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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.
Nothing wrong with a separate Pre-Roman list
But this isn't the place for it. Roman rule was part of the Iron Age, not something distinct from it. Similarly, pre-Roman lists shouldn't simply be lists of Latin names and Roman-encountered tribes: pretty much by definition, those are the Roman-era tribes. — LlywelynII 14:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually there are a number of lists not just two, but what I note is that they all give different information. There are multiple sources of tribal names in Britain and these do not always agree; moreover, the ethnographic circumstances changed over the centuries. For example, there are no hints of the Scots in Iron Age Britain so they belonged to Ireland and later invaded Britain. There are certain questions also, such as whether the Picts were Celtic. I'm not sure at all that a master list of tribes can cover the possibilities. Each article has a main author or authors and those have definite ideas of what they would like to see presented. I suggest we not rip the presentations out of context but leave them in their native soils with plenty of cross-links. The researcher can then check multiple presentations for different contexts and information. The article for each name mentioned would then reconcile all the sources if they can be reconciled, and in many cases they cannot. One master list sweeps all these fine points under the rug. Next thing you know we will have people looking for Caesar's encounter with the Scots. He would have had to find Dr. Who's telephone booth to do that.Dave (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
You seem rather confused. There were plenty of 'hints' of the Scots: the Scoti were Irishmen who raided and slaved on the British shores. Similarly, there were people in Scotland and many of those subsequently seem to have become Scots, not victims of an Irish-led genocide.
This article should be separate if there is a reason for it to be separate. Right now, it seems to be a list of Roman-era tribes. Those should simply be dealt with at the unified page. If there's a pre-Roman list being made, that should be located somewhere else, sure. — LlywelynII 14:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)