the “conquest of Wales” in historiography but it wasn’t - it was a conquest of part of Wales, hence it’s a term of art that means something slightly different to ts literal descriptve meaning. I think debolding and attempting to make a descriptive sentence that remains accurate is an unnecessary complication. How “Edward” attaches to it, I agree is variable - but I don’t think that has a bearing. On “Edwardian” I disagree. That is very dstinctive. Edwardian doesn’t generally attach to this Edward except in the context of the conquest of Wales. The reason is the father of modern Welsh historiography John Edward Lloyd coined the term pointedly/ironically because he was writing in the real Edwardian era. DeCausa (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)