Talk:Áed mac Cináeda

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Medieval Scotland High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Medieval Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Medieval ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandMedieval Scotland
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scottish Royalty High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scottish Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Scottish RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject Scottish RoyaltyScottish royalty
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. There is insufficient support for this move, which is contested by opposers presenting rational arguments. DrKiernan (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Áed of Scotland → Áed mac Cináeda — 1) He is King of the Picts, not necessarily King of Scotland. 2) He is not well known in English, but this is now the standard way of referring to him in modern works; see works by Woolf, Broun, Duncan, Clancy, etc, etc. Áed is ambiguous, so is not a possible move option. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support as nominator. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support. Apparently it is arguably incorrect to refer to the rulers before Donald II as Kings of Scotland. As such, the suggested move seems acceptable, although I have trouble getting up much enthusiasm for it. john k (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was me thinking you'd prolly not support this. Can you think of a better name that dab? If you go to Áed, you'll see all the other Áeds - mostly kings - are named like him. The only other possible name would be Áed, King of the Picts. Would you prefer that? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be acceptable, I guess, as well. I do think that we ought to show some deference to long-standing tradition, even when probably wrong. john k (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose This article does not demonstrate or explain why he should be considered king of a different kingdom than Donald II, who was his nephew. Several of the sources quoted identify him as king of Scotland. The dab page Áed could use translation into English; Dalriada has not ceased to be an English word. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The new title doesn't necessarily suggest a different kingdom from "Donald II", it's non commital; whereas the one you've just voted to support, is controversial. Why should it be like that when it doesn't have to be. This is a strong reason why the convention system needs reformed, it leads to people insisting on formats even when they are potentially inaccurate. And anyways, why should Óengus II, legendary author of Scotland's flag, be placed in a different kingdom, when both Óengus and Áed were Kings of the Picts? All poor Áed did is happen to rule after Kenneth MacAlpin, to whom later legend would attribute some mythical conquest. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The case is not so strong as all that. There are historians who, while doubting that Kenneth made any "mythical conquest" still attribute significance to his reign as marking a new period. There are others who doubt this. As you say, the proposed title is non-committal, which is good, I think. john k (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are five kings who needed to be fixed to solved the artificial Pictish/Scottish transition; Kenneth MacAlpin and Giric have been sorted already; this is the only way to sort Áed other than Áed, King of the Picts; Áed mac Cináeda is the only natural disambiguation available. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Checking my usual first reference for moves (Google books) I found that he has a plethora of names (Aed Albanach being one, with Albanach meaning 'Of Scotland'). No reason is given why we should prefer this one really. Personally I feel we should duck the whole argument and go for Áed, King of the Picts Narson (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- COmment Aed Albanach doesn't mean "Aed of Scotland", it means "Scottish Aed" or "Aed the Scotsman" (or "the Pict" as some would suggest). Aed Albanach is not this king though, it's a completely different person. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although Áed (died 878), or Áed, son of Kenneth MacAlpin, would also be unambiguous although also quite unnatural. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Áed(, King) of the Picts" would also be okay with me. Srnec (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He is generally best known as a part of king list of Scotland. Shilkanni (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that because some poorly written piece of reference tat says X we must say X is not acceptable in any other field. There are still a huge number of old reference works which say Pluto is a planet, yet our article does not say that. But seemingly we'll claim that this man was a "king of Scots" until hell freezes over or reference works catch up with reliable sources, whichever comes first (my money would be on hell freezing over). Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Shouldn't this article be at his Pictish name rather than his Gaelic one? — AjaxSmack 06:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Áed is his name. There is no other form in any of the kingslists that use British rather than Gaelic orthography (unlike Ciniod for Cinaed, or Onuist for Oengus). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was joking — or rather attempting to comment obliquely on the insistence of placing Pictish kings under their Gaelic rather than English names. Carry on. — AjaxSmack 08:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was rather bad since it misunderstands the relationship between the Picts and Gaelic, and rather importantly too, misses the fact that Áed doesn't have a different English name. If you have a problem with confusing Picts and Scotland, you should be against the current name. :p Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on this move but you have good points. I was thinking more of the all of the foreign language forms of Kenneth/Canice that are frequently advocated so my comment was irrelevant here. Please ignore and carry on. — AjaxSmack 18:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lope Jaun Zuria

I have been reading my books about my family history and i have come to the information that the ancestor of the First Zambrana was a White man refer to the White lord and was Son to a scot Princess and a dragon "draconarious of roman legions".

To me that sounds like a princess that was kidnaped or saved from execution. Does the Lord sof the white flower have all his daughters accounted for is one missing?. If yes can i have a name?

The Dragon of the legen of Jaun Zuria is Sugaar or "Suge Sugarra" Serpent fire in Basque language. Or A draconarious of Castra legio Septima gemina, Brittania, Toledo, Burgundee, or aquanarious.

The reason i believe this is true is the use of saltire cross in their code of arms for this families. Also they use The black wolf are there any records of emblems for scotland with black wolf tribal? Or elm tree.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Fortun(o)_Sanchez_(Sangiz)_Grandee_Zambrana

Jose Luis Zambrano De Santiago (talk)

Jose Luis Zambrano De Santiago (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Áed mac Cináeda. 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]