This page is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This draft does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
@Cltjames: I'm afraid this article is ringing alarm bells for me, and I've given it a {{disputed}} tag. While the article title is List of legendary rulers of Wales, the lede treats King Camber as a historical figure (he wasn't) and Cambria as "a sub-kingdom of the Kingdom of Britain" in the Iron Age. But see the lede of the article Cambria: "The term was not in use during the Roman period (when Wales had not come into existence as a distinct entity) or the early medieval period ... The term Cambria is first attested in Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th century as an alternative to [Britannia and Wallia]". "The Celts established Wales, England, and Scotland as the countries of Great Britain" is another dubious statement, and the entire "Establishing the Kingdom of Cambria (Wales)" section is pseudohistory (all from Geoffrey of Monmouth, I think) written as if it were historical fact. Also, the title and the scope don't match as the article begins with legendary figures and ends with historical ones. Ham II (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be a copywithin from King of Wales, placed under another title, but I agree with Ham IIs comments above, and additionally it does not even claim to be what the page title suggests it is. I think this needs more work before we publish to the world. A reader needs to understand the scope and subject of the page. I have thus moved to draft. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Ham II and @Sirfurboy that it needs to be rewritten – it really needs to make clear which figures are purely legendary (e.g. Camber and his decendents), which ones are possibly historical but repurposed as pseudo-historical kings (e.g. the List of Kings of Welsh Kingdoms as King of Britain in the article), etc. – the lead at the moment reads like it's placing these legendary kings into the historical context that they would have existed in, had they been real (WP:OR/WP:SYNTH). That said, there seems to be a consensus on Talk:King of Wales to keep that article free from legendary kings, so if the above points can be addressed, it would be good to have this article to match the List of High Kings of Ireland, Legendary kings of Scotland and List of legendary rulers of Cornwall articles listed above. @Cltjames – I'd be happy to work with you to try to fix these problems if you'd like. --YodinT12:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above, not what I intended by expressing my openess to this type of article. But it is clear that there is interest in this topic so best as a fully separate legendary article, rather than mix it with more certain history. This shouldn't be a copy of the King of Wales reverted version. DankJae13:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for getting in touch. I would much appreciate your experience and perhaps some input as to how to approach the publication of this article. My issues are that I cannot retrieve much information regarding the issues to do with Geoffrey of Monmouth's work, and I don't have many, if any any direct sources of my own for the subject matter. Could you recommend a book perhaps, or even better, would you contribute your source material from Cornwall on the matter please? I'd be more than happy for you @Yodin: to help edit the article to get it published correctly. Sorry I just copied and pasted my original post, I wasn't thinking really (school exam period next week), I did spend an hour altering the article slightly, but not much needs to be done really to get it up to standard. Cltjames (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely sad to say that a great deal needs to be done to the article in order to get it up to standard. It purports to be a list, but it is in fact a farrago of synthesis and original research. This is an article about a legend. It should not be a version of the pseudohistory according to legend; it should be the real story of the development of the legends and the people who elaborated them. A list, possibly formatted as a table, with brief comments on the first ascription of the title to that name, would be a good start - there's an example in List of legendary rulers of Cornwall. The List of legendary kings of Britain probably covers most of the same territory as this draft. You might want to think about how to avoid duplication.
