This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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 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 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 Scottish Royalty (a child project of the
Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
Scottish Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the
project page, where you can
join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.Scottish RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyScottish royalty articles
This article has been rated as High-importance on the
importance scale.
Expansion
I've started expanding the article, which means that for a while a lot of it will be unreferenced and may not make perfect sense. I'll try to finish as quickly as possible.
Angus McLellan(Talk)18:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
If you have ambitions for this you might need to explain why "Constantine I of Scotland" is merely "King of the Picts". Certainly, you don't need to link the OotKoA, an old article that embarrasses me a little every time I see it (needs worked up beyond being a dump site for a section of SitHMAs).
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk)
04:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Amlaíb's Death
The article says he died in 871 or 872. But my reading of the
Pictish Chronicle seems to indicate 875:
and after two years Amlaib, with his people, laid waste Pictavia; and he dwelt there from 1 January until the feast of Saint Patrick [17 March]. Again in the third year Amlaib, [?while collecting tribute], was killed by Constantine. A short while after that battle was fought in his 14th year at Dollar between the Danes and the Scots, the Scots were annihilated at Atholl. The Norsemen spent a whole year in Pictavia.
There seems to be reference to two different battles: one in Constantine's 14th year (875-876) at Dollar in which Amlaíb died and Constantine was victorious; and another battle at Atholl shortly afterwards in which the Scots were heavily defeated. This latter is in the Annals of Ulster for 875 (corrected), so that would put Amlaíb's death earlier in 875.
Eroica (
talk)
15:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Putting all significant names in Lead.
I did this and was wrongly reverted by Deacon, having added Constantine I of Scotland to the 1st line of the article. This is a major, if not THE major usage, and by Wikipedia policy, should be mentioned clearly in the first line of the lead, not hidden obscurely elsewhere. The reason for this is to help the ordinary, non-expert reader, who needs to be sure he is at the right page. The information needs to be there.
Xandar23:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Constantine I of Scotland is not a common name. Constantine I, despite its inaccuracy, is one, and it is already mentioned and nicely bolded for your viewing pleasure on the secondthird sentence. Check for yourself. Now the same name is bolded twice.
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk)
23:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)reply
The name Constantine I King of Scotland, appears in many sources, eg
here, and in the established lists of Kings of Scotland. As such it is a name that should appear in the first line.
WP:BOLDTITLE. The second use is lower down the page and less clear. That should probably not be in bold per the MOS guidance.
Xandar02:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)reply
It doesn't matter if it turns up in loads of sources. Loads of sources say the moon landing was fake, doesn't mean the article should have moon landing hoax bolded in the first line. And if some guideline appears to say to you that it should, then that's why sensible users have
WP:IAR, one of the five pillars of wikipedia. That he is often listed as a king of Scotland is explained in the opening lines, now it's explained twice.
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk)
02:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia reports the names and viewpoints as reflected in the sources. It doesn't censor them. The simple fact is a reader needs to know quickly that he has reached the right article if he is looking for Constantine I of Scotland. Therefore the name is required early. And since there are Constantine II and III of Scotland, denying the existence of Constantine I is pretty pointless. The article text also looks extremely confusing, a lot of which is about another Constantine altogether, while not making this clear. This needs reworking, but not by me right now.
Xandar02:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)reply
You've went and missed the point entirely, but no matter as the name is there now.
You reckon you could rework this article??? This article could definitely be expanded or fine-tuned I suppose with more exhaustive source usage, but it's decent for the effort put in, and certainly better than the cack that was there before Angus got to it.
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk)
02:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)reply