Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medieval Scotland

message: 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)
thread_title:  Category:Scoto-Norman Clans 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Requested merge 

message: Please see:
*Talk:Argyll 
*Talk:Bute 
*Talk:Ross (area) 
*Talk:Moray (county)
--Mais oui! 21:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Campaign to "Shire-ify" Scotland

message: 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)
thread_title:  Acts of Union 1707 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Direct descent from Fergus Mór to Elizabeth II]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Order of the Thistle 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expansion: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland and Ireland]] 

message: ... 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  He was a vassal for Scotland between 1174 and 1189. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  English fief? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  early medieval monarchs 

message: 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)
thread_title: Requested move update

message: 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)
thread_title:  More naming problems 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Expansion : [[Religion in Scotland]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

message: 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)
thread_title: Order of the Thistle

message: 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)
thread_title:  Project directory 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: 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)
thread_title: Nigel Tranter

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Peer review/David I of Scotland/archive1]] 

message: 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 . See if that works. Brendandh 20:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ealdorman]]/[[Thegn]] Merger 

message: 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)
thread_title:  William the Lion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Royal coat of arms of the Scottish monarchs prior to William the Lion? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Garde Écossaise]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Norse_history_and_culture]] 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Greetings friends 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dunvegan Cup 

message: 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)
replies: text: There is one book, but it ain't very good. Wyntoun has some comments. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Death

message: 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)
thread_title: Style?

message: Working on this article there are two things I can't find out:
#Is Jordan Comyn actually one of his sons?
#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)
thread_title: [[William Comyn, jure uxoris Earl of Buchan]]

message: * 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)
thread_title: Template for deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Talk:Lauder 

message: 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)
thread_title:  collaboration of the history projects 

message: Announcing the arrival of a rare example of an historical island  - Hinba. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 18:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Island collaboration

message: Template: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Pictish monarchs}}]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland/Bibliography]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

message: 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)
thread_title: Scotland & Rome

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Medieval Scotland 

message: Please see:
*Category talk:Post-Roman Scotland
--Mais oui! (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see CFD proposal at: . --Mais oui! (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suitable cat name? 

message: *
--Mais oui! (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD . [[:Category:Picts]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Celts arrival 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dragon Banner? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Milestone Announcements

message: 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)
thread_title: Flodden Field

message: 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)
thread_title: Why is Scots law based upon Roman law?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Coordinators' working group 

message: 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)
thread_title: Robert Logan of [[Restalrig]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edinburgh Castle 

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  Page view stats 

message: A number of Scottish battle articles have been added recently.  They are mainly the creations of  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)
thread_title:  Scottish battles 

message: 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)
replies: text: (moved from main page)Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language in Renfrewshire at the time of William Wallace? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Dunnichen]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism of [[:Category:Guardians of Scotland]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A new FAC 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: In that case this article should be permanently semi-protected. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Wallace article banner - "WikiProject Medieval Scotland may be able to help"? 

message: This article has had a thorough going over from new user, . The scope of interest and editing style reminds me slightly of blocked users  and , 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)
thread_title:  [[Braveheart]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot announcement 

message: Okip   00:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced living people articles bot

message: 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)
thread_title: Auld Wat Scott o' Harden

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Borders daughter project?

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

message: 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)
thread_title: The British Museum wants to give you money and help you write articles!

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible Creation of WikiProject Tayside and Fife 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Monifieth Sculptured Stones]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Medieval Scotland articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject cleanup listing 

message: Help requested at Gabhran Goranus - possibly a duplicate of Gabrán mac Domangairt. Ben MacDui 09:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  You say "Gabhran" but I say... 

message: Just started this article. Please pile in! Brendandh (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Old Tolbooth, Edinburgh]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Katherine/Catherine Mortimer

message: 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)
thread_title: Solvathius/Achaius

message: Please see:
* User_talk:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim#Duns_Scotus_article_daftness
Ta, --Mais oui! (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duns Scotus article daftness 

