Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medieval Scotland

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Medieval Scotland page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Medieval Scotland Project‑class

This page 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 Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

You lot are gonna just love this one: Category:Scoto-Norman clans.

See Cfd discussion, here:

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:_Scoto-Norman_Clans

--Mais oui! 09:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested that the new British language (Celtic) article be merged into the Welsh language article. Contribute at Talk:Welsh language.--Mais oui! 11:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see:

• Talk:Argyll
• Talk:Bute
• Talk:Ross (area)
• Talk:Moray (county)

--Mais oui! 21:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it is far from medieval, but could you history guys please take a good look at Acts of Union 1707. The article as it currently exists is utterly pathetic, barely touching the topic. It needs the input of several proper historians. It does not help that some persistent POV merchants have been "sitting" on it for at least a year. --Mais oui! 04:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion here:

• Talk:List_of_monarchs_of_Scotland#Direct_descent_from_Fergus_M.C3.B3r_to_Elizabeth_II

--Mais oui! 10:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can some of you guys check out the Order of the Thistle article. It is a bit laughable, but it is currently an FA (?!?) and (this I just cannot believe) it is one of the very, very few articles to be approved for Wikipedia:Version 0.5. It will be an absolute travesty if such a ridiculous article ends up being the only Scotland-related article in Version 0.5. Please check it out. --Mais oui! 00:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Project page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland/BioProject, has been opened. Designed to coordinate medieval Scottish biographical output with the Bioproject, and to categorize appropriately historical figures from medieval Scotland. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I also invite you to make use of the page we set up over at WP:WPBIO for the British Isles, which has a Scottish section -- feel free to add to the announcements/to-do area, etc...

Was wondering what people would think about expanding the remit of this project to cover Ireland too. This would not mean narrowing the project's scope to include only Gaels; as Scandinavians, Normans and English were also common elements to both lands, the merge makes a lot of historical sense. Also, I'm detecting that, thanks to the work of Angus and others on medieval Scottish projects, Irish topics are noticably beginning to lag behind, a wikipedia imbalance that ought to obviously be addressed. Thoughts? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... for large periods in the middle ages Scotland was an English fief, and its king sat in the English house of lords. Thoughts?`--Mais oui! 23:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the author means that the Scottish king was a vassal of the king of England, then he is correct for the period 1124 to the reign of Alexander III. Scotland itself was only legally a fief for the king of England for the period between the Treaty of Falaise (1174) and the Quitclaim of Canterbury (1189). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But was he not a "vassal" at the English court purely in the context of his estates and titles in England, not in relation to his estates and titles in Scotland, eg. monarch? --Mais oui! 00:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was a vassal for Scotland between 1174 and 1189. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't meaning that period, I was meaning "for the period 1124 to the reign of Alexander III" (excluding 1174-1189). Was he not a "vassal" at the English court purely in the context of his estates and titles in England during that period? --Mais oui! 06:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did all the early Scottish monarch articles come to be at the Gaelic name? Was this done with any discussion or any requested moves? There is no discussion here, or at Talk:List of Monarchs of Scotland, or at any naming conventions page, nor was there any prior discussion at any of the individual articles that I've looked at. john k 03:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They don't all have Gaelic names; most of them have the names they've had since creation. Certain of the articles were moved more recently to bring them in line with their content, which no one had ever objected to. Baffles me why people such as yourself, who never contribute or read these articles, suddenly get all active when article titles have been brought inline with the content they've had for ages. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, PatGallacher clearly objected to the content, several days before you moved all the articles. Others have objected since. And how on earth do you know that I never read these articles? I obviously haven't read them recently, since whenever Angus changed all the text to be the Gaelic text, but I am interested in Scottish history, and you have no right to just decide that you and Angus are the only ones with a right to comment. john k 12:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for that. Pat Gallacher's comments were actually more than a year before, so check your claims. And Angus actually rewrote the articles, which were crap before he came along, and he followed the names used in his sources. Like I said, it baffles me why people such as yourself, who never contribute or read these articles, suddenly get all active when article titles have been brought inline with the content they've had for ages. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Calgacus says, they didn't, many of them weren't moved - Macbeth, Indulf, Amlaíb, the Constantines, Lulach, Giric, Eochaid. Áed and Cuílen were moved a while back, but that was in the way of being a correction. Surprisingly, my having moved all of the Kings of Dál Riata months ago has yet to generate any controversy. I don't know exactly when I started on editing "kings of Scotland", but it has to have been more than four months ago, as this diff shows. It's not as if everything changed overnight. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move update[edit]

All of the following name changes are being discussed at Talk:Cináed I of Scotland#Requested move:

• Cináed I of Scotland → Kenneth I of Scotland
• Cináed II of Scotland → Kenneth II of Scotland
• Cináed III of Scotland → Kenneth III of Scotland
• Domnall I of Scotland → Donald I of Scotland
• Domnall II of Scotland → Donald II of Scotland
• Domnall III of Scotland → Donald III of Scotland
• Donnchad I of Scotland → Duncan I of Scotland
• Donnchad II of Scotland → Duncan II of Scotland
• Máel Coluim I of Scotland → Malcolm I of Scotland
• Máel Coluim II of Scotland → Malcolm II of Scotland
• Máel Coluim III of Scotland → Malcolm III of Scotland

An approval poll is in-process, as of August 28. All interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 01:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vote at Talk:Cináed I of Scotland has shown that, should it be aroused, there is widespread and extensive opposition to naming Scottish monarchs in the current format with medieval Scottish rather than anglicized names. However, the vote discussion has brought up a number of issues regarding the style of Pictish and early Scottish monarch names, for which it is at odds with other Celtic countries and it seems often factually inaccurate or misleading. A preliminary discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland/Royal naming, where perhaps it can be determined how to best name Scotland's earlier monarchs. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a newly created article that requires a lot of work. I just thought I'd post it here so that people in the know could possibly help get the history section (and others) up to speed. --Bob 19:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree , rather a large amount of non-sequiturs. Is there any way of organising a group to get involved with pre-reformation Scotland and the history of the various houses? All the Border Abbey articles seem to be stubs, and Monasticism in Scotland seems to be confined to the rather narrow listing of institutions under Abbeys and priories in Scotland or entirely devoted to so-called Celtic Christianity. I'm trying to fiddle with Soutra Aisle just now, a house run by Augustinians. Scotland did have a long Church history following the synod of Whitby and before the Reformation, and it seems not well enough documented here on Wikipedia. Brendandh 03:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

• Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
• Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

• About the plugin
• About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
• User guide
• About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 14:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am unhappy about the status of the article Order of the Thistle as a WP:Featured article. It just seems very weak and vague to me, but as a non-historian I thought that I'd better consult the experts. I think it should be put forward to Wikipedia:Featured article review. What do you guys think?

