Talk:Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick

message: *This doesn't make much sense to me: "This includes Donnchadh's attachment to the Cistercian nunnery of North Berwick, founded by Donnchadh II of Fife's father Donnchadh II of Fife ...".  Donnchadh II of Fife's father was Donnchadh II of Fife? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha. Donnchadh II's father was Donnchadh I. Thanks for the going-over you're giving this btw! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I expect you're right. I just wasn't certain when historians consider that what we now call France (as opposed to Western Francia) came into existence. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting questions 

message: Just a heads up, the infobox is much much too large if you're pushing this for GAC. On a smaller screen it takes up too much room. Is it even the best image for the infobox? Canterbury Tail talk 13:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Will be by-passing GAN for this straight to FAN. I've forced the image through at 250px. Does this work? Do you have another suggestion for infobox image? The seal impression is the only image relating to him. Actually, it was discovering the seal that led to this article getting so much work ... you know, I wanted to give an article to go with the image. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The debate at FAC revolved around whether the article itself should be named Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick or Duncan, Earl of Carrick, and whether this and other names used in the article (such as Gille-Brighde) are in the most appropriate form.
:I hope you don’t mind my butting in as a non-combatant in the previous debate. Having read through the FAC it seems to me that the issues it presents are more to do with the nature of the FAC process itself than the specific merits or demerits of the article.
:a) It’s pretty ridiculous that what is in essence a stylistic or naming issue should be the main subject of an FAC.
:b) Whilst writing style is an important factor in an FAC and rightly receives attention (e.g. comments by Tony), it is remarkable that an FAC should close with next to no comment about the factual accuracy or otherwise of the information presented (which is after all the main purpose of an encyclopaedia article). I don’t wish to denigrate the intentions of the reviewers, who presumably gave of their time in a genuine attempt to improve Wikipedia, but to my mind the overall process is, well, a shade dysfunctional. 
:Here is a suggested solution. I propose it not in the expectation that it will be undertaken or if undertaken will succeed, but because it has, to a degree worked elsewhere.
:Members of  WikiProject Medieval Scotland draft a simple MOS for articles relating to the period in question. They post a link from WP:MOS when it is completed to their satisfaction. If other editors wish to discuss the subject, they do so there. Nobody fails FACs about avians because the names of bird species are capitalised (although lots of people don’t like it), as MOS allows for it. Of course one of the advantages that those with a serious interest in birds have, is that they are numerous. It is unlikely that anyone without such an interest is going to be able to bully them into changing their style. Members of smaller projects are more vulnerable to demands for change from those without a genuine knowledge of the subject, but that is Wikipedia for you, and I know of no solution to this. Ben MacDui 08:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi MacDui. Sometimes an impasse is best resolved when taking a little break, but perhaps we've waited long enough for this issue to subside. I'm afraid that no MOS will be forthcoming anytime soon, prolly as that would absorb a lot of precious time and energy (and might occasion further eruptions of the kind of disheartening 'discussions' we've come to love here) and as not every editor might be confident that MOSs are as beneficial in practice as they say on the tin. Particularly not when an editor is involved who has been trying to shove his own agenda down the main naming guidelines (as he/she has been doing lately, again). But maybe that's just my pessimistic feeling. I'm not sure whether the nomination would be ruined by the same controversial editor a second time, but more important perhaps is the question whether the main contributors would still like to see the article achieve FA-status? Putting up with *** (insert *** of your choice) once an article has come to wider attention can be a burden which not everyone might be prepared to take on, especially now that one of the main contributors has pretty much given up on Wikipedia, at least for now. Again, I may be reading too much into the silence around here, so please prove me wrong if I am. Cavila (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day both of you. I have to take some responsibility here for how this is currently playing out, in that I set up the text here on the understanding that the nomenclature issue was the deal-breaker. However, an interchange on SandyGeorgia's talk page here suggests this was not in fact the case. Sandy appears to have seen prose issues as a more significant factor, and that the nomenclature issue would not necessarily hold up FA promotion - but that it may have discouraged other editors from getting involved. So. I intended to ask Tony1 if he would break his usual principle of not going for a full copyedit, and give Donnchadh a thorough going-over. However, when I visited his talk page it said he was away for a week, and his page is archived by bot weekly, so I left things alone for a while. I will now drop in to Tony and see how things go. I am interested in Dui's MOS idea, but am unfamiliar with how these things play out, and can see some cause for pessimism in Cavila's remarks. We'll get this article up and running one way or another. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to hear that! In haste, Cavila (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comments

message: This is so disappointing. A quality article consigned to nothingdom for the sake of a few Gaelic names that most people coming to WP would have regarded as athenticity.  Not promoting this article has deprived many people from ever reading this well researched work and so depriving them of a bit of understanding of a fascinating period in Scottish medieval history.  When dogma comes before value, then this project is well and truly doomed! --Bill Reid | (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's happened before. Roman Catholic Church was held up for months while the debate raged about whether that or Catholic Church was its official name, even went to mediation. Some people don't even look for the wood after they see a little twig. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Never mind the quality, feel the width ...

message: The article current refers to Donnchadh's father as "Gille-Brighde of Galloway". However, the Wikipedia article is actually Gille Brigte of Galloway, a redirect partly actually made by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim, who created this article. I propose to alter all occurences of "Gille-Brighde" to "Gille Brigte" unless anyone has objections. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature: Gille Brigte of Galloway? 

message: I remain to be convinced that the Kennedy descent is proven so I would like this claim to be removed from the opening paragraph. As far as I am aware we know only that John Kennedy of Dunure had a wife called Mary. The rest (eg charters in the Ailsa Muniments) is circumstantial. Any comments anyone. Iain Kennedy (kennedy@one-name.org).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.224.203 (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The key issue is what is stated in reliable sources, rather than whether it is "proven". Circumstantial evidence is acceptable. However, in this case, I cannot see a sentence in the body text of the article indicating that this particular line of descent is by blood relationship to the Earl who is the subject of this article, so I have removed the text from the lead. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a probability that the Kennedy of Dunure's wife Mary was a Carrick, but even ignoring that the Kennedies are descendants through Mary Stewart, mother of Gilbert III. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kennedy descendants 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607124449/http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/scottishstudies/charters/Glasgow.pdf to http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/scottishstudies/charters/Glasgow.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a citation needed tag, and I suggest the caption on the main image might be overly long.  Marking "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020, and unwatching.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] notes