Jump to content

Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1
According to the Huntingdon Chronicle, he "was the first of the Scots to obtain the monarchy of the whole of Albania, which is now called Scotia."

Uhmmm, I am guessing this is not the same as the state of Albania (north of Greece, east of Italy) to which it currently points. --Dori 05:06, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

He was a king of Alba, not of Scotland or Scotia. During his time Scotia was used to mean what we now call Ireland, and this practice continued until perhaps the late 15th century. He was a king of Scots (Scots in Alba) but not a king of Scotia/Scotland.
Laurel Bush 16:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC).

Kings of Dalriada and the Picts

The article currently states:

He soon obtained the Pictish throne in 843 and became the first king to rule the Picts of Pictavia and the Scots of Dalriada.

which appears to be contradicted by List of Kings of the Picts, which links to Constantine of Dalriada, Oengus of Dalriada, and Drust of Dalriada as the kings from 789 to 837. It seems to be the case that MacAlpin was not the first joint king, but was the first to unify the crowns, but I'd like to check this before changing the article. Assistance appreciated. --- Charles Stewart 19:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Quality

This article has several problems which make it of poor quality. I'll elucidate them in point form:

  • The use of Haravard notes. This breaks up the text way too frequently with notes which are not even understandable to people not already familiar with the subject matter. One should not have to look ahead to the references to figure out what AU and AT mean.
  • The insistence of Gaelic spellings which English speakers do not know how to pronounce and probably don't even recognise, despite the fact that nearly everbody knows Kenneth and Angus. This is an English encyclopaedia for common people, not a scholarly journal or a Gaelic encyclopaedia.
  • Some bad grammar: including the use of en dashes sandwiched between spaces where em dashes are needed, the hyphen following a colon, a space before a question mark, etc.
  • Why is he called a Gael and given a Gaelic name (used throughout) if his origins are uncertain and he was king of the Picts (not Scots, as this article tell it)? Why not give him a Pictish name? Is it because nobody speaks that anymore? Well I've got news: very few English speakers speak Gaelic.
  • A monarchs of Scotland template is used even though the article argues agains calling him that. If he was the king of both Scots and Picts as the article still seems to say, why is there no good grounds for calling him the first king of Scotland?

To a reader who knows nothing of Gaelic and is not very familiar with Scottish history (though is familiary with medieval history), this article is of poor quality and I am even tempted to place a cleanup tag on it. The older version here is far better. Srnec 19:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is not poor. If you see some "bad grammar" - fix it! Don't whinge about it on the talk page. He was a Pictish king that spoke Gaelic, like Pictish kings before him and after. No-one argues he was actually a Pictish speaking Pict, but a Gaelic-speaking Pict. His Pictish name is Ciniod map Alpín. Ciniod/Cináed is probably Picish, and Alpín is English-derived Picto-Scottish name (from Ælfwine) The idea that Wikipedia should only use English is flawed, and moreover, is not applied, e.g. Władysław II Jagiełło. In fact, the only time anyone seems to bother is when it concerns Scottish Gaelic articles like this. Just because you don't like Gaelic forms, doesn't make the article of "poor quality", since User:Angusmclellan has made it one of the finest Scottish kings article here. What we've got now is a scholarly article that doesn't make specious claims, or ignore facts in order to create a spurious narrative. This is Dark Age history, it has to be scholarly. Wiki isn't supposed to be a dumping ground for Lowest common denominator articles, but as scholarly and informative as its editors can make it. If you can't handle some hard to pronounce names, learn to pronounce them, or use Simple English or Wikijunior. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Jagiello shouldn't be named like that either; I think there are also some Arabic articles that are at non-intuitive titles. The solution would be to fix those as well, but Polish editors are very stubborn, and, I guess, more numerous than the Scots. Adam Bishop 20:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair comments.
  1. The origins section looks strange. Either it needs less in it, or, more likely, it needs more. I don't think that quoting the Duan was a great idea. Harvard notes were a very bad idea and will be changed to Cite.php for the reasons complained of.
  2. As for the Gaelic names, they are used in Scots historiography, and as Calgacus notes, they are Pictish names, Gaelicised, anyway. These sorts of names are what you'd find in any book that would tell you more than the article does. What's the point of an LCD route, used only by books which would tell you less than WP does ?
  3. As for the bad grammar, well, this is a collaborative effort. I'll fix any errors that catch my eye, and hopefully others will do the same. MoS issues like "Is this right?" or "Is it this ?", I could not care less about. I am inconsistent, I use the second one. But I use it consistently.
  4. As for the absence of explanation of his gaeldom and pictdom, just so soon as my supplying answers to that question in the article does not cross the WP:OR line, then the article should answer it. Until then, try Picts and the start and end of Óengus I of the Picts.
  5. The template ? I don't like it. Fixing it is indeed easy, but what about all the other material that tells the same story ? If I simply remove it, someone will put it back. I don't have the time, the energy or the inclination to attack the kinglist and the way it is presented, including the House of Dunkeld, "Queen" Margaret of Scotland and "King" Edward Balliol.
  6. Apart from the points raised, some of which I believe need addressed anyway, in what way is this article notably worse than Constantine II of Scotland (Causantín mac Áeda, as the article calls him) ? Or is that just as bad, only you were too kind to say so ?
I suppose this means you won't like my rewrite of Macbeth of Scotland either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspected my comments would engender the comments it has. Firstly, Calgacus, you pick one of five points in order to call me a "whiner." Some intellectual integrity would be nice. I would have modified the grammar if I didn't think the entire page needed to be fixed first. Believe it or not, I wouldn't have polished handrails on the Titanic, either.

As Adam Bishop apparently agrees, Jagiello shouldn't be named that way either, but don't change the subject. I do not peruse Wikipedia to find articles to complain about, I came upon this because it was placed at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/New Articles. Angus McLellan, you call these name Gaelicised Pictish names? I say, let's take it a step further and Anglicise them since this is an English encyclopaedia. I do not want to see these names removed, only put as secondary and not used in the main article. The statement that I should find out how to pronounce them is absurd. This is not an encyclopaedia to suggest we go search out pronunciations or learn foreign languages. Call the kings of England whatever you want on the Scottish Gaelic encyclopaedia, but do not call the kings of Scotland by Gaelic names here (unless there is no other way to do so, similar to the pattern applied to Spanish monarchs: Fernandos are Ferdinands, but Garcías are still Garcías).

Now, I'm glad to see the Harvard quotes go. I'm also gald to see some reasonable attempt to address my concerns by argumentation or implementation (of fixes). To make my whole position clearer: in English, we say Macbeth, therefore the English Wikipedia should use Macbeth, with Mac Bethad mentioned in the first line. It is not scholarly or informative if it is confusing. If modern scholars are using Gaelic names in there books, that's great. If I were writing about Spanish monarchs, I would probably favour Spanish names in many instances, but so what? This isn't the personal project of any individual (like a book or essay).