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  Lundie/Londonis, Mar, Durward, FitzAlan 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Kingdom of Scotland]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New article: Ardnamurchan boat grave 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Review request 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Andrew Moray 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit war over at [[Gallowglass]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Portal:History 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Featured article review for Scotland in the High Middle Ages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pictish Mithraism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Category:Scottish knights 

message: This article is in danger of losing its FA status. I realise that the kind of fussing involved in fixing this is not everyone's glass of mead, but most of what is needed has now been achieved (I hope). The main thing missing is that there are various statements made, and one entire section that lack citations. These issues are way outside of my sphere of knowledge and the nearest library with such info is likely to be several days cycle ride away. Hopefully most of them are easy enough to deal with for those of you with some expertise in this field. By all means put them straight into the article if you can find them, but put them here if you prefer and will make the citation style consistent and move them over later. Ben MacDui 08:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotland in the High Middle Ages FA Review 

message: Please see:
* Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:House_of_Stewart_.28Scotland.29
Mais oui! (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for deletion? 

message: It is a sign of just how dire things have become at Wikipedia that the 2011-created Fergus I article has gone unspotted by this WikiProject (and seemingly the rest of the world) until today. We already have a Fergus Mór article, and I can't for the life of me understand why we need 2. 
This topic is almost as central to the myths of medieval Scotland as Kenneth MacAlpin and MacAlpin's treason and all the Egyptian origin stuff. Just a shame that we do not approach such topics in a sober, academic fashion. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way of trying to prevent this I can think of is to check the Anglicised versions of existing articles and create them as redirects if they don't exist already.--SabreBD (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But surely the mythic Fergus I who purportedly lived in 330BC is not the same as the semi-historic Fergus Mor of 700yrs later, even if their stories have become conflated with each other? Brendandh (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is extremely unclear at present if that is the case or not. It is very hard to know what the heck the topic is meant to be. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, we have 2 Fergus Mór articles do we? 

message: I've started an article on St Mary's Kirk, Auchindoir. Probably a great candidate for WP:DYK if we can get a solid references section going (quite easy) and de-stub it. The hook ought probably to be something to do with surviving the Reformation largely intact. Help, as always, much appreciated. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article: [[St Mary's Kirk, Auchindoir]] 

message: FYI, in case somebody finds this allegedly newly launched source useful: . --Thrissel (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History documents online 

message: There is a review at present at Talk:Islay/GA1. To be honest I am not 100% sure what is being requested but as you can see where the reviewer states "I suggest that you request someone familiar with your terminology..." he has some concerns about the history section. I think he is concerned that his unfamiliarity with the subject may allow something untoward to slip through. If someone could take a quick read through and comment at the review I'd appreciate it. Ben MacDui 10:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islay GA 

message: Hi boys and girls, as you'll mostly all be aware, it is the 500th anniversary of the Battle of Flodden Field next month, the battle that marked the end of the medieval period for Scotland. Can I appeal to any other editors to help get this article up to Good article status. There is particularly a problem with the casualty list, which is over referenced, and duplicates certain characters. It would be nice to push for this, if in a small way, to commomerate those that fell in this fatal battle. Look forward to working on this. Brendandh (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flodden article 

message: Being new to wikipedia I am not sure where to start to find a place where it is possible to discuss consideration of a number of these sites.  My background is in military history and I have a bent towards genealogy.  In doing some research into a number of the families represented at Harlaw I have found some inconsistencies that are worth considering.  For example, although not mentioned on the article page Domhnall of Islay, Lord of the Isles he was likely born about 1351, thus 60 at Harlaw; most sources, including wikipedia suggest the marriage between John and Margaret Stewart was 1350 and Donald was the eldest son.  History of the Macdonalds and Lords of the Isles; page 72 suggests that he married in 1367 and, on page 55, suggest he was a hostage, against his fathers promise, in 1369.  The wikipedia article suggests, although without source, along with a number of historical sources that he married a daughter of Walter Leslie and Euphemia, daughter of William, Earl of Ross, and depicted on this page Mariota, Countess of Ross.  Balfour Paul, The Scots Peerage; vol 7, page 241 mentions the same.  However, by my calculations Mariota, Mary or Margaret as she seems to be varying called was maybe 1 or 2 in 1367 as Leslie and Euphemia were married probably just before 1365 (the date is not given but can be inferred from Charters).  It seems improbable that Donald married her and so I am at a loss as who he might have married or where I am in error.  It seems plausible that the Mariota was a sister to Euphemia.
Is there anyone else that thinks this an issue and is it worth taking up to rectify the sites. Family locator (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Harlaw, Earldom of Ross and many supporting Article 

message: Thought this might be of interest: Wikimedia UK have launched a ScotWiki mailing list to help encourage more Wikimedia events in Scotland and hopefully to establish greater contact between Wikimedians throughout the country. You can sign up here - any/everybody is welcome to join! The goal is to spread the word about Wikimedia events or projects in Scotland; you can also promote or organise your own, or join in general discussion -  the usual mailing list stuff! ACrockford (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ScotWiki Mailing List 

message: If anyone is willing and able to help to get this article to GA then FA status for the centenary in June, with the hope of getting it onto the front page please say so on the article talkpage at Talk:Battle of Bannockburn. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Bannockburn for GA/FA

message: Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live! 

