Talk:Cuilén

message: As we have now decided to go with anglicised names I suggest this person should be described as Colin, which is how I have sometimes seen him described. PatGallacher
:Really ? And where did you see that ? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 11:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see we're back to "Colin", but you never did explain how you came to that conclusion. Odd that you should be insisting on following the page naming everywhere but here and Dub, sorry "Duff". Angus McLellan  (Talk) 13:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And did that really seem like a good idea at the time? I'd have said it would have been better to look at what the Oxford DNB says or Encarta. Silly me. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oxford DNB appears to spell it 'Culen'. Are you advocating changing the page name, Angus? Michael  Sanders 15:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think there is a "common" English name for this king. The name is probably cognate with later medieval Coilen (which became Cailean in modern Gaelic and was anglicized Colin), but I've almost never come across Colin for this king. My touristy Scottish king playing cards use Cuilen. Even most senior anglicizers on wikipedia would probably agree there'd be no reason to use Cuilen, Culen or Colin instead of Cuilén. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Angus indicated that Oxford DNB was a serious source that we should look at. That gives us 'Culen'. Do we only pay attention to sources which favour Gaelic spellings? Michael  Sanders 15:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The DNB is a serious source. They have a similar editorial philosophy to yourself. The use of anglicized forms for Scottish kings is an editorial decision there; almost all the authors (all except perhaps Barrow) would normally use native forms. At any rate, I can honestly not see that Cuilén has one anglicized form; even with the Use English philosophy, I wouldn't see enough weight behind any form to override the advantages of Cuilén. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The common convention is to use the most commonly used form. Sadly, there is no commonly accepted form: 491 results for "Culen of Scotland", compared with 423 for "Cuilen of Scotland", 420 for "Cuilén of Scotland" and 6 for "Colin of Scotland". So we probably shouldn't use Colin as the main name. However, I'd like some evidence that Cuilén is an overwhelming usage, otherwise, the source that Angus himself recommends uses the non-accented form. Michael  Sanders 15:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For me, you need an argument to depart from the forms standard is modern professional writing on the period. Finding that even on google Cuilén is more popular than anything hardly does anything but support the way things are. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  There's over 800 for Cuilen/Cuilén, making it by far the most popular form (EXCLAIMER: I do not respect google hits as significant tests). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cuilen/Cuilén alone isn't acceptable. That could be referring to anyone with the name, not just the King. Michael  Sanders 16:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You (said you) used "of Scotland", so what's the problem? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did use of Scotland, and I gave the linked results above. They do not come out at 800 at any point. Michael  Sanders 17:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah ... I was combining Cuilen and Cuilén. I don't see how the accent makes much difference. Accents are omitted as often as not. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On this Gaelic logic Kenneth II of Scotland should be called Cináed mac Maíl Coluim. Is that a good idea? Colin4C (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled