So I mentioned two months ago that I actually did have substantial thoughts regarding this debate to share even though my input does not really matter at this point—either way Lacrosse loses D: (or has already lost). Unfortunately by now, I don't actually remember what I had thought back in February 7 when I finally followed up on this.
What I think now, which may or may not be the same idea as I had then, is that Zero and the others are correct that the page should be titled "Treasures of Britain" not "Treasures of Britain tablets" per the canonical way they are organized and named in the source. However, the article still needs to be written in a way that is accurate. We know that the Treasures of Britain themselves are not the tablets but those tablets represent the Treasures of Britain. Those tablets are simply called "Treasures of Britain" as a short-hand gameplay term for convenience. Even though there should be one page titled "Treasures of Britain", it should not begin by defining them as tablets as Zero's example does. They should begin by defining them as the artifacts they actually are and mention how they have corresponding tablets representing them which are collected by Eivor.
This solves the problem of both accuracy and the canonical title. I would argue that technically, we could still have an article on the actual tablets which are collectibles in the game, complete with the conjectural title "Treasures of Britain tablets", but this would be superfluous. Its content would be covered already under "Treasures of Britain". It seems that the article as created by Vilka already defines the Treasures accurately, so I don't see any lingering problem. I could have sworn that originally, I had a few more thoughts where I related this debate to others we have had in the past, but I don't recall them. My original position was probably more or less the same as I just explained just now.