Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs of Scotland in Gaelic


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of monarchs of Scotland.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

List of monarchs of Scotland in Gaelic
We've got a List of monarchs of Scotland, why do we need the same thing in Gaelic? This is the English Wikipedia, and the purpose of lists like this is to help the reader navigate to articles about Scottish monarchs. This list doesn't do that. If somebody wants to know the Gaelic names, they can look them up in the articles, or they can go to the Gaelic Wikipedia. Or, the Gaelic names can be put in brackets into the main list. In any case, this list is useless. - ulayiti (talk)  13:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge. This is the English Wikipedia, after all, but the Gaelic is unquestionably important to many and listing the Gaelic spellings alongside the English is entirely appropriate,. to my mind. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is the English wikipedia, but in practice the English wikipedia is used as a source for articles in other languages, and sadly this has resulted in "English forms" proliferating in other languages, where they are not appropriate. Of course it isn't useless. It is a useful resource, esp. when so many wikipedians are unable to give early and high medieval Scottish kings their proper ethnic names. For these reasons and others, I vote to keep the article. - Calgacus 14:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I think the original Gaelic names should be listed in List of monarchs of Scotland and the articles themselves. Having a separate page for them serves no purpose at all. - ulayiti (talk)  14:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, there are three different forms to be included; the medieval native Scottish forms, the modern Gaelic forms and the modern Anglicizations: might be a little messy, unless someone makes a decent table. On the other hand, the Gaelic article can perhaps be updated in future with more in depth discussion of medieval Gaelic, English and Continental names, Gaelicization, Latinization, Francization, and Anglicization. My own view is that all pre-12th century Scottish monarchs should have names in their medieval Scottish form by default. This is increasingly the trend amongst Scottish medievalists in any case. The age of the King Duffs and Malcolm MacKenneths is coming to an end. Although sadly few Anglophone wikipedians are reflecting this yet, you cannot say that Anglicized forms are the only forms used in the English language. Moreover, the medieval Scottish language has no wikipedia of its own. I guess my views are compatible with a merger though, as my concern is not so much with modern Gaelic forms. - Calgacus 14:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So include them all. It will be much easier for the user than trying to cross-reference them between three different articles! - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong merge with List of monarchs of Scotland. Deleting this interesting information would be near vandalism - however, leaving it as a distinct article sets a dangereous precident. Look, here comes List of Spanish Kings in Spanish, List of French Cheeses (in French) and List of Jews in Hebrew. --Doc ask? 14:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, is there a Gaelic wikipedia? If so, then delete this article in the English wiki and have one create it over on the Gaelic wikipedia and perhaps link from the english to Gaelic article. If there is no Galeic wikipedia, then keep this article. Evil Eye 14:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There is indeed one - here, although it contains only modern forms. - Calgacus 14:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This option is called transwikiing --- Charles Stewart 18:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * strong merge per doc. the Gaelic names could be listed next to those in English. Youngamerican 16:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of monarchs of Scotland, in the form of a table in this article containing English and Gaelic names in different columns. Laur 17:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * comment I wholeheartedly agree with the table idea above. Youngamerican 17:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per what Laur said. --Cyde Weys votetalk 19:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge - good content, no good reason for keeping lists separate. The table idea might be nice, but I'd be happy with a list. Note that some of the early kings had Pictish names (certainly Kenneth MacAlpin, though the name isn't in the article). --- Charles Stewart 18:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * conditional merge -- true, the information obviously belongs in the Gaelic wikipedia, but it also belongs here: not all of us read Gaelic and so we'll be lost there. As far as en is concerned, including the information in the articles is all well and good but it doesn't replicate the usefulness of a list; neither do parentheticals after the names at List of monarchs of Scotland. The only viable options in my mind are: 1) keep; 2) a straightforward merge at List of monarchs of Scotland where the page first has a list of English names and then has a list of Gaelic names; or 3) a two-column table at List of monarchs of Scotland which is visually clear and easy to read. The last-named is probably the best option since it allows for quick comparison of English and Gaelic names. Doops | talk 18:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as per above. Jcuk 21:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Marged: You all were taking so long to discuss that I merged the two listing the English name, the Modern Gælic name, and the old Gælic name (if applicable). Edit as you wish, but the old page is null and void now.  If you want to chart the current one, go ahead but making complex tables to list kings personally bothers me because it makes it more complex.  I think listing the names side-by-side is preferable and fine.–Whaleyland 07:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, no, you just added a mergefrom notice to it. That's not the same thing. Doops | talk 07:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops. 1) The mergefrom notice was added by somebody else, not you; 2) I evidently got to the article before you did. The merge has now taken place. Doops | talk 07:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong merge per above Compu  ter  Joe  17:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Future
In all seriousness, it looks as if "merge" has a consensus. My question is: what will become of the old article and its edit history? Are we thinking in terms of a redirect page or an outright deletion? Doops | talk 07:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Per the GFDL, a merge requires a redirect to be left behind. This preserves the page history. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia has tools, available to admins, that allow two page histories to be merged. I gather that it is a little delicate to do well, but merge outcomes on AfD are not so very common. --- Charles Stewart 16:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've seen them used; and they don't work well. They just make for a confusing muddle. Much much better to leave the old history at the redirecting page. Doops | talk 17:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.