Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland/Royal naming

In light of some, er, spirited discussion on the names of the various Scottish monarchs, Calgacus has asked me to repost some comments I made on his talk page with respect to devising an alternative to the standard naming procedure for the earliest persons on the traditional list of kings of Scotland. What I said was...


 * I'd say the competing principles that must be reconciled are 1) recognizability; 2) accuracy; and 3) avoiding ridiculous artificial wikipedia neologisms (Constantine MacKenneth, for instance, would probably be an instance of the last), with the latter being most important. john k 17:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, the issue, as I take it, is that for at least the kings prior to Constantine II, although they are widely known as kings of Scotland, this is something of an anachronism, making such naming problematic. It would be advisable to work out an alternate naming scheme, if possible. john k 18:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's begin by stating the blindingly obvious. Cináed is not the subject's name in Scots or Irish Gaelic as something as easy as clicking the interwiki links would have confirmed. To summarise, some possible names for this article per the various policies which might be applied are:


 * Kenneth IV of the Picts (chronologically the 4th Pictish king on WP whose name might be anglicised as Kenneth)
 * Kenneth of the Picts (but none of the other articles actually use Kenneth, so ...)
 * Cináed of the Picts (or Cináed either)
 * Kenneth mac Alpín (fairly obvious if ugly)
 * Cináed mac Ailpín (perhaps not so obvious, but consistent with usage elsewhere on WP)
 * Kenneth MacAlpin (probably misleading as MacAlpin looks like a surname, which it isn't)
 * Kenneth I of Scotland (except that he didn't rule Scotland and this isn't a common way to refer to him)

As you might like to know how other rulers from the same time and area are handled:
 * Contemporary "High Kings of Ireland": Niall Caille mac Áeda, Máel Sechnaill mac Maíl Ruanaid plus Feidlimid mac Crimthainn
 * Contemporary Welsh kings: Cyngen ap Cadell, Merfyn Frych ap Gwriad, Rhodri the Great i.a.

Before weighing with an opinion, keep in mind that any decision you make will need to encompass his brother and sons; whether Giric and "Donald II" should be treated as per the subject, or as below, is an interesting question. Although I'd be happy enough to put them in the following category, it appears that the present orthodoxy would make "Constantine II" the first king of something-other-than-the-Picts.

While considering the above, you may like to consider that "X of Scotland" is equally tendentious for all monarchs until some arbitrarily determined point in the 11th or 12th century (the accession of Edgar is plausible dividing line and less arbitrary than most). Naming policy tells us that rulers of "peoples" rather than countries "... should be "of the Goths", etc" (exception 3). Taking the subjects most famous grandson (possibilities for include Constantine, Custantin, Causantín, Caustantín), the options might be:


 * II of Scotland (but he didn't rule Scotland, reliable sources say so)
 * mac Áeda (as Cináed mac Ailpín)
 * II of the Scots ("of peoples")
 * II of Alba (the name of the place he ruled)
 * son of Áed (more English than mac Áeda)
 * son of Hugh (even more English)

As you might like to know how other rulers from the same time and area are handled:
 * Contemporary "High Kings of Ireland": Flann Sinna, Niall Glúndub and the unwritten Donnchad Donn mac Flainn
 * Contemporary Welsh kings: Idwal Foel, Cadell ap Rhodri and Hywel Dda i.a.
 * Contemporary rulers of England: Edward the Elder, Ethelweard, Athelstan of England, Edmund I of England
 * Contemporary rulers of York: Olaf III Guthfrithson, Olaf Cuaran and Eric I of Norway (Eric Bloodaxe surely) i.a.

