Talk:Battle of Orewin Bridge

Unreferenced

The sole reference given is a book by Mr. Warner which must not be considered serious historical research... For this subject matter, you'll find valid papers among the publications by some of the foremost professors and lecturers of the Universities of Bangor, Aberystwyth, etc.. (R.R. Davies, Huw Pryce, etc., etc.). This battle was probably no more than an unfortunate skirmish between a handful of men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.196.50.247 (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite agree, although to be fair an awful lot of imaginative details (especially numbers involved) which are not discussed by Warner, have been added, quite uncited and unreferenced. This is Wikipedia; if you have Davies's and Pryce's works to hand, be bold and edit or rewrite the article. HLGallon (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

- Found this on the net. It seems to agree with a lot of the information on the page. I'm not sure how reliable it is however.--81.156.12.157 (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, it is not boldness that I am lacking, but time! Those numbers do not come from the relations of the "battle", but from well-known carried-over estimates : 7000 (sometims 8000) is the estimated total total strength of Llewelyn's army at the height of his power, 160 is the number of knights again estimated at around the same time. As his possessions were greatly diminished in 1282 (total population under his control = 20,000-25,000 at best), as some of his men had stayed behind to resist Edward's progression and as his resources were nearly exhausted (have you any idea how much provisions 7000 men and 400+ horse - counting esquires, remounts... - consume in a day?), it is obviously pure fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.69.91.129 (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind however that in the 1282 war, Llywelyn was actually more powerful than he was in the 1277 war since many of the Welsh that aided Edward in 1277 (Edward had thousands of Welsh in his army) had switched sides due to their dislike of the English rule. When Llywelyn marched southward (with a relatively compact army) he was joined by local people; men from Ceredigion joined him, local troops from Builth (led by Rhys ap Gruffydd, Llywelyn's former steward of Builth who had lost land after 1277), and also troops from northern Powys led by Llywelyn Fychan (a man who had not always been loyal to Llywelyn but was furious after his land was taken by the Royal forces, also he disliked some of the Marcher Lords and was looking for retribution). This would have really bolstered his forces in number, but they were generally poorly equipped (with spears and probably light mail) and on foot, since the Welsh generally lacked horses and supplies. The only real horsemen in the Welsh army would have been the Teulu, a small elite fighting band who were apparently 160 strong in this battle (which is more than the usual 120 in each army; some have attributed this to the fact that Llywelyn often scavenged armour and weaponry off the dead after winning battles). Although 7000+ men is probably an exaggeration, we should still consider the possibility that Llywelyn's army was several thousand strong.--81.151.114.159 (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I imagine a few thousand men is a probable figure. There is still no indication that a major battle took place, but rather a skirmish, or even a trap set for Llewelyn, lured by the Mortimer heirs (some speak of a few dozen retainers) after he had deployed his army to bolster resistance by local chieftains. Regardless, Llewelyn was in no position of power at this time : figthing had been extinguished in Deheubarth by the end of the summer, and the whole of Northeast Wales was also in the king's control before the failed landing from Anglesey. All that remained was Snodownia, Llyn, Ardudwy and Meirionydd. As for the 160 teulu, I still have to find a reliable source for this claim. That would have been the entire teulu of Gwynedd, partial at the time and furthermore split between him and Dafydd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.69.91.129 (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there was probably more than a skirmish, since it is reported that leading nobles on the Welsh side (such as the ones I mentioned: Rhys ap Gruffydd and Llywelyn Fychan) were among the slain (and these were not present with Llywelyn when he was killed). A possibility is that Llywelyn and some of his bodyguard were ambushed/tricked (followed by Llywelyn's death) and then the Marhcer Lords gave the order to their men to attack the Welsh army. Some have debated as to whether the army routed (being leaderless and confused) or whether they surrendered and were massacred anyway. If there was no battle, then it is hard to explain the deaths of Llywelyn Fychan and Rhys ap Gruffydd (among other Welsh leaders) on the day of the battle.--86.167.179.71 (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever may be the case, th eimportant point is to not make baseless claims. No source whatsoever mentions any number of troups, so the article should not contain any reference to this kind of information. It has to remain vague as the sources are and not provide information which is the result of litterary creation/interpolation. By the way, where are you located ? I currently reside in Southern France and therefore am unable to pop into the library of an English-language University, which is where serious info could be found to rewrite the article with proper references. Ideally, the University of Wales in Bangor, Aberystwyth, Cardiff, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.84.109.31 (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in Cardiff, so I'm near to all the Unis you mentioned. If I get the chance, I shall do some research on the subject. I agree that we need more accurate sources on the article, so I'll see what I can do.--86.149.230.29 (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone been able to find good sources on this "battle"? KingMoogoe (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

