User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 2

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

February 2006 to April 2006

Can you read : this? If you can, can you see anything that might be added to the article Roman de Fergus? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 18:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better than my Gaelic: good enough to get the gist of it. "One fine morning Fergus, the farmer's son, plodding unhappily along behind his father's plough, saw a company of knights ride by." My first impression is no, it doesn't, but I'll check it out. Angus McLellan 18:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. :) Also, if you think this or any other Dutch link makes the article Roman van Ferguut viable, then it would be a great addition (I recently added a section about it to Roman de Fergus). Have a good evening. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 18:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new agreed spelling of Dál Riata suggests that the titles of its rulers ought to be changed, for instance, Aedan of Dalriada to Áedán of Dál Riata. What do you think? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Dál Riatan kings I think I'd prefer "name patronym" or "name byname". It avoids the problem of "was X" king of Dál Riata or just of the Cenél Y, it's how they're presented in most books, and it's how other Gaelic kings are done. If that's the route, I'd like an expert opinion on the orthography, and on diacritics. I'll stick up something on Talk:List of Kings of Dalriada ... Angus McLellan 19:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with you on that; numbering these guys is silly in any case. Áedán mac Gabráin is much better than Aedan of Dalriada. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've just put my thoughts on Talk:List of Kings of Dalriada, please correct my mistakes ! Angus McLellan 20:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have to go on wikibreak again. Will go over it when I get back. Just quickly though, the genitive of Eochaid I think is Echdach. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Byrne has Echach or Echdach. I'll do more proofreading ! Enjoy your break. I'll keep plodding along with the Early Middle Ages: two steps forward, one step back. Angus McLellan 20:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to look for pictures etc., yet, but I wanted to thank you for what looks like a very cool link, and for checking that rumour out. Candle-ends 02:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ! I was curious myself. If I come across anything else I'll let you know. Angus McLellan 08:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I would like to tidy up the articles on Irish kings by renaming them in line with the usage in F.J. Byrne's Irish Kings and High-Kings (only done with Niall Glúndub so far, and with the articles I've created lately). Neither of these things will happen overnight. If you have any opinion on these matters, say so at Talk:List of Kings of Dalriada and/or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Medieval Gaels) or just shout at me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC) "

Angus, the best place to start with is not with Frank's book but with "A New History of Ireland", which was a multi-disiplinery ten volume series who's final edition only came out last year. In the Irish king lists which I have compiled I have done so according to their usage, and have listed volume nine as my source (see Kings of Connacht, and other lists on my userpage. I would have done much more with many of these kings were it not for my long-term illness. Fergananim 19:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip much appreciated ! Thanks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Amazingly enough the national library has nine volumes (including I and IX) of the New History of Ireland. I'll try and pop over tomorrow and check them. Thanks again ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "having those pages built automatically," consider that AWB can make a list of articles from a text file. I don't know if it works with articles that don't exist yet, but I'm not sure why it wouldn't. Give it a try in the sandbox (as sub-pages) and see what happens. --Craig Stuntz 18:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see your additions to the High King of Ireland page Angus. Another improvement would be to emphasise the difference/overlap between kings of Tara (real early sacral continued as antiquarian/titular), high kings (pseudohistorical concept projected back onto previous figures) and kings of Ireland (real centralisation and internal conquest). The title of the page is really a misnomer for the development of kingship in Ireland through these stages. Also, perhaps a few parallels with developments in near neighbours such as the Capetian internal conquest in 12th century France to counter the long ingrained tendency to imagine a void of central kingship in Ireland as against the supposed existence of such a thing in France since the Merovingians, in England since Alfred, etc which as benchmarks are really not sustainable 195.92.168.168 22:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For the early stuff I need to read the bits of Byrne (the first six chapters) that I have only ever skipped over). Certainly the Capetians are a case in point as their writ did not run south of Loire for many years, and later Merovingian and later Carolingian authority did not extend far either. England post-1066 is atypical, so why it should be a yardstick for anywhere else - other than the large number of English historians ... - I don't know. Ireland in the 1170s is not, by European standards, especially disunited; rather England is exceptionally centralised due to a series of historical accidents. That's my reading of things anyway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome please sign any messages with ~~~~. Thanks !

