![]() | Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 19, 2017. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well, Anglo-French is another way of saying Anglo-Norman, but more generic. I think I've sorted your points out. Tell me if I haven't, or if you see any other issues. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 02:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Quick notes
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)
I was the GA reviewer of this excellent piece of work. The article was not promoted at FAC owing, it appears (the closer gave no commentary) on the basis of a disagreement about nomenclature. This appears to be the only substantive issue with the article, and I tihnk it would be extremely disappointing were it to be prevented from reaching FAC on this basis. I hope a discussion can occur here about how to resolve this matter. I want to immediately raise the possibility that we might be able to agree that the article proceed at FAC in a form that one or more editors don't agree with, without that editor making an objection at FAC that might prevent promotion, but only if involved editors agree here first.
Note - my assumptions above turned out to be wrong: see User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Explanation_requested. I will contact Tony1 to help try and clear that roadblock. hamiltonstone ( talk) 02:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This states in part:
Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
This is justified by the following principle:
- The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.
However, as the subject of this article is not popularly known in English, the application of this principle is not necessarily clear - this was indeed part of the debate at FAC.
This states in part:
Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)...
The references for the article should themselves be reliable sources; if one name is clearly most commonly used in the English-language references for the article, we should probably use it...
The native spelling of a name should generally be included in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the anglicization isn't identical; redirects from non-English names are encouraged. Where there is an English exonym for the subject, it should be mentioned, even if it is not the most common name in English language usage...
Sometimes, English usage is divided. For example, US newspapers generally referred to the Olympics in Torino, following official handouts. However, newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world still use Turin. Use what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead.
Google hits are an unreliable test, but can suggest that no single term is predominant in English. If several competing versions of a name have roughly equal numbers (say 1803 for one variant and 1030 for another), there may well be divided usage. When in doubt, search results should also be evaluated with more weighting given to verifiable reliable sources than to less reliable sources (such as comments in forums, mailing lists and the like). Do consult reliable works of general reference in English...
When there is evenly divided usage and other guidelines do not apply, leave the article name at the latest stable version...
"Modified letters"
Wikipedia does not decide what characters are to be used in the name of an article's subject; English usage does. Wikipedia has no rule that titles must be written in certain characters, or that certain characters may not be used. Versions of a name which differ only in the use or non-use of modified letters should be treated like any other versions: Follow the general usage in English verifiable reliable sources in each case, whatever characters may or may not be used in them.English usage is often best determined by consulting works of general reference which deal with the subject and seeing what they use. Search engines are always problematic, unless their verdict is overwhelming; modified letters have the additional difficulties that some search engines will not distinguish between the original and modified forms, and others fail to recognize the modified letter because of optical character recognition errors. If there is a consensus on spelling in the sources used for the article, this will normally represent a consensus of English usage.
One recurrent issue has been the treatment of ae and oe and their variants. By and large, Wikipedia uses œ and æ to represent the Anglo-Saxon ligature. For Latin or Greek-derived words, use e or ae/oe, depending on modern usage and the national variety of English used in the article. German proper names should be treated with care, and attention to English practice. Not all German proper names use umlauts (for example, Emmy Noether is correct in both languages); English resolves umlauts where German need not: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe is standard English usage, although both forms have been found in German.
Beware of over-dramatising these issues: as an example Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) may be mentioned, which, as a side-effect, regulated use of diacritics regarding Ireland-related articles – peacefully – before, during and after an extensive dispute on the question of diacritics in 2005, e.g. Inishmore, not Inis Mór; Tomás Cardinal Ó Fiaich, not Tomas Cardinal O'Fiaich (see the mentioned MoS page for details).
Use other languages sparingly. This appears to me to be of marginal relivance. its key point is "It is fine to include foreign terms as extra information, but avoid writing articles that can only be understood if the reader understands the foreign terms." We are not discussing terminology here, but names, and I think WP guidance specific to names should prevail.
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.
Well I guess that just about sums it up then and those involved have simply moved on to more important matters. Nothing more to do here folks - unless of course.... Ben Mac Dui 19:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Sources that refer to the subject: As "Duncan":
As Donnchad:
Guideline used by the Scottish Historical Review journal
Medieval Personal Names
The general principle in dealing with individuals who are, in the terms of your article, identifiably Celtic, is to avoid Anglicised forms and to treat names within the historiographical tradition of the country concerned. For Irish/Gaelic, names should be given in the forms appropriate to the date of the person in question.