Of course the best option would be to bring it up to Featured standard. --Mais oui! 10:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 17:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should like to announce that Jocelin is currently nominated as a Featured article. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 07:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly: great project: the pages are excellent. I've found them a useful resource. I've recently logged in and become an editor (rather than just a browser), and have started work on the Nigel Tranter pages. I mention this here because Tranter has been a great influence on our modern view of Scottish / medieval history. Tranter was a lay-historian (as it were), using his vast knowledge and research to write biographical historical fiction as well as non-fiction works. Said to have "taught Scots all the history they know". I mention this because: 1. some of you might be Tranter lovers also, and wish to contribute; 2. some of you might not know what a good resource Tranter is; 3. I will stray on to 'your' pages, so want my work to be consistent and helpful (eg I might start up pages or contribute); 4. you might start referencing in or linking to Tranter pages. See Nigel Tranter#Non-fiction books ;Talk:Nigel Tranter and Talk:Historical novels of Nigel Tranter, pre 1286 if interested. Thanks. Gwinva 14:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. Anxious for feedback on article David I of Scotland. It is up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/David I of Scotland/archive1. Best regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, just a note to inform of this proposal. Considering that the title Ealdorman was only used in present day SE Scotland whereas Thegn was considerably more widespread, I would imagine that this would not be a good idea. I pointed any one who on the talk page is interested to an essay on the end of Thanage in Scotland [1]. See if that works. Brendandh 20:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone out there with the knowledge enough to improve this article? It is essential to get this one organised and up and going. Cheers. Brendandh 21:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom shows the royal arms of Scottish monarchs as beginning with William the Lion's lion rampant, but I find this to be highly unlikely. Surely William's predecessors also had royal arms? What were they? Do we have images of them? Can we get images? Any input welcome. (PS. the date given for the lion rampant - "12 century" - is a bit vague. Can we be more precise? Sources?) Ta. --Mais oui! 08:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear not. The earliest known armorial bearings in Scotland are said to be those on the seals of Alan, the High Steward of Scotland, about 1177, and Patrick, Earl of Dunbar, about 1182, but as both these families had immigrated into Scotland they may have brought these with them. William the Lion may be the first monarch to have had Arms which are actually recorded anywhere. I understand there is something conmfirming this in the next Scottish Heraldry Society's issue of The Double Tressure due out soon. David Lauder 10:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David I apparently had a dragon for his standard (don't remember the source for that atm, need to look). I've often secretly suspected that the Lion was a development of some such thing. Though David is correct in pointing out that arms are foreign (continental) import to Scotland, and shouldn't be expected until the foreignisation of the monarchs from David and afterwards. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source for dragon standard would be Ailred of Rievaulx Relatio de Standardo

Then they who had fled saw the royal banner retiring (for it was blazoned in the likeness of a dragon, and easily recognised) and knew that the king had not fallen but was in retreat. And they returned to him and formed a column terrible to their pursuers

Of course Ailred could be making the dragon bit up to highlight the Anglo-Saxon lineage of David...--Rjccumbria (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Started this article. Most of the subject matter falls outside the remit of this project but any input would be good. Brendandh 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new project has been started for people interested in ancient and medieval Norse history and culture. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing that all 9 vols of the The Scots Peerage are now available online. This is public domain, so these can be used as a copy-paste resource for nobility articles if necessary. If done, please add {{Scots Peerage}} in reference section. Please also remember that the peerage system was not created (in Scotland) until the 1440s, in the early reign of James II, so it's inappropriate to add cats and templates making too much use of the words "peer" or "peerage" in articles about magnates and barons before this period. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say "the peerage system was not created in Scotland until the 1440s" and I wonder what your reference for that is? That appears to differ from Sir Robert Douglas's account. Regards, David Lauder 10:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The practice let alone the concept of peerage were totally foreign to Scots until the later middle ages. This is generally well known I thought. If you want a reference, read Alexander Grant, "The development of the Scottish peerage", in: SHR 57, 1978. Or better yet, his Independence and Nationhood: "there was no Scottish peerage until the mid fifteenth century, and even after then the Scottish nobility clearly contained many individuals who were not peers of parliament. The Scottish concept of nobility, therefore, was probably akin to the Continental one, which included those who in England would be called gentry" (p. 120). Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, might it not be a good idea to mention this at our Peerage of Scotland article. Suitably referenced, of course. At present it is really barely more than a stub, totally lacking in sources. --Mais oui! 10:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be ignorant on this. I had always thought that the peerage was not necessarily defined as specific, rather an association of the nobility, called, for simplicty, The Peerage (as opposed to the Landed Gentry or the feudal baronage). Scotland has had nobility for the past thousand years, and given that for more than half of that period (i.e: longer than in England) the Minor (or Lesser) feudal barons had a right to a seat in parliament I would have thought that any association of peers in Scotland would also have included them until the 17th century. Douglas is probably a good guide to this or even Sir James Balfour Paul, but I've not got the time today to look further. Regards, David Lauder 11:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peerage is supposed to refer to a particular a system of "nobility"; a caste of people in some kind of system where the crown can determine "nobility" by charter or decree. 13th or 14th cent. Scotland (not to mention before) had no such system. You were a landowner or a warlord of varying degrees... that was it. There were only kings and earls/mormaers/sub-kings, minor thanes or like warlords, and anglo-norman provincial rulers blurring the line. Pre-15th cent. Scottish earls, for instance, are provincial rulers more comparable to kings than English barons. The 1440s is only when the crown begins to draw a line by creating parliamentary peers. Those 19th century authors are being rather broad in their use ... most of their pages are devoted to actual peers ... the earlier fellows only get in there for comprehensiveness. Guys like Somerled, Ferchar of Ross, Alan of Galloway, Archibald the Grim, etc, are not in any meaningful sense "peers". It is simply wrong to use the word in that way. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shall have to brush up. It is important that we establish fact here rather than our personal views. From my memory there were Dukes of Albany, Dukes of Rothesay, Earls of Fife, Earls of Athol, Earls of Mar, Earls of Ross, long before the 1400s. The feudal barons were next. The Crown, in introducing Lords of Parliament (virtually all of whom had been feudal barons in any case) may have been simply following the English model where they were slowly formalising the parliamentary peerage (as opposed to the feudal model) as parliament became more of an institution. But a peerage still existed before that. It may not have been as formal as it became and is today, but the hierarchy existed. David Lauder 16:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm ... "Earldoms" and such do not count as peerage just because they were incorporated into a later peerage system; that would be anachronistic, wouldn't it?! Back to Sandy Grant, "there was no Scottish peerage until the mid fifteenth century". BTW, those duchies were both created on the same day in 1398, hardly a "long before the 1400s". Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking in general rather than specific terms. Is Sandy Grant a relation of God? This is only his opinion, surely? I note your first sentence: but why not? I am not disputing that there was not a formal peerage as it finally became and as we know it now, but the word peer means equal; and the Oxford English Dictionary simply says, of a peerage, "member of one of the degrees of nobility" or "noble (of any country)". Regards, David Lauder 17:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "peer" gradually taking more meaning is quite different from using that as an excuse to justify an anachronistic retroprojection of the peerage system. The Mormaer of Mar at the Battle of Clontarf, hence, did not hold a title in the peerage of Scotland, since the peerage of Scotland wasn't created until the 1440s. It's really that simple as far I can see. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the project template to a few talk pages of articles I've been fiddling with. Does anyone know where you can find, or if there is a list of articles which fall under this project's remit? Cheers Brendandh 23:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan, here are two exemplars

{{Template:Medieval Scotland|class=FA|importance=Top|small=yes}} (David I)

{{Template:Medieval Scotland|class=B|importance=high}} (Archibald the Grim)

and the category page, which can be browsed Category:WikiProject Medieval Scotland

Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you guys spotted this new article?