That seems to be a very common hole in people's undestanding of the Cite.php extension, whih is sad, since it is definitely its most useful feature. As for arrow characters, I think 80% is the limit at which the problem arises, but I think 90% is a bit more legible and condensed enough. Circeus 18:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm going to put my new, improved understanding of Cite.php to use by changing Penda of Mercia. Thanks again ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see from your user page that you are probably as close to an authority on early Scottish history that we have on Wikipedia. Regarding your edit of the Irish-Scots article, removing "unhistorical historical note", I agree that the "summary" given was questionable, and represented some of the theories of early Irish migration to Scotland as fact, rather than just one of many theories. However, the idea behind the note was just to summarise that the presence of the Irish, and the effect of Ireland on the history and culture of Scotland long pre-dates the influx of Irish into Scotland in the 18-20th centuries (the main feature of the article), and that there is evidence that the "Scotti" came from Ireland, which I think is generally accepted (and certainly seems to be backed up by other articles on Wikipedia). Would it be possible to provide a better summary of these points, rather than just removing reference to them? Without wanting to impinge upon your time (I see you have quite an extensive "to do" list as it is!), could you provide some input in this direction?

If you have the time, I would also appreciate your input on the rather nasty edit war that is going on on the article just now, with (what I believe) to be rather contentious edits being added by one "Brandubh Blathmac", who is easily proved to be a sock-puppet of a very difficult editor, Rms125a@hotmail.com. I'm afraid I may have allowed myself to become too annoyed with this editor, but this is because of the quite disgusting personal abuse I, and many others, have had to suffer from him, as well as the rather outrageous POV he adds to many articles. Again, I do not wish to make claims on your time, but it may or may not be of interest to you.

Thanks, Camillus (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I'll try and add something back. There's absolutely no doubt that to benighted foreigners, Gaelic-speaking Scotsmen and Irishmen were one and the same thing, and that the word for both was "Scots" until quite late in the day. So far as I can see, our man Rms125 wouldn't be missed if he took himself off and didn't come back ever again. I've been trying to keep an eye on Irish-Scots - which surely needs an article - but the last couple of times you've beaten me to reverting his nonsense. Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your contribution, Angus. I must say I quite like the comment from 1066 and All That - it can be refreshing to see a bit of humour, particularly clever humour which actually has something to teach us, into an article such as this which can be the target for such contentiousness (is that a word??). Your edit clearly shows that the line between the Scots and Irish is a very vague one - it seems to me to be a common feature of the history of migration, that the idea of "fixed" "indigenous peoples" is just a sham - people were shifting about for millenia, with groups gaining and losing ascendancy, and all the time inter-mingling. (That was all I wanted to reflect in the "Historical note" section). Which is why I get so annoyed by people with fairy-tale mythological pseudo-historical ideas of (for example), the noble "Caledonians" versus the rabid slave-mongering "Hibernians" (I think you know who in particular I'm referring to). Scotland and Ireland are of course, not unique in this - England is very much a "mongrel nation" - but, unlike the MP I heard complaining about this a few years ago, some people see this as being something to celebrate. Thanks again! Camillus (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a re-write of Sub-Roman Britain and was wondering if you could provide any expertise on north Britain for that period. Harthacanute 18:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that you are by no means supporting my arguments here, but I would just like to say that I appreciate your input all the same, because to date coverage of the counties of Scotland has been dominated by one supreme fact: utter ignorance! We have had zero scholarly, sourced input, and I just hope that you and your learned colleagues can add a bit a heck of a lot of weight to Wikipedia's presentation of this area.

Questions:

• at what date did the word "county" first start getting used by Scottish people to apply to their own subdivisions? (I understand that it was the early 19th century)
• at what date did the word "shire" first start getting used by Scottish people to apply to their own subdivisions? (I understand that it may have been the 17th century, although earlier usage in Lowland Scotland seems likely)
• where can we obtain a reliable list of sheriffdoms? (that article and topic needs a lot of work)
• where can we get a list of shires which were entitled to send Commissioners to the Parliament of Scotland? (because the names used at List of Constituencies in the Parliament of Scotland at the time of the Union are those used in 1878! and just strike me as being highly unlikely to be accurate.)

