Talk:Amlaíb Cuarán

message: This name translates to Ciarán, it was a adopted name.
Marcramarc (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kváran 

message: The chronology seems inconsistent here.  The caption under the coin suggests he was king of Dublin in 924 but the narrative states he didn't become king of Dublin until 942. Jimg 08:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology? 

message: Neither this nor the Havelok the Dane page mentions the influence Olaf's career had on Havelok's legend. Can somebody who knows a bit more about it fix this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.119.238 (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Havelok the Dane

message: Angus, the MOS (Irish-related) page you linked to says "In cases where someone used the Irish version of his or her name but this does not enjoy widespread usage among English speakers, then use the English version when naming the article but refer to the Irish version of the name in the first line. For example, Geoffrey Keating was Irish-speaking and probably never used that name himself. He is listed under Geoffrey Keating but the first sentence reads "Seathrún Céitinn, known in English as Geoffrey Keating, was ...". " In this case, you need to prove both that Olaf/Amlaib used the Irish form of his name and that it enjoys widespread usage in English. Michael  Sanders 23:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sudden interest in Norse-Gael/Viking kings of Dublin is most curious. Thank you for being quite so transparent. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And your decision to move this article is because you suddenly realised it was at the wrong name, and has nothing to do with my informing you that his link at Constantine II of Scotland should not be piped through Amlaib Cuaran, eh? Michael  Sanders 00:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael, the article title forms for these Norse Gaelic kings is pretty random; most of them were named with very little thought. It's been recognised for ages they need to be changed. You shouldn't have reverted Angus' move here. He only made that move when he did because you made an issue of piping (where did you get the idea piping is bad?). Olaf Cuaran is not particularly well established in English. If Angus thinks his form is best, he's prolly correct. He's working in the bigger picture here and knows the scholarship. And while Scottish kings may have a certain significance because of their later elevated and formalised status, kings of Dublin and such are not Scottish kings; as there is no such thing, "popular usage" in English isn't an issue. I think you've chosen a bad area to make an issue. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind piping (quite the opposite, I much prefer piping to basic redirects), it's just that if an article is named in one style, it seems dishonest to present it in another style in a different article. In this case, "Olaf Cuaran" was named "Amlaib Cuaran" in the Constantine II article; and when Angus, having expressed his preference for the latter, and been challenged by me as to the usage, decided to move an article he had had no apparent problem with on 27 December... Michael  Sanders 00:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On 27 December 2007, and for as long as I can remembers before that, there had been no problem with using redirects and nobody insisting that the contents of articles needed to match the page name. If things have changed, you don't have far to look for the source of the changes. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Michael, using redirects saves kb space, often quite a bit. Each article has different demands and peculiarities. What reason is there to deny article writings flexibility because other article titles happen to be a certain way? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Mike Christie checked the Foundation view on pictures of coins a while back and the official word is that  is not appropriate: the copyright on a picture of a coin is based on that of the picture in practice. Unless we can come up with a free picture of a coin, we're generally out of luck. We can't use the one that's there now as it is plainly replaceable. Most obviously, it's easily replacable from Grueber's Handbook of the coins of Great Britain and Ireland in the British Museum, the photos (or collotypes) in which appear to be . The book is online here, the flip-book version is too low res, but the PDF should be useful. Anyone who was a dab hand with a scanner and image cleaner-upper, or who could grab the images out of a PDF at a decent res, could get a wheen of coin images from Grueber's book. Not me then, because I am not the first and have no idea how to do the second. Any ideas? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can try get a screenshot; that's how I normally pinch images from such books. Got a page number on it? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Yes, that PDF looks promising. You can always zoom in to the maximum appropriate resolution, push the "Print Screen" button on your keyboard and then paste the image into an image manipulation program. If you don't have any then The Gimp is freely available. Haukur (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As easy as that? How depressingly simple. I'll give it a go: the Gimp I can just about run on this creaky old PC. Thanks! Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've downloaded 76 % of it. I'll email it as a jpeg if I can locate it. BTW, moved three of the Strathclyde pages. You should move the others as you see fit; I'm unable to move to Owen the Bald myself because I'm no admin, so I'm just gonna leave the Owens/Ywains/Owains to you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: EDIT; Oops, thought you were responding to me. My mistake. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I was wondering if any of the moves would be a problem. I'll get those done tomorrow. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Olaf Guthfrithson states "After Athelstan's death in 939, Olaf again invaded York the same year, forcing Athelstan's successor, Edmund, into a treaty which ceded to Olaf Northumbria and part of Mercia. Uniquely, the legend of his silver penny minted at York is not in Latin or Old English but in Old Norse; the bird emblem perhaps represents the raven associated with the battle-god Odin.Noted in Richard Hall, Viking Age Archaeology 1995:25 and fig. 9. He did not get to enjoy his new lands for long, dying just two years later in 941. He was succeeded by Amlaíb Cuarán. This traditional view of Guthfrithson's later career has recently been disputed by Kevin Halloran - see ...  The basic argument presented is that Guthfrithson did not rule in York and the suggestion that only one Anlaf, Anlaf Cuaran, was king there may explain some of the apparent anomalies in the numismatic record." Should this material be incorporated into this article? Alekksandr (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Now done. Alekksandr (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: King of Northumbria

message: It's an old question but I feel the need to bring it up again. I propose that this article be moved to Olaf Cuaran. The principal reason is that Olaf Cuaran seems to be more common than any of the alternatives (7490 on google for Olaf Cuaran vs 3940 for Amlaíb Cuarán). Another good reason is that most other kings who ruled both Dublin and Northumbria go by the English version. I won't try and force any change straight away. I'll leave this up for a while to see if anyone offers any opinion either way. Retroplum (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Amlaíb or Olaf