This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
This article 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
Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I don't believe one instance the "anglicization", "Cloyd", deserves such a prominent place in the article. The source cited does indeed contain one example of "Cloyd", but elsewhere throughout the same publication the name is spelled "Clwyd", implying the one instance of "Cloyd" was a typo. I suggest the mention be, at the very least, removed from the opening sentence of the article. I would also question the validity of that particular source as proof of the spelling variant "Cloyd". Cymrodor (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
The source is a 19th c, account quoting Geraldus Cambrensis who was himself writing in Latin in the 12th c at a time when English or Brithonic spellings were not standardised. Even if that was Geraldus' spelling, this cannot be said to denote and "Anglicization". I have removed the phrase from the article Mrs Trellis (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
While I understand the argument against promoting the anglicisation. I do believe the pronunciation used, whether it be anglicised or not, resembling "Cl-oyd" over "Kl-uid" may need some place here. As it apparently is used, particularly in South Wales apparently, for all uses of "Clwyd". DankJae09:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Having discovered that the quoted lengths of many UK rivers on WP were inaccurate, sometimes considerably so, I took a look at the Clwyd. Painstaking measurement of it from the Clocaenog Forest to its mouth using 1:25,000 scale OS mapping using an online digital measuring app (wheresthepath) reveals a length of 59.2km / 36.8mi between an assumed source at a confluence of streams in the Clocaenog Forest at Waen Ganol (SJ 0427 5299) and (I've been unable to locate a reference to the exact spot which is considered to be the source of the Clwyd) and the point at which the tidal channel breaks the coast. Continuation of the tidal channel to the county limit adds an extra 1.6km / 1.0mi to the length. Taking the length of the longest headwater stream mapped on OS 25k mapping from its source west of Bron-Bannog to the Waen Ganol confluence mentioned above adds a further 2.4km/1.55 miles. The grid ref given presently in the article does not accurately correspond to any potential source. Any of the figures I provide are in excess of the 56km/35mi quoted presently in the article. All of this is original research on my part and so cannot be added to the article but it does give an idea of what an accurate figure will look like when an editor can find one in some external reference. cheers Geopersona (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