I probably have more questions, but you are a busy man.

Finally, History of the subdivisions of Scotland is utterly pathetic at present, and extremely heavily concentrated on the 20th century. A scholarly approach there is also much needed. --Mais oui! 21:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See note on my talk page. Thanks. Bluegold 14:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that yoour "ruthless trimming" of the Further reading section was less a trimming and more a wholesale replacement. What were your criteria for selecting which items were on the further reading list? The list previously in the article was based on the bibliography in the Grove Dictionary of Art and the bibliograohy of the Calkins work used as a reference for the article. The works you dropped include the first facsimlile of the Book of Kells and a rather complete discusion of it (Alton and Meyer), the most commonly cited article on the most famous illumination in the book, the Chi Rho page (Lewis), one of the most widely available books on Insular manuscripts (Nordenfalk, Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Painting), and an article on the vellum and structure of the book by the man who did the latest rebinding of it (Powell). Dsmdgold 14:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no attachment to the books listed. Please do replace them if you feel that something else would be better. But the previous list was largely useless as "further reading", in which I'd expect to find "books that will tell you more than this article without going into enormous detail". I don't think you can assume everyone has access to a large anglophone library, so 1932 books are not likely to be helpful. Why not just cite the Grove Dictionary of Art ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we have a different concept of the use of further reading. I look at the Further reading list to be "a list of sources that will tell you more about this article, going into much greater detail, but were not used as sources for this article." I can see the value of having more recent works, but definitive works from the past should be included, as some people do have access to large Anglophone libraries (almost everyone in the United States can get almost any book via through interlibrary loan from their local library. I know, I live in a town of about 30,000 people in Oklahoma.) I don't cite the Grove article because the article is much shorter than ours, but with a good bibliography. Dsmdgold 15:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but I would expect the "Further reading" to be much shorter than the "References" section (or at least my articles end up like that), or with a couple of "Further reading" entries if there are no refs. But, having said that, I have reverted the article (no,I haven't; you did it first). Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some new categories:

• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies - has immediately been nominated for deletion
• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Glasgow
• Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Paisley

I wonder if you would consider reviewing the CFD debate about the first-mentioned, and contributing your thoughts? It is at:

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:British_MPs

Ta. --Mais oui! 14:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not much help i can give you regarding "Cath etir Albancho ar aen-rían cur' marbad and Crínan ab Duín Calland & sochaidhe maille fris .i. nae .xx. laech. " im afraid. What little of it i could understand seemed to match up with your own translation of it - i asked my father for his opinion ( hes a celtic studies grad ) and he came up with the same translation pretty much. He did suggest that that <something> might have been "at sea" or something similiar. Thurneysen's Old Irish book gives rian = sea apparently and with that in mind 'ar aen-rían' looks fairly similar to modern Gaelic 'air an cuan' - assuming that the ar aen=air an. Sorry i couldnt be of more help. An Siarach