this article lacks sources and is probably a hoax.

This article should be deleted because it is filled with misinformation and it's one sources disagrees with it. ~2026-28509-47 (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

This YouTube video goes over severe factual inaccuracies in this article, which have been present for about 20 years and ought to be corrected. I would try to do so myself but I'm not familiar with editing in this topic. Golem08 (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

i don't think the article can be fixed meaningfully, especially since this battle might not have even happened in the first place? and is basically just fanfiction written by a long dead monk of what the english SHOULD have done at stirling bridge ~2026-28509-47 (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

It might be best to go with the bare details mentioned in that video, and then go over the (highly) likely hoaxical nature of the account that made up most of the original page in a separate section. ~2026-30945-24 (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps a good option would be to turn this page into a redirect to Llywelyn ap Gruffudd#Last campaign and death, and to leave the coverage of the circumstances surrounding Llywelyn's death to just his own article. That section of the Llywelyn ap Gruffudd article already seems at a glace to do a better job at discussing the conflict in reports about those circumstances than this article does (though, only relatively, since that section of the Llywelyn article seems to derive from one source, an old Cilmeri.org page, and so could do with some additional referencing, particularly using J. Beverley Smith's biography of Llywelyn). — Jamie Eilat (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

i still think this article should be deleted outright because of the high possibility that it is a hoax, but even if it is not deleted it should still be edited heavily to make mention that it is a probably a hoax. ~2026-28509-47 (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, the redirection already addresses the hoax. MisterCauliflower2137 (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion, can be part of the death Llywelyn ap Gruffudd#Last campaign and death. Jhowie_Nitnek (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes this article is beyond saving I swear Cambrian Chronicles is the only serious guy debunking myths on Welsh Wikipedia, I am familar with terrible sources and citations for many articles as I have 502 edits as of today and have added sources to quite a few articles so I gladly accept this decision, this article is ought to be deleted and merged with Llywelyn II Theopedias (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

It might make more sense to keep it and change it to an article describing the hoax rather than delete it. ~2026-30884-85 (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the article should be kept, albeit in a very reduced state and with clear indication of the unreliable sources hiding behind it. The main reason is that this story has been around for a very long time (hudreds of years - as described in Cambrian Chronicles' video) and thus multiple other sources that could be encountered in the literature and on the internet would refer to it. It is therefore very likely, that readers will be still looking up this topic in the future and in my opinion amending this article to describe a hoax is the best way to inform them. Alternatively, the Llywelyn ap Gruffudd#Last campaign and death could be extended to contain the information about the unreliable sources regarding this likely-invented battle. Blarch96 (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I second Blarch's and the IP user's idea. As I've written in the deletion discussion, deleting or removing this article would only make it harder for a reader to find the correct information on Wikipedia, while also making it easier to find incorrect information elsewhere. It is both in our interest and in a reader's interest to keep this page and rework it according to available sources, clearly outlining the questionableness of the event. The hoax is too big and too widespread for us to bury it deep in a biography. ☀ Rȕnolīst | ^þⰁ_č 11:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I too agree with Runolist here. Keep the article but make its hoaxical nature apparent in the introduction itself ~2026-30844-80 (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion (having likewise come from the Cambrian Chronicles video myself) -

Keep the article, but present the few main narratives as to what this battle may have been, with a comparison, and make it apparent that the account presented by Walter of Guisborough is likely fictitious?

