Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lianachan (talk | contribs) at 12:49, 10 February 2006 (Pictish revision). 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)

You can work on all the pages with the information you have. My sources are probably the most shotty of them all. I've been using bits of information from The Annals of the Four Masters mixed with stuff from The Pictish Chronicle and the links located therein (pretty good site). I generally work on making pages look decent and cleaning up the succession boxes at the bottom (since I created the current succession box format). When I run across good (and historic, if not reliable) information at a website, I often will integrate it in. I also clean up the name field so that the alternate spellings are available in parenthesis. Finally, I try to standardize the dates of reigns so that they do not look like

Yeah, that is not a nice looking form. I generally standardize it to something like

See the difference?

So in regard to your requests, I often forget to source my information. It is from historic sources, that much I can tell you, but expand on it or remove it all you want. Some people have been going through and thrashing my Dalriada pages anyway since apparently there is controvery over if the kingdom ever existed, so I am rather tired of working on stuff that people just erase or remove. Regardless, have fun and I hope you find good infomation. I can try to help if you need it. Cheer!
–Whaleyland 20:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ! That was a quick reply (feel free to trash this conversation when done). I believe that the Annals of Ulster and of Tigernach are *usually* the most useful on Scotland, and they seem to have fewer dating problems than the Four Masters (which goes to pot in places, certainly c730, but is fine in others). The Annals of Innisfallen haven't been a goldmine, but the Annals of Clonmacnoise have been handy sometimes, although the fact that they're in the ancient format Cornell and whoever adopted for the Making of America project aeons ago does make them harder to use than text. It must be wonderful to just look up an edited book, like Skene or Anderson, rather than trawling through the online versions.

There's no controversy over the existence of Dál Riada. There are over its origins, its fate, its connections to Ireland, the value and meaning of the Senchus, the extent to which the Annals present a Cenél nGabráin bias, and more besides. There are good grounds to think that kings have been added and subtracted in the 8th and 9th centuries, but Aedan mac Gabráin and Domnall Brecc were as real as can be. Compared to many other such lists, the list of kings of Dál Riada is a paragon of accuracy of which you should be proud ! Angus McLellan 20:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Great Work

Keep up the good work. - Calgacus 19:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Duan Albanach

Thanks for opening Duan Albanach. I'm not sure that tag should be there; it's not finished, but it ain't bad quality. BTW, I recommend you read Thomas Clancy's “Scotland, the ‘Nennian’ recension of the Historia Brittonum, and the Lebor Bretnach”, in Simon Taylor (ed.) Kings, Clerics and Chronicles in Scotland, 500-1297, (Dublin/Portland, 2000), pp. 87-107. The article essentially proves that the Lebor Bretnach was written in Scotland, probably at Abernethy. If it's of interest to you, it contains a relatively "un-Gaelicized" Pictish king-list that goes all the way up to the reign of Máel Coluim III. These king lists contain a kind of charter granted by the Pictish king Nechtan to the monastery - it's just an interesting point; it's maybe why the monastery at Abernethy preserved the list. Have a good one. - Calgacus 00:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll read it tomorrow ! Angus McLellan 01:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Celtic/Pictish/Alternate Names

