Talk:Causantín mac Cináeda

Expansion
I've started expanding the article, which means that for a while a lot of it will be unreferenced and may not make perfect sense. I'll try to finish as quickly as possible. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Downham: 68-71 (Hálfdan), 21-23 (Amlaíb, Auisle) 137-145, 160-3, 238-240, 246, 238, 257-9, 265

Woolf: c3 Broun, Irish origins: 168-9, 171-4 Anderson, Kings and Kingship: 78-9, 196-8 ASC: 871, 875 OIHV: 90 Duncan, Making: 90-1 Smyth: 159, 187-195, 215, 217, 222 [Robertson] [Skene] Crawford: 49-51 O'Corrain, I&S: ESSH SAEC

Trim down list of unnecessary refs. No OotKoA stuff needed? Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have ambitions for this you might need to explain why "Constantine I of Scotland" is merely "King of the Picts". Certainly, you don't need to link the OotKoA, an old article that embarrasses me a little every time I see it (needs worked up beyond being a dump site for a section of SitHMAs). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Amlaíb's Death
The article says he died in 871 or 872. But my reading of the Pictish Chronicle seems to indicate 875:

"and after two years Amlaib, with his people, laid waste Pictavia; and he dwelt there from 1 January until the feast of Saint Patrick [17 March]. Again in the third year Amlaib, [?while collecting tribute], was killed by Constantine. A short while after that battle was fought in his 14th year at Dollar between the Danes and the Scots, the Scots were annihilated at Atholl. The Norsemen spent a whole year in Pictavia."

There seems to be reference to two different battles: one in Constantine's 14th year (875-876) at Dollar in which Amlaíb died and Constantine was victorious; and another battle at Atholl shortly afterwards in which the Scots were heavily defeated. This latter is in the Annals of Ulster for 875 (corrected), so that would put Amlaíb's death earlier in 875. Eroica (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Putting all significant names in Lead.
I did this and was wrongly reverted by Deacon, having added Constantine I of Scotland to the 1st line of the article. This is a major, if not THE major usage, and by Wikipedia policy, should be mentioned clearly in the first line of the lead, not hidden obscurely elsewhere. The reason for this is to help the ordinary, non-expert reader, who needs to be sure he is at the right page. The information needs to be there.  Xan  dar  23:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Constantine I of Scotland is not a common name. Constantine I, despite its inaccuracy, is one, and it is already mentioned and nicely bolded for your viewing pleasure on the second third sentence. Check for yourself. Now the same name is bolded twice. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The name Constantine I King of Scotland, appears in many sources, eg here, and in the established lists of Kings of Scotland. As such it is a name that should appear in the first line. WP:BOLDTITLE. The second use is lower down the page and less clear. That should probably not be in bold per the MOS guidance.  Xan  dar   02:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if it turns up in loads of sources. Loads of sources say the moon landing was fake, doesn't mean the article should have moon landing hoax bolded in the first line. And if some guideline appears to say to you that it should, then that's why sensible users have WP:IAR, one of the five pillars of wikipedia. That he is often listed as a king of Scotland is explained in the opening lines, now it's explained twice. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reports the names and viewpoints as reflected in the sources. It doesn't censor them. The simple fact is a reader needs to know quickly that he has reached the right article if he is looking for Constantine I of Scotland. Therefore the name is required early. And since there are Constantine II and III of Scotland, denying the existence of Constantine I is pretty pointless. The article text also looks extremely confusing, a lot of which is about another Constantine altogether, while not making this clear. This needs reworking, but not by me right now.  Xan  dar   02:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You've went and missed the point entirely, but no matter as the name is there now.
 * You reckon you could rework this article??? This article could definitely be expanded or fine-tuned I suppose with more exhaustive source usage, but it's decent for the effort put in, and certainly better than the cack that was there before Angus got to it. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)