Finally, as for the issue raised in my last point, the article seems to simultaneously give good reasons for regarding him as the first king of Scotland and then tells us there are no good reasons to do so. This needs to be clarified so as to showcase the contention that "king of Scotland" is not a good title and supply the evidence to allow the reader to draw his own conclusion. Srnec 01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, those arguments are all very well, but it's pretty subjective. Some people think names should be anglicized for the sake of it, some people think we should use contemporary forms. The choice is between scholarly articles and trashy popular histories. I know what one I'd go for, and what one wikipedia should aspire to. Go ask the Poles, they'll tell you the same thing. ;) Wikipedia ain't lowest common denominator. Here's one of many internet guides to Old Gaelic pronunciation. And sorry for calling you a whiner; but talk pages are to debate controversies and that sort of thing, small points of "grammar" are for page edits. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You are probably forgetting that your audience is a bunch of high school kids trying to write an essay...this isn't the place to show off to fellow scholars :) Adam Bishop 02:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There are still spaces in front of question marks and no doubt there are other heinous sins against the MoS, but those are likely to be corrected by bots and zealous AWB users. Otherwise I believe that I've gone some way to addressing the criticisms (or at least those I agreed with). Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, much improved. I still disagree with the naming, but because I do not care too much about Scottish articles, I think I best leave that to those who do to sort out. Srnec 02:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's use the standard English (including Scottish English) names in the English Wikipedia. Scottish Gaelic for the Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia, English for the English Wikipedia. At present the page title and the body text are not in agreement. Greenshed 23:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't place much weight on the article name, it was done a long a time ago. Indeed, it says Kenneth I of Scotland. On that basis, should the article refer to him as king of Scotland ? The title King of Scots is unknown before Mac Bethad mac Findláich, although there might be a slim and probably unverifiable case for starting of Scots/Scotland with Máel Coluim mac Cináeda. Between Causantín mac Áeda and sometime in the 11th century, the correct title would seem to be of Alba. But renaming articles is fraught and tedious, and I have other things I would prefer to do. I don't have a great problem with calling him Kenneth mac Ailpín, and can just about tolerate Kenneth mac Alpín, but Kenneth I is grossly inaccurate while Kenneth MacAlpin is anachronistic. Of course, that's just me, but I see no reason why the medieval history of Scotlandshire should be a special case where prescriptive policies like WP:OR and WP:V take second place to the normative conventions of the MoS. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
My central point is that the English Wikipedia should use standard English (spellings in other languages or uncommon spellings can, of course, be listed -usually in parentheses in the opening paragraph). As to the disagreement between the title and the text, either the text should be amended (which I strongly favour) or the page should be moved. Regarding the question of the title "King of Scots" I don't feel qualified to assert an opinion, except to observe that the current page title does not describe Kenneth I as a king, just as "of Scotland". 88.105.137.225 00:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC) The preceeding comments were mine (I failed to observe that I was not logged in). Greenshed 00:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
To give a small input from our small, but overall excellent Norwegian Wikipedia, we try to give the Gaelic name first within the article, as we understand our Scottish friends would like that, but do keep and link to the formal English-like name in brackets, like this Cináed mac Ailpín (Kenneth I of Scotland) as most Norwegian readers would tend to know the English version of Scottish history. That way we tend to get the best of both worlds, being informative and doing some adult education at the same time. At the same time I must say that English historians and popular historians seem to show the almost zero consistency toward Norwegian or Danish historical names. I have been thinking to construct a blog showing all the different instances I have come across of, for instance, king Håkon Håkonsson. It’s a never-ending story. --FinnBjo 14:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Direct descent from Fergus Mór to Elizabeth II

Please see the discussion here:

--Mais oui! 10:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverse this move

This article should be at Kenneth I of Scotland not here. Kenneth is what he is known as in English and is how he is denoted in English language encyclopedias - the Gaelic original should be noted int he title. Yes, I do know that the Gaelic is his 'propername' - but this is the ENGLISH language wikipedia. We don't redirect Germany to Deutschland - we use the common Enlish language term. --Aoratos 01:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the parallel you cite and this is that Cináed I is used in English, and by contemporary scholars, Cináed is used more than Kenneth. Cináed reflects current scholarly usage, as wikipedia indeed should. "Kenneth I of Scotland" is in any case is rare in English; Kenneth MacAlpin is more common, and indeed there are redirects from Kenneth MacAlpin and Kenneth I of Scotland to this name, so there is no real problem. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd be happy with this article being at Kenneth MacAlpin. However, if you can provide some evidence for your claim Cináed is used more than Kenneth. Cináed reflects current scholarly usage, - then I'll withdraw my objection. --Aoratos 13:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey again. I could make the evidence quite exhaustive, and spend hours writing out a bibliography. Suffice it to say, read anything by scholars who work in this area, i.e. Dauvit Broun, Alex Woolf, Thomas Owen Clancy, James E. Fraser, David Dumville, etc. Those pages have bibliographies of the authors, or else bibliographies in the external links. But I think the point in sufficiently made by looking at the recently published book, Viking Empires. The book is broad in scope, designed to have a broad (if educated) readership. Look up "Kenneth" in the index, you'll find nothing. Look up Cináed, and there you go ,you find his references. It's this kind of thing which means Wikipedia really ought to reflect current scholarship, because this is where wikipedia readers will go afterwards. Now, if wiki had no redirect functions, then I'd agree that it should have been left at Kenneth; but as it does have redirect functions, there is no problem. Given this, I think it'd be very difficult to find arguments which can be comfortably set against what has already been said. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, you may have just about convinced me. (Although I reserve the right to come back when I've though about it a bit more). Thanks for the detailed response. --Aoratos 14:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Put me down as one of those who would strongly prefer the vernacular names of Scottish Kings. For the same reason we don't have articles on H2O or Carcharodon carcharias.--Nydas 21:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, how on earth do you work that parallel out? Cináed, btw, is vernacular, not Latin. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I meant vernacular in the sense of everyday language. --Nydas 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
There's no ideal solution. The principle which governs naming is supposedly the principle of least astonishment. In this case we can't avoid astonishment: when people arrive here they'll persumably know that the subject was king of Scotland (no), and perhaps that he conquered the Picts (no) and founded Scotland (no). So the issue is not whether people are surprised by the content, but what sorts of surprises are tolerable. Whether we call the page Kenneth or Cináed, it is going to be full of weird, nasty, un-anglo-saxon names like Drest, Alpín, Eochaid, Domangart, Gabran, Bridei, Beli, Talorcen, Eógan, Boant, Nechtan, Áed and Máel Muire. It makes more sense to me to avoid the cognitive dissonance of a name appearing in one form if, and only if, it is applied to a monarch, and in a different one when it is applied to anyone else. A degree of astonishment is unavoidable, but we can at least avoid the dissonance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's that surprising, given that the situation here is pretty common throughout Wikipedia. Besides, the Alfred the Great article contains loads of weird, nasty anglo-saxon names like Aethelwulf, Osburga, Ealhswith, Ethelfleda, Egbert, Ethelbald, Aelfthryth, Ethelgiva and Egdiva. --Nydas 17:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[Applause] Indeed, and what kind of names would you expect in an article about an Anglo-Saxon ? Or here ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The point being that it's not very astonishing. --Nydas 19:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Neither is using Cináed mac Ailpín. Encarta, not exactly the source of radical new scholarship, opens its "Kenneth I" article "Kenneth I , more properly Cinaed mac Ailpín ...". Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Using Cináed mac Ailpín is more astonishing than Kenneth, at least if the difference in Google hits is anything to go by. [1] [2]
It's not a case of which is the more scholarly, or correct, but which is the most likely to be recognised by English speakers. --Nydas 20:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This has been covered. There are redirects from all the popular modern English versions of this guy's name. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not consistent with Wikipedia: Naming policy to redirect away from the most commonly name used in English. --Nydas 06:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
This would be a reasonable point were it not for the fact that it was never at the most commonly used name in English and that reversing the move won't put it there. All your googling demonstrates is that the previous name was "wrong" too, although that's invariably justified by recourse to another, subsidiary guideline. It is not consistent with Wikipedia: Naming policy to redirect away from the most commonly name used in English, except when it is, which is surprisingly often. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If I understand you right, you're saying that because the naming policy on monarchs stipulates that they should be known by their name + number + country, (i.e. not the most popular English 'name'), it allows the name itself to be changed. I don't really buy that, since the addition of 'of Scotland' is simply pre-emptive disambiguation. In addition, the naming conventions specifically state that the name should be 'the most common form used in current English works of general reference.' --Nydas 18:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The default case of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) doesn't apply here. Looking down the list, per item 1, the subject didn't rule a modern country and, per item 3, Scotland isn't the correct name of the state that he's incorrectly supposed to have ruled if you wanted to have that piece of inaccurate information included in the page title. In addition exclusions 3 and 4 apply here. Whatever the correct name here is, it certainly isn't Kenneth I of Scotland because the naming policy on monarchs tells us so. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
That inaccurate information is in the name just now, and is clarified in the introduction. Regarding ruling a 'modern country', one assumes that Cleopatra VII of Egypt's Egypt was as different from modern Egypt as Kenneth's Scotland is from modern Scotland. In any case, this is a sideshow - I point again to where it says: "Nevertheless, Monarch's first name and Country should both be the most common form used in current English works of general reference." --Nydas 21:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
And I must point out the two exceptions. They're there for a reason. I'm more than willing to discuss moving the article, but only in line with policy, usage in reference works (and my judgement inevitably). Who says the subject ruled Scotland and who says he's known as Kenneth I ? The 171-word masterpiece in the EB ? Well, that should count for a lot. Encarta ? Well that says his name is "more properly Cinaed mac Ailpín". The Oxford Companion to Scottish History says "Kenneth mac Alpin (Cinaed mac Ailpín) was king of the Picts". No regnal number, no Scotland. Smyth's Warlords and Holy Men indexes him as "Kenneth mac Alpin (Cináed mac Ailpín)" and usually but not invariably refers to him as Kenneth mac Alpin in the text. "Kenneth I" appears once, in a table which may not have been done by the author. Most of the books littering the place are not likely to be seen as "general" reference works, but the Blackwell Enyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England should be. It doesn't have an article on him, but it mentions, under Picts, one "Cinaed mac Alpin". Sally Foster's Picts, Gaels and Scots is introductory, and it says "Cinaed mac Ailpín", so (I think) does Driscoll's Alba. Wormald's Scotland indexes him as "Cinaed son of Ailpín (Kenneth mac Alpin)" and calls him that at the first mention, after which he is Cinaed. Barrell has "Kenneth MacAlpin". Magnusson has "Kenneth mac Alpin (Cinaed mac Ailpin) also known as Kenneth I". The Oxford History of Britain has "Kenneth Mac Alpin". Harvie's (Oxford) Scotland: A Short History has "Kenneth mac Alpin". The New Cambridge Medieval History probably has "Kenneth mac Alpin" and also "Cinaed mac Ailpin (Kenneth I)". The Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain has "Kenneth mac Alpin". The Oxford Companion to British History appears to use "Kenneth MacAlpin", "Kenneth I" and "Kenneth I MacAlpin" at random, as may Foster's Oxford History of Ireland. Tabraham & Baxter, Illustrated History of Scotland uses "Kenneth MacAlpin", as does Mackie's History of Scotland, British History for Dummies, Rosalind Mitchison's A History of Scotland, "Kenneth mac Alpin" is in Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy, Snyder's The Britons, Davies's The Isles and Fry's History of Scotland. Edward James's Britain in the First Millennium says "Cinaed mac Alpin (Kenneth mac Alpine)". There are several choices there, but Kenneth I isn't really a front runner. I could add all manner of far-from-general works, but I'll leave that for later. Missing for the list: Duncan's The Making of the Kingdom; Lynch; The New Penguin History of Scotland; Pittock's New History of Scotland; Oram's Kings and Queens of Scotland. And no doubt many others. Depending on how long this takes, the New Edinburgh History of Scotland and the Shorter Edinburgh History of Scotland might need adding to the list. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the English language Wikipedia, not the Scots Gaelic Wikipedia. We use English language versions of names. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Erm ... Cináed is one English language version of his name, and Cináed is not Scots Gaelic. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Article naming