• Dunvegan Cup

Is it a possible DYK for Main page? --Mais oui! 10:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to locate any articles with reference to Scotland during the great plague of the 14th c. to no avail. This pandemic obviously caused major social upheaval within Scotland and elsewhere, but although there is a deal of information relating to other European instances, including our southern neighbour, there is nothing about Scotland. Not my subject, but I feel that an article would be worthwhile, even if it was just an attempt to explain the relative peace of the kingdom, due to lack of manpower to the south. (or could that just be the fact that they held our king prisoner!) Brendandh 00:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is one book, but it ain't very good. Wyntoun has some comments. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been replacing where appropriate and when I come across it, [[[Scotland|Scots/Scottish]]] with [[[Kingdom of Scotland|Scots/Scottish]]] in any biographies prior to 1707, likewise with [[[England|English]]] etc. Anyone with any thoughts on whether this is a sensible thing to continue to do? Brendandh 22:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working on this article there are two things I can't find out:

1. Is Jordan Comyn actually one of his sons?
2. St Marys Chapel near Castle of Rattray may have been built after the "drowning of a Comyn son" which son drowned?

Does anyone know the answers? I have no access to a library and can find nothing online. Bobbacon 10:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox Medieval cathedral has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is going on at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. --Bill Reid | Talk 10:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Result - Keep --Bill Reid | Talk 16:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute going on at Talk:Lauder. I am one of the two parties, the other being David Lauder. The dispute concerns the presentation of out-dated pseudo-history as fact in the article. I have requested third parties look in, but no-one has done so yet. So I invite a wider audience here. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed WP:Reliable sources, where it states states that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. I have done that religiously. Whilst I am relying on a generally accepted background to the town, found in umpteen sources, Deacon of Pndapetzim doesn't like it because it fails to suit his personal opinions relating to that period of Scottish history. I wouldn't mind if he had something to add to the background of the town but appears he has not. None of us own Wikipedia or any of the articles. Moreover none of us have a right to stand over others and dictate to them (I have been told before by the Deacon not to introduce historians, sometimes famous, into Wikpedia whom he disapproves of) and that is why we have WP guidelines, such as WP:Reliable sources. I have made countless hours of contributions to Wikipedia and it is painful to see one's work destroyed. But I suppose that ultimately - and I have seen this done on WP - it is a way of getting rid of editors you don't like. David Lauder 19:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm newly appointed coordinator of the Wikipedia: WikiProject History. I was coordinator of the Wikipedia: WikiProject Military History before. My scope is to improve the cooperation among the different history projects andf use the synergy of a common infrastructure to improve article quality. One idea would be to merge small project into a larger wikiproject history with a common infrastructure and the small projects continuing independently as task forces of this project. What are your suggestions? Greetings Wandalstouring 15:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing the arrival of a rare example of an historical island - Hinba. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pictish monarchs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michael Sanders has nominated for deletion the old Scottish Monarchs template. He has created in the last few minutes a Scottish monarchs template. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_3#Template:Scottish_Monarchs. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created here a page to dump references in the form of WP:Citation template. The intention is to make referencing quicker by decreasing the amount of time spent on that kind of thing. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A draft of Scotland during the Roman Empire is available here. Comments and indeed edits are welcome before it is inflicted on mainspace. It may not be history of the highest quality but I hope it fills a gap that presently exits between Prehistoric Scotland and Scotland in the Early Middle Ages that Roman Britain does not adequately address. Some of it is new, some (e.g. The Picts section, which is probably over-long) is shamelessly nicked from other Wikipedia articles. I have been warned about Moffat by the Deacon and have tried to ensure that his sentiments are backed up by others, but this may be an ongoing work. I'm actually surprised how much that is 'known' about this period is supposition rather than hard fact. Ben MacDui 10:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is now on my GAC conveyor belt. With a few stylistic tweaks it will probably pass, although the chances of it being reviewed by someone who knows much about the subject are not that high. Speak now or forever hold your piece (sic). Merry Christmas to one and all. Ben MacDui 19:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see:

• Category talk:Post-Roman Scotland

--Mais oui! (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see CFD proposal at: [2]. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• [3]

--Mais oui! (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise this subject rather pre-dates this project's interest, but I am not sure who else to ask. An editor has had the temerity to question Alistair Moffat's statement that "There is agreement amongst historians that from about 1000 BC it is legitimate to talk of a Celtic culture in Scotland" at Talk:Prehistoric Orkney. I can find very little about the subject and wonder if anyone would care to pitch in. Ben MacDui 19:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the Battle of Methven article contains the only Wikipedia reference to the Dragon Banner:

• "... with powers to raise the Dragon Banner, signifying that no quarter would be given to Bruce and his adherents; or, as the chronicler John Barbour puts it 'to burn and slay and raise dragon'."

I have requested that this needs either a ref or a Wikipedia article, or probably both if it is significant - but note: it Googles poorly. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As 9/9 (excuse the americanism) is generally considered the nexus between the Scots Mediaeval and Early Modern periods, would it not merit a huge push to GA if not FA status? Especially from members of this group. Presently it is tagged for poor referencing. A catastrophic defeat that was ultimately to lead to the Union. Whatever one's personal politics or views, this fight is surely worthy of much more. Brendandh (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on the origins of the Scottish legal system is taking place at WikiProject Scotland. Editors of this article may be able to throw light on the topic. To contribute to the discussion, please click here. References, per WP:VERIFY, would be especially welcome! Thank you in advance. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot  (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:24, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)gans of Restalrig