Because it seems likely that something did happen here (in a very loose sense) and that these events through some means led to Llywelyn's death, and it does seem pretty clear that Walter's source is perhaps the least likely, and we have a few contrasting sources, but we can't actually say which narrative is the correct one. ~2026-28224-73 (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The article has now since been largely rewritten to reflect & emphasize the conflicts present in the accounts. Compare the current version to the version as of yesterday. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

We love cambrian chronicles! Huzzah! Brewling (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

its probably a real battle but the main source from this is literally the opposite of Stirling bridge,as you said the monk did a good job in fooling people though ThatOneSovietVolunteer (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

It could perhaps be turned into a page for a fictional battle, returned to the old information on it --- or Battle Name (Medieval Forgery) etc ~2026-31421-18 (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

That would not be productive. There are multiple accounts that attest to some type of fighting or battle occurring, it's just that Walter's account seemingly interjects details from the Battle of Stirling Bridge. The current/newly-rewritten form of the article, directly comparing & critiquing the different available records, is arguably the most useful form that this article can take. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

True I think we should keep this version and maybe rename the article to conflixting sources about Llywelyn's death Theopedias (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to mention the article has substantially improved since the discussion started. The article now passes minimal standards so WP:STARTOVER is no longer needed. Bobbobet (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

the hoax needs a prominent mention

Rewriting the article to claim verifiable facts is alright, but the article needs to prominently mention how it used to peddle false hoax info.

(Not just a media mention here on talk, I mean right in the article text itself) ~2026-29225-59 (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

yeah,but we don’t have much information besides the hoax(unless the obviously apparent death of the king and English victory) ThatOneSovietVolunteer (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The entire article could really be kept as long as its reformatted as a hoax and historical fan-fiction pseudo-history, etc. It is just as reasonable to display actual events as how events has been described in history. See Ragnar Lothbrok as an example, basically 100% myth, albeit likely based on some historical truth. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 06:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

In this case, there is no hoax and no historical fan-fiction pseudo-history. I do not know if this is a misunderstanding by some viewers of a YouTube video or a misrepresentation by the YouTuber, but it just isn't the case that we have anything here that can be called a hoax. What we have are conflicting sources and historians trying to interpret and evaluate them. A normal Thursday. Srnec (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand the desire to just go "nothing to see here" and ask everyone to disperse, but the AfD discussion is much too contentious for this "normal Thursday" sweep it under the rug talk to fly here, Srnec. The article's history needs a mention. ~2026-29225-59 (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

No, the articles history does not need a mention until WP:RS cover the incident despite our desire to WP:NAVEL (See WP:SUBJECT).

Srnec is correct to note this isn't a hoax in the traditional sense, i.e. and intentionally false article by an editor, but an example of an article based on limited and dated scholarship, which is an endemic problem on Wikipedia solved by editors adding new and better sources with more nuanced analysis (as was done here). I generally agree this isn't a WP:HOAX but an example of WP:NODEADLINE and WP:NOW in action. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no reliable evidence that the old chronicle the article may have relied on too heavily is a "hoax" in any meaningful sense. There is a YouTube video claiming this, but YouTube is not a reliable source. Moreover the video offers no proof beyond noting that other chroniclers tell the story differently – which is normal in historical sources, as Srnec already noted. We should improve the article so it reflects the consensus (or lack thereof) among recent historians, but we must rely on reliable sources, not YouTube.