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:

As you might like to know how other rulers from the same time and area are handled:


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 <name> include Constantine, Custantin, Causantín, Caustantín), the options might be:

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

As you might like to know how other rulers from the same time and area are handled:

Please feel free to add to the above options. Given the the default case of Wikipedia: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)

I do not agree with your argument that because Kenneth did not rule over a modern country, the rule regarding English first names most commonly used is somehow voided. The policy does not state that 'if the monarch is the ruler of a country which no longer exists, less well known scholarly forms of their first name may be used'. The general rule of most common English name still applies. This is true for exceptions 3 and 4 as well. As for the second part, I'm fine with Mac Alpin, MacAlpin, I of Scotland or of the Picts. --Nydas 15:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Although the numbering of Scottish kings is wrong, dating kings from Cináed mac Ailpín is standard even among scholars who know it's flawed. I'm happy for the article to be left at Cináed I of Scotland. No Kenneth I I'm afraid. Although some users want to make wikipedia the standard of encarta, the wiki article is scholarly. Most of the "well known" English forms are redirects, so there's really no problem. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was All of the affected articles were moved back to their original names.

This is a technical requested move; someone who supports moving the page should fill in the relevant details. The following pages are nominated at requested moves. Please fill in the target page and replace this text when done.

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support

  1. Support of course. These are the best known names in English. Even if academic specialist literature is moving towards the more Gaelic forms, overall usage remains firmly with the anglicized forms, and most general reference works (including the almost brand new and relatively academically respectable Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) still use the anglicized forms. john k 23:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Adam Bishop 23:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, this is the English language Wikipedia. Though voting is evil. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong support Hey Calgacus, when you wrote "these anachronistic forms are against the usage of contemporary specialist scholars." i guess you missed the part in the naming policy that says "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." and "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." maybe you should reconsider your position. Masterhatch 05:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Support move to Duncan II of Scotland. Angus McLellan 09:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Opinion changed in order to make this simpler. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      1. This vote only supports a move of Donnchad II, so should be distinguished. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Most common names in English. Timrollpickering 10:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Wikipedia should not be in the business of trying to change the "most common" English language names. When the most common terms do change, we can change Wikipedia and do so quickly. Rmhermen 13:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Use English names for monarchs in English Wikipedia --Henrygb 13:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. I find John's reasoning convincing and consistent. Mackensen (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. The move to the Gaelic names was made without consultation and is contrary to naming conventions. Deb 17:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Firstly, I have no strong opinion about the 'number + country' and since the move keeps them the same, it would seem to be a sideshow. This discussion is about first names. It is my opinion that cognitive dissonance and the principal of least astonishment, as mentioned by Calgacus and Angus, are not good guidelines for monarch-naming. It is perfectly normal for an article with a common English name to refer to people, places, etc which don't. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) strongly support the move back. Angus thinks otherwise, but nowhere in the naming conventions does it suggest little-known scholarly versions of first names should be used instead of well-known variants. --Nydas 18:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support - from a personal viewpoint I can see both viewpoints and accept the desirability of scholarship changing to more accurate contemporary names, but when checking policy found "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." and guidance that "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine? Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage." This article as it stands gives me some problems of cognitive dissonance, which in my opinion would be lessened by having the usual name as the title and better clarification in the intro before going on to use the original name generally in the article. ..dave souza, talk 20:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support I don't see any reason why the well-known English names should not be used. Catchpole 20:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong Support per dave souza, and the fact we have have Julius Caesar and not GAIUS IULIVS CAESAR - and no-one is suggesting that Robert the Bruce be moved to Robert de Brus (at least I hope not). --Doc 21:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Wikipedia should follow common usage in outside major English-language reference works. Every one that I've personally checked, clearly uses the Anglicized form of the name (Kenneth, not Cinaed) [3][4]. --Elonka 23:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support WP policy is to use the most common name used in the relevant language where that name is accurate. That does not mean use the English name on English language Wikipedia, merely the name used by English language users. Hence as they say Wilhelm II of Germany and call the Irish prime minister the Taoiseach both those as the MCNs, and so are used in preference to translations. In this case, the name used by English speakers, and so the required name for usage on English language WP, is the English translation, not the Gaelic original. As a result, under both the Naming Conventions and under the Manual of Style, the article has to be at Kenneth I of Scotland and nowhere else. But why are we having this vote? Yet again it seems ludicrous to have to vote to implement clear policy. If we have set a policy across Wikipedia on something then it should be followed everywhere. We should not have to vote to follow WP policy article by article. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, if you read through, you'll find that the problems of this name are not that simple, even working within the sacred wiki convention framework. Besides the inaccurate name, there is also the fact that Cináed mac Ailpín wasn't actually "king of Scotland". If like me you don't really think it all that necessary to distinguish Scotland from Pictland, then you still have to deal with the fact that in this case he wouldn't be "I" (the first). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support- Even in Scotland, the use of Gaelic is limited to the outer fringes- best to stick to English. Astrotrain 08:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    I respect the fact that you're not copping out with the wiki convention argument, but what does the position of modern Scottish Gaelic have to do with anything? Coinneach is in fact the name in modern Gaelic; and actually, this is just as inaccurate as "Kenneth", since the modern equivalent should be Cionaodh. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. Kenneth, Donald, and Malcom are more recognisable to those not familiar with the subject. They are all true English names that come from the respective Gaelic names. Anglicisation was typical in historical scholarship until recently and may yet be typical again. The use of vernacular forms is only common in specialist, not generalist, history and is a relatively new phenomenon which may yet prove to be a rather short-lived fad. Either way, to those with no knowledge of any Gaelic language, the current forms are impossible to pronounce properly. There is nothing wrong or inaccurate about Anglicisation: it merely attempts to make foreign names more pronounceable. I see no reason that Wikipedia, a general encyclopaedia, should follow the trends of specialist historiography. I will leave the issue of "[ordinal] of Scotland" alone for now. Srnec 18:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support.Berek 19:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Standard (ie most common English usage) and also not overbearingly politically correct; most encyclopaedia entries for these monarchs use the common English version of their names. Just put the Gaelic in the first graph Mowens35 20:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose; these anachronistic forms are against the usage of contemporary specialist scholars. They moreover bring huge problems of cognitive dissonance which would make the content of the articles look ridiculous. The articles should not be brought down in quality by abstract and thoughtless desire of some people (who have no knowledge of nor contribution history to these articles) to anglicize these names just for the sake of it. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I don't mind using the traditional English forms of names (Kenneth, Duncan, Malcolm etc) for article titles, when such forms exist (although following what actual experts use would have been fine, too). But using artificial numbers and calling people "of Scotland", if they did not actually rule Scotland, is anachronistically imposing a later nationalist perspective on early history. And the vote seems premature, as discussion should have been allowed to continue. up+l+and 09:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. I'm all for the Keltic Kulturkampf (KKK) . We will quote sources which prove us right and any sources that don't use Gaelic spellings are either out-of-date, uninformed, flawed or plain wrong or any other excuse we can think of for dismissing them. The use of Gaelic spellings is not the preserve of loopy nationalist historians from Scotland but clear, informative, and impartial historical analysis. Changing the spellings of the names of historical characters is just the start, claymore will soon be claidheamh mòr, kilt will soon be féile-beag. Places like Stornoway will become Steòrnabhagh, Inverness will become Inbhir Nis and Lochhead will become Ceann Loch, definitely not Lochheid, and we won't change Cologne to Köln, Hanover to Hannover or Munich to München cos they aren't Gaelic so we don't care or will find a suitable excuse not to do so. Siol nan Gaidheal, thig ar latha! (Oh! That was a bit more than one sentence.) 84.135.234.132 13:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    This vote is, I hope, sarcastic? john k 13:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    What with this vote being sarcastic, purposefully offensive, and by an anon user, I assume it shouldn't add to the tally. john k 19:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    You're right. It's hard to know what he's on about. Deb 19:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong oppose. Calgacus' assertion that this proposal is anglicization for anglicization's sake is well taken. Specialists use the local name for these individuals; the redirects should be from the English names to the articles as they are now. Masterhatch's arguments above cite general guidelines, not inviolable rules. There are good reasons not to prefer English names for these non-English people. Evertype 17:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If you hadn't noticed, i cited a policy, not a guideline. And the policy i cited is one of the main foundations of wikipedia: Wikipedia is for the layman, the common English speaker, not specialists and the most common, recognisable English form is to be used. Masterhatch 05:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. oppose all others per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) and Wikipedia:Naming conflict, and additionally per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) for the proposed moves to Kenneth I of Scotland, Donald I of Scotland and Donald II of Scotland only, and additionally per Wikipedia:Naming conventions for the proposed move to Kenneth I of Scotland only. Angus McLellan
      • Angus, could you explain why you support Duncan II, but not the others? I take it you are arguing that before that time, "Scotland" isn't the appropriate name to refer to the country? But then why not Donald III? Also, it'd be nice if you could provide some scholarly support for the idea that the country ruled by Macbeth and Malcolm Canmore is not normally called "Scotland," assuming this is what you are arguing. john k
        • Why, would this likely change your vote, or would it just be to take up Angus' time? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, that's rather rude. As though those are the only two possibilities. I'm going to favor anglicization regardless. I was interested in what exactly Angus meaent, because I found it cryptic. I could perhaps change my mind about the very earliest kings, prior to Constantine II, and how they should be described, and I wouldn't oppose, say, Kenneth MacAlpin as a title. (I'm firmly convinced on anglicization). I also was hoping that if Angus explained further I would understand his position better, which might lead more easily to some sort of compromise everyone could agree on. If Angus didn't want to spend his time answering my questions, he was of course free to ignore them. But it's rather unfair to assume that the only legitimate reason I might have for asking is because I might change my mind. john k 22:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
            • I dunno, if you request a user to spend his time doing something for you (or the community), you should justify it. Sorry if it seems rude, but this doesn't seem an unreasonable point of view. You've justified it now, so there is no problem.Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I've changed my position in order to make things simpler. Let's not get dragged into a debate on someone who was king for less than six months. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. The name is consistent with the contents of the article, no need to artificially anglicize it. Juraune 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - vigorously so. I agree wholeheartedly with Calgacus here. Also, Anglicised versions of the names are, quite simply, just wrong. Lianachan 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose as per Calgacus, up+l+and, Evertype et al. I don't think our naming standard should be based on outmoded research in hardcopy publications. The advantage of an electronic medium like Wikipedia is that it can reflect the most current scholarship. As long as all Anglicized versions (and other versions) of the name redirect here, I don't see what the problem is of using the proper name as the article title. When a Jr. High student searches on "Kenneth MacAlpin" they will still find this article (goes to double-check and possibly add to redircts) Kathryn NicDhàna 22:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Let us use Wikipedia to educate people in the broadest sense, rather than historically perpetuate the narrow POV concerning such matters. I have always said "when the smoke clears, everyone can determine what the truth is". Allowing the Scottish perspective to be brought forth is not only a good thing, but necessary and truly a beneficial way to allow the Wikipedia Project to be inclusive. Certainly the sun will not set on anybody's Empire if we do. Dr. Dan 03:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    Sure, but is the best way to do that through use of article titles? My feeling has always been that using article titles as a means of education is a bad idea. That's what the article text is for. The title is so people can find articles, and identify the subject of articles. john k 16:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    That's what redirects are for. --Lysytalk 17:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    Exactly! Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    For better or for worse, this is not how wikipedia naming policy is currently designed. The idea, at present, is that the article should be at the most common name (with various caveats and exceptions and special standards), and that others should redirect to that. john k 00:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    I fail to see how using uncommon Old Gaelic names is 'the Scottish perspective'.--Nydas 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    That's actually simple. Gaelic is in use in the parts of Scotland historically less dominated by the English. --Lysytalk 17:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    They don't speak Old Gaelic. The modern Scots Gaelic names are different. --Nydas 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    Rightly or wrongly, Scottish and Irish medievalists, unlike Welsh ones for instance, use the standardized medieval Gaelic forms rather than the modern ones. This is partly because some of them prolly think using modern forms would artificially distinguish Scottish and Irish culture. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    They are not uncommon, and they are certainly contemporary Scottish, whereas "Kenneth" is post-Norman (the K should give it away) English corruption. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Ignorance is no excuse and certainly not something that should be promoted by encyclopedia where people come looking for knowledge. --Lysytalk 13:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per Dr. Dan, Lysy etc, and mine personal experience in quite similar cases M.K. 20:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Wikipedia's naming policy for persons is (in general terms) a disaster, and the article names on Scottish monarchs for once are doing something right – and following contemporary scholarly practice. Use English need not extend to linguistic xenophobia in every case. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 01:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