That was a great deal of help, thanks ! At least I have a second (and third) opinion on the subject, and that makes me much happier. Thanks ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite 'a bit' ??? A great improvement (and takes it way out of my competence). Well done. ColinFine 23:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind comment, but it probably has a great many errors of fact, grammar and style. Please don't hesitate to edit ruthlessly whenever you find any of them :-) Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know anything about Scottish dynasties, so I don't know how accurate those names are, but I will say one thing...just because something is a modern invention doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. If other historians divide up the dynasties like that, then that is what we should do as well. This is not the place to overturn mistaken historiographical assumptions. Adam Bishop 11:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think many historians actually do that; they seem as much an invention of wiki users as amateur (but published) "historians". The dynasty system on the Pictish king page seems to have been invented by wiki users. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for the 25,000 claim in the online PDF of the US Census, but couldn't find it; I am curious as to how it was conducted. BTW, the Irish nationalist User:No More POV Please has stuck a fact tag on my claim that Gaelic was known as "Scottish" until the 16th century. I don't have access to many books ATM, but I'm sure a reference for that can be found in the Oxford Companion to Scottish History. I know you have that; can you check out the article on the "Scots language" and add a reference? Much appreciated. Good work on Macbeth BTW. Those Scottish kings articles are truly shocking, but if you're ever looking to do work on another king (aside from Máel Coluim III), then Dub of Scotland is badly in need of treatment. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are part of a conspiracy Angus, see User talk:No More POV Please. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other day it was a cabal, today it's grown into a conspiracy. That's progress. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it is likely that Bluegold (talk · contribs) and No More POV Please (talk · contribs) are the same person? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, although the evidence is circumstantial, and it wouldn't matter much if they were the same person anyway. But I don't doubt that User:No More POV Please and User:Bel air, the WikiProject POV person, are one and the same: compare this and this. User:Sea horn, who's edited Harp is another, see this. But User:Bluegold could be a sockpuppet rather than a puppetmaster. Interestingly, Talk:Harp, Talk:Dál Riata and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages have all had edits where single quotes were double escaped (i.e. \\\'), evidently some hopeless script kiddie. But, as I said, I don't think it's of much importance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is important because they're use multiple voices to gain strength on article edits. Good post btw, can you repost it HERE. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've being doing some long-overdue edits to Edward Bruce, particularly under the headings "The Invasion of Ireland" and "Arrival and the Campaign of 1315". I began it because the original article was hopelessly wrong in many places, but am now wondering if what I am writing would be better suited as an article in its own right on the Irish Bruce wars? Fergananim 19:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had a quick question about this referencing style, since you seem to have a good understanding of it. I think you may have answered it on your user page:

If you are using Cite.php, you can combine repeated refs by adding a "name" - so the first is ^[1] and the subsequent ones are ^[1].

...but I can't exactly figure out what that means. What I want to do is make it so I can reference things "out of order"; that is, if after note 3 I want to reference note 1 again, then I can just use that same note without having to add another note to the list (otherwise the referencing becomes a list of the same sources being repeated over and over, which is not only unnecessary and repetitive but bloats the article text size). Everyking 05:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Took a little work, but I figured it out. Thanks. Everyking 03:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating the map is not a problem, and I have topo data for all of the UK, so the southern and western boundaries are no bother. I have thrown together a quick test image to see if it is the kind of thing you are wanting. Do you want Shetland included? The choice of colours and resolution are whatever suits your needs best. I just chose those colours for the test to give an idea how it would roughly look, and resolution can go to the super numbers that I have previously uploaded (file size isn't so much of an issue when it is only 4 colour, as the test image is 1400x1000 but it is only 80kb!). If there are other things you would like on it let me know and I will see if it is possible or not (I am currently doing a good bit of behind the scenes testing of using PD maps to derive map data (settlements, roads, rivers etc) SFC9394 13:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Shetland and the Outer Hebrides can easily be included. Are you happy with the colours and its general appearance? If so then I will go ahead and create a full one with polish (hollowing out Lough Neagh for example) Do you want a land height key on the map? SFC9394 14:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded the final image to the commons at Image:Scotland Land Use by height.png and have swapped it in place of the test here, everything seems to be fine with it, I hope it is useful to you in article work! If you need anything altered on it let me know. SFC9394 15:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, if you need any more maps created just let me know. Best Wishes, SFC9394 16:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus, Feel free to nominate this as a good article, hopefully it'll pass. I am planning to make a few changes suggested by the Peer review but I don't have any time right now & don't expect to do it any time soon, I don't think they'd compromise the article in any event. AllanHainey 11:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I was keeping that on the quiet until I'd done all of them. I've got a revamped list which I'll paste on the relevant page once I'm done. Your tweaking would be appreciated, not only for content, but I am a notorious typo-dumper. The later Archie Duncan book is inaccessible to me; I've never got around to buying it because of its price, but it does seem to have made a large impact on Scottish historiography, so it'd probably be worth it. The MacQuarrie article is very useful; he does much of the scholarly leg-work, but I've never been that impressed with MacQuarrie as a scholar. He builds his king-list from the Harleian genealogies (and there he is not alone), but never mentions that most of them are not attested as kings. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]