Please feel free to add to the above options. Given the the default case of Naming conventions (names and titles) appears not to apply, if you are going to argue that it does, please explain why you believe that point 1 ("of modern countries") does apply and why exclusions 3 and 4 do not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC) reposted from here by Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Several thoughts here:
 * 1) For Kenneth I, I like Kenneth mac Alpin or Kenneth MacAlpin. In the latter instance, that the name is not a surname can be explained.  For the former, it is somewhat problematic as possibly a wikipedia only construction.
 * 2) I don't think we should give people ordinals that aren't commonly used. "Kenneth IV of the Picts" is a neologism, more or less, and we should avoid it, just like we should avoid renumbering German Emperor Frederick III because he was the only Frederick to be German Emperor, or call Emperor Henry II Emperor Henry I because Henry the Fowler was only German king, and not emperor.  Ordinals and numbering are often inconsistent and illogical.  This is the way things go, we shouldn't endeavor to correct it.  Better to avoid the ordinal than to
 * 3) "Alba" may not have been translated as "Scotland" at the time of Constantine II, but it is certainly so translated now. I think that, for the general purposes of article naming, it should be acceptable to translate "Alba" as "Scotland," so long as the article itself is clear that this is retrospective and possibly anachronistic.  Constantine II of Alba just seems weird to me. For a different near-contemporary comparison, we have Louis III of France, although Louis III himself would have called his kingdom "Western Francia."  Similarly, we have Conrad I of Germany, although his kingdom would have been "Eastern Francia".  Alba became Scotland (and we can't even clearly state when this happened), Western Francia became France, and Eastern Francia became Germany.  Best to make these issues clear in the text, rather than mucking up the title over it. So I'd suggest sticking with Constantine II of Scotland.
 * 4) Some thought should be given to what to do with the rulers from Donald I to Donald II - I feel as though they're stickiest. john k 12:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the intention of WP:NC (names and titles):
 * "Modern countries" in clause 1 is chiefly intended to distinguish Europe as whole, which shares a common namestock, from the Hellenistic and other ancient monarchies. We can use Antiochus IV Epiphanes because we are not likely to have to distinguish him from Antiochus IV of the United Kingdom; but Kenneth I of the United Kingdom is quite possible. (Not in the immediate future, probably, but who knows?)
 * Of course there were various kings Antiochus of Commagene, and perhaps of other places, as well. john k 19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And we do have Antiochus IV of Commagene; but ancient royal names, so far, haven't needed a guideline. Septentrionalis 17:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Exception 3 is really a proposal; it isn't even applied to the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths, for whom it is intended. (See Theodoric.)
 * I think exception 4 does apply to Kenneth MacAlpin, in the sense that Kenneth I or IV would be surprising. But it clearly doesn't apply to Constantine II, because he's being called that in this conversation without anybody wincing. Septentrionalis 18:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Some examples
I was reviewing my position when the vote closed, as evidence was being provided that variations on Cináed were being given priority in recent non-specialist histories. This made me wonder what is used in schools, if this period is taught at all these days. I tried having a look at what some current history sources online did. Rather to my surprise the BBC seems unsure about whether to mention the Gaelic version, and it does look as though Kenneth is established at present. For what it's worth, here's what came up: The spelling and accents may be tricky for people: I've trouble remembering lùpadar and I see it most days. However in future there's likely to be a stronger case for Gaelic naming. It's probably wildly against guidelines, but because of the various spellings many users will come to the page via a redirect, and for someone reading the page a heading on the lines of Cináed mac Ailpín (Kenneth MacAlpine) would be really helpful as it would allow the reader to look at the title bar for a reminder. Anyone else think there's a case worth arguing for that? ..dave souza, talk 10:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) BBC - Kenneth MacAlpine - Born to be King? Kenneth MacAlpine
 * 2) BBC - Dark Age Scotland Kenneth MacAlpine (Cináed mac Ailpín)
 * 3) Rampant Scotland Newsletter - 8 Jan 05 Kenneth MacAlpine
 * 4) Scotsman Jan 05 Kenneth MacAlpine
 * 5) Timeline Scotland Cinaed (Kenneth) mac Ailpin


 * Well I went to school in Scotland from the late 80s to mid 90s and do not recall anything being taught history-wise other than the Romans only got so far north and the rest was Picts and then skipping straight to the Vikings. Of the rulers mentioned in the previous debate, I am only familiar with Kenneth mac Alpín, spelt as I have here. Cináed means nothing to me, I don't even know how to pronounce it. Catchpole 13:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * KEE-NAIOTH or KEE-NAITH (ai as in aisle, TH as in them), perhaps pronounced by the Picts as KEE-NYOTH. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is the accent? Is it kee-NAITH or KEE-naith?  I do know how to pronounce Kenneth, however.    Kenneth mac Alpín seems a plausible name.  Would it be a ridiculous wikipedia neologism to use anglicized name for the individual's name, but the Gaelic form of the patronymic? (I'm tending towards yes...).  At any rate, the problem is not so much Kenneth MacAlpin, which we could surely all agree on without too much difficulty.  It's Donald MacConstantine and Constantine MacKenneth that give problems. john k 19:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This all looks like it's done and such, but just chiming in here with my experience. I would indeed appreciate something like Cináed mac Ailpín (Kenneth MacAlpine), plus quite a few redirects. But if that turns out to be asking too much, I put forth that Kenneth MacAlpin is the common spelling over in the States, and how I've learned of the man. Canæn 05:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

