Talk:Constantine III of Scotland

Cartoon appearance
Probably not suitable for inclusion in the article itself, but Constantine III made an appearance as a character in the episode "Avalon Part One" of Disney's Gargoyles cartoon series. — Matthew0028 12:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constantine III of Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://ia700303.us.archive.org/0/items/johnoffordunschr00fordrich/johnoffordunschr00fordrich.pdf
 * Added tag to http://ia700303.us.archive.org/0/items/johnoffordunschr00fordrich/johnoffordunschr00fordrich.pdf
 * Added tag to http://ia700303.us.archive.org/0/items/johnoffordunschr00fordrich/johnoffordunschr00fordrich.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070606150144/http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/scothist/booklets/sh1/documents-alba.html to http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/scothist/booklets/sh1/documents-alba.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"Cultural depictions of Constantine III of Scotland" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cultural depictions of Constantine III of Scotland. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Constantine's image, Wikipedia's aspirations and the issue of posthumous pictures.
Hello. I recently added a later image of Constantine III, and I specified that it was posthumous in the image caption. I thought little of it until it was removed with the same tired argument that is always used: "Wikipedia should aspire to scholarly standards, and these images are not scholarly enough."

I do not think that Wikipedia should be scholarly. Wikipedia itself doesn't think it should either, (see this and this). Wikipedia's express purpose is to "get a sense of a concept or idea." Over 6 million pages can never be scholarly; can you really expect 6 million individual people to academically study 6 million different topics, and all for what? All just to write a Wikipedia article? Not only is this argument so ridiculously idealistic and naïve, it has been proven not to work before. Wikipedia's precursor, Nupedia, tried to do the exact thing this person was describing, to write articles at an academic level. Unfortunately, it was a colossal failure; only 21 articles were written a year because of the smothering seven-step editorial process. It just doesn't work to mass-produce scholarly content on a free encyclopaedia, especially one that anybody can edit. Nobody is going to academically research Pot Noodle or futtock shrouds just to write an article for free that likely nobody will visit.

In conclusion, Wikipedia doesn't have to be perfect; Wikipedia just has to be good enough. After all, the cost of perfection is infinite.

Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in this comment do I see an argument for the repetition of the image in the infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)