message: A requested move discussion has been initiated for Máel Ísu I, Earl of Strathearn to be moved to Malise, 1st Earl of Strathearn. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Máel Ísu I, Earl of Strathearn]] listed at Requested moves

message: A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
:– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new newsletter directory is out! 

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 

message: The article states that "it is one of the only manuscripts composed in Scots verse before the seventeenth century," which is clearly wrong since The Bruce, The Wallace, The Bannatyne Manuscript, Douglas' translation of The Aeneid, Ane Godlie Dreame and more have been written in Scots verse so it is strange that this exists.
I think the article should say the 15th century.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScotCuchullin (talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Wynton's Chronicle 

message: Hello friends! WP:Medievalwiki is holding an open session tomorrow - Wikimania's Unconference on Monday 16 August at 12pm (UTC). We'd love to chat to more medieval wikipedians! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimania 

message: There is a fairly clear consensus in current scholarly writing around naming conventions for Pictish kings, which is to use the Pictish rather than Gaelic spellings of proper nouns in king-lists, joined by "...son of...". Although not all spellings are identical the format is pretty consistent. To take some examples from recent standard texts of two particularly notable kings:
* James Fraser talks of "Bridei son of Beli" and "Onuist son of Vurguist".
* Sally Foster talks of "Bridei son of Beli" and "Onuist son of Uurguist".
* Nicholas Evans and Gordon Noble talk of "Bridei son of Beli " and "Onuist son of Uurguist". 
* Barbara Crawford talks of "Bridei, son of Beli" and "Onuist, son of Uurguist".
* Alex Woolf talks of "Bridei son of Beli" and "Onuist son of Wrguist".
  
Our articles and many of our mentions in texts for these kings however use Bridei III and Óengus I, which raises a number of problems:
* It's hard to tell which kings discussed in standard history books are the subjects of which of our articles.
* The use of Regnal numbers is anachronistic and ahistorical - there are no contemporary records of Pictish (or indeed any other) kings of this era using or being described using these.
* The numbering of kings implies that there was a single linear succession of Pictish kings, and that these are accurately and exhaustively documented in the surviving king-lists. No serious modern historian would support either of these contentions.
* In the case of Óengus I we are giving a Gaelicised name to somebody whose first language was almost certainly the Brittonic Pictish.
* The credibility of our articles is diminished by our departure from standard scholarly practice.
Can I suggest that instead we by default consistently adopt the "X son of Y" format using the Pictish spelling, as is used in most other places, while as other language alternatives also giving the Gaelic form and spelling often used in Irish sources (Gaelic: X mac Y) and the regnal version (which is used in Anderson's Early Sources of Scottish History which although a century old is still a widely used primary source)? We would also of course have redirects for all common alternative formats and could over-ride the convention where there was a good reason to do so.
This would have a number of advantages:
* It would satisfy WP:COMMONNAME by conforming to standard practice.
* Users would be able to recognise the subjects of our articles were the same people that were being referred to in standard history books.
* Use of consistent naming across articles would also mean users could tell when the same people were being discussed across separate articles.
* The use of "...son of..." would satisfy WP:ENGLISH, without creating imaginary anglicisations of actual proper nouns.
* It would also be clear that the suffix was not a surname
Thoughts?
JimmyGuano (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictish kings 

message: I have nominated Óengus I 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. Hog Farm  Talk 04:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR for Oengus I 

message: There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Óengus I/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  23:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Save Award for [[Óengus I]] 

message: I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
*John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
* John Smith "" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from ,  and .
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
-  Headbomb {t · c · p · b}
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  User script to detect unreliable sources 

message: Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a  parameter to , which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to , and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass  a new  parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project-independent quality assessments