Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Angusmclellan (talk | contribs) at 21:07, 23 January 2006 (→Dalriada and Pictavia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Misplaced Pages documentation, there's also Misplaced Pages:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Gareth Hughes 21:06, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Personal sandbox

Hi there, just thought I'd let you know that your talk page should probably be reserved for comments. You might want to move your (rather fine) work on History of Scotland to a subpage, like a Sandbox. Click here to make one. Thanks, Alphax  10:38, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fortriu

Your recent edit regarding Fortriu was a bad edit. Not only has it "recently been argued" it has been effectively proven. You'll have to take my word for it, because you don't know what you are talking about just now; I'd suggest emailing around, or what not. I've reproduced enough of the arguments to make a southern identification absurd. Reinserting Strathearn and Menteith is silly in any case, because even if it did correspond to S. Pictland, it's unlikely to follow the piffle in de Situ Albanie. - Calgacus 16:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Clearly I'm being incredibly stupid today. I'd like to blame it on overindulgence but that would be a lie. Biorhythms maybe ? Humble apologies. Angus McLellan 17:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Dalriada and Pictavia

Angus, a whole bunch of Pictish rulers are, in their titles, "of Dalriada". This is pretty spurious. They should all be moved to "of the Picts". Do you wish to help me move these to their proper locations? - Calgacus 18:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I can do them all if you like. That's maybe easier. I have plenty time on my hands at the moment. Angus McLellan 18:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool stuff. You agree that it's spurious, right? One problem you may encounter is that the "of the Picts" titles may be redirects, so you may have to change the names or something. I dunno; keep me posted if you have any problems.

Agree 100%. Just tried moving Constantine and indeed it doesn't like it as the page already exists as a redirect. That'll be Caustantín of the Picts then. Angus McLellan 18:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why that form (i.e. Caustantín)? Oh yeah, something else is that, despite being destroyed by the Picts, Dalriada is coming first in all these succession boxes. Dunno if that bothers you as me. - Calgacus 19:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a toss up between one-t and two-ts. Two-ts appears first in Broun's entry on him in Lynch's companion. Well, the Dalriada stuff is all over the place. It would be a big job fixing it. What I am thinking (I dunno if you're thinking the same, I'm not Michael Howard) is that it might be as well to have a "kings of the Picts and Fortriu" article (and a "kings of Dalriada" one) and stick everything in there. Well, it's an idea anyway. If you think one-t is more correct, then I will change it. Drust of Dalriada has the same issue with a redirect page of the same name. I think that needs a request to move it (either that or I'll copy & paste it, which is not the done thing, but who cares ? I know which is more likely). Most of those "lists of this" and "lists of that" are a complete waste of time.

LOL. OK. The forms vary anyways, so it doesn't really matter. Fraser has Custantín. You are correct that the Dalriada stuff is all over the place. This is a difficult area, as I'm sure you appreciate, so most editors don't really know how to handle the information; the emerging scholarly consensus that Dalriada was destroyed in the 8th century has not even begun to creep into popular knowledge. Numbering the Pictish kings is in itself problematic. Drust I think is the Pictish form (and indeed a Pictish name), although I wouldn't want to number him (but this is being done in any case). One of the problems with naming is which kings do you give Gaelic names, and when Pictish names, since it is silly to take Cináed mac Ailpín's reign as a breaking point. I agree, btw, that most of these lists of are more misleading than helpful; but sadly, inevitable on a popular editing platform like wiki. The best we can do is insert long commentaries, which is very time consuming, and they probably wouldn't be read in any case. - Calgacus 20:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed Drust of the Picts to Drust IX of the Picts; I know you're probably systematizing this in your head, so I hope I didn't screw anything up. If I did, it's easy enough to revert back. It just seemed a little odd to have this Drust in particular as merely Drust of the Picts. - Calgacus 20:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Shit, I just noticed that the List of Pictish Kings goes from Drest VII to Drust IX (same names, Scottish and Pictish). Is this explainable, or is it a mistake. - Calgacus 20:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Always did. After checking, the prob is that there are two Drest VI's, Drest f. Donnel in the 660s and Drest f. Talorgan in the 720s. I'll fix that later. Now I'm off to watch Life on Mars on BBC1. It reminds me of just how crap the 1970s were. Angus McLellan 21:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)