As a brief, and, hopefully neutral summary of what's been going on, let me say that all of these articles were, until a month ago, at the locations to which the proposed move is suggested. At some point prior to this, User:Angusmclellan (and possibly User:Calgacus, as well, but I'm not sure), in the course of entirely admirable expansions to these articles, also changed the texts of the articles on most of the early Scottish monarchs (including certain ones that haven't been moved, like the Kings Constantine) so that the text principally used their Gaelic names. Then, a month ago, as noted, User:Calgacus moved the articles without discussion, citing a desire to have the titles match the name used in the text. For more on the rationale for the changes (and against them), those interested can take a look at the discussions at Talk:Máel Coluim II of Scotland and Talk:Máel Coluim III of Scotland. Although they might not want to. It gets kind of nasty. john k 23:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The texts weren't "changed". The texts in all cases were new. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
What I meant, was that the texts had previously referred to these monarchs by the anglicized forms of their names. The rewritten/newly written versions by Angus referred to them by the Gaelic names. The articles were all pre-existing. john k 23:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
That's true, but the implication of your statement was that the only changes were done to the names, whereas in fact the entire articles were rewritten. Did you see the previous articles? They made a joke of wikipedia. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. My comment about "in the course of entirely admirable expansions of these articles" was meant to suggest that the changes to the names occurred in the process of significant improvement of the articles. But perhaps I wasn't clear enough. john k 00:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

They aren't being anglicized just for fun...it didn't occur to me that "Cinaed" was "Kenneth" until I looked at the article. This isn't a specialist encyclopedia, so I don't see why we should be pandering to specialists, especially when it means we have to replace "Kenneth" with a more distracting spelling. Adam Bishop 00:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

English is not an anachronism, it's the language of the people who are reading this encyclopedia. Would you have us put our article at Roma instead of Rome, just because that's the language of the people who live there? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Zoe. An anachronism is when something from one part of history is put in another part of history. None of these names had English forms in the days of these rulers; hence it is an anachronism to call them by these later names. Rome is a city btw, and still exists today, whereas Domnall Dásachtach (d 900) and his friends were people and have been dead for around a millenium. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
They have English forms now, though. It is certainly not an anachronism to use the English forms; otherwise there would be thousands of things we would be unable to refer to in English (if not Rome, then the Roman Empire, for example). Adam Bishop 02:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Adam, they are still anachronisms, and unecessary ones at that. I think "Roman Empire" is still a bad example; Imperium Romanum existed, and Roman Empire is a translation. These names are not translations, they are simply corrupt versions. If the Roman Empire were known as Imblerumronanie you might have a better parallel. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
How is it that "Malcolm" is a corruption of the "true name" Máel Coluim, but "James" is not a "corruption" of the true name of Ya'aqov ben Zebediah? john k 12:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You mean, Ya'aqov? All for calling him Jacob rather than James. Oh, and "Malcolm" is still an anachronism. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'll grant you consistency then. Given that the one is not going to happen, I don't see why the other should. john k 16:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Other questions: Mark Antony? Philip II of Macedon? Vespasian? All these forms are anglicized. I assume Charlemagne is a posthumous qualification, as certainly Edward, the Black Prince is. john k 16:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You're the standardization obsessive, not me. If you have a problem with those articles, bring it there. I have enough of my time wasted with naming issues on topics I do work on without bringing in new ones. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with those articles, because I'm not concerned about anachronistic names, which was the issue I was trying to highlight. The basic point was that you seem to be basing your position here on a general principle ("no anachronistic names of individuals") that not only has never been considered a criteria for naming on wikipedia before, but which you, by your own admission, have absolutely zero interest in following through on to its logical conclusions. If anachronistic names are acceptable elsewhere on wikipedia, then the argument that we shouldn't give these articles anachronistic rather falls apart. If anachronistic titles aren't acceptable anywhere, then you should care about these other articles. Point is, that your opposition to these moves is based on a "general principle" that you don't actually believe in in the slightest. The only real principle here is that you think that because you and Angus are more familiar with the scholarly literature on medieval Scotland, you should get to be able to decide the names of articles on medieval Scotland without interference from "standardization obsessives" like me. And your constant rudeness and arrogance is really grating. john k 22:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This is going to be another bone of contention with us, John. I'm a free man, I can devote as much or as little time as I want to wikipedia. I don't have to protest against every war because I think war is wrong, or write letters to every multinational company because I think third world exploitation is bad. My arguments for these names are varied, as you know. Anachronisms are just one of them; but for you to expect me to actively oppose every one in order to be allowed to oppose these is just ridiculous. You'll get nowhere with this line of argument. You best try something else. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