English verses Gaelic and the relationship to established policy

 * There appears to be two aspects to the question under discussion here. First is the seemily tricky question (at least to me) of what monarchical qualifier to use. Eg of the Picts, of Scotland, the I of Scotland, son of so and so, etc.  I wish to leave that question aside for the discussion under this paragraph and concentrate on a much more straightforward question.


 * The overarching policy is Naming conventions which in a nutshell states that Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.


 * From Kenneth I of Scotland to Donald III of Scotland the article names of the kings of the Scots have followed that convention. However, they then go one to use the Gaelic name in the opening line (sometimes then giving the common name in English after the word "anglicised" and use the Gaelic name throughout).  This usage clearly does not follow the Manual of Style (see WP:MOS).


 * Furthermore this Gaelic usage is now replacing English usage in other articles, eg Dunbar.


 * I propose that we adopt a policy, derived from the general policy of giving priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, that Scottish monarchs should be referred to by their common name in modern English. Of course the Gaelic name should be given once as an alternative in the article on the monarch, in line with the Manual of Style. Greenshed 16:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree as least surprising name for anglophones; although use of the non-English form once in the first line is fairly common and often useful. See Horace (or Frederick Louis, Prince of Hohenlohe-Ingelfingen) for examples. Septentrionalis 19:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Anglicized forms are just wrong and aren't the forms scholars generally use. Obviously the common man is going to recognize the name Malcolm more than Máel Coluim, but they'd also recognize Hugh more than Áed and Gregory more than Giric. Enough caving in to anglicized bastardizations has already been done with the title; putting it in brackets next to the correct name is more than enough. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. This is clearly how the vast majority would look for them, and expect to find them.  Mention the variant spelling in the intro; if there are a whole list of other variants, in can go further down the page.  Gene Nygaard 17:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. French speakers, German speakers, Italian speakers etc… have no problem in adapting the names of both places and people to their own language. Thus, Henry VIII becomes Henri VIII, Heinrich VIII and Enrico VIII d'Inghilterra respectively. For the overwhelming majority of English Speakers'…The Gaelic Languages are unknown and Very Difficult to read and pronounce – some articles are virtually unreadable except to an elite few. Jalipa 16:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. Wikipedia is (supposedly) an English language encyclopedia which offers information to the "general reader." It's not meant to reproduce the language or discourse of scholars. While Calgacus is a valuable (perhaps, on Scottish history, one of the most valuable) contributor, he needs to accept that an article full of Gaelic-style names is incomprehensible to the general reader. Unfortunately, far too many Wikipedia articles are bogged down in technical language (ever tried reading past the first sentence of many scientific articles), and show a major flaw in Wikipedia's non-editorial system. Anyhow, I would have thought the Wikipedia policy quoted above was clear, no matter how many "angliczied bastardisations" it breeds.--Iacobus 04:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. Surely this is already the policy. Deb 11:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You wouldn't know, reading some of the early Scottish kings articles. --Iacobus 00:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. Please change the names back to the English variants which we all know and can pronounce! Gaelic names can be used in the Gaelic Wikipedia, and as an "original language" name in the English Wikipedia. If we use the Gaelic names as the main English Wikipedia article names as Calgacus suggests above, then we must use Пётр I Алексеевич as the main article name for Peter the Great in order to be consistent (because remember, the Gaelic alphabet is not the same as the English alphabet, it is a foreign language alphabet with different pronounciation rules, despite using the same characters!) Another example: if we were to be following the frankly STUPID logic of this Gaelic naming scheme, then William the Conqueror should be called Guillaume le Conquérant (Anglicized: William the Conqueror). It's idiotic. Someone fix it, it's a national embarrassment to Scotland. 91.105.254.77 (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)