Talk:Burial places of British royalty

message: What criteria have been used to define the first monarchs of England and Scotland? Currently it seems purely arbitrary, or at the very least unscholarly.
Athelstan was the first king of all-England, so why are the pre-Athelstan kings listed? And although Kennethy MacAlpin is traditionally the first king of Scots, I think you would find very very few scholars who take that view now (most look to far earlier rulers). If we took the traditional starting point then maybe Alfred the Great roughly corresponds in English national mythology to MacAlpin's (or Fergus') role in Scottish national mythology.
Personally, I think that Wikipedia should stick to solidly referenced academic material, and cut all the folk-history/pseudo-history crap. --Mais oui! 07:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, sorry for being 'arbitrary' and 'unscholarly', that's just me. I simply used the list provided at List of monarchs in the British Isles. No doubt much of the earlier stuff is disputed (I bow to your scholarship)- although I don't see it on that page perhaps you want to take it up there. I was simply interested in burial places and such 'crap' rather that the niceties of historical conventions of lineage.--Sandy Donald 08:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have serious doubts as to whether a list burial places of groups of notable people is actually a vaild encyclopaedic topic, but as we currently (astoundingly) have a Wikipedia article on Quagmire McDuck I suppose it is futile to oppose the wave of rampant inclusionism. You know, the longer I have been here at Wikipedia, the more I begin to doubt what on earth it is we are doing here. Is this thing just meant to be a vessel for cramming in all the information that exists in the world? If so, it will just get worse and worse. --Mais oui! 08:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, actually, whilst an article on some minor element of popular culture may have only ephemeral interest. Collating (roughly) verifiable information on burial places of major monarchs is likely to be of some ongoing interest. I certainly was very interested in the variety of abbeys where Kings of Scots are interred and I learned a bit doing the collation. Given the server space is minuscule, articles like this are at worst harmless interesting trivia, and at best useful (if not entirely reliable) resources. --Sandy Donald 09:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm... kind of agreed, but if I was in Wikilawyering mood I would point out that statements like "I learned a bit doing the collation" immediately conjure up Wikipedia:Original research in my mind. However, I am not in that mood, cos I have become seriously disillusioned with this entire project. And if you think that the English language edition of Wikipedia has serious problems, as I do, then you should take a dip into some of the other language versions, as I have in the last few weeks. Truly lamentable for the most part, even the "big" ones. --Mais oui! 09:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, this is probably more Wikibooks kind of stuff, as opposed to original research. Kind of like a chapter in a book about British monarchs. Carcharoth 14:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, although I've used various websites, all this information is collated in a number of other websites. Plus it isn't an original synthesis since it has a very clear criteria for inclusion. Is this any different from putting all the pokemon stubs on wikipedia?--Sandy Donald 14:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: 2 graves in Sweden with good images too. Don't know how to add them. Anyone? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Graves in Sweden