To address Uppland's point, it is my understanding that all of these monarchs have traditionally been considered monarchs of Scotland. The numbering is also traditional. It is, whatever we may think, how they are usually called. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, the credentials of whose authors even Calgacus is willing to accept as distinguished, uses all the ordinals you object to. Its article on Constantine II says that Donald II (who doesn't get his own article) was the first ruler to be known as King of Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) in contemporary records, rather than King of the Picts. It refers to the earlier kings, up through Kenneth III, as "King in Scotland," and to those from Malcolm II onwards as "King of Scots". john k 12:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously? Well, my respect for that book has fallen. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Which part disappoints you? I don't think "King in Scotland" is meant to be a formal designation, just an informal description based on the fact that these people are traditionally considered kings of Scotland. That's why this is used rather than "King of Scots," the later title. I'm not sure why Malcolm II is the first one called King of Scots. john k 16:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You're quite a fan of this book. Someone you know on the publishing team? Basically, sources are Latin until 900, Gaelic until the charter age, and Latin again afterwards. The Scottish kings are rex Pictorum (king of the Picts) in the Irish Annals until 900, when the Irish Annals start using the vernacular, calling them rí Alban (King of Alba), using that title (with the occasional addition of ard) thereafter. It's hard to date the charter age for titles because the earliest are translations from Gaelic that survive only in those Latin translations made later in the 12th century. Suffice it to say, from Donnchad II, we can be sure that their Latin charter style was rex Scottorum. The chronicler Marianus Scotus calls Máel Coluim II rex Scotiae in Máel Coluim's obit, but this was written in the later 11th century. Needless to say the Irish annals continue the rí Alban and ard-rí Alban style. A mid 12th century source Scottish source says that the Bishop of St Andrews is the episcopus Scotorum and summus episcopus Scotorum in Latin, and is the epscop Alban and ardepscop Alban in the vernacular. Thus, rex Scotorum (king of the Gaels) is just a rather pretentious translation of rí Alban. Alba means both Pictland and Scotland, but Scotorum means only "of the Gaels" and Pictorum only "of the Picts". So the problem is essentially linguistic, which is why I haven't made a fuss of it. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't particularly trying to defend the book, just to explain it. I find it to be an excellent reference work, and it's generally the first place I turn for biographical articles on British figures, but I would certainly expect there to be flaws and mistakes, as any enormous reference work would have. I was just wondering at the particular nature of the issues you had with it. In the initial instance, I was just using it as an example of a credible reference source that refers to the country as "Scotland" before the time of Duncan II, even if it acknowledges the problems with the name (as it seems to do, in part at least...I haven't closely read). So I take it, then, that Duncan II is the first king called "King of Scotland" or "King of Scots," in contemporary records, and that Malcolm II is the first king referred to as such in near contemporary records? john k 18:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure you grasped what I was saying. It's essentially a linguistic problem, in some respects a linguistic illusion. The native name for Scotland meant both what is referred to in English as "Scotland" and what is referred to in English as "Pictland". It's in essence like saying Francia changed its name to France when when sources switch from Latin to French; i.e. it's not a real guide to name change. The name in Gaelic for Scotland is still Alba, and Scoti had been applied to Scottish Gaels since at least the 4th century AD (e.g. Ammianus Marcellinus). Donnchad II being the first king who can reliably be known to have used the style "King of Scotland" has nothing to do with actual naming, but to the random survival of sources. The charter of Donnchad II only survives because it was granted to Durham, which was outside of Scotland Here's the charter for you to read. The charters granted in Scotland before this only survive because they were translated into Latin from Gaelic by the Priory of St Andrews in the mid 12th century. Anyways, the article Style of the monarchs of Scotland may help a little. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, as I understand it, these rulers did rule over most of the area of modern Scotland (parts of southern Scotland were excluded, certainly, as part of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria and the British kingdom of Strathclyde, and the far north and western Isles were under the Vikings), and were considered to be their predecessors already by the medieval kings who did call themselves Kings of Scotland. john k 12:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. The above would depend on who you believe. Some interpretations would reduce "most of Scotland" to the former regions of Tayside and Fife, parts of Central and a smidgeon of Grampian, others would add all of Grampian and parts of Highland. Later kings added the rest of Central and then Lothian and so on.
    Fair enough. I'm sure your more familiar with the specifics than I am. By the time of Malcolm II, though, the borders were reasonably close to those of modern Scotland, no? john k 21:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. "of Scotland" is certainly incorrect for "Kenneth I", "Donald I" and "Constantine I" as they were kings of the Picts. Whether "Donald II" was a king of the Picts depends on who you want to believe. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) says "article titles give the reader an idea of what they can expect within an article", i.e. the name matches the content or the principle of least astonishment. Articles about kings of the Picts shouldn't lead the reader to expect something different.
    Perhaps true, but there is a longstanding tradition of Kenneth MacAlpin being considered first King of Scotland. The fact that recent scholarship does not believe this to be technically true should be explained in the article itself - article titles are supposed to help people find articles, not introduce them to the newest scholarly theories. Am I assuming, though, that "of Scotland" is not technically wrong in the same way for the kings from Constantine II onwards? john k 21:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. WP:UE is a good idea, but I'm fairly sure that the books I used as references were written in English. How is it relevant ?
    The point of WP:UE is to use the most commonly used name in English, not to find some English source that uses a name. Most atlases produced in English give the native name of every city first, for instance. I'm sure one could find books in English about just about every continental monarch that refer to them by their non-anglicized names. The point is, what name is most used in English, and not just in specialist scholarly works, but in the language as a whole. john k 21:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Wikipedia:Naming conflict we'll leave for now.
  5. None of these are good names as shorter unambiguous names exist. Check what Kenneth I, Duncan I, et al, redirect to. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    Take that up with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). The current convention was devised ages ago. Some countries seem to defy it - Poland seems to, at this point, be in de facto defiance of the convention, as, now, are the German Emperors. I'd much prefer the German wikipedia system, where there is parenthetical disambiguation when necessary, so that you get titles like Friedrich II. (Preußen), or Ludwig XIV. This always seems a lot cleaner and less ugly than our way of doing things, but unfortunately the change'll never happen. Until it does, I'd prefer that in most cases we stick with it. Certainly we do need to disambiguate the Constantines. Do you want Constantine I of Pictland? That would seem kind of perverse, I have to say. john k 21:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    It would be "II of the Picts", as there already is a Caustantín of the Picts. I'd say, screw the silly convention, or change it. I've had just about enough people using it to justify silly names. But if it ain't gonna happen, my ideal suggestion would be to title the Pictish and Scottish rulers with their Gaelic names and patronymnics up to David I of Scotland, by which time there are no grounds for disputing the "of Scotland" title, unless you argue that Scotia and Scotland are different. So Cináed I of Scotland would be Cináed mac Ailpín, Máel Coluim III of Scotland would be Máel Coluim mac Donnchada, Nechtan IV of the Picts would be Nechtán mac Dargarto (or matronymic in this case, Nechtán mac Der Ilei), etc. I know there is a snowball's chance in hell of getting the convention busy-bodies to accept that, so you're gonna have to be satisfied with the status quo. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Kenneth MacAlpin" would be a great title ("Kenneth I" doesn't mean much to me). Or even Cinaed mac Ailpin, then we wouldn't have a strange Gaelic-English mix in the title (though I still think Kenneth makes more sense than Cinaed). Adam Bishop 02:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The name Cináed mac Ailpín gets 10600 google hits[5], compared with 16900 for Kenneth MacAlpin [6], so is hardly obscure. I'd definitely support that, but the busy-bodies would prolly oppose it 'cause it doesn't comply with the Holy WP Convention which a tiny number of them made up among themselves and seek to enforce with little place given to sense. There will be hope if we, people who are interested I mean (rather than hit-and-run poll voters) get together and formulate new convention relating to the specific issues of Scottish monarchs. I.e. in relation to the "of country" part which some very reasonably object to (as well as everything else of course). Since John has so much time on his hands and is so interested in Scottish monarchs, maybe he could start this running? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
May I suggest that everyone concentrate on phrasing their arguments in a more civil tone? Using names like "silly," "obsessive," and "busybodies" make it very difficult to assume good faith. It may be time to review things like WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:OWN. --Elonka 02:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that out of the 10,000+ Ghits for 'Cináed mac Ailpín', there are only 82 unique hits. [7]. In addition, minus wikipedia, the number of hits falls sharply.--Nydas 12:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

ridiculous

This is ridiculous that we are even having this vote. Why? well, for one thing, we, as another user stated, shouldn't have to vote to impliment wikipedia policies already in place. For another thing, this is all being done backwards. As far as i can tell by looking at the history of this article, it started out as kenneth, not Cinaed and only recently was it moved to Cinaed, unilaterally, i might add. That move should be reverted back and this vote should be the other way around trying to move it from Kenneth to Cinaed. We should never have to vote to return an article to its original title when it was moved in the first place without consensus. Masterhatch 05:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. In fact, I made a start by moving the Malcolms back to their proper place, and only stopped clearing up the cross-references when Angus McLellan offered to finish the job. Surprise, surprise, next day the original culprit had moved them all back. Deb 11:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, the pages have been in their current position for nearly a month. How an article naming starts out depends on the arbitrary name decided on by the person who happened to begin the article. What's so holy about that? Honestly, some people here seem to think these articles are the possessions of those who obsess with naming policies, rather than those who actually have to deal with writing them. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This is just nonsense. Article names are decided according to naming conventions, which you have chosen to ignore. You are starting to display the kind of behaviour typical of small children who don't get their own way. It's not worthy of a long-standing contributor. Deb 16:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This is pettyness, Deb, coming from the admin who, after all, uses the roll back function to help in revert wars. Another point Deb: some users actually have to think about naming issues. Regurgitating naming guidelines you've probably never read for any old article regardless of circumstances does more harm to wikipedia than having open discussions. I hope you one day realize this. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Naming conventions are not normative. They are guidelines, not rules, and when there is good cause to deviate from them, it is permitted to do so. Evertype 18:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The point I was making was that the location of an article doesn't have much to do with an "arbitrary name decided on by the person who happened to begin the article". Deb 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that we not mess with things at the moment, while a vote is ongoing, but that we interpret the vote as though it is a vote to move the articles from the former locations to the current ones - i.e. it should require a supermajority to keep them here, rather than a super-majority to move them back. john k 16:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion, well, don't think much of it. But I know what I think means little. The articles have been in the position they're in for nearly a month. I don't see how the "original" title is supposed to have great authority. There ain't going to be consensus, because most of the voters disagree in principle, with one part forcing it on the others through sheer weight of numbers. At any rate, with invites posted on all the busy-body hang-outs, keeping and extending the current supermajority should be easily obtained. You might as well move them all back now and save everyone time and irritation. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for the obnoxious comment. I hadn't seen your post on my talk page apologizing for previous personal attacks, or I wouldn't have done it. Beyond that, the original titles are the ones the article was at for several years, as far as I'm aware, and conform to naming conventions. As such, there should've been an RM to begin with, and this is essentially playing that role, which would've required a super-majority to move. That was the basic idea. john k 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed the comment. Should clarify, I was apologizing for my tone and the nature of the argument rather "personal attacks" (which would be only an extreme way of characterizing the argumentative style I've often used). As for the supermajority, I hope there's a decisive vote either way; the worst thing would be for it to finish 20-20 or something and have them moved anyway. That's why some might think it good to move them now, but like I said, it doesn't seem likely that the result will be that close. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if you're after policy to justify an early move, be bold and ignore all rules seem like they would do. Of course, you wouldn't be able to fall back on consensus if you circumvented the RM procedure, so any other editor could reasonably move them somewhere else, or back where they are now. Things could get Polish-monarchesque very quickly and there's endless room for overenthusiastic application of badly-worded policies. Turlough I of Ireland anyone ? Griffith II of Gwynedd ? Ridiculous is the word. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right about the names, these names sit very oddly together with the likes of Kenneth I of Scotland. For this and all the other reasons, we need to have a review of these names. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name as it appears in encyclopedias

