This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
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 articles
Cé (Pictish territory) is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations.
If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts articles
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.
Kingdom of Ce → Cé – 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 Cé 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 cê) 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]
“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 Cé would Cé (territory) be a bit simpler? The logic of SMALLDETAIL seems to suggest that Cé should become a redirect to CE, which should include an entry for Lough Key too, and cê should probably move to cê (Album)? JimmyGuano (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that SMALLDETAIL must mean that Cé should become a redirect to CE. Cé is too similar to ce for Cé to be a good title to stand out of context, as all titles must do. I suggest that Cé is fine to be a redirect to Cé (Pictish territory).
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.