To avoid navel‑gazing, the article's history should not become part of the article itself. The article was poor and was improved – that's how Wikipedia is supposed to work, though it sometimes takes longer than we might hope. Gawaon (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Still weak support despite two relistings. (closed by non-admin page mover) Fortek67 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

---

Battle of Orewin Bridge → Death of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd – I propose renaming this article to Death of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. However, the problem remains that J. B. Smith in Llywelyn ap Gruffudd: Prince of Wales mentions the presence of 'armies' (p. 561, 562) and calls it a battle (pp. 563, 564, 566), but only refers to it as the 'encounter near Builth' (p. 563), so thought he died in combat I doubt there is a name here more suitable than 'Death of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd' for the title of the article. I suppose the reticence by Smith to name the battle is because the common name for the battle now is Cilmeri but that name did not exist for the area in 1282 (see p. 571).Tipcake (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 16:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 00:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

In my view, the counterpoints that you mention and the prominence of the 'battle' narrative elsewhere make it better to keep the old name. It fulfills all of the WP:CRITERIA.

We could argue about a lack of "precision" because we're unsure of the facts about the actual event, but – there is no other Battle of Orewin Bridge, the name "unambiguously identifies the article's subject [the referent] and distinguishes it from other subjects". "Death of Llywelyn" would be safer from a precision standpoint (in terms of factually "identifying the subject"), but it would be worse in terms of naturalness and recognizability. I see this as a clear downgrade. ☀ Rȕnolīst | ^þⰁ_č 09:28, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The point is that there was never a bridge over the Orewin or a battle fought on it. And it is furthermore never referred to as the 'Battle of Orewin Bridge' in any modern academic source. This seems to have been coined by the author of the book which this article was previously based on. So the present name gives priority to a fringe view which is nonexistent in academia. J. E. Morris called it the 'battle of Irfron Bridge' following the same primary material but again that name was coined in 1901 and has never been followed by subsequent writers. If you look at Cadw or Welsh newspapers you will see it usually referred to as something along the lines of 'death of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd at Cilmeri'. Tipcake (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

One of the main questions which needs to be answered here is whether repeating the narrative of a "Battle of Orewin Bridge" would be considered citogenesis. Because there is a citation given which predates Wikipedia (albeit one which we have reason to believe is unreliable), I don't believe it would be citogenesis. O.N.R. ^(talk) 00:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I would think it likely is in the sense that this name has been widely popularised because of the article, given the name of the battle is repeated online but besides here only appears in one obscure book rather than an academic study. Tipcake (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not citogenesis since the name is much older than Wikipedia. Whether it's the best name to refer to the (disputed) events in question is another question, though. Gawaon (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Charles Oman used 'Battle of Orewin Bridge' long ago: see here. Srnec (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose. "Death of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd" kind of undersells it. Then there's the Death of Kobe Bryant precedent. We have both primary and secondary sources for the bridge over the Orewin (Irfon), although modern scholars are doubtful of this detail, to say the least. I'd be inclined to leave the title and just explain in the lead that it may not be an accurate description of the battle. Here is a source using 'battle of Builth'. Srnec (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  Battle of Builth seems just as well to me. I would support changing it to that over Death of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, good to see that it actually exists as a name for the event! Tipcake (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think the page should renamed to "Death of Llywelyn ap Gruffud" because Llywelyn ap Gruffudd#Last campaign and death had the enough info/great detail on the topic. Ever since the Cambrian Chronicles video on that topic, the article have updated with more/updated sources. Rather it's a hoax or a fictional battle, or actual battle with same medieval historians (and yes forgery in the middle ages are powerful tools to discredit rivals and such). I agree with Tipcake that there's never a bridge when the battle started (which maybe there's was but later demolished? - that probably be very unlikely). However the battle (or fictional battle) did taken place near the village of Cilmeri, so the "Battle of Cilmeri" or "Battle of Builth" works. Maybe we should add another header named maybe "Mythology" (or something) that details rather the battle is a hoax or a fictional battle? SpartanMazda (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose for general reasons advanced by Users Srnec and SpartanMazda above, as well as the fact that the subject we're really getting at here is the battle (whether that happened or not, whether it was as one source or another described or not), not the death of Llywelyn. I agree with User Srnec, we should keep the title as is, and simply describe in the lead that it may or may not be a perfectly accurate name for the event. Joe (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Middle Ages have been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 16:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: More discussion of Battle of Builth would be helpful. ASUKITE 16:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Death of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, Support "Battle of Builth" for reasons mentioned above. Hendregadredd (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose "Death of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd" because, as inaccurate as "Battle of Orewin Bridge" is, this proposed retitle doesn't adequately convey what it's describing. "Battle of Builth" would be more descriptive and appears to be more historically accurate. ThroningErmine8 (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Support "Battle of Builth" for reasons mentioned above. African Mud Turtle (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I just added 'Battle of Builth' to the lede as an alternate name alongside the Battle of Irfon Bridge. Personally, I'd oppose changing the title to Battle of Builth, partly because it seems it's called both in different sources and partly (perhaps more importantly) because it seems to be better known as the Battle of Orewin Bridge: for example, when I search "Battle of Builth" on Google, I get a bunch of websites titled "Battle of Orewin Bridge" but not a single one titled "Battle of Builth" - since it seems like the Battle of Orewin Bridge is the most commonly used name, when people search for this on the internet, they're probably going to be looking for Orewin Bridge, not Builth. Joe (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