Hi peeps, A poor showing here on one of the main (villainous!?) characters of the early Scot. renaissance and his illustrious predecessors. Anyone fancy a start on this pack. At least their castle in Edinburrie should have an article. No time myself, and not my subject really... Brendandh (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a long-term (probably very long-term at the rate I work) aim to push this article to FA. But at the moment the sections on early history and the early middle ages seem to be getting bogged down in stuff about Mellitus, St David, and a "cult of the nine maidens", surrounding the origin of the name "Castle of the Maidens". I'm all for acknowledging legends, but there seesm to be a need to distinguish myth and reality. Some of this is possibly relevant, but I think the majority of it needs to be cut down to get to the facts, such as they are. No reliable source that I've seen makes any reference to a nunnery on the rock, and the refs that have been added seem very old (eg William Maitland's 1753 History of Edinburgh, still reliable?). Does anyone here have a better handle on decent sources for this period and location? I'd much appreciate a more expert view. Many thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone's interested, I've generated a list of page view statistics for articles within the Project over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland/Stats. I know Mr.Z-bot does something similar, the main differences are that my script doesn't run automatically but I do try and strip out obvious "spikes" in the data. To be honest, for a fairly stable project like this one there's not much advantage but since I was doing the script for other Projects I figured you guys might be interested in a one-off set of data. One obvious use for it is setting priorities within the Project - if you only have limited time, it makes more sense to work on articles getting 7000 hits a month rather than 70. Not that I'm advocating slavish adherence to the pageviews when setting priorities - obviously "umbrella" articles should be promoted one level and vice versa for articles principally covered by another project - but I'd suggest that going more than one level away from what the pageviews suggest is probably a misallocation of resources. Separately, I've tweaked the Project page round a bit and assessed the unassessed articles - I'd suggest someone takes a look at Category:B-Class Medieval Scotland articles as there's a number in there that were assessed back in 2006-7 and probably wouldn't make B these days, especially not since C-class came in. Cheers. Le Deluge (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of Scottish battle articles have been added recently. They are mainly the creations of Scotland Rules (talk · contribs) who, unfortunately, is mixing up fiction with actual history. Two of the battles that I've reviewed so far only exist in Blind Harry's Wallace, which is long since discredited as an actual historical source by historians (not least because it has been shown to contain several demonstrable falsehoods, as well as it apparently being made up by Harry some 200 years after the fact and not a translation of a contemporary account as claimed). I'm afraid that a good hard look at Special:Contributions/Scotland Rules by everyone is in order. Uncle G (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• More accounts, adding information in the same vein, whose contributions require review:
  • Historian of Scotland (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Uncle G (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St Mary's Isle Priory was apparently "a monastic house of Augustinian canons located on the Isle of Trail in Galloway." The article proudly bears the WikiProject Scottish Islands banner - but I can see no such "isle". Can anyone confirm that its site was the isle-like peninsula at grid reference NX681500? Ben MacDui 19:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's at NX674490 Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, same one.

http://www.archive.org/stream/monasticonaccoun01gorduoft/monasticonaccoun01gorduoft_djvu.txt

Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Ben MacDui 19:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Id like to know what language William Wallace spoke and if there are any good references on the subject? Ive found a reference to Gaelic poetry assuming that he was a native speaker, but Id like to know whether Gaelic was still the predominent language in Renfrewshire in the late 13th and early 14th centuries? Cheers 92.235.178.44 (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from main page)Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this article for GA review. Being a military history article, it might well take a while before it gets reviewed (if the amount of time the Battle of Barry took is anything to go by!) I'd welcome any input in the meantime. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been listed as a good article, but there's a good chance it still needs some work. I'd still appreciate any input from those who have more experience with that period of history... I'm still very much an enthusiastic amateur! Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been meaning to ask you guys about the Guardians of Scotland article for ages now, as it is flippin appalling to be frank.

However, we have a real live wire who has taken a very strong dislike to Category:Guardians of Scotland. The User is of the very, very strong opinion that the Guardians cannot be considered to be "rulers".

Despite the provision of a reliable ext ref, the User insists on removing the "rulers" cats.

Anyhoo, provision of further reliable ext refs would be much appreciated, and you guys know your sources. Cheers. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a WP:FAC on one of our articles, Donnchadh of Carrick, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick/archive2. It's yet to have any substantial input...Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wondered if you guys were aware that there is a stonking great banner at the top of the William Wallace article saying:

• "This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. WikiProject Medieval Scotland may be able to help recruit one."

Apparently it has been there since Oct 2008! Most unsatisfactory. It would have been nice if someone had bothered to actually notify you lot. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with really popular articles is that there's little point working on them. You could put lots of work cleaning it up, but any IP or redlink can just insert crap (which in this case is easy to "verify" with hoards of crummy sources), and if anyone tries to revert them they get in trouble for "edit-warring". I think Angus has previously signaled his intent to clean this article up, though he's not been in a position to do these articles for a while, and I'm not sure that this article is too high up his priority list. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case this article should be permanently semi-protected. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has had a thorough going over from new user, ScotsHistorian (talk · contribs). The scope of interest and editing style reminds me slightly of blocked users Scotland Rules (talk · contribs) and Historian of Scotland (talk · contribs), but they may be unrelated. It's safe to say the drift towards a non-npov is marked. I've reverted the edits, but suspect it won't be left at that. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has gained a couple of sections on 'Pictish inscriptions' that may not contribute greatly to the article. For instance, it details the latin text inscriptions on the Drosten stone and on the Chape in the St Ninian's Isle Hoard. While these might be 'culturally Pictish', they're not 'linguistically Pictish'.

The same can be said for many of the ogham inscriptions. Some have been interpreted as Q-Celtic, and we don't really know what the others are. The information is potentially interesting, but perhaps should incorporated into a seperate article.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also looks to have been lifted from this page:

http://web.onetel.net.uk/~hibou/Pictish%20Inscriptions.html

Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone. Carry on as you were. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the John de Graham article, I assume that "Dundaff" is a spelling variant of Dunduff (nr Dunure, Ayrshire). I have therefore redirected to Dunduff Castle, South Ayrshire. If I am wrong, please correct! Thanks. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather worryingly, the present Dunduff was only built Circa 1696, but I'm assuming there was something there before that date.

