Talk:Óengus I

GA

Great work guys. Obviously, it could use images, but I don't see that as being a requirement for GA status. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Has an FA nom been considered? They would expect an image; maybe a map could be added, at least. But this looks really good to me. Is there any more info that could be added? Everyking 11:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A map is certainly feasible, and some other more or less appropriate illustrations can be included. So that's not really a problem, but there's still some other work to be done. I wouldn't like to have it nominated for featured, or even to go to the trouble of peer-reviewing it, until someone has had the opportunity to compare the article with Alex Woolf's "Onuist son of Uurguist : tyrannus carnifex or a David for the Picts?" which appears in David Hill & Margaret Worthington (eds), Æthelbald and Offa : two eighth-century kings of Mercia. British Archaeological Reports, British series, 383, Oxford, 2005. I don't think it's guilty of original research any more than any other article of it's type. However, as with the article on Penda of Mercia, the fact is that it's strung together from a whole lot of sources, and comparing it with a relatively long piece on the subject (of which Woolf's is the only one I am aware of) seems like a good idea. A second concern is that I asked a non-anglophone acquaintance to read through it to see if it made sense. While we haven't sat down and gone through it in detail, she did say that she found it quite hard going, in part because of the unfamiliar names, background, & so on, which is unavoidable, but also because of the way it was written, which could be addressed once I know exactly what she had in mind. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Moving this article

I am minded to move the article to something more resembling forms found in print. "Óengus I/Óengus II" appears in the works of Alfred P. Smyth, surely not my favourite writer on the Insular Early Middle Ages. Sticking with Óengus rather Onuist (if nothing else, it's easier to pronounce for those who like to know how things sound) and Fergus rather than [UW]rguist (which is positively unhelpful unless you're Welsh), we might have:

• A Óengus son of Fergus (d. 761) - short and simple and as anglicised as you can get without being antiquarian, piping gives Óengus son of Fergus
• B Óengus mac Fergusso (d. 761) - axe grinding ? salami slicing ? probably, piping gives Óengus mac Fergusso
• C Óengus son of Fergus (King of the Picts, d. 761) - longwinded and just what does King of the Picts mean, piping gives Óengus son of Fergus

The other Óengus could be disambiguated by (d. 834). I have not opened a formal requested move as there seems little point. Unless there's a better suggestion or strong disagreement, I will go with A. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if you find many people qualified to pass an opinion on the matter. I'd never heard of him, and I enjoyed your article very much, but I don't think I'd've read it if it wasn't named the way it was. However, that's not a good reason to keep it, if it's, as you suggest, questionable.--qp10qp 15:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

None of those titles seem particularly appealing. Óengus I. or Onuist I. seem fine to me, or Óengus I, King of the Picts. The "of the Picts" format is too clumsy; considering the problematic nature of the evidence (e.g. the king lists), even numbering Pictish kings is pretty risky (though in this case it is fine). The Germans have got it so much better with the Óengus I. (Picts) format, but it is out of line with English wiki convention. "son of" also looks clumsy, and besides poses the "Echdach problem" (Echdach being genitive of Eochaid), whereby because some of the patronymics occur only in the genitive case, the father names first have to be de-genitivized to be used .... not always possible with some of the more obcure names. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

ideally

I'd be rather inclined to avoid going with a new way of naming him that instantly means he needs to be disambiguated. Assuming the suggested monarchical naming conventions pass, Óengus I, King of the Picts would seem to be okay with me. You seem to be opposed to this form, but I'm not familiar with Alfred P. Smyth, so I'm not really sure what the problem is. Could you possibly clarify why it's not a good way of doing things? Proteus (Talk) 19:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a case to be made for this article and it's namesake, but only for those. Where's the benefit in using a system which wouldn't be used on any other articles on the topic ? The Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain uses numerical disambiguation in these two cases only (see p. xxxii). Smyth and Marjorie Anderson (Kings and Kingship) give complete listings of kings from Bridei son of Maelchon onwards, in most cases with Gaeliform and Pictiform names. The articles here on kings before Bridei should be zapped anyway, perhaps excepting Drust son of Erp and his brother Nechtan. Have a look at Category:Irish kings and Category:Welsh monarchs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So are you suggesting moving all the articles on Pictish Kings from their numerically disambiguated titles? Proteus (Talk) 08:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think the Pictish kings should be moved. It is common to use "m." instead of "son of", because that is ambiguous. "Mac" is common, and although "map" is totally and utterly unattested in any Pictish or non-Pictish source for a Pictish person, historians who think all the Picts always spoke a dialect of Welsh like to use that form (the argument wrests on a few names in king lists and a couple of other sources which lack Irish Gaelic orthography, some placename elements which include words also used in Welsh and one half-Welsh place name from the Welsh area south of the Forth reported by Bede as "Pictish"). Anyways, Marjorie Ogilvie Anderson's articles on Pictish kings are titled as follows:

• Brude mac Bile [Bridei son of Beli] (d. 693), king of Picts
• Brude [Bridei] mac Maelchon (d. c.586), king of Picts
• Kenneth I [Cináed mac Alpin, Kenneth Macalpine] (d. 858), king in Scotland
• Nechtan mac Derile (d. 732), king of Picts
• Oengus [Angus] mac Forgusso [Onuist son of Uurguist] (d. 761), king of Picts

The sub-articles of Picts, kings of the (act. c.300–c.900)

• Nechtan Morbet (d. 481?)
• Talorgen (d. 657)
• Drust (d. 729)
• Talorg mac Congus (d. 734)
• Talorgan mac Drostan (d. 739)
• Constantine mac Fergus (d. 820)
• Oengus (d. 834)
• Eoganán (d. 839)
• Drust (d. c.848)

Frankly, the current system is silly, and Angus is correct to want to move it. I see nothing wrong, in this particular instance, of Óengus I or Onuist I. Even Óengus mac Fergusa/Óengus mac Forgusso or Onuist (I) m. Urguist would be fine. Simply Onuist may even work, with a "For Onuist II, see blah blah blah". Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

I have a feeling this needs a few more inline citations in several parts. Besides a few spots where there's outright no citation, there's a number of spots where footnotes that seem to be more notes than references are used in place of referencing. My inclination is that WP:FACR #1c is not met in the article's current state. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• ÓengusmacFergusa.JPG

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)