In these cases, I usually find it useful to look at how other major English-language reference works refer to the individual in question. Based on a quick check of Britannica and Columbia though, it's pretty clear what "most common usage" is. If anyone has access to other major reference works, please feel free to expand the below list. --Elonka 23:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias

  • Cinaed mac Alpin, Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, p. 366 [8]
  • Cináed mac Alpín Who's Who In British History
  • Kenneth I - Encyclopedia Britannica Online [9]
  • Kenneth I - Columbia Encyclopedia [10]
Both of those articles are about 20 years out of date, and frankly childish in content, though the Britannica is mildy better than the Columbia. You'd think Britannica would have the money to get proper articles done. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Kenneth I - MSN Encarta [11]
  • Kenneth I or Kenneth MacAlpin - 2003 Webster's Desk Encyclopedia
  • Kenneth I - 1975 Funk & Wagnall's Encyclopedia
  • Kenneth I MacAlpin (1979 hardcopy Encyclopedia Britannica)
  • Kenneth I MacAlpine - 2004 Oxford Concise Encyclopedia
  • Kenneth mac Alpin (Cinaed mac Ailpín), Oxford Companion to Scottish History, pp. 92, 359
  • Kenneth I - The Encyclopedia of World History, 2001
  • Kenneth Mac Alpine - Catholic Encyclopedia. Caveat: There is no evidence that this reference has been updated since 1912, so it may have the same currency as "far Cathay". --SigPig

Dictionaries

Other reference works

  • Kenneth mac Alpin. Ross, Martha (1977). Rulers and Governments of the World, Vol 1 - Earliest Times to 1491. London and New York: Bowker. ISBN 0859350517 --SigPig 19:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Taken from the entry "Scotland" in the indicated work. The initial subentry is "Kings of the Picts", footnoted (partially) as follows:

The names appear in some lists in Gaelicized forms, in others in forms which are pictish but often corrupt. The best known forms are used here, with alternatives in parentheses. Brude, Drust and Nechtan are Gaelic forms, the Pictish being Bred or Bredei, Drest and Naiton. (Ross, 1977, p. 486)

This may explain the inconsistency of the naming conventions in this book: K mac A is listed as "Kenneth mac Alpin" under "Kings of the Picts" (ibid., p. 486), "Kings of Dalriada (Dál Riata)" (ibid., p. 490), and "Kings of (the Picts and) Scots" (ibid., p. 491). However, K's immediate successor as King of the Picts (before K was named "King of (the Picts and) Scots") is listed as "Kenneth (or Cinead), son of Ferat", the latter listed as "Ferat (or Uurad)" (ibid., p. 487).
This was not added to further muddy the waters, but to indicate that although "Kenneth" was used in the book, the text seems ambivalent about which form to use in any particular case, perhaps using "Kenneth" because it is "best known". --SigPig 19:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent non-specialist histories

The list shows the form at the first mention in the text and at subsequent ones where applicable. This excludes academic works, course texts and the like.

  • Cinaed (Kenneth) I. mac Alpin - Harvie, Scotland:A Short History. (Oxford UP, 2002)
  • Kenneth mac Alpín (Cináed mac Ailpín), known as Kenneth I then Kenneth mac Alpin - Magnusson, Scotland: The Story of a Nation. (HarperCollins, 2000)
  • Cinaed son of Alpín (Kenneth mac Alpin) then Cinaed - Wormald (ed.), Scotland: A History. (Oxford UP, 2005)
  • Cinaed mac Ailpín then Cinaed - Driscoll, Alba: The Gaelic Kingdom of Scotland, AD 800–1124. (Birlinn for Historic Scotland, 2002)
  • Cinaed mac Ailpín (Kenneth son of Alpin) then Cinaed - Foster, Picts, Gaels and Scots: Early Historic Scotland. (Batsford for Historic Scotland, 2nd edition, 2004)

Similar works omitted because they were not available include:

  • Houston & Knox, New Penguin History of Scotland (Penguin, 2002)
  • Watson, Scotland: A History, 8000 BC-AD 2000 (Tempus, 2002)

Please add to this list. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We are following the wrong procedure here

On Wikipedia, where a user unilaterally moves a page from a consensus name to a new name without going through requested moves, precedent shows that we go back to the original name, on the basis that the original move was invalid, and then the original mover has to formally request the move to the new name he wants.

That should be what is happening here. It is patently absurd for one user to do mass unilateral moves, and then for the onus on those proposing to undo the unilateral moves to reach a consensus number to bring about a change. That is not how WP works. The pages should have been moved automatically back to the original locations. No vote is needed for that. (Some users have talked about a bot to do such moves. The sooner that bot is up and running the better so we can stop these messy unilateral changes.) Right now, as the vote is taking place, the presumption is that they will be moved back to the location required by the Most Common Name rule and by the Naming Conventions unless a 65%+ majority vote to block (i.e., there is a consensus to use the names the pages were unilaterally moved to).