There may also have been a Dundaff in Stirlingshire? --Mais oui! (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This man reiver, soldier, lover, needs an article, and I'm not the one to do it, any takers? Brendandh (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A resident in the old prime battlelands (on this side of the present Border at least!), in Berwickshire, I'm feeling that, (as with repesentation in the present day) the Borderland and the various articles relating to it: Castles, Characters, Battles, Feuds, Myths &c. are if not underepresented here, at least not quantified and related to each other properly. I propose a sub-WikiProject relating to the Borders/Lothian in the Medieval Period, and additionally another(s) for Alba proper. Being a book geek rather than an IT geek, I have no idea how to set this in action, and would appreciate a bit of aid, and/or opinion! Brendandh (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd advise against it if you haven't already got a core of editors to sustain such a sub-project. If this project was already overwhelmed by discussion of the Borders to the exclusion of all else, then it might succeed. Creating subprojects to encourage new activity doesn't usually work, as it gives an excuse for people in the main project to just ignore the subproject altogether. It's generally far better to maintain a profile among a wider group of editors by being an active member of the bigger project, at least IMO. Incidentally, rather than trying to create lots of new articles that noone really cares about, I'd concentrate on getting Border reiver up to at least WP:GA standard. It's a really important article that gets a lot of page views, but could do with some work (especially on referencing, inevitably) and it would be really nice to see it signed off as a GA. Le Deluge (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert de Bruges. Haven't a scooby myself. Ben MacDui 12:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I was lucky enough to attend the Backstage Pass event at the British Museum. It was part of a wider project of engagement with Wikipedia (see WP:GLAM/BM) that has seen them take on a temporary Wikipedian In Residence, User:Witty lama. They see Wikipedia as sharing many of their aims, and they want to encourage involvement by Wikipedians with the museum, and vice versa. They have even offered 5 prizes of £100 at the BM shop for featured articles on BM topics - in any language, Gaelic included. The Lewis chessmen would be an obvious one for this Project.
Most Wikipedians probably don't know that the BM has curators dedicated to answering phone/email questions about their specialist areas, and most of their department libraries welcome visitors doing bona fide research - and they now seem to recognise that editing Wikipedia articles, especially about items in the BM's collections, counts for those purposes. I know that the first question most people will have is "Can we have images of all their stuff?" and I'd just ask people to be patient on that front. Let's just say that the museum are well aware of our hopes there, there are staff who see advantages to the museum in doing something, and it's being discussed at the highest level. On the other hand it's a very complex area that needs to be handled diplomatically. Literally in some cases - foreign governments can get very touchy about the dissemination of images of artifacts relating to their cultural history, and the museum needs to respect those concerns.
So for the moment the focus is on using the BM's huge resources of books, expertise etc to improve article content, and hopefully that will include articles being peer-reviewed by BM staff. Some of them are quite nervous about doing stuff on Wikipedia, a mixture of fear of professional ridicule, nervousness about the technical aspects, stories of rapid reverts of good-faith edits and just general culture shock - it's a very different world to the one they come from. So I'd ask everyone to look after any BM people that you see around the place, Wikipedia can gain a lot from their involvement and it would be a shame if they're discouraged for any reason. As I mentioned above, WP:GLAM/BM is the clearing house for the BM's involvement with Wikipedia, and I suggest that further questions/comments are directed there. Le Deluge (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have proposed the creation of WikiProject Tayside and Fife to improve the quality of all of the articles which fall into the scope of the project. I think that some of the articles in the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland may fit into the scope of the proposed project. I would hope that members of this WikiProject would like to indicate their interest in the project. If you would like to join please add your name on WikiProject Council/Proposals/Tayside and Fife. If the project gets a reasonable amount of interest I will create a draft of the WikiProject (after consultation with editors who are interested) in my userspace and then will create the WikiProject. Thank you. Andrewmc123 15:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone suggest a better title for this article? Moreover, supply photos, particularly of Monifieth 1 and 4? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Medieval Scotland articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested at Gabhran Goranus - possibly a duplicate of Gabrán mac Domangairt. Ben MacDui 09:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just started this article. Please pile in! Brendandh (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi people. I have found secondary source evidence for the above lady, which cites Bower. Apparently a mistress of David II of Scotland, she came north with him following his release from captivity after Neville's Cross. She was done away with at Soutra in 1360 by an assassin in the employ of 'certain' great men of the realm. Apart from in relation to the demise of Thomas Stewart, Earl of Angus, I am finding it hard to find anything more about her, any suggestions? Brendandh (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recently there have been a few attempts to introduce material to Wikipedia that claims that the Pictish Language and that of the Caledonians was Q-Celtic (goidelic) in character and was the ancestor of modern day gaelic. This appears to be as a result of an editor's discovery of an internet archived copy of William Forbes Skene's 1837 book The Highlanders of Scotland in which he makes that claim.

Skene's ideas on Pictish language have been firmly rejected by academia for more than a century. Indeed, when there was demand for a second edition of the book, it was printed with the following statement in the editors introduction:

“

The Editor has, besides, taken advantage of this occasion to emphasise and make clear the one great disservice which Dr. Skene has done to the history of his country; and that is his theory that the Picts, in language and race, were Gaelic. In the preface to the present work Skene warns his readers that the system of history developed in it is "diametrically opposed to all the generally received opinions on the subject, and that it is itself of a nature so startling as to require a very rigid and attentive examination before it can be received." This is very true; Skene had reversed all that the Scottish Chronicles told of the Picts and of the Scottic Conquest, and had rejected the testimony of contemporaries that the Picts spoke a language of their own, and had manners and customs peculiar to themselves. Few now, even of those that write histories, seem to know that Skene's views of Scottish ethnology and early history are entirely revolutionary. His "uniformitarian" theory of Gaelic-speaking Picts seems so natural that people forget to look at the original authorities and see for themselves how extraordinarily Skene has dealt with these. County histories, Clan histories, and general Scottish histories presently in course of publication, accept Skene's views, either without doubt or with little demur, or even with a jocose gaiety that makes the latest of them "go one better." And yet no present-day Celtic scholar—and many have written on the subject—holds Skene's views that the Picts spoke Gaelic. It is full time now that this should be recognised, and that the old position of the Chronicles should be once more reverted to.

”

My own opinion is that articles on Wikipedia should reflect current academic consensus or any current academic debate. Specialised articles, such as Pictish language should also cover the history of academic opinion.

It's arguable that there is a debate in progress about the nature of Pictish, but Q-Celtic does not get a look in... the current candidates are P-Celtic (Brythonic, related to Welsh, Cumbric, Cornish, Breton and Gaulish) and that it might be a pre-Celtic, non-Indo European language:

Watson, William J. (1926), Celtic Place Names of Scotland, Birlinn (2004 reprint) states that Pictish was P-Celtic

Jackson, Kenneth (1955), "The Pictish Language", in Wainwright, F.T. (ed.), The Problem of the Picts, Perth: Melven Press states that Pictish was a combination of P-Celtic and non-Indo European

Smyth, Alfred P. (1984), Warlords and holy men AD 80–1000, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press pp. 58–59 States that Pictish was P-Celtic

Sellar, W. David H. (1985), "Warlords, Holy Men and Matrilineal Succession", The Innes Review, 36: 26–43 Reaffirms Jackson's view of P-Celtic & Non-Indo European

Forsyth, Katherine (1997), Language in Pictland, Munster: Nodus Convincingly argues that Pictish was P-Celtic

In a biography on Skene, Sellar mentions the fact that Skene's view on Picitsh language are not accepted:

Sellar, W.D.H. (2001), "William Forbes Skene (1809–92): historian of Celtic Scotland", Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 131: 3–21

