Talk:Causantín mac Cináeda

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Causantín mac Cináeda article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Biography / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Medieval Scotland High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Medieval Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Medieval ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandMedieval Scotland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scottish Royalty High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scottish Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Scottish RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyScottish royalty articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Expansion

I've started expanding the article, which means that for a while a lot of it will be unreferenced and may not make perfect sense. I'll try to finish as quickly as possible. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Downham: 68-71 (Hálfdan), 21-23 (Amlaíb, Auisle) 137-145, 160-3, 238-240, 246, 238, 257-9, 265

Woolf: c3 Broun, Irish origins: 168-9, 171-4 Anderson, Kings and Kingship: 78-9, 196-8 ASC: 871, 875 OIHV: 90 Duncan, Making: 90-1 Smyth: 159, 187-195, 215, 217, 222 [Robertson] [Skene] Crawford: 49-51 O'Corrain, I&S: ESSH SAEC

Trim down list of unnecessary refs. No OotKoA stuff needed? Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have ambitions for this you might need to explain why "Constantine I of Scotland" is merely "King of the Picts". Certainly, you don't need to link the OotKoA, an old article that embarrasses me a little every time I see it (needs worked up beyond being a dump site for a section of SitHMAs). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amlaíb's Death

The article says he died in 871 or 872. But my reading of the Pictish Chronicle seems to indicate 875:

and after two years Amlaib, with his people, laid waste Pictavia; and he dwelt there from 1 January until the feast of Saint Patrick [17 March]. Again in the third year Amlaib, [?while collecting tribute], was killed by Constantine. A short while after that battle was fought in his 14th year at Dollar between the Danes and the Scots, the Scots were annihilated at Atholl. The Norsemen spent a whole year in Pictavia.

There seems to be reference to two different battles: one in Constantine's 14th year (875-876) at Dollar in which Amlaíb died and Constantine was victorious; and another battle at Atholl shortly afterwards in which the Scots were heavily defeated. This latter is in the Annals of Ulster for 875 (corrected), so that would put Amlaíb's death earlier in 875. Eroica (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting all significant names in Lead.

I did this and was wrongly reverted by Deacon, having added Constantine I of Scotland to the 1st line of the article. This is a major, if not THE major usage, and by Wikipedia policy, should be mentioned clearly in the first line of the lead, not hidden obscurely elsewhere. The reason for this is to help the ordinary, non-expert reader, who needs to be sure he is at the right page. The information needs to be there. Xandar 23:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine I of Scotland is not a common name. Constantine I, despite its inaccuracy, is one, and it is already mentioned and nicely bolded for your viewing pleasure on the ~~second~~third sentence. Check for yourself. Now the same name is bolded twice. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name Constantine I King of Scotland, appears in many sources, eg here, and in the established lists of Kings of Scotland. As such it is a name that should appear in the first line. WP:BOLDTITLE. The second use is lower down the page and less clear. That should probably not be in bold per the MOS guidance. Xandar 02:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it turns up in loads of sources. Loads of sources say the moon landing was fake, doesn't mean the article should have moon landing hoax bolded in the first line. And if some guideline appears to say to you that it should, then that's why sensible users have WP:IAR, one of the five pillars of wikipedia. That he is often listed as a king of Scotland is explained in the opening lines, now it's explained twice. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reports the names and viewpoints as reflected in the sources. It doesn't censor them. The simple fact is a reader needs to know quickly that he has reached the right article if he is looking for Constantine I of Scotland. Therefore the name is required early. And since there are Constantine II and III of Scotland, denying the existence of Constantine I is pretty pointless. The article text also looks extremely confusing, a lot of which is about another Constantine altogether, while not making this clear. This needs reworking, but not by me right now. Xandar 02:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've went and missed the point entirely, but no matter as the name is there now.

You reckon you could rework this article??? This article could definitely be expanded or fine-tuned I suppose with more exhaustive source usage, but it's decent for the effort put in, and certainly better than the cack that was there before Angus got to it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]