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
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 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 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Has an FA nom been considered? They would expect an image; maybe a map could be added, at least. But this looks really good to me. Is there any more info that could be added?
Everyking11:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)reply
A map is certainly feasible, and some other more or less appropriate illustrations can be included. So that's not really a problem, but there's still some other work to be done. I wouldn't like to have it nominated for featured, or even to go to the trouble of peer-reviewing it, until someone has had the opportunity to compare the article with Alex Woolf's "Onuist son of Uurguist : tyrannus carnifex or a David for the Picts?" which appears in David Hill & Margaret Worthington (eds), Æthelbald and Offa : two eighth-century kings of Mercia. British Archaeological Reports, British series, 383, Oxford, 2005. I don't think it's guilty of
original research any more than any other article of it's type. However, as with the article on
Penda of Mercia, the fact is that it's strung together from a whole lot of sources, and comparing it with a relatively long piece on the subject (of which Woolf's is the only one I am aware of) seems like a good idea. A second concern is that I asked a non-anglophone acquaintance to read through it to see if it made sense. While we haven't sat down and gone through it in detail, she did say that she found it quite hard going, in part because of the unfamiliar names, background, & so on, which is unavoidable, but also because of the way it was written, which could be addressed once I know exactly what she had in mind.
Angus McLellan(Talk)11:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Moving this article
I am minded to move the article to something more resembling forms found in print. "Óengus I/Óengus II" appears in the works of Alfred P. Smyth, surely not my favourite writer on the Insular Early Middle Ages. Sticking with Óengus rather Onuist (if nothing else, it's easier to pronounce for those who like to know how things sound) and Fergus rather than [UW]rguist (which is positively unhelpful unless you're Welsh), we might have:
The other Óengus could be disambiguated by (d. 834). I have not opened a formal requested move as there seems little point. Unless there's a better suggestion or strong disagreement, I will go with A.
Angus McLellan(Talk)16:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I'd be surprised if you find many people qualified to pass an opinion on the matter. I'd never heard of him, and I enjoyed your article very much, but I don't think I'd've read it if it wasn't named the way it was. However, that's not a good reason to keep it, if it's, as you suggest, questionable.--
qp10qp15:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)reply
None of those titles seem particularly appealing.
Óengus I. or
Onuist I. seem fine to me, or
Óengus I, King of the Picts. The "of the Picts" format is too clumsy; considering the problematic nature of the evidence (e.g. the king lists), even numbering Pictish kings is pretty risky (though in this case it is fine). The Germans have got it so much better with the Óengus I. (Picts) format, but it is out of line with English wiki convention. "son of" also looks clumsy, and besides poses the "Echdach problem" (Echdach being genitive of Eochaid), whereby because some of the patronymics occur only in the genitive case, the father names first have to be de-genitivized to be used .... not always possible with some of the more obcure names. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)reply
ideally
I'd be rather inclined to avoid going with a new way of naming him that instantly means he needs to be disambiguated. Assuming the suggested monarchical naming conventions pass,
Óengus I, King of the Picts would seem to be okay with me. You seem to be opposed to this form, but I'm not familiar with Alfred P. Smyth, so I'm not really sure what the problem is. Could you possibly clarify why it's not a good way of doing things?
Proteus(Talk)19:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)reply
There is a case to be made for this article and it's namesake, but only for those. Where's the benefit in using a system which wouldn't be used on any other articles on the topic ? The Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain uses numerical disambiguation in these two cases only (see p. xxxii). Smyth and Marjorie Anderson (Kings and Kingship) give complete listings of kings from Bridei son of Maelchon onwards, in most cases with Gaeliform and Pictiform names. The articles here on kings before Bridei should be zapped anyway, perhaps excepting Drust son of Erp and his brother Nechtan. Have a look at
Category:Irish kings and
Category:Welsh monarchs.
Angus McLellan(Talk)23:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I definitely think the Pictish kings should be moved. It is common to use "m." instead of "son of", because that is ambiguous. "Mac" is common, and although "map" is totally and utterly unattested in any Pictish or non-Pictish source for a Pictish person, historians who think all the Picts always spoke a dialect of Welsh like to use that form (the argument wrests on a few names in king lists and a couple of other sources which lack Irish Gaelic orthography, some placename elements which include words also used in Welsh and one half-Welsh place name from the Welsh area south of the Forth reported by Bede as "Pictish"). Anyways,
Marjorie Ogilvie Anderson's articles on Pictish kings are titled as follows:
Brude mac Bile [Bridei son of Beli] (d. 693), king of Picts
Brude [Bridei] mac Maelchon (d. c.586), king of Picts
Kenneth I [Cináed mac Alpin, Kenneth Macalpine] (d. 858), king in Scotland
Nechtan mac Derile (d. 732), king of Picts
Oengus [Angus] mac Forgusso [Onuist son of Uurguist] (d. 761), king of Picts
Frankly, the current system is silly, and Angus is correct to want to move it. I see nothing wrong, in this particular instance, of Óengus I or Onuist I. Even Óengus mac Fergusa/Óengus mac Forgusso or Onuist (I) m. Urguist would be fine. Simply Onuist may even work, with a "For Onuist II, see
blah blah blah". Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I have a feeling this needs a few more inline citations in several parts. Besides a few spots where there's outright no citation, there's a number of spots where footnotes that seem to be more notes than references are used in place of referencing. My inclination is that
WP:FACR #1c is not met in the article's current state.
Hog FarmBacon04:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)reply
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: