Talk:Trumwine of Abercorn

Untitled
Why must there be a footnote in every sentence (but three) and more than one in some? It seems excessive. Just put all sources in the references section unless some information is particularly controversial or uncertain. It preserves more flow. If there is some good reason for this, fine, but I can't see it.

[Note that I am not raising the issue of using "Alt Clut" in preference to "Strathclyde" when the former is very obscure usage to most English ears. I'm done with naming controversies on Scotland-related articles.]

Srnec 03:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason Strathclyde is not used is that it is inaccurate, it never appears in any sources until it appears in the Annals of Ulster in the late 9th century. It remains possible that Strathclyde is only the name for the Scoto-Norse Kingdom that emerged after the Viking sack of Alt Clut. Alt Clut is actually the name of the Kingdom in the sources, and is preferred by historians dealing with the pre-Viking sack. As for notes, what harm do they do? That's the way wiki is going; I would have thought it would be better to praise me for putting the extra work in to have them, than to complain about them. They also, BTW, make it more difficult for future editors to put in inaccurate information. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 10:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As to Alt Clut over Strathclyde: fine, but does it persist into the tenth and eleventh centuries or do articles relating to those time frames use Strathclyde? As to footnotes, I do praise the extra work of looking up the information, as I do in any article I create, but why must it all be footnoted? I think it breaks up the flow of the article and is far less aesthetically pleasing. I've noticed that many of these Scotland-related articles are heavily footnoted and I wondered why when most other articles merely cite the sources used and do not point every fact to a specific source, but that is because most facts are found in many sources. If these articles are different and each fact is controversial or uncertain because of the scarcity of sources, fine. Srnec 17:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dark Age/Early Medieval History kinda necessitates use of sources. The info on Trumwine, for instance, comes from two texts, the HE and VCuth. So saying what you got where, and distinguishing info in a primary source from the suggestions of a modern historian are vital to a interested reader's understanding. The articles on tenth and eleventh century kings use Strathclyde - Alt Clut is not mentioned after the 9th century until the late 12th century (it might be thirteenth, not sure), when it is the Gaelic "Dumbarton" shifting between the Scottish Kings and the Earls/Mormaers of Lennox. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)