Talk:Domnall mac Áedo

	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 articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

Ireland Mid‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Errors?[edit]

Domnall mac Áedo (articlr title) is spelt Domnhall mac Áedo in the opening text.
The infobox says he became High King in 624 but the text says 628.
The infobox says he reigned until 639; the text says he reigned until his death in 642.

Sarah777 (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domnall. The succession box thingy is wrong, but if I were going to tidy this up - and I'll get round to it eventually - it would not say "from 628". Charles-Edwards' furious rationalisation in his piece on Domnall in the new Dictionary of National Biography says that Domnall was "king of Tara" by 629, but that he was removed by Congal Cáech in the early 630s and didn't get back to the top of the greasy pole until circa 635. I would stick with "until his death in 642-ish" and ignore the from when side of things. Just to confuse things further, Dan Mc Carthy's mysterious calculations have Suibne Menn killed in 630 and Domnall dying in 643. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. The "years in Ireland" articles do tend to pick these differences out! I guess what I feel is that if, for readability we say someone died in 650 then we should stick with that in articles, infoboxes and "years" articles - with all the 'if and buts' and counter claims discussed as appropriate rather than settling on different dates in different places (or often in different parts of the same article)! In fact when we settle on a date maybe we should discuss the issues and doubts around that date only in the subject's article; and use the 'best' date everywhere else and link back. Sarah777 (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The years in Ireland articles really don't serve any useful function this early on. In the best world they should be "merged" either into the abyss or some big article. You can't make an event fit a date if the sources don't allow it to, and if no date is certain, no certain date should be implied in infobox/succ box usage. I'm sure you agree with that! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your surety is not well founded. The traditional addition of "circa" or an abbreviation thereof would do just fine. My point is that we stick to a single formulation within and between articles to avoid confusing the reader. Sarah777 (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Érenn[edit]

The text herein says the Domnall is the first "Ri Érenn" mentioned by the Annála Uladh, for the year 628. However, the actual entry, as sourced on CELT, implies that Suibne Menn is the first such:

U628.3 ... Suibne Menn ri Erenn, mc. Fiachna ...

The annals do mention that Domnall's reign started in 628:

U628.7 Domnall mc. Aedha mc. Ainmirech regnare incipit.

Is there something that I am missing?

Marcas.oduinn (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]