But those websites are likely just copying the title here. I've genuinely never seen it in a printed work before this discussion began. Tipcake (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we can just assume that; not that it would matter one way or the other. If "the Battle of Orewin Bridge" is literally the only way this event is referred to online, even when you search for alternate names, then that's the common name, and that's what people will be looking for when they search for information about it. The common name is the common name regardless of how it got that way. I definitely think we should add alternate names to the lede, but changing the name of the article will just misdirect readers who are searching for information about this. Joe (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Moreover, have a look at this 1899 publication which refers to it as "the Battle of Orewin Bridge". It seems clear that Wikipedia is not the original source of this name. Joe (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment -- The name "battle of Cilmeri" is used in the literature as well, and not much more rarely than "battle of Builth". One problem I see with the name "battle of Builth" is that it is ambiguous. One of the only two sources I find for that name on Google Scholar, Duncumb (1882), uses it for the skirmish that took the life of Edmund Mortimer, 2nd Baron Mortimer of Wigmore, 22 years after the "battle of Orewin Bridge". The argument presented above, that we should move the article to "battle of Builth" because there exists a source that uses that name, doesn't hold water for me. One argument for "battle of Cilmeri" would be that Builth Wells doesn't actually mention the event, while Cilmeri does. Quote from that article: The village is famous for being close to the spot where the last native prince of Wales from the Royal House of Aberffraw, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, was either killed in action or captured alive and subjected to summary execution by the soldiers of King Edward Longshanks, on 11 December 1282. A memorial stone to Llywelyn ap Gruffudd was erected on the site in 1956 and serves as the focal point for an annual ceremony of remembrance by Welsh nationalists on the anniversary of his death. It seems then that the battle is much more closely associated today with Cilmeri than with Builth Wells. Renerpho (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  That is indeed what it is best known as, but as Smith points out, Cilmeri is not the medieval name for the area. I'm neutral towards either it or Battle of Builth, however. However Builth here refers not to Builth Wells but the cantref of Builth for which Builth Wells is named. Tipcake (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Support Yubudirsi (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Obviously there's consensus against the originally proposed title, but more discussion needed to get consensus on Orewin Bridge vs Builth vs Cilmeri. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 00:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Images

@Tipcake I added the original memorial image back to /* aftermath */ you can add the second image you previously added though I don't know which one would be better. Wobs100 (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It makes no difference to me, I just replaced it with an image I took myself, with dramatic lighting! Tipcake (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Should this article be a "Class B"?

