Talk:Duncan II of Scotland

Requested move
All of the following name changes are being discussed at Talk:Cináed I of Scotland:


 * Cináed I of Scotland → Kenneth I of Scotland
 * Cináed II of Scotland → Kenneth II of Scotland
 * Cináed III of Scotland → Kenneth III of Scotland
 * Domnall I of Scotland → Donald I of Scotland
 * Domnall II of Scotland → Donald II of Scotland
 * Domnall III of Scotland → Donald III of Scotland
 * Donnchad I of Scotland → Duncan I of Scotland
 * Donnchad II of Scotland → Duncan II of Scotland
 * Máel Coluim I of Scotland → Malcolm I of Scotland
 * Máel Coluim II of Scotland → Malcolm II of Scotland
 * Máel Coluim III of Scotland → Malcolm III of Scotland

An approval poll is in-process, as of August 28. All interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 01:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on citations
I came here because I am looking at pages that use the website http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/Intro.htm. I am introducing a new template to such articles that warns the reader that this is a self published site, and a better source is needed (see MLCC, RS Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley. See also WT:PEER: Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages, Template talk:Rayment and Rayment).

While going through the citations on this page I came across a few problems with linking the short and long citations: -- PBS (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Duncan (currently footnotes 3 and 15) could refer to one of two books (now in further reading) the date of publication is needed to identify the correct volume.
 * The curernt footnote 16 cites MacDonald but the author of the volume now in further reading is called McDonald. I presume that one is a mistype, but that needs conformation.


 * The book is "The Kingship of the Scots 842–1292: Succession and Independence". The other Duncan reference is to an online article with no specific pages.
 * Sorry about the misspelling.
 * The discussion about Medieval Lands did not result in the site being an unreliable source, or being self-published original research. But that it consists of "a good collection of primary sources. There is no absolute ban on using primary sources, but they are not ideal. When it comes to medieval genealogy I would say this type of imperfect source should not be shunned too much. Even professional writings on medieval genealogy are often full of assumptions and traditions, and the best ones often also just collect primary sources and let readers see the options." I think the template concerning "a better source" is somewhat misleading. Dimadick (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That was the last comment made but please see the other participants in the conversation, most of them did not think it was a reliable. If the website is going to be cited then the sources cited in the webpage need to be cited via WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and preferably someone needs to go and check those sources. I was hoping you would edit the page and make those changes ... . -- PBS (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the other participants didn't even notice that Medieval Lands always states its sources, primary and secondary. They focused instead on Cawley not being a professional. For a Medieval Lands Bibliography so far, see: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/Bibliog.htm This is more than I can expect on several academic sources, after years of actually using them. --Dimadick (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The point about the flags is to ask editors to proved Wikipedia reliable sources in place of Cawley's Medieval Lands (a non-expert self published source) -- There is no problem with using Cawley to cite a reliable source as in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT -- but the source itself is not reliable. I mentioned Cawrley at the started this section on this talk page to explain what I was doing here. But my specific intent in starting this conversation on this page was to resolve two anomalies in the citations in what is otherwise a well sourced article (I have also been working on others such as the sub-pages to List of nicknames of European royalty and nobility which are not!) --PBS (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If on consideration you think that Cawley's Medieval Lands is not a self published source, or despite this is a reliable source, then it would be better if this was discussed in a more general forum such as WP:RSN (and leave a message at WT:PEER) as this is a backwater for this type of conversation. If you do start a discussion then please let me know on my talk page where you do so. -- PBS (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)