While the editor who is writing articles on "Gaelic Picts" has the laudable aim of promoting gaelic, the idea that Picts spoke gaelic prior to the Irish christian missions is, in my opinion, simply not tenable. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should be room for all views, provided that it's clear that the British Celtic line is the one favoured. The debate itself is getting a bit behind the times now. The P-Celtic/Q-Celtic distinction is arguably a trivial one, and some Celtists have "break up of insular Celtic" happening in the early middle ages ... when the Picts had already come into existence. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence for what distinctions there were between the language of the Picts and the Christian Scots is tentative at best and just because current consensus seemingly ignores the definitions of contemporary Welsh sources, doesnt mean they have no bearing on the subject. There are seemingly pagan names for toponomy in Eastern Lowland Scotland which are Gaelic and not Welsh. Why would Christians give pagan names to a new land? Seamusalba (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC) I would like to get some information on where Katherine Forsythe dismisses the following observations by William Forbes Skene. just because he's dead, doesnt mean his logic is at fault.[reply]

"South of Mr.Taylors line there are in aberdeenshire thirteen Aber`s and twenty six Inver`s ; in forfarshire eight aber`s and eight Inver`s; in Perthshire nine Aber`s and eight Inver`s; and in Fifeshire four Aber`s and nine Inver`s. again, on the north side of this supposed line there are twelve Aber`s extending across to the westcoast, where they terminate with Abercrossan, now Applecross, in Ross-shire.In Argyllshire, Invers alone; in Inverness-shire and Ross-shire, Invers and Abers in the proportion of three to one and two to one;and on the south side of the supposed line, abers and Invers in about equal proportions. But the distribution south of the firths must not be overlooked. It has a material bearing on this question. If these words afford a test between Brythonis and Gadhelic, we might naturally expect to find as many abers in what was the Strathclyde kingdom as in Wales; but there are no Abers in the counties of Selkirk Peebles, Ayr,Renfrew,Lanark,Stirling and dumbarton, occupied by the Damnonii; four Abers in dumfriesshire, and six in lothian, occupied by Selgovee and Ottadeni, and none in Galloway occupied by the Picts; and when we proceed farther south we find nothing but Abers in Wales, and no appearance of them in Cornwall. These words, therefore afford no test of dialectic difference, and do not possess those phonetic changes which woudl enable us to use them as a test. There were in fact three words used to express the position of rivers towards each other, or towards the sea - Aber, Inbher and Cumber or Cymmer, which were originally common to both branches of the Celtic language. They obviously come from the same root, 'Ber' and they do not show any phonetic differences. These words are severally retained in some dialects, and become obsolete in others. aber and Inver were both used by the southern Picts, though not quite in the same way, Inver being generally at the mouth of a river, Aber at the ford usually some distance from the mouth. Aber has become almost obsolete in cornwall, part of Strathclyde, and among the Northern Picts, where we can almost see the process by which it passes over into apple, or obair, in Scotland, and into apple in cornwall. In Ireland Inver seems undergoing a similiar process, being once very numerous, but now reduced to comparitively few names. The same remarks apply to a group of generic terms which enter largely into the topography of these districts, and are popularly supposed to be peculiar to thye Welsh, but are in reality common to both dialects, such as Caer, Llan,strath,Tor,Glas,Eaglis and others."

Seamusalba (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Placename elements are covered in great depth by Watson. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Seamus, in his mention of contemporary Welsh texts, is referring to a passage from Skene's Highlanders of Scotland, in which he discusses what he sees as evidence from the Welsh Triads (caution: extremely mangled wikipedia page):

“

The first proof which I shall bring that the Picts were a Gaelic race, and spoke a dialect of the Gaelic language, is from the Welsh Triads The Triads appear distinctly to have been written previous to the Scottish conquest in the ninth century, and they mention among the three usurping tribes of Britain the “Gwyddyl Ffichti,” and add immediately afterwards, “and these Gwyddyl Ffichti are in Alban, along the shore of the sea of Llychlyn.” In another place, among the treacherous tribes of Britain, the same Triads mention the “Gwyddyl coch o’r Werddon a ddaethant in Alban,” that is “the Red Gwyddyl from Ireland, who came into Alban,” plainly alluding to the Dalriads, who were an Irish colony, and who have been acknowledged by all to have been a Gaelic race. It will be observed from these passages that the Welsh Triads, certainly the oldest and most unexceptionable authority on the subject, apply the same term of Gwyddyl to the Picts and to the Dalriads, and consequently they must have been of the same race, and the Picts a Gaelic people. Farther, the Welsh word “Gwyddyl,” by which they distinguish that race, has been declared by all the best authorities to be exactly synonymous with the word Gael, the name by which the Highlanders have at all times been distinguished, and the Welsh words “Gwyddyl Ffichti” cannot be interpreted to mean anything else than “ the “GAELIC PICTS,” or “PICTISH GAEL.” [It may be mentioned that these passages are taken from the originals in Welch, as published in that invaluable work the Welsh Archaeology.] Besides the passage above quoted, the Triads frequently mention the Picts, and at all times with the word “Gwyddyl” prefixed. Caradoc of Nantgarvan, a Welsh writer of the twelfth century, also frequently mentions the Picts by this title of “Gwyddyl Ffichti,” or Gaelic Picts.

”

The earliest versions of the Triads are 13th century in date. More recent versions have material in them that are thought to have been fabricated by the 18th century writer Iolo Morganwg or other antiquarians (the third series of triads). I'm afraid I don't know for certain whether the material quoted by Skene is from the modern forgeries or not, but it's worth mentioning that Hu Gadarn, who appears in that part is considered to be an invention of Morganwg. [4]

Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a Welsh forger make up a reason for Picts being Gaelic speakers? Thats worth mentionning too. Seamusalba (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Money? Acclaim? I don't think the forgery would necessarily have been an attempt to dupe people about the Pictish language. I'm trying to get a hold of an article by Alexander Macbain in which he dismantles Skene's argument, but it's eluding me for the moment. Morganwg was an interesting person Iolo Morganwg Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh culture was orally based as is Gaelic. Its one of the dichotomies that Scottish gaelic culture remained oral centuries after the spread of Gaelic via Christianity to the continent, and can be explained by a seperate Gaelic culture prior to the coming of the new religion. The fact that it was common in the eighteenteenth and early nineteenth century to forge, is interesting, as is the reaction to this. Oral legends influence fiction. This question remains, why would he choose the term and why did the Britons see the Picts as ethnically different throughout their historical relationship? oral legends are typical of Celtic culture. Written ones the exception. Seamusalba Furthermore, William Forbes Skene's topographical observations need to be responded to. If an academic dismisses them, we need to know on what grounds.(talk) 16:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skene's toponomical analysis is, frankly, the work of an amateur. If you're interested in this stuff, have a read of Celtic Placenames of Scotland by Watson... the difference in quality of scholarship is staggering. Kenneth Jackson in The Pictish Language provides two distribution maps of the P-Celtic placenames as taken from Watson: one for Pit and one for Carden, Lanerc, Pert, Pevr and Aber. The degree to which they match the distribution of Pictish symbol stones is immediately striking. He wasn't the first to note that... Reeves stated in 1857 The Pictish was undoubtedly a Celtic dialect, but more nearly allied to the British or Welsh than the Gaelic. Of this the eastern topography of Scotland is satisfactory evidence. (The life of St. Columba, founder of Hy)

It's interesting to note that, in 1868, in The Four Ancient Books of Wales, Skene backed down a little and decided that Pictish [...]is not Welsh, neither is it Gaelic; but it is a Gaelic dialect partaking largely of Welsh forms. (p135). Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will be able to show where the flaws are in the following analysis by this "amateur" (who made a respected translation of the Gododin!)

