Jump to content

Talk:Cé (Pictish territory)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 25 June 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Cé (Pictish territory). (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kingdom of Ce – The name of the territory is usually spelt with the diacritic in scholarly literature (eg Fraser, James E. (2009). From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-1231-4). The one recent work that didn't spell it this way was criticised for this in a scholarly review (Kilpatrick, Kelly, "Review - Gordon Noble and Nicholas Evans, The King in the North: The Pictish Realms of Fortriu and Ce." Northern Scotland; Nov 2020, Vol. 11 Issue 2, p209-211). Additionally, while it is perfectly possible that Cé was a kingdom, there is no evidence that it was, so using "Kingdom of" to disambiguate is misleading. The existing page at "Cé" is a redirect for the Gaelic name of a lough in Ireland whose page is at its unambiguous name in the English language. The need for this redirect could be dealt with effectively with a hatnote. JimmyGuano (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a disambiguation page is needed - Loch Cé isn't actually called in any language, it's called Loch Cé in Irish or Lough Key in English, so a hatnote would seem ample. It also wouldn't add any more clicks for users looking for the Lough. There's also a disambiguation page at CE that includes all the many subtle variations on the "ce" combination (eg ) that would seem the sensible home for this. JimmyGuano (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand the basis of opposition here? Is there evidence in the annals of Loch Cé that Cé was a kingdom? If so this should definitely be added to the article. Without evidence that Cé was a kingdom though, disambiguating it with "Kingdom of.." seems actively incorrect. JimmyGuano (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposed is ambiguous with ce. A diacritic is too small a SMALLDETAIL. Support Kingdom of Cé, more correct and naturally disambiguated. It may have been a petty kingdom, but for distant and scant history cases, “kingdom” covers this. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is no evidence of a king, Cé (Pictish territory) is an option.
    “Nothing is known of the political status or structure of Cé[6] and there is no evidence that it had its own kings.[11]” is a peculiar statement, contradicting evidence already presented above. Eg “ Cé was the first and eponymous king, and his reign lasted fifteen years.[1]:81 Some sources dispute this, giving him a reign of eleven, twelve or twenty years.[2]” says there are sources, and that it’s own kings were the singular Cé (a person). SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that section is treating an origin myth as if it is history - definitely a problem and needs to change. No historian would suggest that Cruithne actually existed, let alone that he had seven children who became kings of a territory each - it's pure story. The only Pictish territories that have historically attested kings are Fortriu and Atholl. That said I can't see a major problem with Cé (Pictish territory), which while possibly a bit cumbersome but is at least not actively wrong. In the absence of non-Pictish territories called would Cé (territory) be a bit simpler? The logic of SMALLDETAIL seems to suggest that should become a redirect to CE, which should include an entry for Lough Key too, and should probably move to cê (Album)? JimmyGuano (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that SMALLDETAIL must mean that should become a redirect to CE. is too similar to ce for to be a good title to stand out of context, as all titles must do. I suggest that is fine to be a redirect to Cé (Pictish territory).
Cé (Pictish territory) is much more recognisable than Cé (territory). "Pictish" ties it to a place, but much more importantly ties to a historical period. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok let's do that Thank you! JimmyGuano (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cé (Pictish territory). I think we are forced to use “Pictish territory” because Pictland or Pictavia, the single word term, is not really used. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with that - the status of Pictland as an entity is pretty ambiguous. Treating it as a "country" in anything like the modern sense would be an anachronism. Pictish territory is fine. Do I need to relist the proposal or is this OK as a consensus (assuming nobody else objects)? JimmyGuano (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.