Angus McClellan, we seem to be some of the more prominent editors of early Scottish pages so we should decide something. What name should be used throughout pages where the Celtic version of the name varies with the English or more modern version. Cínaed obviously is the person I concern most recently, although others throughout (Donalds/Domnalls) also cause problems. I believe that the name should reflect the name of the article, in which case we should rename Kenneth I of Scotlands page to something more specific. Also, who was the authority that established Kenneth as the first king of all Alba? It may be smart to change his name to something like Cinead I of Dalriada or Cinead I of the Picts. On that note, should the questionable kings of Dalriada be called such, or should we beging using a different locational name (ie. of the Scots). These problems should probably be resolved through agreement or others will revert the names throughout also. Always good working and talking with you, Angus. Peace with you.
–Whaleyland 22:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, I honestly do not know. From a purely selfish POV (i.e. I have a bog standard QWERTY keyboard), it's not a great idea to have accents in titles. I would certainly like some other opinions, from User:Calgacus, User:An Siarach, User:Derek Ross and User:Mais oui! at least. I appreciate there are arguments about name space consistency, and I do think those have to be taken into account. Not that they are everywhere as we'll see. Given that the page name appears in big friendly letters, we clearly need to have a nod and wink in that direction. OTOH, we could easily link the namespace standard page to a non-namespace standard one, i.e. Kenneth I of Scotland redirects to Cínead mac Ailpín, Aedan of Dalriada redirects to Áedan mac Gabhraín (or whatever precise orthographic standard we should happen to adopt). Redirects, says the WP techy stuff, are cheap, don't stint on them. But standards are also cheap, which is why everyone has their own. Russian rulers simply don't follow any standard. Andrei Bogolyubsky, Vsevolod III, but it redirects to Vsevolod the Big Nest (duh !), Ivan I of Russia (of Russia ? Hmmm) with Ivan Kalita as a redirect. What a mess ! Obviously we don't want to end up like that. Can I move this discussion to WP:SCOWNB, or Talk:Kingdom of Scotland, or some other general forum ? Please let me know ! Angus McLellan 22:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Using English names for these guys is silly, and goes against scholarly trends. Giving English names implies they are English (this is actually a real effect), and you'll see if you go through Polish or Lithuanian rulers native names are given. Moreover, the only way to gain consistency is by using the contemporary names, because many medieval Gaelic names have no anglicization. Anglicized naming also fulfils Lowest common denominator; K did not exist in pre-Norman insular languages for instance. Why not, for instance, call Aed of Scotland Hugh of Scotland (looks stupid doesn't it)? Máel Coluim to Malcolm - fair enough, what do you do with Máel Snechtai or Máel Brigte, names which have no anglicization. So you'll have the word Máel written twice on the same page in different forms. Most silly. It also implies that Máel Coluim was not Gaelic, but Máel Snechtai/Máel Brigte was; false and misleading. I have a consistent naming policy which[REDACTED] ought to adopt, one followed by Scottish historians - generally outlined here: . As a rule, when I employ medieval Gaelic names, I omit lenition for people born before 1200, and retain it for people born after 1200; i.e. Domnall but, after 1200, Domhnall. Generally, As get inserted after Es in certain names, Ferchar but Fearchar, Fergus but Fearghus; áe becomes ao (i.e. Máel Coluim, but Maol Choluim/Maol Chaluim). - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 23:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the general point, but being a sad techie, the nomenclature and name space aspects do interest me a little. The article on Donnchad ua Máel Coluim does now, and forever will, say Duncan I of Scotland at the top. Should it ? Or should it be titled Donnchad ua Máel Coluim, and mention Duncan I on the page ? At which point should we switch to king names in English (after Domnall Bán mac Donnchada I suppose) ? We could keep those who want a consistent naming system - X Y of Z - happy with pages Duncan I of Scotland, Kenneth I of Scotland and the rest, but redirect all of those pages where we would like to have a different name to a another page, called, e.g. Donnchad ua Máel Coluim, Cínaed mac Ailpín. There are a few cases where we would need to disambiguate two people with identical name and patronym. Óengus mac Fergusa, Drest son of Talorgan and maybe Talorgan son of Drest come to mind, and I think only the first is absolutely necessary. We can avoid the question of whether to use mac or map for Pictish kings by making most of them "son of" and leaving map/mac for the reasonably clear cut cases. There must be few kings of the Picts, Scots, or Dál Riada, Mormaers, or other significant personalities, who would have an article about them and who do not have a patronym, matronym or some sort of eponym which would uniquely distinguish them. I am more than willing to do the donkey work if there is a consensus for change, and if there is a consensus on the standard form of the names to be adopted. I regularly have nothing to do for five or ten minutes in the office, which is enough to do this sort of stuff, but not enough to do anything more useful. Angus McLellan 23:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are guides for[REDACTED] naming of rulers that the "X of Country" should generally be the formula; and titles for kings, I do think, should follow that formula. If you attempted to move "Malcolm II of Scotland" to "Máel Coluim II of Scotland", you'd get opposition. In general, the kings of Scotland are usually best known by their English names. But this doesn't mean we should actively anglicize Gaelic names. Only the kings and one or two other folk are famous enough in the English-speaking world to be referred to more commonly by their Anglicized names, but otherwise there's no excuse for using anglicizations. Moreover, I don't see why the name in the title should dictate the name in the text (e.g. Henry_II_of_France). Lastly, as almost every active historian in the area uses now uses Gaelic forms for Gaelic names, using these forms could deter users who don't have a clue what they're talking about adding garbage to the articles; if wiki editors had done this in the first place, the articles for the early Scottish kings wouldn't be as garbage as they now are. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 23:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I am not suggesting (re)moving them. Those pages would still exist. They would be a redirect is all. That seems to comply with the standard. As I understand it. Not that I did anything as mundane as try to find it. Some anonymous Finnish person today changed loads of references in articles from like this Kenneth III to like this Kenneth III of Scotland (but not just for Scots articles), and changed every reference to the subject (let's say Malcolm II) from like this "Malcolm died in ..." to "Malcolm II died in ...". I suppose we can count ourselves lucky it wasn't changed to "Malcolm II of Scotland died in ...". It may be that the anonymous editor thought they were doing a good deed. Angus McLellan 00:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There are two considerations as i see it. Firstly this is the English language[REDACTED] and must cater for whichever form of the name has priority in that language. Secondly the entire purpose of[REDACTED] and encyclopedias generally is to provide information, to educate and this requires that we use the historically/linguistically/ethnically correct forms of names. I dont see what could possibly be objectionable about having the anglicized form of a name acting as a redirect ( Such as Donald ) to the correct and accurate native version of the name - Domnall. The points raised by Calgacus regarding the perception, and possible misconception, of Rulers/People is very valid imo. We should be wary of pandering to convenience and LCD. Disqualifying a fact due to general ignorance of it seems a very strange thing to do in what acts as a source of information and reference. This is especially pertinent with regard to Scotland which already suffers a phenomenal level of misunderstanding, misconception and outright ignorance regarding the history of the nation and maintaining this via the deliberate anglicization of the names of Scottish monarchs from their correct, native Scottish, forms seems to me to go entirely against the principle of the project and does nothing but propagate and encourage continued ignorance and misunderstanding.An Siarach

I concur. The point of this encyclopedia is to educate individuals. Most Scottish/Pictish kings did not use the names they have on this website ever in their lifetime. True many of the latter ones (after Kenneth) have been anglicised, but I think they should be reverted to their actual names until the kings began using English versions of the names themselves. Malcolm...pah! He deserves his real name as the page's title. But we should make sure all monarchs on all[REDACTED] pages follow a standard form (ie _______ of _______) because surnames are just dumb to have in their title.
–Whaleyland 09:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictish revision

In your overhaul of the entry on Picts, you say that Brochs are sometimes popularly associated with the Picts, but these date from earlier in the Iron Age, with construction ending around 100 AD, although brochs may have been used into, and beyond, the Pictish period. I just wanted to point out that several brochs show clear and dateable reuse throughout the "Pictish" period. The broch at Yarrows in Caithness is a good example, where a Pictish settlement grew around the outside of an existing broch (probably a broch tower), which was in itself re-roofed at a lower level and re-inhabited. It is by no means unique, or even unusual, in this regard. Good job on the overhaul, by the way. Lianachan 12:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)