"there are in aberdeenshire thirteen Aber`s and twenty six Inver`s ; in forfarshire eight aber`s and eight Inver`s; in Perthshire nine Aber`s and eight Inver`s; and in Fifeshire four Aber`s and nine Inver`s. again, on the north side of this supposed line there are twelve Aber`s extending across to the westcoast, where they terminate with Abercrossan, now Applecross, in Ross-shire.In Argyllshire, Invers alone; in Inverness-shire and Ross-shire, Invers and Abers in the proportion of three to one and two to one;and on the south side of the supposed line, abers and Invers in about equal proportions. But the distribution south of the firths must not be overlooked. It has a material bearing on this question. If these words afford a test between Brythonis and Gadhelic, we might naturally expect to find as many abers in what was the Strathclyde kingdom as in Wales; but there are no Abers in the counties of Selkirk Peebles, Ayr,Renfrew,Lanark,Stirling and dumbarton, occupied by the Damnonii; four Abers in dumfriesshire, and six in lothian, occupied by Selgovee and Ottadeni, and none in Galloway occupied by the Picts; and when we proceed farther south we find nothing but Abers in Wales, and no appearance of them in Cornwall. These words, therefore afford no test of dialectic difference, and do not possess those phonetic changes which woudl enable us to use them as a test. There were in fact three words used to express the position of rivers towards each other, or towards the sea Aber, Inbher and Cumber or Cymmer, which were originally common to both branches of the Celtic language. They obviously come from the same root, 'Ber' and they do not show any phonetic differences. These words are severally retained in some dialects, and become obsolete in others. aber and Inver were both used by the southern Picts, though not quite in the same way, Inver being generally at the mouth of a river, Aber at the ford usually some distance from the mouth. Aber has become almost obsolete in cornwall, part of Strathclyde, and among the Northern Picts, where we can almost see the process by which it passes over into apple, or obair, in Scotland, and into apple in cornwall. In Ireland Inver seems undergoing a similiar process, being once very numerous, but now reduced to comparitively few names. The same remarks apply to a group of generic terms which enter largely into the topography of these districts, and are popularly supposed to be peculiar to thye Welsh, but are in reality common to both dialects, such as Caer, Llan,strath,Tor,Glas,Eaglis and others." Seamusalba (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He makes no serious attempt to investigate the distribution of aber versus inver. He asserts that aber is present in gaelic (as it is, obair) without explaining why it is essentially absent on the West coast, yet frequent on the east coast (because it is a loan word from P-Celtic). He notes that inver is present on the East coast without mentioning that there are recorded instances of inver replacing aber. He turns a blind eye to other P-Celtic place elements such as pit. Seriously, have a look at Watson's book and look at the depth of analysis and the care with which he does it (30 years of work, published in 1926 and still regarded as the book on Scottish toponymy. There really is no comparison between the two scholars in this respect. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Applecross is on the East coast? Thats news to people there. You havent read what he says. There would be dialectic differences between Gaelic dialects just as there clearly were between Brythonic ones. Asserting that they have to be loanwords is specious. North and South Welsh have distinct vocabulary and they have a written form. Its highly likely that dialectisation would have been more marked in a preliterate society, but Skene's whole argument is that Aber isnt Welsh. Its Celtic. Why a word (Pit) not found in Welsh or P Celtic prove or disprove anything? Pit is probably indoeuropean and related to "piece". There were also Picts on the West Coast. Did they speak a different languuage based on a handfull of suffixes? Seamusalba (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said Applecross was on the east coast? Pit is cognate with Welsh Peth. Of course it's Indo-European. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 19:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cant just pick words out and translate them out of context. The Welsh word is never used in placenames and could derive from an older Celtic form shared by all Celtic dialects. Aber is found on the West coast, but not in the areas where we know a form of Welsh was spoken (such as Renfrewshire). Why is that? Seamusalba (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I can't do that, but I don't need to. Pit (pett) is a word that appears in the Book of Deer from the 11th century, applied to a measure of farmland. Its meaning as it was used in the mediaeval, eastern lowlands is known. It has cognates with other P-celtic languages (W. Peth, Breton Pez, Gaulish Petia, portion or piece), and from Gaulish, in French pièce from which we get the English piece. This is attested by all the acknowledged philologists who have dealt with Pictish placenames. Watson, O'Rahilly and Jackson all agree on this. There is evidence of it being replaced gradually by bal but Forsyth points out that it was actually used as a loan word by later Gaelic speaking people in the Pictish area.

Aber has obviously been a source of debate, but it's generally agreed that it is of P-Celtic origin. Jackson: In spite of attempts to prove the contrary, it is well established that this is not a Goedelic word, and that it is the same as the Welsh aber, "confluence" or "estuary", as in Aberystwyth. Its absence in the North and West is for the same reason Celtic names of any type are virtually absent (?) in Orkney and Shetland... that they were smothered by gaelic (or Norse in Orkney/Shetland).

What we have to do is to stick to a neutral point of view... Deacon of Pndapetzim above states that there should be room to state both points of view but that the P-Celtic viewpoint should take precedent. I would tend to agree with most things he says about Scottish history. To put Skene's argument on a level footing with those of Watson et al. isn't something we can do, no matter how much it suits our viewpoint. Skene's thesis was popular for a while as it downplayed the role of the Irish in Scots history. As Ferguson says in Identity of the Scottish Nation, It is difficult to account for Skene's explanation being due to anything but arrant chauvinism, for, as MacBain showed, it had neither historical nor linguistic justification. This is the view of most academics. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No answer then? Why not Aberness? Seamusalba (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The leap of logic behind the Aber Pit thing is that gaelic had to be the same as the written form. But even today, Gaelic speakers complain about "book Gaelic" influencing speech and its just as possible that Aber was a spoken form of Gaelic in the North east, along with Pit in Pittodrie and elsewhere, despite them not being part of Book Gaelic. I also note that the historians cited in the Transactions of the Gaelic society of Inverness character assasination were Anglo-Scots apart from George Buchannan who was himself prejudiced against Gaelic culture. You could equally argue that twentieth century academics have been influenced by anti Gaelic cultural presumptions in their logical deductions as to why Book Gaelic doesnt and didnt tally with how ordinary people spoke. Seamusalba (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It might be tempting to suggest that, but it falls squarely into WP:NOR territory.