Previous discussion about the general issue
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)
This is an absolutely fascinating article. The depth and detail of the research involved is quite stunning - even down to digging out material from the Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society. It reads more like an academic essay than an entry in an encylopaedia. Alistairliv ( talk) 16:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
![]() | Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 19, 2017. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Well, Anglo-French is another way of saying Anglo-Norman, but more generic. I think I've sorted your points out. Tell me if I haven't, or if you see any other issues. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 02:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Quick notes
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)
I was the GA reviewer of this excellent piece of work. The article was not promoted at FAC owing, it appears (the closer gave no commentary) on the basis of a disagreement about nomenclature. This appears to be the only substantive issue with the article, and I tihnk it would be extremely disappointing were it to be prevented from reaching FAC on this basis. I hope a discussion can occur here about how to resolve this matter. I want to immediately raise the possibility that we might be able to agree that the article proceed at FAC in a form that one or more editors don't agree with, without that editor making an objection at FAC that might prevent promotion, but only if involved editors agree here first.
Note - my assumptions above turned out to be wrong: see User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Explanation_requested. I will contact Tony1 to help try and clear that roadblock. hamiltonstone ( talk) 02:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This states in part:
Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
This is justified by the following principle:
- The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.
However, as the subject of this article is not popularly known in English, the application of this principle is not necessarily clear - this was indeed part of the debate at FAC.
This states in part:
Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)...
The references for the article should themselves be reliable sources; if one name is clearly most commonly used in the English-language references for the article, we should probably use it...
The native spelling of a name should generally be included in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the anglicization isn't identical; redirects from non-English names are encouraged. Where there is an English exonym for the subject, it should be mentioned, even if it is not the most common name in English language usage...
Sometimes, English usage is divided. For example, US newspapers generally referred to the Olympics in Torino, following official handouts. However, newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world still use Turin. Use what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead.
Google hits are an unreliable test, but can suggest that no single term is predominant in English. If several competing versions of a name have roughly equal numbers (say 1803 for one variant and 1030 for another), there may well be divided usage. When in doubt, search results should also be evaluated with more weighting given to verifiable reliable sources than to less reliable sources (such as comments in forums, mailing lists and the like). Do consult reliable works of general reference in English...
When there is evenly divided usage and other guidelines do not apply, leave the article name at the latest stable version...
"Modified letters"
Wikipedia does not decide what characters are to be used in the name of an article's subject; English usage does. Wikipedia has no rule that titles must be written in certain characters, or that certain characters may not be used. Versions of a name which differ only in the use or non-use of modified letters should be treated like any other versions: Follow the general usage in English verifiable reliable sources in each case, whatever characters may or may not be used in them.English usage is often best determined by consulting works of general reference which deal with the subject and seeing what they use. Search engines are always problematic, unless their verdict is overwhelming; modified letters have the additional difficulties that some search engines will not distinguish between the original and modified forms, and others fail to recognize the modified letter because of optical character recognition errors. If there is a consensus on spelling in the sources used for the article, this will normally represent a consensus of English usage.
One recurrent issue has been the treatment of ae and oe and their variants. By and large, Wikipedia uses œ and æ to represent the Anglo-Saxon ligature. For Latin or Greek-derived words, use e or ae/oe, depending on modern usage and the national variety of English used in the article. German proper names should be treated with care, and attention to English practice. Not all German proper names use umlauts (for example, Emmy Noether is correct in both languages); English resolves umlauts where German need not: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe is standard English usage, although both forms have been found in German.
Beware of over-dramatising these issues: as an example Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) may be mentioned, which, as a side-effect, regulated use of diacritics regarding Ireland-related articles – peacefully – before, during and after an extensive dispute on the question of diacritics in 2005, e.g. Inishmore, not Inis Mór; Tomás Cardinal Ó Fiaich, not Tomas Cardinal O'Fiaich (see the mentioned MoS page for details).
Use other languages sparingly. This appears to me to be of marginal relivance. its key point is "It is fine to include foreign terms as extra information, but avoid writing articles that can only be understood if the reader understands the foreign terms." We are not discussing terminology here, but names, and I think WP guidance specific to names should prevail.
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.
Well I guess that just about sums it up then and those involved have simply moved on to more important matters. Nothing more to do here folks - unless of course.... Ben Mac Dui 19:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Sources that refer to the subject: As "Duncan":
As Donnchad:
Guideline used by the Scottish Historical Review journal
Medieval Personal Names
The general principle in dealing with individuals who are, in the terms of your article, identifiably Celtic, is to avoid Anglicised forms and to treat names within the historiographical tradition of the country concerned. For Irish/Gaelic, names should be given in the forms appropriate to the date of the person in question.
Previous discussion about the general issue
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)
This is an absolutely fascinating article. The depth and detail of the research involved is quite stunning - even down to digging out material from the Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society. It reads more like an academic essay than an entry in an encylopaedia. Alistairliv ( talk) 16:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
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)