Template talk:Pictish and Scottish monarchs

message: Somethings needs to go here if the First Interregnum and Second Interregnum are also listed.  Whilst Scotland came under the governance Commonwealth of England for a good deal of this time, it would surprise me if either this or the English Interregnum is the common Scottish name for this period.  Is it called the Third Interregnum? Greenshed 22:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was surprised the other day to find out that it does (or rather did) have a traditional name: the Usurpation. I've no idea if that's at all current. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the template to reflect this, but if you think that the term is out of use we can change it back. Srnec (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Between Charles I and Charles II

message: Currently, † is being used to indicate people who were also monarch of England, and * for Ireland. However, those are the same people – everyone on this list who was monarch of England was also monarch of Ireland. May I propose we consolidate the two symbols to a single one?
24.21.178.83 03:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monarchs of England and Ireland 

message: I added the Pictish monarchs, as the emerging historical consensus is that there is no dividing lines between "Scotland" and "Pictland", being essentially the same kingdom; the idea of a brake being much later propaganda issued by the descendents of Cináed mac Ailpín. I also put the word "Alba" in brackets next to Scotland. The reason isn't nationalism, but because the term "Scotland" is much later than the earliest kings of "Scotland", and Alba was the name for both Pictland and Scotland, and remains to this day the Gaelic name for the country. I also piped some of the links, and the reason for this to achieve orthographic consistency not currently existent in the wikipedia names. Regards,  Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Me 

message: Does it make sense to list them as though they formed a proper head of state?  It was my understanding that they recognized Charles II as succeeding Charles I in January 1649, although they did not actually allow him to come to Scotland and be crowned until he agreed to their terms.  Might it make more sense, since this is a list of Scottish monarchs, and not of Scottish regimes, to simply follow Charles I by Charles II, and ignore the Interregnum?  john k 17:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On that basis, the template should list Murdoch and Robert Stewart, who ruled the country as governors during the minority and exile of James I. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Covenanters" 

message: Is it just me or is the "* Status as King doubted" line just hanging around? I can't see any examples using it. Valentinian T / C 00:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. So be bold and remove it! – DBD 10:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. I just expected that somebody had erased the relevant reference by error. Anyway, it is gone now. Valentinian T / C 12:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect line? 

message: To claim that the Scots - foreign invaders from Ireland - have any right to the Pictish heritage is just as insulting as claiming that the English - foreign invaders from Jutland - have any right to the British heritage. TharkunColl (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. It's almost as bad as claiming those Normans have right to the English heritage, like all those OR POV-pushers on wikipedia do. dnehhhhhprqqqmaqahhnahh as the Picts would say! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't help but wonder who you think does have a right to the Pictish heritage? --Jack forbes (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Template should be split into Template: Pictish monarchs & Template: Scottish monarchs. The Picts were the only predecessors to the Scottish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Political POV

message: Black should not be used as a colour for the Wikilink as people will not think to click on it as it appears as just normal text see Wikipedia:Colours#Using colours in articles- overriding link colour should be avoided --Barryob  (Contribs) (Talk) 09:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have been nice to ahve starteed this discussion befoer you made your edits however I think you'll find that most people can quite easily understand that there is a link there. If you don't want to do that change the band colours to a lighter shade of the colours already being used. Electrobe (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its part of the WP:MOS not to change the link colourers they should be left blue, and read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle before you undo my edits. --Barryob  (Contribs) (Talk) 11:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your edits are vandalsim anyway you can't use a articel about articl colours to defend templates. Electrobe (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not about articles its about the WP:Manual of Style which all page should use please read also read WP:AFG and dont go around accusing people of vandalism. --Barryob  (Contribs) (Talk) 11:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is nothing in that article about tamplates and I'm allowed to accuse people of vandalism if I beleive thay are. If we werent allowed to accuse anyone of vandalism then we wouldn't ever be allowed to revert any vandalism no matter what the vandalism ws. Electrobe (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link colour 

message: This Template needs to be split into Template:Pictish monarchs & Template:Scottish monarchs. The Picts weren't the only predecessors to the Scottish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hiya YD, would you happen to know how to split this Template? GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The Scottish monarchs have multiple predecessors (not just the Picts). GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is based on a misunderstanding. The Scottish kingdom c. 900 is not a composite kingdom, it is just the Picts. Neither Dalriada, Strathclyde, Galloway, or the English south-east form part of the kingdom until the mid-11th century, and the kingdom does not change its name on account of this. This is what happens in England, not what happens in Scotland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you consider the Picts as the sole predecessors of Kenneth's? at least 're-name' the Template to Tempalte: Scottish monarchs. Notice we don't have the Pictish & Scottish monarchs articles 'merged'. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: We've got List of Kings of the Picts & List of Scottish monarchs. Why can't we split the Template in that matter? GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The articles are convenient and the problems can be explained in text. They can't in the template, and there is simply nothing to be gained in the template from forcing an artificial split. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Merely keep the overlapping monarchs in each proposed Template. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would imply a contradiction, which there isn't. Please ask yourself GoodDay what the benefits of such a split would be. You seem to be assuming there's some other reason why splitting is beneficial, but you haven't communicated why splitting them would make this encyclopedia better. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Plans seem to have changed, take a peek below. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split the Template 

message: This follows arguments made that the Scots are the direct successors to the Picts. I've created a new template, Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs, which attempts to place English, Scottish and British monarchs in one easily navigatable template, reflecting the continuity between English and Scottish monarchs and the current Royal Family. Right now, the template isn't in use, and doesn't include any Picts. It does however include Anglo-Saxon monachs, from Alfred the Great onwards. Would it be acceptable to place the Picts in the new template, and make this template a redirect to the new larger template? YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, you guys have got two much time on your hands. I suppose this is a response to the push to have English and British monarchs in the same template. I think this carries it too far. What about Northumbrian monarchs, Gwynedd monarchs, and so on? I think the UK has one core predecessor state, England. It has lots of non-core predecessor states, of which Scotland is but one. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhhh no. The Kingdom of Scotland & the Kingdom of England are co-predecessors. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Technically maybe, though clearly not in practice. Even on technicalities though what about Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542, the annexation of Northumbria by Eadred of England, and the Act of Union (1800)? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1707 Union Act, doesn't say it was England taking over Scotland. They became the Kingdom of Great Britain, not the Kingdom of Greater England. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: PS: England overtook Wales & Northumbria. In 1800, Great Britain merged with Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think you are adequately distinguishing between technicality and reality. For modern times we give technicalities weight as they are important in our society, but when it's that far back we tend to see them as they are. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've placed the Picts in Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs. Can we replace this template with the larger templace, which contains all the information currently held here? YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Pictish monarchs werer predecessors to the Scottish monarchs. Scottish monarchs were predecessors to the British monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Irregardless of the how continuity thing, which I'm not a big fan of, it's just useful to have them all in one place. A user looking at this template on Wikipedia would find it easy to navigate from Picts to Scots, and Scots to British. I'm going to be away by the way, for a few days. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed expansion