Also don't be tempted into thinking that Skene was a champion of the Gaelic Highlander and that the likes of MacBain were lowland Anglo Scots with an anti-Gaelic bias, the opposite was certainly the case:

How can we account for Macbain’s bias against Skene? It is only possible to guess at the reasons. In part, it may have been the result of a clash of generations, for Macbain was nearly 50 years younger than Skene. In part, it may have been the Highlander reacting against the Edinburgh establishment. There may have been an added social dimension as well, given Skene’s rather grand background. In part no doubt, Macbain’s stance also reflects the difference in temperament between two types of scholar, the one precise and careful to a fault, the other of a more speculative disposition.

But this cannot be the whole explanation. The answer, I suggest, lies not in the history of the medieval, but of the 19th-century Highlands. Is treasa tuath na tighearna — the people are mightier than a lord — was the rallying cry of the Highland Land League. Macbain would have agreed with this, but Skene, I think, would not. In Highland eyes Skene was doubly suspect. Firstly, he was suspect as Secretary of the Board of Management for Highland Relief from 1847–50. The Board’s policy that relief should only be granted in return for work, save in cases of destitution — the so-called ‘destitution test’ — had been widely viewed as harsh and oppressive (Devine 1994, 170–5; Cowan 2000, 4). As Secretary of the Board, Skene was naturally identified with this policy, fairly or otherwise, and his reputation suffered accordingly. Secondly, Skene must have been suspect — indeed, more than suspect — as the founder and head of the Edinburgh legal firm which acted for many landowners, including Lady Gordon Cathcart, absentee proprietrix of South Uist and Barra, and daughter-in-law of Gordon of Cluny, one of the most notorious of Highland evicters. Here, surely, is the extra dimension which explains Macbain’s animus towards Skene. Sellar 2001

Catfish Jim & the soapdish 21:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

theres nothing new about anti Gaelic bias in the Highlands. However I was referring to the views of Fordun and otjers regarding the "Barberous Gael". If a non Gaelic history could be created for Scotland's predecessor, it delegitemised the culture the Anglo Scots wished to replace. Dont forget it was a Highl;ander who draughted the 1870s Education act insisting on English being taught and not Gaelic. Seamusalba (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of Scottish Socialists who rejected their language and culture in favour of internationalsm. The same arguments continue today. Why does disliking a Tory add to Macbain's thesis on names? Can we only agree with the facts of Left of Centre nineteenth and twentieth century Celticists? If mcBain had reason to dislike someone connected to people being moved from their homes, it might make it difficult to remain objective. I see your point about Macbain possibly having an agenda,but fail to see why Skene being disliked by him makes his criticisms any more accurate? . Seamusalba (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In various dialects of German, you get word variations that happen seperately from the same root word (sprooch from Sprache for instance) the same phenomenon happens with vowel changes in dialects of Arabic (kitib instead of katab). Aber and Inbhir seem to derive from a choice difference of preposition which effects the spelling of the noun and suggest the choice between confluence into and out of. You cant say that "entrance" is one language and "exit" another, especially when they were from preliterate societies sharing a macro language to start with. Skene's major point is that there is no clear evidence for a change of language, not that written Gaelic had words found in modern Welsh placenames. Seamusalba (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Gaelic blessing from 8th century Orkney. Katherine Forsythe deciphered it. Also there are Gaelic words in Faroese (the word for a duck for one.)Seamusalba (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These 'mythical' Scots kings, mentioned in the origin tales of the Order of the Thistle, and of the House of Douglas, seem to be cognate with Selbach mac Ferchair and one of the various 8th c.Eochaids. Can't find anything verifiable though. Any thoughts? Brendandh (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see:

• User_talk:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim#Duns_Scotus_article_daftness

Ta, --Mais oui! (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having a little brainclench here. Gilchrist of Mar's daughter married Malcolm de Lundie the Hostarius, grandfather to Alan Durward. Alan Durward's father, appears to be Thomas of Lundie, Hostarius. Walter FitzAlan married Eschyna de Londoniis, heiress to Uchtred de Londonis, whose brother is according to BP is Malcolm de Molle, first Hostarius [5] Is this Malcolm de Molle the same as Malcolm de Lundie, and if so, there seems to be a discrepency in the generations. Cogs whirring! Any help in greasing them? Brendandh (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have just started these two articles Butler of Scotland, and Pantler of Scotland. Please expand? Brendandh (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article really needs to be looked at and smartened up. Top importance article sitting at C class. Some very strange headers too! Brendandh (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up that we have a new article up today:

• Ardnamurchan boat grave

Cheers. Mais oui! (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you folks do peer reviews per the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/A-Class criteria? I'd very much appreciate one for Kingdom of the Isles. As those of you know me will wearily attest, I often write articles because I am interested in learning about the subject rather than because I am qualified to do so in the first place, with occasionally farcical results. This article is reasonably stable now, but I am aware of some of the considerable difficulties it presents and I am keen to ensure the avoidance of straightforward error and over-glib statements. I am also aware that not everyone may be keen to include the use of Norse sagas as "history". I am happy to employ caveats about this where needed - but equally prepared to defend their inclusion as sources if need be.

As I realise I am requesting no small amount of your valuable time I'd be happy to reciprocate if I can - e.g. I could add JL-Bot's automated listing of recognized content per Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands#Hall of Fame to the main project page here and/or archive some of the content of this long talk page... Ben MacDui 12:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC) PS You might want to set the bot to exclude DYKs to avoid placing undue strain on the servers![reply]

The bot only runs every now and then but has kindly provided an idea of what it might look like here. Ben MacDui 15:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re my request - apparently not. No matter - have a free bot anyway. Ben MacDui 20:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I look after the Andrew Moray article on an irregular basis and I'd like to improve its rating. It's currently a B-Class article (though the Norwegian version has a higher rating). Not sure how to take it forward, but some pointers would be appreciated. Cheers! Jaygtee (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It would be appreciated if we could have some extra expert opinion over at Talk:Gallowglass. Cheers. Mais oui! (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is up for FPOC. This is one of the highest (if not the highest) visibility portal on Wikipedia, I recommend commenting on it! Cheers, ResMar 23:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Scotland in the High Middle Ages for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped an essay into Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands/Origins of the Uí Ímair and the Earls of Orkney and comments/edits are more than welcome. Some of the reasons it is not (yet) an article are explained on the talk page - I also think it needs some input from those much more familiar with the relevant periods of Norse and Irish (and indeed early Scottish) history than I am. Ben MacDui 15:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, noone from this WikiProject has yet commented at this AFD, which is a bit regrettable:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pictish Mithraism

Cheers. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Just a thought, but would it not be better to divide the above in two categories or subdivide it with a [Category:Medieval Scottish Knights] or some such? It's a bit unwieldy at the mo, what with Brian Souter and Ian Wood in the same cat as the Chivalry of the earlier periods. Can't see either of those on horseback brandishing their axes anywhere but the boardroom! Brendandh (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]