Picts was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland 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
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
Picts 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
I've seen some references claiming they considered their first king to be Cruach & their language to have been Basque with Celtic influence, but they had taken on Celtic religious beliefs, for the most part. Anyone else noticed that Ireland preserved stories of a god named Crom Cruach/ Crom Dubh that make absolutely no sense with the rest of Irish mythology & has a lot of congruence with Basque mythology- election of standing stones, priests meeting with a sun God & earth goddess weekly to plan out the weather, etc? I just can't find any proper source for this info that Cruach was a Pictish King, though, so its driving me a bit insane. Anyway, the Irish stories give him as king of the Tuatha De Danaan instead of Dagda, Nuada & Bres, as husband to Brigid & many have noticed supposed rituals & celebrations in his honor are duplicates or overlapping those honoring Lugh &/ or Taranis in regular Celtic beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbotronica (talk • contribs) 13:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources for everything else? Because the source for Cruach being associated with the Picts was what I am still looking for. Bobbotronica (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps confused with the eponymous founder Cruithne mentioned by Bede (see the Origins §), or linked etymologically? Regarding the language, I don’t think any non-Celtic hypotheses are still considered likely (aside from possible substrate influences), but over time there have been proposals relating it to everything from Basque to Elamite.—Odysseus1479 22:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ceoil that the Columba picture is a bit rubbish... how about one of the cross slabs? CatfishJim and the soapdish 18:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or the Dupplin cross? CatfishJim and the soapdish 18:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would go with File:The Dupplin Cross - geograph.org.uk - 226741.jpg, though Dupplin_Cross_20090617_northwest.jpg is very fine also. Its at a good resolution and so could be cropped for detail. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it obviously Christian? CatfishJim and the soapdish 18:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. The lead sentance for Dupplin Cross says that is is a "a carved, monumental Pictish stone, which dates from around 800 AD". Also, you suggested it. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant from the photo... whether it was obviously a cross. CatfishJim and the soapdish 19:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about File:Pictish Stones in the Museum of ScotlandDSCF6254.jpg[1]. Its taken from an odd angle, but the detail is great. Your the expert here Jim, so will defer. Ceoil (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Aberlemno Serpent Stone, Class I Pictish stone with Pictish symbols, showing (top to bottom) the serpent, the double disc and Z-rod and the mirror and comb
I really like the picture of Aberlemno I used in the lead, but I am slightly concerned about the use of "Serpent Stone". I have seen it being used in somewhat reliable sources, eg. [2], [3], [4], [5], including use by Gordon Noble here [6] and it is used on the sign at the site [7]. However, I'm worried that it is a case of WP:CITOGENESIS. I uploaded the image, calling it the "Serpent Stone" in 2008 before I really cared much about reliable sources... It's a cool stone with a serpent on it. I have been unable to find any earlier mention of it as the "Serpent Stone". Do we remove this potentially made up name (made up by me) or can anyone find earlier references to it under this name? Or does the repeated use of it in the past 15 years merit its use here. Potentially embarrassing! CatfishJim and the soapdish 13:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its nearly always the "Sculptured Stone of..." in sources have looked through via academic databases, so (1) it seems your right that you came up with "Serpent Stone" and (b) lets not use it here anymore. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've changed the caption in the article. CatfishJim and the soapdish 15:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kenn, read the above policy document. If you want to chat with people about this kind of thing, there are Reddit groups and groups on facebook that you'll love. The talk pages here are specifically for the improvement of the articles they are attached to, not for generalised discussion. CatfishJim and the soapdish 20:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've had a few drive-by edits changing CE to AD. One edit amusingly changed the kingdom of Ce to AD, with the edit summary "These people gotta stop being nerd tf is "CE" just say AD people undertand that".
There were some inconsistencies of use of AD and CE in the text. I have changed them all to CE for the time being, with no prejudice as to which is preferable. I can see arguments on both sides... CE is religiously neutral; there is movement towards its use in Academic circles; it is anachronistic to be talking about the Pagan early Pictish period in Christian terminology. AD is arguably more familiar. The manual of style indicates that CE/AD should only be used where there is ambiguity, so we can probably remove most uses in this article. CatfishJim and the soapdish 09:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted this, as our policy WP:ERA is very clear. This article was started as "AD" (like most ancient British topics) in 2001, and should retain the existing style in the absence of a clear consensus to change it (which I for one would oppose). I'll just say I think calling "AD" "Christian terminology" ridiculous, especially as "CE" uses exactly the same base year. But yes, we should not need many era indications in this article. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after reverting your changes, I could only find one single use of "CE" in the article, against 7 "AD"s removed by your edit. This makes your change even more naughty; I never had you down as an agent of American cultural imperialism! If I've missed any other "CE"s, please change them too. Most of the "AD"s are in picture captions, where I think they are ok. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol... as I said, with no prejudice as to which is preferable, hence this discussion. "AD" appears to be the norm in British history journals, so would support its use. Now... if they were Scythians... CatfishJim and the soapdish 16:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you caught them all. I've added an AD to the first indication of their time period in the main text... I think it's appropriate to have it both there and in the lead. CatfishJim and the soapdish 16:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