This article seems well referenced now with most if not all inaccuracies are resolved. So should this article be a B class? Wobs100 (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Does it fulfill WP:BCLASS criteria? If you think so then WP:BEBOLD and change it to B class. Maybe give it a couple of weeks to become more stable, such as after the move request ends. Bobbobet (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

ok! Wobs100 (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 29 June 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Nominator fails to demonstrate that Battle of Builth is the WP:COMMONNAME. Participants prove that Battle of Orewin Bridge is more widely used. The temporary accounts seem to be WP:SPAs, so I will not count them as part of the discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) Fortek67 (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Battle of Orewin Bridge → Battle of BuilthBattle of Builth – As per the previous discussion, it would appear that Battle of Builth is the best name for this article, and is one of the two names used in modern academic scholarship, together with Battle of Cilmeri. However, as JB Smith noted, Cilmeri is not the medieval name of the area. Either, however, would work, as Cilmeri is generally how the battle is referred to today in popular culture in Wales, especially in Welsh nationalist circles. Tipcake (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, partly due to the fact that this event is either exclusively or almost exclusively referred to as "The Battle of Orewin Bridge" in modern contexts (for example, searching for "Battle of Builth" online results in a large number of pages with "Battle of Orewin Bridge" and zero with "Battle of Builth" in their titles). As a result, potential readers searching for this page are likely to be misled by the title "Battle of Builth", which isn't what we want. However, I do think we should continue using this alternate name in the lede, and possibly that we should include "Battle of Cilmeri" as an alternate name as well, if RS support that. Joe (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Support for reasons above; at least one of those pages Joe listed is literally just a copy and paste of the old Wikipedia article and so I fail to see how sources downstream from the bad old page are relevant. However, I also would support keeping all alternative names in the lede for the reasons he provides. ~2026-37943-80 (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

1) The only relevant question here is "what name is commonly used" (and the answer is clearly "Battle of Orewin Bridge"); the distal origin of that common name is irrelevant, and 2) even if that weren't the case, it seems rather unlikely that the ubiquitous use of "Battle of Orewin Bridge" is exclusively the result of this page's name. Joe (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Wales and WikiProject Military history have been notified of this discussion. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. See Google Ngrams, which only shows results for Battle of Orewin Bridge. (worth noting that turning off case sensitive does yield results for 'battle of Builth' from the 19th century). To assume that wikipedia is responsible for this popularity is probbaly overstating wikipedia's importance. Horsers (talk, contributions) 10:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Ngrams is irrelevant here as those books calling it Battle of Orewin Bridge are not recent academic sources on Welsh history. No academic history book calls it as such. I would argue Wikipedia is responsible for the name being normative in recent sources, as no recent academic source uses it and it is rather obscure in secondary literature; the only proper academic source using it is the Welsh Wars of Edward I from 1901 which was the standard work on the text until JB Smith's book from 1986, which does not use it. Tipcake (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The fact that academic sources use both "Battle of Orewin Bridge" as well as other names, but it is only called "Battle of Orewin Bridge" in common parlance, is actually a strong reason for keeping the title as-is. Ngrams are relevant: we want people searching for this event to be able to find it. There's a reason why common English names are generally preferred for titles. Joe (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Academic sources from the last fifty years do not use Battle of Orewin Bridge, though, purposefully because the account mentioning such a bridge is embellished with details including the existence of a bridge to begin with. One 125-year-old book not using modern critical source analysis does not invalidate my point. Tipcake (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

A cursory search reveals "Battle of Orewin Bridge" to be used in:

• A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages by Charles Oman, 1924
• Medieval European Armies by Terence Wise, 2012
• Medieval Wars 500–1500 by Dennis Showalter, 2013
• Armies of Feudal Europe 1066-1300 by Ian Heath, 2015
• The History of Britain and Ireland: Prehistory to Today by Kenneth L. Campbell, 2023

Clearly, "Battle of Orewin Bridge" is used in many reliable sources. Add that atop the ubiquity of "Battle of Orewin Bridge" in websources, along with the fact that searching for alternate names like "Battle of Builth" only returns pages that employ "Battle of Orewin Bridge", and alternate names appear to be totally or near-totally absent from Ngrams, and the choice seems clear: the current title should be kept as "Battle of Orewin Bridge" appears to be the common name for this event. Changing the name would only misdirect readers. Joe (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Those are tertiary sources, not sources on Welsh history specifically written by experts on the subject. Tipcake (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Support. If it is wrong, it is wrong, and should not be used. ~2026-38760-50 (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

We do not know that it is wrong. Srnec (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.