We really have got to stop being so tolerant of users who highjack articles, move them around contrary to the MoS, the NC and agreed procedures, and then set up votes where those seeking to undo their unilateral behaviour have to deliver the mid 60s in support to undo it. That is patent rubbish. The bottom line on WP is what is laid out in the Manual of Style and the Naming Conventions. If a page should be allowed to deviate from them at all (and that is questionable) the onus must on those insisting the page break the MoS and the NC to show an overwhelming consensus for the move, not to unilaterally move the page and then insist that those opposing what they did must deliver a consensus to follow the MoS and NC. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said, and I am in complete agreement. However, Deb tried to move a few of the articles [12], and Calgacus just dragged them back to the non-consensus names [13]. As for the others, the redirects had already been edited, which prevented non-admins from effecting the moves, meaning that the only option really available for non-admins, is to go through WP:RM, or raise a fuss on WP:ANI or get admin attention in some other way. For now, I've gone ahead and moved the "Malcolm # of Scotland" articles back to English names. If you (or one of the other admins reviewing this discussion) would like to take care of the rest of the moves, we can get back on course. --Elonka 01:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be run on how self-righteous certain users feel, but I've said enough about such tiresome pontifications of Holy WP Guideline Law. However, calling a name opposed by so many users "consensus" ... is like calling the nuking of Nagasaki an "agreement"; the one thing that is clear is that there is no consensus. Anyways, those pages have been where they are for nearly a month, and no-one has explained to me where the holiness of the "first name" is supposed to derive from. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
sorry to rain on your parade, but wikipedia has rules that have been agreed upon by a majority of users. The purpose of those rules is to keep civility and avoid anarchy. In other words, to keep everyone on the same page and avoid edit wars. So what if for the last month no one challenged your unilateral move. the pages were where they were for years, and, yes, Calgacus, your moves are being challenged. Basically, you vandalised several pages and we are trying to fix them. If you really think that Kenneth is the wrong title, then you should have done a proper request move, not just moved it. Masterhatch 02:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I "vandalised" several pages? O my goodness. If you aspire to be on a high-horse as a wikipedia "lawyer", then why not check out Wikipedia:Vandalism for a definition of actual vandalism. Anyways, my move seemed unlikely to provoke opposition at the time, and there is nothing that compels any user to hold a mass vote everytime he or she makes a major edit. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever one may think of Calgacus's moves (and I agree that it was inappropriate to move them without doing an RM, as they were quite likely to prove contentious, and have indeed done so), they were certainly nowhere near comprising vandalism. They were done in good faith, out of a desire to improve the encyclopedia. Claims like "vandalism" should only be made when, well, something like vandalism has occurred. john k 03:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Mass changes are supposed to be done through proper process. Users who have continually engaged in mass moving of pages despite appeals to stop have been blocked from editing the site. I have now returned the pages to the original location. We should now restart the vote and follow standard procedures by voting to move the pages from their locations as required by the Manual of Style and Naming Conventions to new locations, rather than, as was happening here, voting to put them back to the MoS/NC required locations. And calgacus the next time you decide to do a mass renaming of articles on WP . . . don't! If you do you are likely to be blocked from editing this site by any admin that finds it happening. Because of the scale of users engaging in mass moving of pages, leaving chaos all over the place and ignoring Wikipedia rules, admins have been getting much stricter of late and do block users who ignore appeals to stop and just keep moving pages according to their own personal whims. We have the requested moves procedures to co-ordinate moves and to stop major problems happening with broken links, as well as widespread breaking of consensus-based rules laid out in the Manual of Style and the Naming Conventions. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Jtdirl, there's no way these moves could be considered even close to a "blocking offence"; any admin who seriously thinks so shouldn't be an admin. Anyways, I've moved loads of articles in my time on wiki, and only this set of moves and one other single move (last January I think) provoked this kind of opposition. In both cases it was a case of me seriously misjudging. In this case, these articles are very little edited and no one would have objected if one or two Scottish monarchs didn't have such a high-profile. I still don't understand why the first creation page has so much authority; I'm not being puzzled by this for purely argumentative effect; I would like to know why. As for opening another vote - you gotta be kidding. Though I certainly don't think you should have closed this vote before the 5 days was up, I'm glad - nay grateful - that it's over. I've got other things I wanna be doing with my valuable time. There are still great problems with the naming of early Scottish monarchs, which has been obscured somewhat among all this. Maybe in a few months an acceptable set of names can be presented. Archive anyone? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
As I participated in the vote I cannot close it. As to blocking, yes, people who engage in large scale moving around contrary to the agreed MoS and NC positions are regularly blocked if they don't stop when asked to. (Sometimes it is only a block that gets through to them that they cannot move articles all over the place.) Moving has become a widespread problem on WP, with links broken, nutty names used, POV-pushing, etc. There has been talk of removing the move option altogether from non-admins because, as I discovered lately when trying to find one article on a royal topic, people are regularly balsing up the moves. One page was moved repeatedly by one user. He left 11 redirect pages that pointed to each other. So when you went to one, you were sent to another, that sent you to another. The article was lost in the mess. All people kept experiencing was going around in redirect circles. (It took an hour to clean up that mess.) When that user, despite appeals from hoards of users to stop, refused to and kept making a mess all over he was blocked for 24 hours. He came back and kept moving stuff and was blocked for three days. He came back again and went on a complete orgy of redirects. He is now blocked indefinitely. It took five users working flat out for hours to undo the damage he did in his final orgy of moving. That was the point where a discussion occurred with some of the computer guys in which a number of users asked for the move option to be removed completely from non-admins.
I don't regard your moves as vandalism, but I do regard them as creating a mess. Any encyclopaedia has to operate on the basis of a co-ordinated set of rules and structures. Every encyclopaedia on earth has its own Manual of Style which decides fundamental rules on language usage, etc. Names of articles are laid out in Naming Conventions. If everyone did what they wanted, Wikipedia would descend into an unreadable mess. (Wikipedia's royalty articles when I came here first 4 years ago were a laughing stock, with no consistency, no accuracy, just personal whims. Users like John Kenney, Deb, myself and a couple of others put a lot of work into trying to pull together a broad set of workable rules that could keep the topic co-ordinated. One basic rule on WP in the Manual of Style is the Most Common Name principle. It does not mean that an article title must be in English. It means simply that it must be at the name most English speakers will recognise. If it turns out they mainly know a native name, excellent. But if they only know a translation, then under the Manual of Style that is where the article has to be. But name usage worldwide is evolving. If in 10 years time Scottish monarchs are known by Scottish gaelic titles then the articles would have to use those titles. Equally, if now they are known by English language translations, then under the MoS rules that it the version that must be used. It does mean that there is not always consistency. (People for example know earlier Prussian monarchs by English versions of their names, but the last Kaiser as Wilhelm. But it does mean that when people open a page they will instantly know who it is about. A classic example occurred in a page on a mediaeval Irish monarch, where an Irish speaker put the monarch under not merely a very long version of their name, in Irish, but used an old Irish spelling. Irish users found themselves looking at the article and wondering "who the fuck is that about?" None of us recognised it. The reality is that 99.99% of people know him by the Anglicised version of his name. So putting the name in in old Irish was pointless. The article ended up being moved to the recognisable version of his name, with the old Irish version then being mentioned in the article.
So please don't move articles around unilaterally. You may not realise that it causes a problem, but it can cause a major one sometimes. It may make a mess of the Naming Conventions, conflict with the Manual of Style and be in a form that only an absolute specialist would recognise. Specialist original translations belong in the text where they can be explained, not in the article title where they can not be. So please, unless it is just a very minor change like a spelling error, use the normal procedure. That way, if there is an MoS or NC problem, someone else will be able to tell you. And big rows like the sort here can be avoided. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Since it didn't seem to make any sense to keep the poll open since all of the articles have been moved back to original names, I went ahead and closed it. We should probably archive this entire page and start fresh, too. Thanks to everyone that's been helping with the administrative details of getting things sorted out. --Elonka 04:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I can agree with that. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I remember a user like that, Jrdirl, whom I ran into on several occassions. The situation with this set of moves isn't slightly comparable though, as I fix redirects and don't repeatedly move when I know I shouldn't. I even helped with the redirects. I take your point about exercising caution; though you can be sure that the thought of going through something like this is much more off-putting than being blocked for 12 hours or a day. Anyways, I've heard all the MoS and Most Common Name stuff I care to hear, and I've already said what I have to say. In practice, wiki works by weight of numbers voting for their own view on any particular or general issue, be it the small number of wikipedians who participated in this article, or the small number of wikipedians who participate in forming the conventions, with the occassional confident admin putting even more weight on one side or the other. The mere fact that lots of wikipedian power is behind the Use English policy isn't going to stop those who prefer native names preferring native names, and such like. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, it is clear that you do fix redirects, etc (and did so tonight) so I said before, and I will repeat it, your edits were in no way vandalism. As to "Use English" – that isn't policy. Policy is "use the form English users will recognise", which is completely different. For example English speakers use Taoiseach as much as its translation when referring to the Irish Prime Minister, so the article goes it as Taoiseach, not Irish PM. But they use President of Ireland, not Uachtaráin, so the article goes in as the former, not the latter. (Actually, damn all people use the latter, not even the President anymore!) They use Wilhelm II so that is used. But they also call the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V so that, not a translation, is used. If tomorrow, next week or next month people began to use the Gaelic versions of Scottish monarchical names the articles would be moved automatically under the MCN rule to the Gaelic versions. However at present they don't. People use the English version, so the article goes there. It is simply a case of what do people use. If they called Scottish monarchs in Latin version of their names, they would go in as Latin. Or Russian. An example is the last active Russian Tsar. His name in Russia was Nicolai. But he is known to English speakers as Nicholas. So as this is English WP it goes in as Nicholas. But English speakers know the former Soviet president as Mikhail Gorbachev, not Michael Gorbachev, so the Russian name goes in. It is purely a case of usage, never ever a "Use English" policy. I hope that clears that up. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, jtd, to shake thinks up a bit, Kaiser Bill is now at William II, German Emperor. I voted against this, but was overruled. I'd say the primary consideration was to make his name consistent with those of his father and grandfather, who are most commonly known by their anglicized forms. But, I will add, usage of "William" for the Kaiser is fairly common, nonetheless - I'd say overall usage is fairly evenly split between the two, although specialist literature tends towards Wilhelm. john k 12:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
For an example of monarchs who aren't known by their English name, see Carol I of Romania and Pedro II of Brazil, among others. john k 12:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Also Franz Joseph I of Austria. john k 12:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenneth_I_of_Scotland/Archive_1&oldid=1089778469"